Bill C-354 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood)

This enactment amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that the Minister may, in developing requirements for public works, allow the use of wood or any other thing that achieves environmental benefits.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I proudly rise today for the final right of reply to Bill S-222 at third reading. This bill, commonly known as the use of wood in government infrastructure bill, has a long history in this place, but I think it is safe to say after debate this afternoon and a vote tomorrow that it will finally become law in Canada.

I will try to be brief in my remarks, but I should give a little history of what is happening here today. It all started 13 years ago, in 2010, with a private member's bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois MP Gérard Asselin, as my colleagues here in the Bloc have already pointed out a couple of times this afternoon.

That bill specifically asked the minister of public works to consider the use of wood in building federal infrastructure, much as the Wood First Act had done in British Columbia the year before that and the Quebec Charte du bois did later in 2013.

My legislative assistant, Cameron Holmstrom, brought the bill to my attention in 2016 when I was looking for private members' bill ideas. I was keen on supporting the emerging mass timber sector, because the main proponent of that sector in Canada, indeed North America, was Structurlam, a company based in my hometown of Penticton, British Columbia.

I tabled that bill as Bill C-354 in 2017. It passed second reading into committee, and there it was amended to deal with some concerns about its specific focus on wood. Thanks to collegial work and some good ideas, some of them coming from Sandra Schwartz at Natural Resources Canada, the language in the bill was changed to emphasize the environmental benefits of prospective building materials.

I must say I was actually happier with the new version, which is something one does not always hear from someone who has had their private member's bill amended. It passed through the House of Commons in May 2018. Unfortunately, it languished in the Senate, an innocent bystander to some shenanigans there, and died with a lot of other private members' business when that Parliament ended just over a year later.

I want to thank once again my friend, Senator Diane Griffin, who introduced it in the other place as Bill S-222 in this Parliament in November 2021. That is what we are debating today. After passing through the Senate, it came to this chamber and is nearing the end of that journey.

I want to thank everyone who has spoken to this bill over the years and everyone who has supported it and made good suggestions about it.

I have talked to Adam Auer, an old student of mine, who is now the head of the Cement Association of Canada, about the new concrete products that will compete well under the terms of the bill.

I want to highlight also the support of the Forest Products Association of Canada, particularly Derek Nighbor, who has been a constant source of encouragement.

For decades, we built our big buildings out of concrete and steel. One of the main goals of this bill was simply to point out to the government and society as a whole that engineered wood is now a real option. Engineered wood, mass timber, will give our forest sector another domestic market to sell to, allowing us to reduce our reliance on the United States for lumber sales. Canada leads the continent in these sectors and government procurement will help us keep on track to stay in the lead.

The government has the capacity to carry out the intent of this bill. Through life-cycle analysis, it can provide fair assessments of all building materials for their carbon footprint and other environmental benefits.

This bill is a win-win-win for Canada. It would help build better infrastructure in our country, beautiful and safe buildings that would have a light footprint on our environment. It would also help us meet our climate targets and would spur innovation in the building materials sector.

This bill has enjoyed unanimous support throughout its latest journey in Parliament, and I am hoping that will continue after this debate.

Thanks once again to all who have spoken to this, to all who have contributed to it over the years.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this Senate bill.

First, I would just like to point out that the Conservative member who spoke earlier talked about how much the Conservatives support the bill. Of course, they could really show that support by ensuring that it receives speedy passage to move on to the next stage, instead of prolonging debate on the matter.

Canada's built environment is a significant contributor to GHG emissions, with more than 25% of GHGs coming from the construction, use and maintenance of residential, commercial and institutional buildings. The embodied carbon is the GHG emission arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal of building materials from building construction. It is responsible for 10% of all energy-related emissions.

In 2019, the World Green Building Council called for a 40% reduction in embodied carbon by 2030. To ensure that Canada meets its GHG reduction commitments, both energy use and carbon emissions need to be reduced simultaneously. This bill puts into law that, for most federal construction, GHG reduction must be a part of the planning process. It is the smart thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. Currently, this is only an internal federal policy.

Wood is one of the best materials for reducing the carbon footprint in buildings. The low embodied carbon of wood products stems from the fact that the manufacturing process is not energy-intensive, because it relies predominantly on electricity and uses long-lasting forest products that have sequestered carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Great advances have been made in tall wood construction. It is now possible to build more buildings in a safe, ecologically sensitive way than in past construction. These new technologies offer an obvious opportunity to increase the use of wood in building and thus support the forest sector in Canada, which has been beset by difficulties caused by American tariffs through the softwood lumber dispute, the pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia, catastrophic forest fires and reduced fibre supply because of past harvests.

As the largest producer in Canada, the federal government could give this sector a much-needed boost by using this cutting-edge technology at home. If passed, this bill would require the Department of Public Works to consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits when developing requirements for the construction, maintenance and repair of federal buildings.

In 2009, B.C. passed the Wood First Act, which aims to “facilitate a culture of wood by requiring the use of wood as the primary building material in all new provincially funded buildings”. In 2013, Quebec adopted the Wood Charter, which requires all builders working on projects financed in whole or in part by the provincial government to consider wood in their construction plans; it also requires project managers to prove that they have calculated the greenhouse gas emissions of wood versus other materials in the pre-project stage.

Different versions of this private member's bill were introduced in past Parliaments, and they were supported by the NDP. Early versions of the bill explicitly asked the minister to consider using wood. However, that text was amended in the 42nd Parliament to direct the minister to consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits instead; it may also allow the use of wood or any other thing, including a material, product or sustainable resource that achieves such benefits.

That bill, Bill C-354 passed in the House but died in the Senate at the end of that Parliament. It was introduced as a Senate bill in this Parliament. This version of the private member's bill is inspired by new developments in wood construction technology. Large buildings constructed with mass timber can be built quickly. They are also cost-competitive, and they meet fire safety requirements.

Advances in wood construction technology have demonstrated that large buildings and other infrastructures can be built with wood. Recently, the University of British Columbia constructed the Brock Commons student residence; it is the world's tallest wood building, at 18 storeys. Toronto's George Brown College is currently building Limberlost Place, a 10-storey mass timber structure, at its Waterfront Campus; this will be the first institutional building of its kind in Ontario.

In 2014, the Cree community of Mistissini, Quebec, opened the Mistissini Bridge, a 160-metre-long bridge with semicontinuous arches made of glue-laminated wood beams. It is one of the largest wooden structures in Canada, and it won two national awards at the 2016 Canadian Consulting Engineering Awards.

Canadian companies lead the mass timber sector in North America, with production plants in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. Because wood has lower embodied carbon than most building materials do, this bill offers us the opportunity to support innovation in the forestry sector while, at the same time, helping the Government of Canada to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. This is especially the case in these difficult times, because the sector faces large duties from the U.S.

Given the developments in the technology, this idea is one that is being used more and more around the world. It makes sense to use this technology more at home. In budget 2017, the government provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, starting in 2018-19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects.

Bringing this forward is our way to call on the government to continue to support this activity through government procurement. It is time for us to move forward. This bill has been around and through the block a number of times. I repeat, as I stated at the beginning of my speech, that if the Conservatives say they support moving forward with this bill, then they should show it with actions and stop the delaying tactics. Let us get on with it, get it done, support the industry and do what is good for the environment. That is the path forward.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, once again, to rise to speak to this small but mighty bill, Bill S-222. It would require the minister of public works and government services to consider the environmental benefits of building materials when building federal infrastructure.

This bill has come a long way to get to this point. Today, we begin third reading with a real chance of seeing this bill become law in the coming days. I am very encouraged by the unanimous support that Bill S-222 has received here in this House at second reading and in committee, where it was passed and returned here without amendment.

I would like to thank retired senator Diane Griffin for sponsoring this bill in the other place in this Parliament. It began its life as my private member's bill, Bill C-354, in the 42nd Parliament. It passed through the House in that Parliament but died an unfortunate and unnecessary death in the Senate. It was an innocent bystander of some other political manoeuvring. I will mention as well that an earlier version of this bill, one more specifically targeted at wood alone, was tabled by Gérard Asselin, a member of the Bloc Québécois, in 2010 as Bill C-429.

It has been a long and tortuous path to get to this place here today. I am really looking forward to seeing this bill become law at last.

One thing I have not mentioned in my previous speeches on this bill is the role that Natural Resources Canada officials played in helping move this bill forward in the 42nd Parliament. I want to mention in particular the efforts by Sandra Schwartz, who helped amend the bill and focus it on the environmental benefits of building materials.

I would like to concentrate my comments today on the testimony we heard at committee on Bill S-222.

One of the witnesses in the hearings was from the Quebec Forest Industry Council. They pointed out three ways that forest products can help decarbonize construction. The most obvious of these is the fact that long-lasting wood products store carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere as the trees were growing.

The second is that the new trees that replace the trees that were harvested continue to store carbon throughout their lives. This is a more complicated calculation that must take into account the full life-cycle analysis of harvest and production. The QFIC has asked that such life-cycle analyses be developed by the federal government. It is my understanding that those analyses are being developed. They have been developed for other building products but are being developed for wood products.

The third is the fact that forest products can help decarbonize construction because there is such a huge potential for growth in the use of these products. Only 5% of large buildings use wood as a primary component, so increasing that percentage would have an increasing beneficial effect.

Both the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs testified as well before committee. Firefighters are naturally concerned about the safety aspects of building construction in Canada, as they are the ones who literally put their lives on the line to fight fires within these buildings.

As building codes change to include new advances in mass timber construction, firefighters ask that their safety be an added objective in those new codes. I can add here the assurance from other committee testimony that mass timber construction has been shown to be as safe as or safer than standard concrete and steel structures after testing by the National Research Council and other agencies. Government officials pointed out that the procedures asked for by the bill are generally in place in government policy or are in the process of implementation, including the life-cycle analysis of environmental impacts of various building materials.

There is a real sense of urgency in the forest industry for any policy changes that would help that sector produce more jobs and create more wealth within our rural communities, all in the face of a reduced harvest. This bill would do that. By increasing the government procurement of mass timber products, it would increase the domestic markets for our lumber and create new jobs for turning that lumber into long-lasting mass timber beams and panels. We lead the North American mass timber industry, but it is still a small sector and needs careful attention or we will lose that lead very quickly.

Structurelam, the pioneer company in mass timber in North America, based in my hometown of Penticton, has recently been forced to restructure and sell its assets because of an unfortunate contract disagreement with Walmart. Hopefully, it will remain in Canada and regain its strength as the leading proponent of engineered wood on the continent. However, its story is a reminder that the sector is in a vulnerable position, still open to growing pains. A bill promoting government procurement could provide significant benefits at a critical juncture in the growth of the industry.

I spent much of last week in Washington, D.C., talking to American legislators about international trade between Canada and the United States. One of the big issues there obviously is the softwood lumber disagreement. The wonderful thing about mass timber is that not only is it beautiful and safe and not only does it create new jobs, but it can be exported to the United States without facing the illegal tariffs we have under softwood lumber. This bill would help create domestic markets so our mills that create two-by-fours and two-by-sixes will have more domestic markets, allowing them to grow and keep going in the face of this dispute, which has really harmed mills across the country.

I have to remind everyone that, while I and others have concentrated on wood products in this debate, the bill is open to any materials that provide environmental benefits. I met repeatedly with the cement industry and heard of its efforts to decarbonize the concrete that makes up so much of our infrastructure today. The cement industry believes it can be competitive with forest products in many cases in these full life-cycle analyses on environmental benefits. I commend those efforts and would simply say that this is what I hope to accomplish with this bill.

Buildings contribute up to 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions, and we must take all steps to reduce those emissions. Whether those reductions are achieved through the use of mass timber, new decarbonized concrete products or other sustainable products is not important. What is important is that we act quickly to change the way we construct buildings as part of our existential efforts to fight climate change.

Bill S-222 would be a step in that direction. I hope that today we will see continued support so that this bill can become law at last and create beautiful, safe and environmentally friendly buildings across this country, and support industry and mills across this country.

After unanimous support at second reading and at committee, we have the opportunity today to end debate and see this bill become law within a day or two. I hope that all other parties will allow debate to collapse so we can get to a vote quickly. I do not know why any party would want to prolong this process.

I thank everyone here for their support of Bill S-222 and look forward to a short and positive debate.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'd simply like to remind Mr. Angus that, in 2017, his colleague Mr. Cannings introduced Bill C‑354, which used much the same language. I don't know if that would make him support this amendment, but I assume his colleague wanted the same thing that's being proposed today.

If it worked in 2017, I don't see why it wouldn't work today.

[Diane Griffin, Retired Senator, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to speak to this bill.

As my colleague noted, the bill is straightforward. It amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that, when the government is building or refurbishing publicly owned property, it consider using wood as a material and that the comparative carbon footprint of materials be considered.

I have seen first-hand that engineered wood can be used in the construction of buildings. Several years ago, our Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry travelled to British Columbia and we visited Brock Commons, which is an 18-storey building. It's a student residence at the University of British Columbia. It's a beautiful structure that demonstrates some of the best qualities of engineered wood buildings.

Engineered wood structures sequester carbon. The production of engineered wood beams is less intensive than that of concrete or steel, and the carbon within the wood is stored for the life of the building. Given that buildings account for such a large percentage of carbon emissions, adopting this technology more widely would help with our greenhouse gas emission targets.

Engineered wood structures can be erected quickly. Using a crew of nine people, the mass timber construction of Brock Commons was completed less than 70 days after the prefabricated components arrived on the site.

Also, as already noted, using wood products supports the Canadian forest industry. A healthy forest industry obviously means more jobs for workers in rural Canada. A further advantage is that wood is a renewable resource.

This is an area in which the federal government can lead the way. As the largest procurer in Canada, the federal government's use of engineered wood in even a handful of projects could begin to turn the tide. As architect Michael Green told this natural resources committee in 2017, “it's really, again, just an emotional shift that has to happen to embrace the science we already know.”

Other countries, including France, Finland and the Netherlands, have similar legislation in place. As already noted, in Canada, British Columbia and Quebec have legislation to support the construction of engineered wood buildings. In 2018, Alberta's Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that Alberta would allow wood building construction for up to 12 storeys. He noted, “Not only will this decision support the forestry industry and land developers, it will provide affordability to homebuyers, bolster employment, and give Alberta a competitive advantage.”

Engineered wood construction presents a huge opportunity for value-added forest growth for both domestic and international markets due to the amount of untapped potential in the forestry sector.

In closing, I also want to thank the New Brunswick senator, Honourable James Quinn, for taking over sponsorship of Bill S-222 after my retirement from the Senate. Again, I thank MP Richard Cannings for his sponsorship of the bill in the House of Commons. As he noted, he's had a long journey on this one, going back to when it was Bill C-354.

As well, thank you to the committee for your consideration of this bill.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's certainly an honour to be here before the natural resources committee, a committee that I spent six enjoyable years on previously.

I'm here to talk about Bill S-222. It's clearly a Senate bill, as we've heard, but it's essentially the same as my Bill C-354 of the 42nd Parliament, which passed through the House in 2018. Of course, I'd like to thank my friend Senator Diane Griffin for reviving this bill in the Senate in this Parliament, and to Senator Jim Quinn for carrying the torch after Diane retired.

Since it's such a short bill—one clause is really all there is to it—I will just read it. It amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act as follows:

(1.1) In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance and repair of public works, federal real property and federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing—including a material, product or sustainable resource—that achieves such benefits.

That's it. I want to spend a couple of minutes explaining why I tabled this bill back in 2017 and persisted through to this day, to today, to get it passed.

First, it speaks specifically to the important role that buildings play in our carbon footprint as a country, as a society, and therefore the important role they must play in our efforts to significantly reduce that footprint. Buildings account for up to 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions. A significant part of those emissions is tied up in the materials we use to construct them.

Wood is an obvious candidate in sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it for the long term in buildings and other infrastructure. Indeed, the early forms of this bill from previous Parliaments—this goes back to 2009 with a Bloc Québécois bill—were specifically about promoting the use of wood. That name “use of wood” remains attached to this bill, but this bill was amended in the 42nd Parliament to broaden its impact by simply asking for an analysis of environmental benefits.

Second, the government procurement that could flow from this bill would provide support for the forest sector in Canada. I don't need to go into much detail about why the forest sector needs our support, but if we can develop new markets for our forest sector, particularly domestic markets but also internationally, I think we can maintain and grow our forest industries, creating jobs and wealth across the country.

Third, although it's not specifically mentioned in this bill, it's meant to promote engineered wood or mass timber construction. This innovative technology is taking hold in North America, with leading manufacturers being in Canada in both British Columbia and Quebec. These companies and others like them would greatly benefit from government procurement that would allow them to grow and maintain this leading position in the continental market.

There are other models of this bill out there. This is not a new idea. There are several pieces of legislation in provinces, notably British Columbia and Quebec, and in other countries, especially throughout Europe. France offers incentives for meeting embodied carbon and net-zero energy targets that plan to move from 5% wood buildings to 30% over the next 30 years. Other European countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K., require or promote full life-cycle analysis and embodied carbon reporting.

Right now, only about 5% of our buildings use wood as the main structural component. The rest are built with concrete and steel. This bill would not exclude those sectors. The cement industry wants the government to look at infrastructure projects with the dual lens of a carbon footprint and overall lifetime cost. That's exactly what this bill asks.

I'll close by saying that this bill is about recognizing the big role that buildings have in our greenhouse gas emissions and about making sure that we take steps now to lock in emissions savings for the future. With wood playing an important part in these savings, we can create beautiful, safe buildings with a low-carbon footprint and support the forest industry across the country.

Thank you.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, it being Valentine's Day, I do want to send my love to my wife, Margaret, at home in Penticton. She texted me last week reminding me that it was our wedding anniversary, so I have some ground to make up when I get home next week.

I rise in reply to the debate on Bill S-222, a bill that comes to us from the Senate, but originated as my private member's bill, Bill C-354 in the 42nd Parliament, and has been mentioned before that. There was a version that was a Bloc Québécois bill earlier than that.

I would like to thank Senator Diane Griffin for introducing this bill in the other place and Senator Jim Quinn for carrying the torch after Senator Griffin retired last year.

This bill has been on a long journey to get here and it is gratifying to see the strong support it is getting from all sides of the House. I wanted to say I especially enjoyed the enthusiastic support that I was getting from the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert when he was unfortunately interrupted. I was enjoying that discourse.

This is truly a piece of legislation whose time and place has come. This is a bill that simply asks the minister of public works to consider the environmental benefits of building materials when creating federal infrastructure.

The built environment represents up to 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions, and one key component of those emissions, and the opportunity to reduce them, lies in the choice of building materials. Wood and especially the new technologies of creating mass timber or engineered wood are an excellent example.

Wood contains huge amounts of sequestered carbon. If it is harvested properly and sustainably, and used to create long-lasting building products, it can be a very valuable tool in our fight against climate change. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Nunavut, who mentioned that this has to be developed and harvested considering the rights of indigenous peoples across the country.

I was inspired to bring this bill forward in 2016 by a company in my riding called Structurlam. Structurlam has been the leading manufacturer of mass timber in North America for many years. In Quebec, we have Chantiers Chibougamau, which has been leading that industry in eastern North America for the most part.

I see the member for Abbotsford is here and I have to mention StructureCraft, a company in his riding, that is producing similar materials. Just recently, we added another major supplier of mass timber with the Kalesnikoff family, who are building a very large modern facility in South Slocan in my riding.

These facilities are creating glulam timbers and cross-laminated timber panels that, in turn, are producing large, beautiful and safe buildings that are not only functional, but are also sequestering large amounts of carbon.

They are also providing relief for the Canadian forestry industry, which has been struggling through firestorms, beetle epidemics, illegal tariffs and a shrinking available harvest. With mass timber, we will have more jobs and added value for each tree we cut. We need to support this sector in Canada.

This bill does not exclude other building materials. The cement industry is developing new technologies that sequester carbon. The steel industry is developing new technologies that make steel production greener.

When the minister looks at the life-cycle analyses for each of these products, and those analyses are already being developed by the federal government, this bill would make sure that government procurement creates a significant environmental benefit.

Government procurement could also ensure that Canada remains a leader in the mass timber sector. It would allow new facilities to grow and prosper, creating jobs and providing a new domestic market for lumber in a time when our major trading partner to the south is doubling down on protectionism. Government procurement, guided by this small bill, could spur innovation in the cement and steel sectors.

I want to thank everyone who spoke to this bill. This bill would be a simple but significantly important step in our fight against climate change. We would also have beautiful buildings that would last generations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the member for Abbotsford for getting a little off topic there, too.

My first experience in dealing with wood in a substantial way, which goes beyond the general framing of a house in Winnipeg, is when I had actually bought a home on Burrows Avenue. I went into the home. We had to replace some drywall. Instead of a concrete foundation, it was actually a wood foundation. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me. I am somewhat familiar with the construction industry. I have family members who have been doing it for many years.

A thought that crosses my mind right away when I touch a wood foundation versus a concrete foundation is there is a far better insulation value. If one is from a city like Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary or Regina, out in the Prairies, insulation value is quite important. If members were to do a Google search, which I have, they would find, to the surprise of many, how skyscrapers are actually now being made. Someone made reference to a wooden structure of eight floors. In Wisconsin, there is a 25-storey timber building. In Canada, if we look at British Columbia, by UBC, I believe it is called the Brock Commons. It is an 18-storey complex.

More and more, we are seeing wood being used in these taller buildings. I believe it is a vastly underestimated potential for Canada's wood industry. Like others, I have had the chance to travel abroad. Often in the countries I have visited, we do not see wood being utilized as we would here in North America. I believe that it is speaks volumes to the potential markets out there if one could really get out there and communicate the advantages of wood over other products.

We have talked a great deal about the transition to a greener economy. When we think of that greener economy, a big part of it is within the construction industry itself. As we see our wood industry grow at least in part, recognizing the potential of that growth and talking about it would add even that much more value to it.

This is not the first time that we have had this type of legislation come to the floor of the House of Commons. Some have already made reference to, I believe, Bill C-354, which went through a while ago, passing in the House of Commons. It was the election in 2019 that killed the bill because it did not quite get through the Senate. It bodes well, in terms of where we are today, talking about Bill S-222. Within that legislation, given the very nature of the fact that it is originating from the Senate, and we have seen the wide support from a previous House, where members on all sides saw the value of supporting it, I suspect that Bill S-222 would in fact be able to pass the House, and ultimately receive royal assent. That is a very strong positive.

As I said, there is nothing new, from a government perspective, in dealing with the environment and having a greener transition, because I think it fits what we have been talking about. We have seen a number of legislative and budgetary measures to support a greener economy.

I am thinking of those magnificent timbers, beams, one-by-threes for sidings, two-by-fours and, nowadays, two-by-sixes that are being used in many of the construction codes for exterior walls, for example. We have seen far more opportunities in recent years. As building codes continue to evolve and give more strength, I believe we will see that the demand for wood will continue to increase.

At the end of the day we do want to see a reduction in greenhouse emissions, and the bill would support that in principle, because of the product itself, a product that is renewable. Someone made reference to the province of B.C., where one tree comes down and three are planted in its place. We have a commitment to plant two billion trees, coming from our government. Many of those trees are going to be planted within our cities to provide beautiful plush green canopies over our municipalities, cities and communities, but a good number of trees we see that are planted today are there so that we can ensure that we can continue to harvest.

We have heard a great deal about British Columbia, and we do not want to give the impression that it is the only place where there is an industry of that nature, because one could easily talk about hardwoods and others that go from Ontario to Quebec and a couple of the Atlantic provinces, where there is very much a healthy industry, and that is not to say my own home province of Manitoba does not have great potential in the development in that industry.

I think that, in looking at the bill, we see sustainable forest management. We see a government that is committed to greening federal buildings, whether it is by retrofitting, building new or just completing repairs, and what the legislation would do is allow the minister to recommend wood usage, not necessarily compel it, but recommend it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved that Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy and proud to rise in the House this morning to begin debate on a bill from the other place, Bill S-222. This is a small but mighty bill that would create beautiful, safe federal buildings, support our forestry sector during difficult times, spur innovation in the cement and steel industries and help us reach our climate targets.

What would this bill do? It simply states that when building federal infrastructure, the Minister of Public Works “shall consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.”

I mentioned the bill came from the Senate, but, in fact, this bill started its life in the House of Commons, first as a Bloc bill more than a decade ago. I took up the bill in the 42nd Parliament where, as Bill C-354, it passed in the House of Commons, but died in the Senate when that Parliament ended.

I would like to take a moment to thank my friend, Senator Diane Griffin. Senator Griffin guided the bill through the Senate in 2018 and 2019 and when the bill stalled there, through no fault of her own, she reintroduced the bill in the 43rd Parliament. As many here remember, that Parliament ended prematurely due to an election, so Senator Griffin introduced it once again last year in this Parliament. It is through her persistence that we are seeing it again.

Senator Griffin retired last spring, so she passed the torch to Senator Jim Quinn, who saw it through its passage in the Senate earlier this fall.

The initial form of the bill over a decade ago was a direct ask of the minister to consider wood in the construction of federal infrastructure. It was modelled on the Charte du bois in Quebec and the wood-first bill in British Columbia. It was designed then to ensure that the federal government actually considered wood when building large infrastructure. Until recently, the construction industry had been totally geared to cement and steel when doing that.

My version of the bill was amended in committee to remove the overt preference for wood and replace that with preference for materials that had environmental benefits, in particular regarding the greenhouse gas footprints of the building materials. This amendment allayed a couple of concerns around the trade implications of potentially favouring one sector over another and also recognized the emerging work on making concrete and steel more environmentally friendly. I will speak more on that later.

I was initially inspired to take up this bill in 2016 because of a company in my riding, in my home town of Penticton. That company is Structurlam, and it has been at the leading edge of mass timber engineered wood construction in North America.

While Structurlam leads that sector, it still faces some of the hurdles that confront all innovative companies. It needs help to scale-up its production, and the easiest way for a government to help a company in that situation is to provide business through government procurement. That is one of the core benefits of this bill. It would help Canadian companies scale-up to maintain our dominant position in the engineered wood sector in North America.

Forest products, with their sequestered carbon, are obvious candidates for decisions under this policy. If we can use more wood in government infrastructure and grow the mass timber market in Canada, it will obviously benefit the forest sector overall.

These are benefits to a forest industry beset by challenges on all sides. Beetle infestations, catastrophic wildfires and a long history of harvests have all reduced access to fibre. To top it off, the softwood lumber dispute has brought illegal tariffs from our biggest trading partner, the United States.

Reduced fibre access means we have to get more jobs and more money for every log we cut, and that is what mass timber provides.

To make glulam beams or cross-laminated timber panels, mass timber plants use lumber sourced from local mills. That gives those mills a new domestic market for their products and it reduces their reliance on the United States. On top of that, we can sell those mass timber products to the United States tariff-free, so it is a win-win.

Just to reiterate, the bill and a rejuvenated domestic market for lumber would not mean increased forest harvest, as that is limited by other factors, but it will mean getting more value added out of the trees we do cut. There are benefits to using mass timber, benefits for the construction industry and benefits for the users of that infrastructure.

First, I will mention the construction process itself. Engineered wood is produced indoors in plant facilities. The building can be literally constructed indoors with no weather delays or complications, while the site is being prepared for construction. Then the building components can be put together quickly and delivered to the site exactly when needed.

Brock Commons, an 18-storey residence complex at the University of British Columbia, the tallest wood building in the world, was built in 57 days, two storeys per week. It is now home to over 400 UBC students. Because the component parts are built indoors, they can be constructed to very fine tolerances, within millimetres, and that means a lot when one is constructing the buildings of the future that will have to be built to passive energy specifications.

The buildings constructed in this way are beautiful. The exposed wood components are like furniture. Structurlam has an entire finishing plant devoted to smoothing and treating every exposed beam and wall panel as if it were a piece of massive furniture.

It is not surprising many of the early examples of mass timber construction were civic buildings meant to look good as well as be functional, buildings such as the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the Olympic speed skating oval in Richmond, B.C. and the Rocky Ridge recreation centre in Calgary. The Rocky Ridge facility has over 2,000 glulam beams forming its huge roof, and no two are the same.

I would like to also mention that Canada leads the way in engineered wood construction in North America. Structurlam has projects all across the continent and has recently opened up a branch plant in Arkansas. Nordic Structures in Chibougamau, Quebec was another pioneer of this technology.

Another major mass timber plant has recently opened in my riding just outside Castlegar. It was opened up by Kalesnikoff Lumber. I would like to give a shout-out to Ken Kalesnikoff and his son Chris and daughter Krystle for making this major investment that will pay off for the future of the West Kootenay and the forest sector in British Columbia.

One issue that often comes up when talking about tall wood buildings is fire safety. I hear from firefighters who just simply do not like the concept of wood buildings of any size. We heard testimony of that nature in both House of Commons and Senate committees. However, I need to reiterate that large infrastructure projects under this legislation would be constructed with mass timber. Firefighters I talked to are concerned about buildings constructed with traditional wood frame construction such as two-by-fours and two-by-sixes.

Mass timber is another thing entirely. When we have glulam beams a metre thick or cross laminated timber panels nine inches thick, those materials react to open flame in a completely different way. They simply slowly char instead of bursting into flame. Think of trying to light a log on fire with a match.

The National Research Council has conducted fire safety trials with mass timber and has found it is just as safe, or safer, than traditional concrete or steel construction.

More detailed studies are under way, including those at the University of British Columbia with Felix Wiesner. Dr. Wiesner has found, perhaps not surprisingly, that thicker components, say panels made with five layers of lumber versus those made with three layers, burn more slowly and that the type of adhesive that binds those layers also has an impact.

Suffice it to say, large buildings made with mass timber provide both occupants and firefighters ample time to exit the building in case of a fire and, as I said earlier, are just as safe or safer than traditionally designed buildings.

I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the other materials that might compete successfully in the government's analysis of environmental benefit. We have been hearing a lot about green steel production, and there are new cement products that sequester carbon dioxide to reduce some of that material's carbon footprint.

When I first put forward this bill, I heard concerns from the cement industry that the direct mention of wood might be unfair to the cement sector, which has made impressive advances in sustainability over the past few years. Those concerns were largely met by the amendments that were made in the committee in the 42nd Parliament and carried through to this version of the bill. I just talked to the cement industry last week, and it is supportive. It pointed out it is working with the federal government to provide data for life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas footprints of building materials.

These analyses will be critical to the use of the legislation before us, as it will provide decision-makers with all the details they need. We will need similar full life-cycle data for steel and wood products, of course.

In recent conversations I have had with members of all parties around Bill S-222, I am heartened by the support I am hearing. Members of all parties know that this is the right way forward; that this bill will set us in the right direction when it comes to meeting our climate targets; that this bill will support the forest industry, a sector that has been beset with challenges from all sides in recent years; and that this bill will not discriminate against other building material sectors, such as cement and steel, that are working hard to innovate new solutions to make their products truly sustainable.

I hope that every member here will support Bill S-222 at second reading. I look forward to discussing it at committee to ensure that it will truly have the beneficial impacts that it promises. With this legislation in place, we can literally build a better Canada.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved that Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the first time.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud today to rise to introduce Bill S-222, which has come to us from the other place. I thank the member for North Island—Powell River for being my seconder.

This is a small but mighty bill that asks the government to consider using environmentally friendly materials such as wood when building government infrastructure. It was my private member's bill, Bill C-354, in the 42nd Parliament, when it passed through the House of Commons but unfortunately died in the Senate when that Parliament ended. I look forward to seeing this bill pass through the House once again and finally become law.

I want to thank Senator Diane Griffin, who has championed the cause of this bill in the Senate over the past five or six years, and also Senator Jim Quinn, who took up that cause after Senator Griffin's retirement this spring.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Forest Industry

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the forest industry in B.C. has had some tough years recently. Beetles and forest fires have reduced the timber supply, so we must create more jobs for every tree we cut.

There was some good news out of British Columbia last week.

First, Kalesnikoff Lumber announced that it is building a mass timber plant in my riding at South Slocan, to create cross-laminated timber panels and glulam beams. These components are at the centre of a revolution in how the world is constructing buildings. Canada is leading the pack in North America in this technology, with companies like Structurlam in Okanagan Falls and now Kalesnikoff joining those leaders.

Second, the B.C. government announced changes to its provincial building code, allowing beautiful and safe mass timber buildings to be constructed up to 12 storeys.

Along with those in my private member's bill, Bill C-354, these changes encourage the use of environmentally friendly materials in building federal government infrastructure, and will help keep the forest industry healthy.

[Wayne Stetski]

All right.

Turning to forestry, my colleague Richard Cannings from South Okanagan—West Kootenay has a bill before the Senate as well, Bill C-354 on the use of wood. It's asking government to do an analysis of the carbon footprints of structural materials. His initial emphasis, of course, was wood and supporting the various mills in our ridings. To what extent could increasing the use of wood products in construction help reduce the use of more carbon-intensive materials?

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the third time and passed.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking once again the members of the natural resources committee for their collegial work on Bill C-354, and the parliamentary secretary of natural resources and the parliamentary secretary of public works and government services for their co-operative approach.

I would also like to give a shout-out to Structurlam in Penticton. This company was really the inspiration of this bill for me. It, and very few other companies, stands at the forefront of the new way that we will be constructing buildings and other infrastructure in the future.

Engineered wood, mass timber construction, glulam beams, and cross-laminated timber panels will all soon be known as one of the commonest and best ways to create large buildings in the world, and Canada is a world leader in this technology. We are at a place now where government procurement can play a critical role in growing Canadian companies that use this technology, and Bill C-354 can encourage that role.

I would like to remind members that this bill was amended in committee to deal with some of the concerns raised in the second reading debate. I am especially thinking of the Conservatives here who, in this debate on third reading, seem to be debating the old version of the bill in which there was clear wording for “preference” and things like that. All of those issues have been cleared up with the amendment that we brought forward in committee.

Earlier, some were concerned that a preference for wood in infrastructure would expose us to international trade disputes or that it would distort the market, making it harder for the cement and steel industries to compete for government infrastructure. That is gone from this bill. This bill, as amended, deals with those concerns while keeping references to the environmental benefits of various structural materials. There is no mention of a preference for any structural material in the new bill. In fact, it simply sets out that:

the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.

We naturally heard strong support for the bill from the forest industry when studying the bill in committee. We also heard from the cement and steel industries, and both testified that they were confident they could meet those environmental considerations in the full life-cycle analysis. We also heard from the National Research Council that large buildings made with engineered wood are as safe as steel and concrete buildings when it comes to fire safety.

This bill will support the forest and construction industries and keep them at the head of their sectors as the world moves toward a new way of building.

We all know that the forest industry is facing headwinds in the form of unfair tariffs and a declining fibre supply. Engineered wood can support the industry in the face of these challenges, allowing Canadian wood to be sold into the U.S. without softwood tariffs, and the value-added benefits will create more good jobs for every piece of lumber that we produce. It will promote the construction of beautiful, environmentally friendly, and safe buildings.

In closing, I would like to once again thank all of those who have supported this bill as it moved through the House, and I urge all members to support it once again when it comes to a vote.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise today in support of Bill C-354, proposed by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I am pretty sure there are a few mountains in that part of Canada, and because I made a promise to a childhood friend, which I could not keep, I do want to congratulate Cassie Sharpe, who won a gold medal as a freestyle skier, whose aunt I went to school with in Winnipeg. I said I would say hi, and I could not find her. She was mobbed by everyone. I congratulate her.

Back to the bill, it is a bill that makes so much sense on so many levels. Besides being one of the most well-liked members in the House, my colleague is also a renowned natural historian, and the author of a dozen award-winning books on the natural history of British Columbia. The member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay was also named Biologist of the Year in 1996, and has served on the board of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and worked with Bird Studies Canada coordinating surveys on the status of bird populations.

Anyone can see that the member's credentials are both impressive and credible. It is therefore not surprising that his private member's bill would propose and promote the use of a renewable resource, which we have in abundance, while at the same time, reduce our carbon footprint.

At a time in our planet's evolution when climate change is wreaking havoc on communities across the globe, while governments are struggling to meet their emissions targets and to make the shift towards more sustainable industries, this bill is a common-sense solution that will help Canada do more and do better to meet our own emissions reduction goals.

Canada is and always has been a land of forests. Around the world, we are renowned for our natural beauty and our natural resources. One can hardly find a picture of Canada without seeing majestic forests, except, of course, when looking at a beautiful picture of the Prairies.

The bounty from our forests has supported for centuries the first peoples of this land, the earliest settlers. It has helped build towns, and turned them into cities. It has built our railroads, and telegraph and telephone poles, and so much more, to connect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Our forests have given us so much. They have allowed us to be a world leader in pulp and paper production, spurring development in northern and rural communities, providing jobs and livelihoods for generations of Canadians, and the raw material for the publishing industry for decades. Through it all, our forests continue to provide for us a way to commune with nature, to marvel at the magnificence and the diversity of life that we have been blessed with.

Bill C-354 simply proposes that the Government of Canada give consideration to the use of wood products when building, maintaining, or repairing federally owned properties. Decisions as to which construction materials to use would take into account the costs of the different materials balanced with the greenhouse gas footprint of the materials. After this assessment, the government could decide whether it is best to use wood or other materials.

Testimony before the natural resources committee demonstrated that wood does not currently enjoy even so much as access to consideration in the market, but that similar policies in British Columbia and Quebec have led to the realization that the situation could be and should be corrected.

In fact, France, Finland, and the Netherlands, along with more than 50 municipalities in British Columbia, have brought in similar policies. Great advances have been made in tall wood construction, and it is now possible to construct large, safe wood buildings quickly and economically. Building with wood produces lower greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters more carbon than with other products, and so can help Canada reach our greenhouse gas emission targets under the Paris Agreement.

Innovations and emerging technologies, like those that allow and encourage environmentally responsible and sustainable construction, will ensure the future health of the forestry sector. As the largest procurer in Canada, the federal government can play a constructive role by using this cutting-edge technology right here at home. If we can continue to build our prosperity by using materials growing in our own backyard, so to speak, and by doing so reduce harmful emissions to ensure the health of our planet, why would we not?

I would like to end by thanking my colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, for his fine work, and by urging all members to support Bill C-354, which represents a win-win-win for the forestry sector, for Canada, and, of course, for our planet.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly proud to be here today speaking to Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). I want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for working so hard on the bill. I appreciate that he understands the importance of the forestry sector in the economy and in terms of environmental sustainability.

The bill would require the Government of Canada to give consideration to the use of wood products when building, maintaining, or repairing federally owned properties. Decisions as to which construction materials to use would take into account the cost of the different materials, balanced with the greenhouse gas footprint of the materials. After this assessment, the government could decide whether it was best to use wood or other materials.

The riding I represent has a long history in the forestry sector. We have moved through the boom and bust cycles and have become more environmentally sustainable and creative in the many uses of wood. The days of the many mill towns I used to represent have ended in our riding. We simply do not have the mills we used to. Secondary processing is happening in small community businesses.

Many people are frustrated as we watch raw logs floating on barges down the ocean. Once we processed them, and many of those good paying jobs stayed in our region. They are simply no longer there. The bill asks the government to recognize the many difficulties the forestry sector has faced over the past 20 years.

Great advances have been made in tall wood construction, and it is now possible to construct large, safe wood buildings. It can be done quickly and economically. When we build with wood products, we know that we lower GHG emissions and we sequester more carbon than we do with other products. This is important when we look at the GHG targets Canada has agreed to in the Paris Agreement.

The Government of Canada is the largest procurer in Canada. The federal government can give this sector a real boost by using this cutting-edge technology at home.

Forestry communities are largely small, rural, and often indigenous communities, like the many I represent. They work hard and know that forestry is key to their economic and social development. These communities have had to be incredibly flexible, and they have had to embrace massive changes very rapidly as the forestry industry has changed.

What I think is so important about the bill is that it means addressing the reality that wood does not currently enjoy even access to consideration in the market. Similar policies in British Columbia and Quebec have made real strides in correcting this trend. After over two decades of the Canadian forestry sector facing significant economic challenges, the response has been to come up with greater innovation and advances in technology that change and increase what can be done in building with wood. Here is the challenge, though: getting builders and those procuring building construction to consider wood as a structural material for part or all of these projects. That is why the bill is asking the federal government to take the lead in opening doors and opportunities for the forestry industry. This is very important to ridings like mine, which are still integrated with the forestry sector.

I believe David Foster, director of communications, Canadian Home Builders' Association, said it best:

We recently saw that with six-storey wood frame construction, which moved from a curiosity into something that is fully embraced by our industry. I know that there is huge interest in cross-laminated construction in particular. At every conference of our association that I go to, somebody is showing us amazing pictures of these buildings.

This is really important in the cycle from when an innovation is developed till when it is in full commercial application. From our point of view, that's a process of de-risking something, and often it takes partnerships. It takes government encouraging and facilitating that transfer.

It is so important that the government take a leadership role in de-risking in this area. We need to see these opportunities building. We know it is important for so many communities. This not about making wood more prominent than other areas. It is really about giving it an even playing field and allowing the sector to actually play in this way.

On May 16, I will be travelling to Port McNeill in my riding to celebrate the Inaugural Forestry Proud Day event. People from forestry companies, contractors, consultants, forestry educators, first nations, training organizers, local government, provincial government, and so many more will be there to celebrate the importance of this industry. It is a significant community event in our area.

Across my riding, be it the communities of Zeballos, Woss, Campbell River, Tahsis, Gold River, Port Hardy, Port McNeill, and Powell River just to name a few, forestry has always been a part of the culture, the economy, and the community. It has had to change rapidly with the times.

I think of the program in Wass right now, a 12-week fundamentals in forestry program, with 12 students, that is going very well according to Pat English, manager of economic development for the Regional District of Mount Waddington. These programs are so incredibly important to small communities. They not only help retain young people in the community; they also help to attract young people to see the opportunities that are there. These programs really allow young people to stay in small communities where the industry is still alive.

It is so important that the government remember all sectors, that it remember that small communities are working hard every day to provide opportunities and maintain stability.

I am so happy to be here today to speak in support of the bill. It is time that we remember forestry communities and we provide those opportunities for them to move forward.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

I am very proud to be here to support this bill, Bill C-354, which is sponsored by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. It is an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and the use of wood. This bill would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that, in the awarding of certain contracts, preference be given to projects that promote the use of wood.

The purpose of the bill is to give preference to projects to promote the use of wood when awarding contracts for federal construction, maintenance, or repair projects, while taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments to the bill align with the government's stated principles for procurement process and ensure compliance with Canada's free trade agreement. The amendments ask that the minister consider the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that may allow the use of wood or any other suitable material, product, or resource to achieve this benefit.

Two similar iterations of this bill have been previously defeated in the House. Bill C-429, introduced by Bloc Québécois in 2010, was defeated at report stage on December 15, 2010, and Bill C-574, introduced by Bloc Québécois MP Claude Patry in 2014, was defeated at second reading on December 3, 2014.

I am proud that our government has the following frameworks, policies, and programs in place that will promote sustainable construction, including significant investments to strategically support the forestry sector.

One of those is the forest bioeconomy framework. In September 2017, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers launched the framework to make Canada a global leader in the use of forest biomass for advanced bioproducts and innovative solutions. The framework focuses on creating green jobs, enhancing supply and demand, and supporting innovation in the forestry sector.

We have also put forward the green construction through wood, GCWood, program. In September 2017, the government announced the GCWood program to encourage greater use of wood in construction projects in Canada. We want to catalyze a broader awareness of, and domestic capacity for, innovative tall wood buildings, timber bridges, and low-rise commercial wood buildings. Building with wood offers many benefits, including GHG emission reductions and opportunities for greater economic growth.

Another program that our government has put forward is the assistance package for the forest industry. In June 2017, the government announced its continued support for the softwood lumber industry in the form of an $867-million assistance package for the forestry industry, workers, and communities impacted by recent tariffs imposed unfairly by the United States.

We also put forward the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This framework, adopted in 2016, is a comprehensive plan to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy, accelerate clean economic growth, and build resilience to the impacts of climate change, which I know all of us here in the House believe in.

The framework's actions, supported by announcements in budget 2017, would enable Canada to meet or even exceed its target to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. This is important for our children, especially my children. Under the framework, our government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal government buildings and fleets by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.

These actions include collaboration among federal, provincial, and territorial governments to encourage the increased use of wood products in construction, including through updated building codes. Natural Resources Canada received $39.8 million over four years through budget 2017 to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects, to promote the use of wood in construction, and to create new markets for sustainable Canadian products.

We have also been leaders on this side of the House, compared to a former government, to put in place tools to assess environmental impacts. We have committed to assessing the environmental impacts of construction projects. Public Services and Procurement Canada is committed to the use of industry-recognized assessment tools for high environmental performance. These tools would help the department make informed decisions to estimate the environmental impact of construction materials and their use in building projects.

Any amendment made to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act must be made in accordance with Canada's free trade agreements and abide by the government's procurement principles of fairness, openness, transparency, competition, and integrity.

We have heard there are people who are afraid this may cost jobs. While I agree that sometimes we may fear the future when change happens, what I saw when I used to live in Quebec City was beautiful projects that actually increased the number of jobs in the forestry industry. For instance, in Neufchâtel, a neighbourhood where I lived in Quebec City when I was serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, a soccer complex was built for young people and adults. This complex was entirely built of wood, a gigantic structure with gigantic beams, which were very thick and very solid. Some said that we should not build with wood, but incredibly enough, the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, showed leadership. Quebec City even built its new coliseum, or what some have sometimes called the “ice cube”, using an awful lot of wood.

This is a Canadian product and it is something we have a lot of here in Canada. It allows us to create more jobs, because construction projects can perhaps be cheaper and so more people can build homes or large-scale structures that will be as structurally sound as any we might find made of steel or concrete.

I had the opportunity of attending the committee for government public works and listening to testimony surrounding this bill. I was surprised to hear support coming not only from people in the forestry industry but also in the engineering trades. People said that we can use this material and demonstrate in Canada that we can build with our wood and then perhaps create markets overseas to show the building codes are just as strong.

We can make sure we build jobs here in our country. It is important to build jobs in many of the rural areas where the forestry products, the primary resources, are found, because there are also indigenous people who would like to work. If we can use more of these resources in a sustainable manner, use things that are renewable, it will be better for Mother Nature, the earth, and all of us and our children in the long term.

I am very proud to be here to offer my support to the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his bill and his leadership on this issue. I am very proud of the work that goes on in Winnipeg and Manitoba in support of the forestry industry. I know all my colleagues from Manitoba are also very supportive of the forestry industry.

Tapwe akwa khitwam hi hi.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a member of Parliament proud to represent the fine forest base community at Nanaimo— Ladysmith, at the foundation of our community and still a driver of so many jobs in the region, I am very pleased to support the bill proposed by my friend and colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. The bill would create room in the public procurement process for building with wood, achieving climate change savings, and also local economy benefits of building more with wood.

On Vancouver Island, there are more than 100 small and medium value-added wood manufacturing businesses. There are 1,100 employees altogether on Vancouver Island, a major economic driver. This is borne out every year in reports by the Vancouver Island Economic Alliance. We are very committed to forestry and to adding jobs at every opportunity we get. If we are going to cut the trees, we may as well create jobs and get more value-added benefits at home.

Specifically, in my community, since 1988, Coastland Wood Industries has been a value-added innovator. It is North America's number one manufacturer of plywood veneer and fence posts. After peeling the logs repeatedly to get the veneer off, what remains is a perfectly-sized fence post? Who knew that Nanaimo would have the number one manufacturer of fence posts in North America?

Coastland is an extremely strong and committed employer. The partnerships that Coastland has with the Snuneymuxw First Nation are a model for businesses across the country. They are working to employ and train Snuneymuxw youth and are very committed to their partnerships around land and being a good neighbour. They also have a firewood program to help Snuneymuxw elders, which is another example of value-added forestry. It is so encouraging.

Also, in our community, both TimberWest and Island Timberlands are major drivers of a lot of good community work. They are very important community partners. I look forward to getting out on the land with them this summer and looking at some of the marmot recovery projects they are helping to fund.

Western Forest Products is in Nanaimo and in Ladysmith. A lot of people go to work at these mills. They are milling red cedar, Douglas fir, hem-fir, yellow cedar, and Sitka spruce from a big region coming into the riding and adding that value.

A number of years ago, Harmac Pacific mill was purchased by its employees, and is now largely employee-owned. They are using residual wood waste from their pulp mill to generate renewable energy, enough to power 18,000 homes. It is at the heart of the economy, good unionized jobs and employee ownership as well. They are a real point of pride in our community.

Another really nice partnership on the value-added forestry side is the Vancouver Island University carpentry program. It has strong partnerships with Nanaimo CHBA and other local contractors, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 527. It also works really well with city of Nanaimo building officials.

My my favourite partnership is with Habitat for Humanity where Vancouver Island University carpentry students got their practicum or their credits. Instead of building a fake building that they frame, built up, and then torn down, they worked with Habitat for Humanity to build new affordable housing in Nanaimo, which was just opened a year or so ago. Those students did everything from framing, to the heavy equipment operators having cleared the site, and the interior decorators having finished off the homes. It was such a point of pride. I am grateful to VIU for helping the young carpentry students get invested from the very beginning in building affordable housing.

All of this value-added work and local expertise fits in with the intention of my colleague's legislation. The groundwork is very well prepared by municipal governments and by the provincial government in British Columbia.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Ladysmith Town Council passed a resolution in December 2010, which said:

WHEREAS BC's forest industry has been and will continue to be an integral part of the economic, social and business life of the Town of Ladysmith;

AND WHEREAS the BC Government has passed a Wood First Act to facilitate a culture of wood by requiring use of wood as the primary material in all new provincially funded buildings, in a manner consistent with the British Columbia Building Code;

AND WHEREAS the Town Council of the Town of Ladysmith deems that building with wood is consistent with natural resource, economic, and social stability;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ladysmith will continue to support the development of its wood culture by:

being a wood champion and supporting the BC government's Wood First Act by adopting this Wood First resolution;

ensuring that the performance of wood systems and products are considered whenever appropriate in all municipal buildings to maximize the achievement of Ladysmith's Civic Green Building Policy;

ensuring that all municipal infrastructure projects in Ladysmith receiving provincial or wood industry financial support employ the appropriate structural or architectural use of wood; and

ensuring that where possible, preference is given to the use of domestic wood products.

My colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay's legislation is the federal chapter of this work that has moved from local business, to local municipality, to our provincial government in British Columbia, and now into the federal realm to boost the use of wood in federally funded infrastructure projects and institutional buildings. There is so much support for this.

The Forest Products Association of Canada has estimated that a 100,000 square foot wood building would store 5,300 tonnes of CO2. It would also contribute 2,100 tonnes of avoided greenhouse gas emissions. This net carbon benefit in a single building is equal to taking 1,400 cars off the road for a year.

The Canadian Climate Forum has also lauded the use of the engineering innovations that have allowed us to build tall wood buildings. It says the potential exists to construct low-carbon emission skyscrapers using mass wood, large wood veneers and beams made from glued laminated wood veneer strands or timber.

There was a great presentation from the British Columbia Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. It has a whole bunch of ways it wants to see governments amend their forestry policies. It plugged very hard the benefits of storage of carbon in wood products. If we put our wood into paper, it does not last very long. If we put it into big laminated beams and then build it into our institutions, which will last for decades, we are benefiting local economy and jobs and also anchoring in climate change savings.

I support my colleague's bill. It would require the Government of Canada to consider using wood products when building, maintaining, or repairing federally owned buildings. Decisions as to which construction materials would be used would be based both on cost and on a climate calculation.

Although the technology is proven and we have good examples, the challenge today is getting builders and those procuring building materials to seriously consider wood as a structural material, not just a finishing material.

The bill, if passed by the House, and it looks like it will be, is to force the federal government to consider wood when building, to make an honest assessment of the potential materials and then build with what is best. As the largest procurer in Canada, the federal government could give this sector a real boost by using this cutting-edge technology at home.

The only concern I have heard is on the firefighting side, and I might be able to talk about that more in questions. I am certainly cognizant of what I have heard some firefighters in my community say, but I am confident from an engineering perspective and the reassurance we have been given at committee that we are in good hands.

I look forward to seeing the House move forward in a good way on the legislation.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to oppose Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, use of wood.

I have always been a strong supporter of using wood in the construction of public buildings. As a former mayor of Fort St. John, B.C., I always pushed for the use of wood products in the development of new municipal buildings, and I was proud that my council supported similar actions.

For example, Fort St. John was one of the communities granted a Olympic legacy project by the British Columbia government. We decided to build what we called the Enerplex, which was completed in 2009, and was designed to reflect the community, create a lasting legacy, and continues to shape the city. It is a large recreational facility that promotes sport, community, and personal wellness, as well as provides an attractive venue for events.

Our council focused on building a facility that would have a low carbon footprint, and the city continues to take measures to improve the facility's environmental operations.

The Enerplex has exterior building panels that are rated very high in efficiency, the electrical motors were designed with energy conservation pony motors, and the entire facility employs a computerized building control to help control and minimize energy consumption. Everything was considered, right from the lights in the ceilings down to motion sensor sinks. The complex even has the ability to capture 75% of its waste heat, which is used to heat the domestic hot water and spectator areas.

To reflect our economy and the beautiful forests surrounding the Peace River region, we had wooden columns and arches added to the front of the building as a design feature. This was inspired, in part, by the Beijing Olympic facility where the Canadian teams were housed. British Columbian wood was used to highlight Canada's landscape and to honour our forestry industry. I have been there and it is a dramatic piece of design architecture.

We made sure Fort St. John's Enerplex was built with the best, cost-effective and efficient materials available to us in our specific region of Canada. Had we been located in southern Ontario, I am sure the design and materials used would have been very different.

Bill C-354 would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that in the awarding of certain federal contracts, preference will be given to projects that would promote the use of wood. Do we really need an act to mandate the use of wood in the construction, maintenance or repair of Public Services real property?

While I completely support the forest industry, there are a number of problems associated with the bill. It disregards the fact that there are large regional differences across Canada. What makes sense to use for building material in one region might be completely unviable in another. For example, I notice that there are far more houses built with brick in Ontario, yet when I fly back to Alberta, I see lumber used in our construction.

Bill C-354 would favour the economies of certain regions over others. It is a direct contravention of the mission of Public Services and Procurement Canada, which is to apply an open, fair, and transparent procurement process to obtain the best possible value for the government. It could result in job losses in the concrete and steel industries, which would be an economic substitution. There may not necessarily be new growth, but other sectors could lose contracts and be unable to continue working in the construction sector as concrete, stone or steel is discarded in favour of wood.

The provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have adopted “wood first” policies, British Columbia in 2012, and Quebec in 2013. I was glad to see that, as it made sense for those regions. Approximately, 40 Canadian communities, with strong economic ties to the forest industry, have also implemented their own “wood first” policies.

This decision must remain at the local and regional levels. When we apply this kind of sweeping mandate to the federal level, it pits regions against each other, as well as disrupts the National Building Code.

Speaking of the National Building Code, which is a model building code that forms the basis for all of our provincial building codes, it would certainly be impacted by the legislation. For most construction under federal jurisdiction, the National Building Code of Canada is the applicable code.

These properties include military bases, federal government land, and airport properties that stretch right across our country from coast to coast to coast. Bill C-354 does not take into consideration these far-reaching implications, and makes no attempt to identify or remedy them.

The bill also does not address any safety issues that might arise from giving preferential treatment to wood over other construction materials. Most wood building construction is limited to low to mid-size structures mainly for reasons of fire safety and overall stability.

As stated by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, this bill would “limit and undermine “the freedom of design professionals and experienced contractors to select the most appropriate construction material for its intended function and service”.

I strongly support our forestry industry, and I appreciate the enormous value it provides to the Canadian economy. In my own riding of Yellowhead, which is situated partly in the northern boreal forest of Alberta and into the Rocky Mountains, forestry is one of the leading economic sectors. It employs hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Hinton, Drayton Valley, Edson, and the surrounding areas. I continue to fight for action on the mountain pine beetle that is spreading across the Rocky Mountains and into Alberta destroying the forests along the way.

I am fully aware of the economic value of the forestry industry and the efforts necessary to protect this renewable resource. However, “wood first” policies should, again, be left up to regional governments to implement where it makes sense for them. The federal government should not be pitting one economic region against another. Instead, it is the duty of the federal government to ensure openness and fairness in its procurement policy approach to all industries.

Furthermore, Bill C-354 would contravene Canada's obligations under its international and domestic trade agreements, such as NAFTA, WTO, and the Agreement on Internal Trade. Favouring one sector of the construction industry over another with explicit ministerial preference runs counter to the free market economy and fair bidding processes supported by Conservatives.

Under the former Conservative government, investments were made to improve the environmental performance and competitiveness of Canada's forest industry by focusing on innovation and new product development to expand market opportunities for Canadian pulp and paper related products.

We also introduced the expanding market opportunities program in 2013, which was designed to help create a thriving forest sector by growing international markets; promoting Canadian forest products as an environmentally responsible choice; expanding wood use in North American non-residential and mid-rise construction; and by demonstrating that Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management and a preferred source of sustainable forest products. At the same time, we have always been fully supportive of the free market and fair federal project bidding processes.

We understand that policy interjections by the federal government to tip the scales in favour of any one industry can have damaging effects on other sectors of the economy. What has the Liberal government done? It let the softwood lumber agreement, which provided stability and predictability for industry on both sides of the border, expire in October 2015. Now our forestry companies continue to be harmed by U.S. countervailing duties on Canadian softwood products.

There are always ways the Liberals could step up to the plate and assist the forestry industry, but Bill C-354 is not one of them. The federal government should not mandate the use of wood over any other industry. This would be the same if the government wanted to mandate steel over wood.

We should leave it up to regional, provincial, and municipal governments to decide, rather than forcing an expensive and unnecessary regulatory review of each province's building codes, not to mention the potential legal challenges from non-wood construction sectors that would pile on additional government costs.

In closing, all things considered, I do not support Bill C-354, and I urge the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay to seriously re-evaluate the impacts this bill would have on Canada.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act regarding the use of wood, and to say that the government supports this bill as amended at committee.

I also want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for introducing the bill.

The government supports this bill with the committee's amendments because it aligns well with the government's goals of supporting the Canadian forest industry and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These objectives must be consistent with the government's commitment to ensure a procurement process that is fair, open, and transparent for all suppliers.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources passed an amendment that the government views as achieving this balance. That is why I call on all members of the House to support the bill as amended. Let me take this opportunity to explain the background of the amendment.

During debate at second reading, we had the opportunity to emphasize the importance of Canada's forestry industry. The forestry industry is one of the industries that built our country. As I said earlier, the industry contributes significantly to Canada today. Last year alone it accounted for $22 billion of Canada's gross domestic product.

The forestry industry puts food on the table for the families of more than 200,000 Canadians. This includes 9,500 jobs in indigenous communities, making the forestry industry one of the leading employers of indigenous people. That is why initiatives like Bill C-354, aimed at supporting the Canadian forestry industry, are deserving of the government's full attention.

The government is committed to fairness, openness, and transparency in the procurement process. These are fundamental values in the policies of Public Services and Procurement Canada.

In addition, witnesses raised some questions and concerns regarding our domestic and international trade obligations during the study of this bill at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, of which I am a member. I want to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for their thorough review and careful analysis of this bill. I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Markham—Thornhill, who also sits on that committee and who proposed an amendment to respond to the concerns and questions raised by witnesses during the study of the bill.

If I may, I would like to read the amendment in its entirety:

In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing—including a material, product or sustainable resource—that achieve such benefits.

Ultimately, the committee accepted this amendment and referred it back to the House.

This is a very important amendment. It may help make this proposed legislation more effective and ensure this aspect of our support of Canada's forestry industry is on sound footing. It will also ensure fairness, openness, and transparency in federal procurement.

Our discussion today on Bill C-354 also gives us the opportunity to review the measures our government is taking to help Canada's forestry sector embrace innovation and continue to be a vital part of our communities and our economy. The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, for example, calls on all levels of government to encourage greater use of wood in construction.

Research is under way on how the National Building Code of Canada can be updated to allow the use of more wood in construction. The National Research Council and Natural Resources Canada are exploring innovative solutions and carrying out cutting-edge research and development on the potential use of wood in buildings of up to 12 storeys.

Currently there are 500 mid-rise wood buildings in Canada that are either completed, under construction, or at the planning stages because of code changes nationally and provincially. It is expected that this number will rise in the coming years as familiarity with the building code changes grows.

These efforts are the result of broad partnerships, including forestry sector research organizations, academia, industry associations such as the Canadian Wood Council, and federal and provincial governments. Collectively, partners have worked together on research, building codes, materials development, education, and outreach to create awareness and knowledge on wood construction. Our government is supporting this move to wood through innovative projects across the country and around the world.

The Brock Commons Tallwood House is both an engineering and architectural showpiece and an environmental game changer, storing close to 1,600 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide and saving more than 1,000 metric tonnes in greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent of removing 511 cars from the roads each year.

In eastern Canada, the government supported the construction of a 13-storey cross-laminated timber condominium building in Quebec City. The Origine project includes a 12-storey mass timber structure on a concrete podium.

Furthermore, I want to point out that wood and wood products are already essential components that meet the infrastructure needs of the Government of Canada. At Public Services and Procurement Canada alone, 15% of the $160 million for office maintenance is spent on wood and wood products.

Buildings produce 23% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The department is working on making government operations more sustainable, mainly by using sustainable materials, optimizing space, and reducing energy consumption at federal buildings. This is part of the government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.

It is the first federal department to complete a national carbon-neutral portfolio that takes into account all real property related greenhouse gas emissions and energy reduction initiatives the government has undertaken.

The energy services acquisitions program is a great example of one of these initiatives. The goal of this program is to modernize the heating and cooling system that serves about 80 buildings in Ottawa. This includes many of the buildings around Parliament Hill.

Through this program, we are also piloting and testing wood chips for use as a possible biomass fuel. The results will help determine the potential for using biomass fuels at other federal heating and cooling plants. The department will also meet sustainable performance standards such as leadership in energy and environmental design, commonly referred to as LEED, and Green Globes. These performance standards encourage the use of green products and materials with life-cycle impacts that are economically, socially, and environmentally preferable.

As amended, Bill C-354 would support our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas effects, support the Canadian forestry industry, and ensure the integrity of our fair, open, and transparent procurement process. I would encourage my colleagues to support this bill, as amended.

The House resumed from April 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the third time and passed.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise to support Bill C-354, which was introduced by my colleague from British Columbia.

I would like to begin by reminding my colleague from Louis-Hébert, that I think he is looking at the wrong version of the bill. Before it was amended in committee, the first draft of this bill indicated that preference should be given to construction projects that promote the use of wood. That is no longer the case because the experts who appeared before the committee said that the industry did not need a preferential approach. They simply asked that wood be considered as a possibility from the start, because that is not currently common practice in the construction industry.

After hearing from experts, amendments were made in committee, so now the bill favours a comparative approach rather than a preferential one. The bill is short and simple. The summary reads, and I quote:

...that the Minister may, in developing requirements for public works, allow the use of wood or any other thing that achieves environmental benefits.

This refers to the minister of Public Works. The clause simply states:

(1.1) In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefit and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.

This responds to the questions and points raised by the Conservative member who spoke earlier. I think this can help him reconsider his position.

The wood industry has had enough challenges in recent years. Workers from several sectors of the wood industry in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia told us that the government should think about integrating wood in construction. Recent innovations and technologies have made wood a potentially very beneficial material. We want to reduce our carbon footprint, and, in the cycle of life, wood has a very small footprint compared to other materials, such as concrete or steel. Using wood could make it easier to achieve the targets the government set under the Paris Agreement. This would give an economic boost to workers in regions across the country.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill C-354, an act whose spirit and intent are both commendable and easy to support. Indeed, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has proposed legislation that reflects our government's own efforts to support and grow Canada's forest sector, efforts that not only acknowledge the forest industry's long-standing importance to the Canadian economy and local communities but also recognize its equally bright future.

While Canada's forest sector has endured more than its fair share of challenges in recent times, from historic fires and devastating infestations to unwarranted duties and tariffs from our neighbours to the south, Canada's forest sector continues to reinvent and transform itself for this clean-growth century. In fact, Canada's forest industry stands out today as one of the most innovative parts of our Canadian economy.

The timing could not be better. The world is at a pivotal moment, a time when climate change is one of the greatest challenges our generation will face and a time when investing in clean technology is the new imperative for a low-carbon economy. Canada's forest industry is central to this.

The Minister of Natural Resources has even gone so far as to say that there is no global solution to climate change without the forest sector, and there is a very good reason for that. As we all learned in high school science classes, forests are our planet's lungs. They absorb vast amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and store it for decades, which makes the forest industry unique among our resource sectors and creates huge opportunities for wood and wood products and for the mostly rural and indigenous communities that produce them. That is why the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change includes commitments from senior levels of government to promote the greater use of wood in construction projects, including $39.8 million in federal funding over four years to support these efforts. That is why we have also joined with our provincial and territorial partners to endorse a forest bioeconomy framework, a comprehensive approach we have moved quickly to implement as we seek to make Canada a global leader in the use of sustainable biomass to transform our economy.

The challenges of a changing climate also represent an unprecedented opportunity for the forest sector, and our government is doing its part. Here are some quick examples.

Last fall, our government launched the clean growth program, with $155 million for clean-growth technology development and demonstration projects. Importantly, one of the program's five priority areas is advanced materials and bioproducts. The clean growth program will help to accelerate their adoption.

Then there is the green construction through wood program that funds demonstration projects to increase the use of engineered wood in non-traditional construction projects, such as tall buildings, low-rise commercial buildings, and bridges. The program also supports the necessary research that will allow tall buildings as part of the next cycle of the National Building Code of Canada, through collaboration with the National Research Council. This is critical, because previous building code changes have already had an impact on the adoption of wood in construction. In fact, there are currently close to 500 mid-rise wood buildings across Canada that are either completed, under construction, or at the planning stage because of code changes nationally and provincially. This number is also expected to increase significantly in the coming years as familiarity with the building code changes and grows.

These efforts are the result of broad partnerships including forest sector research organizations, academia, industry associations such as the Canadian Wood Council, federal and provincial governments collectively, and municipalities.

We have worked together on research, building codes, material development, education, and outreach to create awareness and knowledge on wood construction. Our government is supporting this move to wood through innovative projects across the country and around the world. At the University of British Columbia, for example, federal funding helped build a new 18-storey student residence that now stands as the tallest hybrid wood building in the world. The magnificent Brock Commons tall wood structure is not only an engineering and architectural showpiece; it is an environmental game changer, storing close to 1,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide and saving more than 1,000 tonnes in greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent of removing 511 cars from the road each and every year.

On the other side of the country, we supported the construction of the 13-storey cross-laminated timber condominium building in Quebec City. The Origine project includes a 12-storey mass timber structure on a concrete podium.

As well, we have been taking Canadian ingenuity to the world. There is no better example of that than the new Sino-Canadian low-carbon ecodistrict project in Tianjin, China. It is a $2.5 billion project showcase of Canadian know-how and Canadian lumber to create a sustainable community covering almost two square kilometres.

The first phase of this ecodistrict features 100 wood-framed townhouses incorporating Canadian energy efficiency technologies, which is not just creating new markets but new demand for Canadian wood products. Once completed, the eco-district will serve as a demonstration of how green building materials and technologies can help China realize its goal of ensuring that 50% of new buildings meet green housing standards by 2020. The Minister of Natural Resources was in China last June to renew a memorandum of understanding to maintain the momentum this project has generated and enhance Canada's support for green building in China.

As these examples illustrate, the forest sector can continue to play a central role in many of the most important issues of our time, leading environmental performance, driving clean growth and innovation, and advancing indigenous partnerships, turning climate action into a competitive advantage.

These were the motivations and goals behind Bill C-354. We should all support the bill from the member opposite, at least in principle. However, we just cannot put it into practice without some crucial amendments.

As others have pointed out in the House and at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the bill, with the way it was previously worded, was problematic. It raised questions around fairness in procurement. It also had the potential of running contrary to Canada's trade obligations, both at home and abroad. While these concerns are important, they are not impossible to overcome. In fact, I believe that the amendment proposed by the member for Markham—Thornhill and passed by the Committee on Natural Resources resolves this concern quite nicely.

Let me remind the House of the wording of the amendment. It reads:

(1.1) In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing—including a material, product or sustainable resource—that achieves such benefits.

This amendment would support the Canadian forest sector. It would support other sectors and suppliers. It would ensure fairness, openness, and transparency in the federal procurement process. The bill, as amended, would create good jobs, a stronger economy, and shared prosperity for generations to come. I encourage all members to support this bill as it has been amended.

The hon. member brought forward Bill C-354 with passion and vigour on the subject, and I thank him for it. He spoke vigorously about it in committee and convinced us all that this was a worthwhile venture and something we should all be proud of as members of Parliament. It is something all Canadians can be proud of.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to help close the debate on Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). I also want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for putting forward this legislation. When I joined the natural resources committee just after Christmas, we were in the midst of a study on wood, and of course, it was well timed for his bill to come forward.

Let me be clear. The Government of Canada fully agrees with the spirit and intent of the member's proposed legislation. The proposed legislation aligns well with the government's goals of supporting the Canadian forest industry, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, these goals must be balanced with the government's commitment to a fair, open, and transparent procurement process for all suppliers.

I believe that the amendment to this bill that was passed by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources achieves the balance that we seek. That is why I am encouraging all members to support the bill with our amendment. Let me take this opportunity to explain a little further.

At second reading stage, we had occasion to highlight the importance of Canada's forestry industry. Our forestry industry helped build Canada, and it still makes a significant contribution today. Last year alone, it added $22 billion to our GDP. Forestry plays a leading role in the local economies of the more than 170 rural towns where sawmills, pulp and paper mills and other forestry operations can be found. The industry employs more than 200,000 Canadians and also represents 9,500 jobs in indigenous communities, making it one of the largest employers of indigenous people. This is why initiatives to support Canada's forestry industry like those in Bill C-354 deserve our careful attention.

That said, we were concerned that the bill as originally presented by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay would contradict certain long-standing Government of Canada principles, policies, and obligations and lead to perhaps some unintended consequences. As a point of reference, the proposed bill had stated that the minister “shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.

The government is committed to fairness, openness, and transparency in the procurement process. These fundamental values of the policies of Public Services and Procurement Canada cannot be deviated from. Although Canadians expect their government to support a sector as important as forestry, they also expect the government to adhere to the basic principle of fairness in its procurement.

Depending on how the legislation is interpreted and enforced, it may well violate Canada's obligations under important trade agreements, such as the Canadian free trade agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Contract spinoffs have the potential to be significant, particularly in a sector that relies so heavily on access to export markets, mainly the U.S.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources reviewed the bill. I would like to thank my fellow members of that committee as well as the parliamentary secretary for the careful review of the proposed legislation. In fact, we heard many of the same considerations that I have just reiterated.

I am delighted that my colleague, the member for Markham—Thornhill, who sits with me on the committee proposed an amendment so that the legislation would read:

In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing—including a material, product or sustainable resource—that achieves such benefits.

Ultimately, the committee accepted this amendment and referred the bill back to the House. I believe that the amendment is very important and will help make this legislation more effective and ensure that our shared goal of supporting Canada's forest industry is on a sound footing.

Our discussion on Bill C-354 today also provides us the opportunity to reflect on steps the government is taking to help the forestry sector to embrace innovation and continue to be a vital part of our communities and our economy.

For example, the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change promotes federal, provincial, and territorial co-operation in order to encourage the greater use of wood in construction. Building codes will be updated to reflect that.

This will be encouraged in part by work that is under way to investigate the updating of the National Building Code of Canada. Currently, Natural Resources Canada and the National Research Council are conducting innovative research and development with a goal of updating our National Building Code to allow for wood buildings up to 12 storeys. Moreover, wood and wood products are important contributors to the Government of Canada's infrastructure needs.

Public Services and Procurement Canada policy requires contractors to propose materials that meet the needs of a project, including sustainability and performance criteria, and that conform to the National Building Code of Canada.

In fact, Public Services and Procurement Canada alone is spending approximately $160 million a year on average for office fit-ups and interior finishes, of which approximately 15% is directly related to the use of wood products.

I would also like to highlight the important work of Public Services and Procurement Canada in supporting the government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The department is making government operations more sustainable through green building practices, including the use of sustainable materials, the move toward optimizing our space usage, and lowering the energy consumption of our federal buildings.

Buildings are a significant source of greenhouse gases and contribute 23% of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions. As we know, the government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal buildings and fleets by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.

As providers of accommodation to the Government of Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada is in a unique position to have a direct and significant impact on the greening of government operations. It is the first federal department to complete a national carbon-neutral portfolio plan that takes into account all real property-related greenhouse gas emissions and energy reduction initiatives that the government has undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases.

Take for example the investment we have made in the energy services acquisition program, through which we are modernizing the heating and cooling system that serves about 80 buildings in Ottawa, including many of the buildings on and around Parliament Hill.

In advance of this modernization effort, we are piloting and testing wood chips for use as a possible biomass fuel. The results of this pilot project will help determine the potential for expanding this option to other federal heating and cooling plants.

Similarly, Public Services and Procurement Canada continues to take an integrated and holistic approach to project design and construction, which includes the use of a variety of sustainable materials, such as wood, while giving environmental, social, and economic factors due consideration.

Its goal is to meet sustainable performance standards, such as leadership in energy and environmental design, commonly referred as LEED, and Green Globes. These performance standards encourage the use of products and materials for which life-cycle information is available, and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life-cycle impacts. Projects involving Government of Canada buildings in Quebec City and Yellowknife are the latest ones to meet those standards.

In closing, Public Services and Procurement Canada will continue to lead the way in embedding environmental considerations, and specifically greenhouse gas reductions, into the design and approval stages of its proposed projects.

Bill C-354, as amended, will also support our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support our forestry sector. At the same time, it will support our commitment to an open, fair, and transparent procurement process. In short, the Government of Canada is committed to leaving to future generations of Canadians a sustainable, prosperous country. I would encourage all my colleagues to support this initiative.

I would also like to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his work in helping to craft important amendments to his original legislation that both preserve the original spirit and help further our government's plan to help support the forestry sector and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again with some pride to speak to my Bill C-354.

I would first like to thank the members of the natural resources standing committee for their co-operation in the review of this bill. I have seen how a lot of committees work in this place, I have sat in on quite a number of them, and of all of them, the natural resources committee seems to get the job done with good humour and respect. I thank the chair and the members for that atmosphere of collegiality.

I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement who worked with me in good faith on this file. I trust that support will continue as the bill continues through Parliament to become law.

I will start with a little refresher on what the bill is all about. Its full title is an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, use of wood. As the title suggests, it deals with the use of wood in government infrastructure projects. At its heart, it is meant to promote the use of wood in those projects, much as the British Columbia Wood First Act and the Quebec Charte du bois.

The bill would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, specifically adding a clause after clause 7.1, the clause that sets out some of the minister's powers and responsibilities.

After careful study in natural resources committee, the additional clause specified in Bill C-354 was amended to read as follows:

In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.

This amendment effectively deals with many of the concerns some had with the first version of the bill around exposure to foreign trade actions and to concerns that the bill picked winners and losers, favouring wood over other materials such as concrete and steel. I personally did not believe the first version of the bill had those concerns, but I am happy this amendment has effectively dealt with that.

I would like to turn now to some of the testimony we heard in committee about the bill. I will start with comments from the forest industry, and I will first go to comments from Derek Nighbor, who is with the Forest Products Association of Canada.

Before committee, Mr. Nighbor stated in part:

We support fully and expect that thorough life-cycle assessments will and should rule the day when it comes to the evaluation of materials in procurement decision-making....I think the profile that he's given...about ensuring that wood is thought about early in the process, to us is the spirit of the bill. That's why we would support it.

Michael Giroux of the Canadian Wood Council, in discussions around national building codes and public works purchasing practices, said:

At the end, the solution is to update those practices to make them product neutral and greenhouse gas savvy or, as Bill C-354 suggests, to force Public Works, through an act or policy, to consider wood use with that carbon metric. In this way, the federal government can catch up to B.C.'s Wood First Act or Quebec's Charte du bois...Often it is asked whether Bill C-354 picks sides. Really, this is a Public Works real properties act or policy and in the end, should wood not be treated or considered equally? It is a structural material much like concrete or steel and should be considered equally.

The spirit of this bill causes that to happen. Our experience with the private sector is that builders love a third choice. If nothing else, it forces everybody to sharpen their pencils and you get better value for your investments. That's a terrific acknowledgement right there.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the models for the bill is the B.C. Wood First Act. In committee, I asked Michael Loseth, who is the president of Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd., about how that legislation had changed the use of wood in British Columbia. He said, in part:

In my experience in British Columbia, there were a number of unintended impediments that we identified after the Wood First Act was put into place [and] I can give you an example....The Ministry of Education started to look at what building products were being used in B.C. schools. They found there was a lot of concrete and brick and steel and such, so they started to ask the question, why aren't we seeing more wood buildings?...Building codes allow for the vast majority of school types, and the size and shape and what have you, but it wasn't happening. It wasn't until the ministry was forced to go back and really start to peel it back that they identified their costing models and the project planning systems that they had with the individual school districts were all developed and based on building a concrete school.

I will stop quoting there and say, in parenthesis, that one of the schools I went to in Penticton when I was a kid, Princess Margaret junior high, was torn down and rebuilt recently. It is a very brutal concrete building, and I can see where that might have come from.

I will get back to what Mr. Loseth said. He stated:

When those school districts went through the process and provided all the required information back to the Ministry of Education, of course, more often than not they fell back to the concrete buildings, which was how the system had all been designed and set up. It wasn't until they started to change that and opened it up to be far more product-agnostic, and to look at wood to see where wood was being unnecessarily excluded from the process, that it changed.

Now we're starting to see a far better balance. Not every school in British Columbia is 100% built with wood, but there are more that are being built with wood, and those unintended impediments that existed in the system are being dealt with.

I now will go on to the Quebec experience with la Charte du bois. Mr. Gérald Beaulieu, from the Quebec Forest Industry Council, spoke about the benefits that had flowed from that policy. This is some of Mr. Beaulieu's testimony. He stated:

The Wood Charter states that, in every project financed by public funds, the project manager must consider the possibility of using wood. It does not say that wood must be used, but that it must be considered as a building material. A few days ago, Minister Blanchette confirmed that more than 54% of the 188 projects identified had incorporated wood in the final design....

The provisions in the bill foresee the implementation of life cycle analyses into procurement policies, and that is analyses that consider the environmental costs of different materials throughout the entire process. Therefore, for wood materials, we would consider, for instance, the carbon footprint through harvesting, transportation, construction, as well as the carbon storage in the built infrastructure. These life-cycle analyses are already done in many situations around the world.

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute is one of the agencies that worked on those analyses. Jennifer O'Connor, the president of that company, testified:

You'd want to be sure you had a robust, fair, and transparent system for doing the accounting, with stakeholder buy-in for credibility and acceptance....The point I'd like to make is that all materials have impact....They're all critical to construction. What is more interesting to us is how we encourage improvements across all those sectors, so that...overall have an improvement and a reduction in environmental impacts....The focus would be on what is the performance target. When we have performance-based objectives, we set the target and we allow ourselves to find our own way there.

Therefore, the target in the case of the bill would be the considerations for greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental benefits.

Adam Auer of the Cement Association of Canada stated:

...the Canadian cement industry unequivocally supports the notion that federal procurement of infrastructure, whether direct or indirect through investment transfers to other levels of government, can and should influence construction markets toward low-carbon and climate-resilient design. We also agree with, and in fact have consistently championed, the use of life-cycle tools as the best tools, although not yet perfected, for advancing sustainability in the built environment.

There are persistent concerns about fire safety when people talk about large wood buildings, but we heard evidence from the National Research Council and others that these concerns are unfounded. NRC has tested fire performance in mass timber buildings and has found that these structures can remain sound for hours and are as safe as or safer than traditional concrete and steel buildings in that regard. The walls char quickly in a fire, and then the fire self-extinguishes. The structure remains sound for three hours or more and there is no appreciable smoke in stairwells, and therefore there is more than adequate time not only for people to exit the building but also for fire crews to fight the fire from within.

I will conclude by saying that I continue to visit mills and plants that use wood from our forests. I recently visited the Structurlam plant in Okanagan Falls once again to hear their plans for expansion. As many have heard, if they have ever listened to me speak about this bill or other things, Structurlam is one of the leading companies in North America in the production and design of engineered wood buildings using glulam beams and cross-laminated timber. It is a real leader in this field in North America and it is one of the reasons I brought forward this bill to champion the leading Canadian companies in North America.

Another example would be Chantiers Chibougamau in Quebec, which does a lot of the same sort of production.

These companies would allow the forest industry to develop another market for their lumber products. Structurlam is considering an expansion. We would have more jobs. More good jobs, well-paying jobs, would be created in Canada.

As Mr. Beaulieu testified, “A cubic metre of wood in a plant's yard is worth about $69, but when it is converted into structural products installed in a building, such as cross-laminated timber, it is worth more than $2,200....”

Our forest sector is facing some challenges, and this is a positive way we can help that sector. A new market could offset losses from protectionist tariffs in the United States, and the value-added mills would ensure that we could create more jobs with a wood supply that is becoming more constrained under the stresses of climate change.

I think Bill C-354 is a win-win for Canada, giving us beautiful infrastructure that fights climate change while supporting the forest industry, one of the natural resource sectors that has been at the heart of Canadian prosperity for more than 150 years.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Natural Resources

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.

I would like to thank the committee members, the clerks, and the analysts for working so hard to make this happen, and in particular the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for introducing the bill and being so accommodating with the committee members.

[Gérald Beaulieu]

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to members of the committee about Bill C-354. I will speak on behalf of the Quebec Forest Industry Council.

I run the program of the Centre d'expertise sur la construction commerciale en bois (Cecobois) in Quebec. This organization was born in 2007 out of the Government of Quebec's desire to diversify Quebec's forestry economy. The rest of the country was experiencing the same problems.

As you know, in 2007, Canada's forest industry faced an unprecedented economic crisis. To maintain jobs in the regions, the government set up a consultation process on the diversification of the forest industry. Soon, the non-residential construction market emerged.

Let me explain. When I talk about non-residential construction, I'm referring to everything other than single-family homes, where 99% of the wood is used. The single-family housing market is experiencing a sharp decline, in favour of the multi-family housing sector. Wood may become an increasingly important material in non-residential sectors. So I mean institutional construction projects, such as schools, the commercial sector and multi-family housing.

Cecobois' mandate is to provide technical services and communication tools to architects and engineers to help them integrate wood in construction. It must also be noted that Canadian universities do not teach the use of wood as a building material. We do a lot of work to get professors to offer those courses, so that students in civil engineering or architecture can have training on all materials that can be used in construction, such as concrete and steel but also wood.

Cecobois has been around for 10 years. We have become involved with students, professors and professionals to help them, which has significantly helped increase the wood market in Quebec. Every two years, we will see the progress made in this market. In 2001, wood was used in non-residential construction about 15% of the time. A recent study published in September 2017 demonstrates that, in 2016, the wood market share in that sector had reached 28%. The figure was confirmed by a survey of engineers and architects.

According to the same survey, 40% of engineers and architects said that they intended to use wood for the main structure of the buildings they wanted to build. There is still a lot of work to be done to amend the code, although some amendments have already been made. We know that the process is very long. People in the forest industry, Cecobois and the Canadian Wood Council do not want to cut corners. We want to make sure that changes to the code will be based on technical and scientific data. Regulatory authorities, whether Canadian or provincial, must take action to ensure that wood is recognized as a building material.

Earlier, I mentioned the transformation of the market in terms of the use of wood. In 2001, single-family home construction accounted for over 60% of the Canadian housing market. The market has changed a great deal. Today, 73% of construction in the housing sector is multi-family dwellings. We must diversify our designs and use different types of materials to reduce the environmental footprint of those buildings. They significantly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, which the federal government and other governments are committed to reducing.

Wood has a number of advantages. By using wood, we reduce the environmental footprint of buildings and we store carbon. This is recognized by a number of international agencies. As early as 2007, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that the forest sector in general could make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases, when they are stored by trees during their growth or when they are sequestered throughout the life of the building.

I am going to follow up on Ms. O'Connor's comments on the life cycle analysis.

A number of those studies show that wood sequesters more carbon than other materials, and even has a positive carbon footprint. To this end, let me refer to a study that compares beams made of different materials, but able to support the same load, so having the same mechanical strength in use. One cubic metre of wood emits 60 kilograms of carbon, compared to 345 kilograms for the same volume of concrete and 252 kilograms for steel. You calculate the ratio, but it is clearly established. These are studies by internationally recognized third parties.

Furthermore, wood has very positive effects on people's health, which has been demonstrated in several international studies. I am talking about a decrease in blood pressure and heart rate, and also a marked decrease in the recovery period. In the workplace, wood, which is a natural element, promotes creativity. In schools, it stimulates concentration and attention, while decreasing the aggressiveness of the occupants. Those effects are very appealing.

To explain why we are in favour of a form of wood charter at the federal level, I would like to talk about what has been done in Quebec.

In 2015, the Government of Quebec recognized the Wood Charter as a political commitment, which raised the awareness of government stakeholders and brought them together to reflect on the increased use of wood in public buildings. It seems that this had a major impact on what happened next.

The Wood Charter states that, in every project financed by public funds, the project manager must consider the possibility of using wood. It does not say that wood must be used, but that it must be considered as a building material. A few days ago, Minister Blanchette confirmed that more than 54% of the 188 projects identified had incorporated wood in the final design, which is very interesting. Furthermore, 75% of those projects used wood for the structure, and the others used it as a material for cosmetic purposes.

Why promote wood in Quebec and Canada? It is a local resource that helps create jobs along the entire value chain in rural communities in all provinces. In addition, many entrepreneurs have taken up the challenge of designing new products to help designers create high performance buildings with a reduced environmental footprint.

We say yes to Bill C-354, which we think seeks to be a policy to use wood. This bill recognizes the benefits of wood for economic development, but also its positive effects, especially on the quality of life of the occupants. It also addresses Canadians' need for greater use of wood. The bill builds on what is already being done in several provinces, including Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. I also know that Nova Scotia is considering a similar program.

In response to the remarks by Ms. O'Connor and the representatives from the Cement Association of Canada, I would like to point out that we must promote wood, but not under any conditions.

We must quickly improve the normative environment so that the choice of materials is guided more by their carbon footprint, energy efficiency and embodied energy for the life of a building.

At the same time, it is important to promote the adoption of green technologies and solutions. Your government is very committed to that. We are talking about buildings with an environmental footprint that is much more carbon-efficient. You are involved in the construction of high-rise buildings; we must demonstrate that wood can be an effective and efficient material.

Furthermore, the appearance wood market, architectural woodwork, employs tens of thousands of people in Canada. It is a popular market for architects and engineers who want to use those materials. For us, this is a very attractive area in which we want to continue to design new products.

Wood represents a very good opportunity for regional economic development. Let me give you some significant figures. A cubic metre of wood in a plant's yard is worth about $69, but when it is converted into structural products installed in a building, such as cross-laminated timber, it is worth more than $2,200. By increasing the value of wood from $69 to $2,200, wealth is created in all regions of Quebec and all along the value chain, in addition to reducing the environmental footprint of buildings.

That brings me to the end of my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Adam Auer, Vice-President, Environment and Sustainability, Cement Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Adam Auer, and I'm the vice-president of environment and sustainability with the Cement Association of Canada. I'm joined by my colleague Steve Morrissey, executive vice-president at the CAC. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-354.

First, let me state that the Canadian cement industry unequivocally supports the notion that federal procurement of infrastructure, whether direct or indirect through investment transfers to other levels of government, can and should influence construction markets toward low-carbon and climate-resilient design. We also agree with, and in fact have consistently championed, the use of life-cycle tools as the best tools, although not yet perfected, for advancing sustainability in the built environment.

Our issue with Bill C-354 is that it calls on the federal government to leverage its enormous purchasing power to “give preference to projects that promote the use of wood”. The bill appears to be attempting to serve two objectives—first, to support Canada's forest sector, which is suffering under a number of pressures, including softwood lumber tariffs; and second, to help reduce the greenhouse gases associated with buildings in Canada.

Let me start with the first objective. When governments arbitrarily give preference to one product or technology over another, it has a clear distortionary effect on the market, undermining the healthy, fair, and open competition that defines successful modern economies. Canada's forest industry already benefits from tremendous federal and provincial support. The 2017 federal budget alone offered some $40 million to support the promotion of wood. Such wood-related organizations as FPInnovations benefit from substantial support from the Canadian Forest Service in just about every province and territory. Taxpayer dollars have played an instrumental role in code development and demonstration projects related to tall wood buildings. Governments have also taken the unusual step of leveraging political authority to change building codes to allow taller wood structures. Finally, the wood industry has actively promoted preferential treatment of wood through such policies as “wood first” in British Columbia.

All things being equal, it would be hard to fault governments for looking after the interests of major domestic industries. In reality, however, such measures often simply rob Peter to pay Paul, artificially shifting economic activity from one domestic industry to another.

I would remind committee members that concrete and steel are also important to Canada's economy. My sector alone employs some 150,000 Canadians and contributes some $73 billion in economic activity. Because concrete is an inherently local material, our economic impact directly benefits just about every community across Canada. Like forestry, we are also under tremendous economic pressure. For example, in B.C. our sector has lost some 40% of market share to Asian and U.S. imports because those imports are able to bypass B.C.'s carbon tax. Canadian steel is also struggling in the global economy despite producing some of the highest-quality and most environmentally responsible steel in the world.

While there are things government can do to help balance these pressures, never have we suggested, and nor will we suggest, the preferential treatment of concrete over other materials as being among those measures. History has taught us that picking winners is bad policy. It's bad for the economy and fiscally inefficient. Perhaps most importantly, when it comes to transformative challenges like climate change, it disrupts natural innovation cycles that are constantly pushing competing industries to do better. In the case of cement and concrete, this means dampened investment in a raft of transformative low-carbon technologies, including low-carbon fuels and the burgeoning trillion-dollar market for carbon capture and utilization technologies.

Let me use that as a segue into the second stated purpose of the bill, which is reducing greenhouse gases from buildings. First, it is important to understand that carbon emissions from buildings are overwhelmingly associated with the operation of those buildings, primarily heating and cooling. While I would not argue that materials are unimportant, they represent as little as 4% of any given building's global warming potential. In fact, in a well-designed energy-efficient structure, the most important variable in determining climate impacts is longevity. In a high-efficiency, long service life structure, the impact of materials is vanishingly small.

Wood advocates argue that wood buildings yield a net carbon benefit over alternatives. These claims are based on an assumed zero-sum balance between commercial logging and afforestation. You cut a tree and a new one grows in its place. You cut a forest and an ecologically equivalent forest grows in its place. This is a misleading oversimplification of forest carbon cycles and a misrepresentation of the real-world success of reforestation programs, particularly in Canada, where most logging occurs in first-growth forests.

In fact, recent science suggests that when land use change impacts of deforestation are taken into account, even accounting for the regrowth of new trees, some 13 tonnes of greenhouse gases are lost to the atmosphere for every tonne sequestered in a wood product. While life-cycle assessment is the best tool we have to account for a carbon built environment, current standards around the treatment of land use impacts are out of sync with this emerging science. All whole building LCAs of wood buildings, including some of the best tools like the ones advanced by our colleagues at Athena, are restricted by these standards and their assumptions.

Let me end by supporting a notion forwarded by Mr. Giroux of the Wood Council about hybrid buildings in his appearance before this committee. Many of the most interesting, innovative, and sustainable buildings standing today utilize a variety of materials, including concrete, steel, and wood, not because government required any particular material to be used, but because of the natural process of market innovation increasingly directed towards sustainability. It is this very concept the life-cycle integration and optimization of materials and design that must dominate the discussion on low-carbon, climate resilient construction. All three levels of government purchase directly and indirectly some 60% of building materials consumed in Canada. A balanced approach to reducing greenhouse gases from the production and use of all of those materials is the only sensible policy.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to our final meeting on Bill C-354.

We are joined this morning by three sets of witnesses. From Athena Sustainable Materials Institute we have Jennifer O'Connor and Jamie Meil, and from the Cement Association of Canada we have Steve Morrissey and Adam Auer.

Thank you very much for being here.

By video conference, I hope we have Mr. Beaulieu from the Quebec Forest Industry Council.

[Scott Marks, Assistant to the General President, Canadian Operations, International Association of Fire Fighters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to share our views on Mr. Canning's Bill C-354 today. It's a pleasure for the International Association of Fire Fighters to return to this committee after our appearance in December.

To briefly introduce our organization, the IAFF represents 310,000 professional firefighters across North America, including 25,000 here in Canada. In Canada's largest cities and towns, our members are on scene in minutes, in any kind of emergency large and small, including structure fires, medical emergencies, water and ice rescues, hazardous materials incidents, and more.

I'd like to reiterate the remarks made by our 13th district vice president, Fred LeBlanc, which were conveyed last December, about our concerns with the expanded use of wood products in construction in the context of firefighter safety. The IAFF certainly supports a vibrant economy and a successful, sustainable wood and wood products industry, including the expansion of the forestry sector and opportunities for its workers both domestically and abroad.

At the same time, as national and provincial building codes are responding quickly to the need for innovation and the expanded use of wood products, we urge the committee to exercise caution and do what it can to regulate or encourage the regulation of adequate fire protection, meaning firefighter and public safety. As fire protection is a municipal responsibility that is also provincially regulated, we suggest that this should be the topic of discussion for the federal government's municipal and provincial partners.

National and provincial building codes currently include provisions for mid-rise, and recently high-rise wood-frame construction. The rush to allow wood-frame construction of up to 12 storeys, which is proposed for the 2020 edition of the National Building Code, has been billed as an economic boost for the forestry sector. As we have formally stated to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, and to the federal government, we remain unconvinced about the fire performance of tall wood structures and whether our urban fire departments and front-line personnel are prepared to safely and effectively protect the public in the event of a fire inside of a tall wood structure.

We are aware of studies that discuss the fire performance of cross-laminated timbers and glulam, and the charring effect that supposedly protects these materials from failure. I was a firefighter in the city of Toronto for 28 years, and I can attest to the fact that what happens in a large structure filled with modern combustible materials can be very different than what happens in the confines of a controlled test environment.

Our chief concern is that a majority of urban fire departments in Canada probably lack the equipment, resources, and the training to safely and effectively respond to a fire in a tall or large wood-frame structure. Firefighters may be required to be inside a burning structure long after other occupants have escaped in order to search for and rescue anyone still trapped, and to provide aggressive interior suppression in order to save the building and its contents. That's what the public expects from us. Firefighters will be inside or in close proximity to one of these structures in the event of a collapse.

In our view, there are too many unknowns about the way that a completed six-storey, 10-storey, or 12-storey combustible wood-frame structure would respond in a real fire situation. It's hard to predict the weight load and the fuel load of a particular structure once it's built and populated.

There is also the prospect, as was tragically seen in the Grenfell Tower fire in London, U.K., last year, that modifications—in that case, a flammable exterior cladding—may be added to an existing structure many years later. Neither the National Building Code, National Fire Code, nor respective provincial building codes address fire department response capabilities as they relate to the suitability or safety of a particular structure.

There was no reference in proposals for mid-rise wood-frame construction to any fire protection standards, such as NFPA 1710, a science-based standard from the National Fire Protection Association, that quantifies the adequate fire department deployment in an urban setting. The truth is, very few Canadian cities currently meet the response time and personnel standards for existing two-storey structures, let alone high-density structures made of combustible materials. Even if a community does have adequate fire protection resources to protect a particular structure, there's no guarantee that they will be there during the entire lifespan of that building.

What we are seeing in many communities across Canada right now is the propensity to reduce fire department resources and capabilities for political and budgetary reasons. I can point to numerous communities in Canada, large and small, that have experienced station closures and firefighter layoffs, and many that are contemplating initiatives that would increase response times and decrease the personnel and equipment available to respond.

This common scenario would leave occupants of any given structure with even less protection than builders and authorities anticipated when it was built. Commonly, when these kinds of cuts are made, fire prevention and inspection are amongst the first to be targeted. These are the fire safety individuals on whom occupants of these structures would rely the most to ensure the structure is always in compliance with codes and regulations; for example, when modifications are made.

Firefighter safety is another concern. In our view, the move to permit higher and taller wood-frame buildings in the National Building Code is set against a backdrop of an objective-based code that does not include firefighter safety as an objective. As a result, firefighter safety cannot be used as a basis for a code change request. I would also note that the National Building Code, despite being a model code, establishes an absolute minimum performance that builders are required to achieve. It's not a Cadillac level; it's a minimum

Six-storey wood-frame structures were first permitted under the British Columbia building code. The first such structure was consumed in a massive blaze in Richmond in May 2011, confirming that they are particularly vulnerable when they are under construction.

In December 2013, the four-storey wood-frame student residence under construction in downtown Kingston, Ontario, caught fire, sparking a massive inferno that spread to two adjacent buildings while taxing the city's emergency response infrastructure to its limit for 48 hours. The builders were subsequently charged by the Ontario Ministry of Labour with 22 offences, 11 of which were related to fire safety precautions that were not followed.

Having fire safety regulations and having an existing level of fire protection in the community are not guarantees that any particular structure is safe. The truth is that every working fire represents a danger not only to the public but to the firefighters who respond. Large blazes such as the Richmond and Kingston wood-frame blazes also reduce the resources that fire departments have available to handle simultaneous responses.

In closing, the IFF is not opposed to the context of Bill C-354, but if we are going to give preference in federal procurements to promote the use of wood, we urge a more thorough discussion of firefighter and public safety considerations against the backdrop I have described of inadequate fire protection and the prospect that any given municipality may reduce its fire protection capabilities in the future.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to present our views to the committee on behalf of Canada's professional firefighters, and I look forward to answering any questions.

[Joseph Galimberti, President, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

Thank you.

Good morning, honourable members of the committee, and thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today on behalf of the Canadian Steel Producers Association as regards your study of Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

The CSPA is the national voice of Canada's $14 billion primary steel production industry. Canadian steel producers are integral to the automotive, energy, construction, and other demanding industrial supply chains in Canada. Our members produce roughly 13 million tonnes of primary steel and an additional one million tonnes of steel pipe and tube products on an annual basis. This provides direct employment to over 22,000 Canadians while supporting an additional 100,000 indirect jobs.

To start today, I think it's important to state that all of our members support a healthy Canadian construction industry. Wood, steel, brick, concrete, and other construction materials are all important links in a competitive Canadian business environment focused on meeting the needs of domestic supply chain stakeholders. With that open and competitive market balance in mind, the CSPA cannot support Bill C-354 as currently constituted. We are concerned that this legislation would create a permanent legislative preference for wood over other construction materials, which would undermine competition and ultimately inflate infrastructure costs by limiting the types of materials available for use on federal projects.

Further, we worry this bill will limit the design freedom of construction professionals in the selection of materials and create potential conflicts with Canada's National Building Code. We worry that the legislation could call into question Canada's obligations under domestic and international trade agreements, and we worry that the legislation threatens green procurement policies by discouraging ongoing assessments of total carbon and life-cycle footprint for the products that the Government of Canada uses in its projects.

The federal government is a significant purchaser of construction material across the country. Its activities affect the national economy and can influence the price and the availability of goods and services, including construction services within the marketplace. Moreover, the Government of Canada's decisions on procurement practices not only influence the practices of other levels of government, but also those of the private sector. As such, any change in federal procurement policy—in this case the creation of a permanent legislative preference for the use of wood over other construction materials—should be carefully considered so as to avoid unintended market consequences.

Our association believes that it is neither good nor acceptable public policy for our governments to promote one building material by excluding alternative, viable, and competitive Canadian materials from Canadian construction markets. We strongly believe that all construction material should operate on a level playing field, and in a competitive, fair, and open economic environment. We believe the proposed Bill C-354 to be philosophically contrary to the performance and procurement policies and methods currently employed by the Department of Public Works and Government Services to actively promote and ensure openness, fairness, and transparency. If enacted, we believe the bill would distort these fundamental equalities and send a clear discriminatory signal as regards other construction materials and industries.

As I indicated earlier, Bill C-354 will also limit and undermine the freedom of a design professional or experienced contractor to select the most appropriate construction material for an intended function and service. Legislation that compels or influences design professionals to specify the preferred product for use where it is not suited to the function or service has attendant risks. There becomes an increased likelihood of non-performance, permanent failure, and higher initial costs for construction, and elevated ongoing costs for repair and maintenance.

The National Building Code of Canada serves as the basis for specifying materials, testing, design, and construction. It is specifically designed not to limit the application and use of any material, component, or assembly. A “wood first” policy inherently undermines that neutrality by seeking to actively influence a designer's choice of construction material. The selection of appropriate building materials must remain under the purview of those qualified and licensed to practice in the area of building design and construction. The Canadian built environment is founded on that principle.

We also believe the bill implies significant unintended legal and trade consequences. By virtue of the federal Competition Act, the federal government has an obligation to maintain and encourage competition in Canada and to promote equitable opportunities for economic participation. This bill hinders competition and skews the market balance. It clearly violates the spirit of the Competition Act.

We should also be mindful of respecting Canada's trade agreements. The procurement requirements of Bill C-354 would likely violate several international trade agreements, including NAFTA, CETA, and the WTO agreement on government procurement.

At this very moment, while the Government of Canada is working to negotiate and implement globally inclusive agreements while at the same time resisting protectionist policies like Buy American, the implementation of a “wood first” policy is inconsistent with the direction of Canada's government and may be seen by other nations as a non-tariff barrier violating several areas of Canada's international agreements on trade.

The bill further seeks to grant preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse emissions. Appreciating that the government is working in partnership with industry across Canada towards a low-carbon economy, this bill remains commercially discriminatory.

Instead of focusing on the permanent establishment of a place of preference for a single building material, the government should consider the implementation of complete life-cycle analyses at the centre of all projects involving construction materials moving forward. A sustainable, circular economy is one in which society reduces the burden on nature by ensuring resources remain in use for as long as possible, and that once the maximum value has been extracted, the resources are then recovered and reused, remanufactured, or recycled to create new products.

As a permanent material that can be recycled over and over again without losing its properties, steel is fundamental to the circular economy and has inherent advantages throughout a full life-cycle analysis. While it is not our intent today to promote the use of steel over any other construction material in government projects, we would rather encourage the government to consider maintaining a fair, competitive construction market.

We would suggest the government can further support the entire domestic construction industry by implementing government-wide procurement policies that give significant recognition to the total carbon and life-cycle footprints of the products it uses in its projects.

In conclusion, while we all agree that we want our domestic economy to continue to grow and for all of our Canadian building products to be more widely used, we would also suggest that it remains our belief that no construction material or assembly should be awarded a legislated priority over others.

Professional judgment, practical application, fair competition, respect for our building codes, and the evolution of construction practices and product innovations should determine the best materials for the application and service.

With this in mind, we respectfully request that Bill C-354 or any similar legislation not be recommended for additional consideration by the House of Commons.

Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions the committee might have.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I want to talk about innovation clusters, but before—

I would like to talk about the National Building Code and the supply system.

Mr. Canning's Bill C-354 talks about a preference. The idea of preference seems to be a problem. Other witnesses have alluded to fairness in terms of steel and concrete, as you have yourselves. But wood currently does not enjoy the same fairness in the National Building Code and the supply system.

Could you give us some examples that involve those two materials and tell us how we ensure a balance?

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses for being with us today and sharing testimony on this important issue. It hasn't been lost on the committee regarding the importance of this conversation we're having around diversifying the way we look at structural opportunities, both in the public and private sector going forward, and how government can help shape the way that future looks.

My first question builds on some of what we heard from my colleague Mr. Schmale around the actual wording of the bill.

Bill C-354 puts the onus on the government to almost give preferential access to wood over other traditional building methods. I can start with FPInnovations or the Forest Products Association, but I want to get your take on whether you think that's the appropriate strategy. I also want to know whether you believe it needs to be identified as another building opportunity or another measurable way of doing construction, but not given preferential access, or if you think that maybe that increased onus should be based on a matrix that takes into account the total carbon sequestration over the life of the project.

[Michael Giroux]

Until that happens I'd like to see Bill C-354.

[Michael Giroux]

This will address more of the comments that we sometimes hear when bills like this are being addressed.

Often it is asked whether Bill C-354 picks sides. Really, this is a Public Works real properties act or policy and in the end, should wood not be treated or considered equally? It is a structural material much like concrete or steel and should be considered equally.

The spirit of this bill causes that to happen. Our experience with the private sector is that builders love a third choice. If nothing else, it forces everybody to sharpen their pencils and you get better value for your investments. That's a terrific acknowledgement right there.

Are jobs affected? I would say not likely. Most wood buildings are in fact hybrid wood, concrete, steel buildings. Given the expansion of the infrastructure sector and the work in that sector right now, I don't think any material is suffering job loss. Now, there's been a shrinkage in the U.S., so maybe an industry that shipped up to 30% of their product into the U.S. might have some losses as a result of that, but not because of the Canadian market. A lot of what we do is expanding the market, allowing for cost-efficient solutions to happen now rather than later.

The question I would like to address is whether wood buildings are unsafe or not durable. That comment is often made in respect to a code plus discussion. In the end, durability is by design. Climate change adaptation or durability are by design. We can design wood building systems that meet any requirement of the future. We can put our minds to it, and we have great research institutions that will allow us to get there. All that to say that I don't buy that argument at all. What's most important in this situation is that codes and requirements are kept performance based, which allows all materials to act on these solutions independently or in their own right.

Those are my comments. Thank you very much.

[Michael Giroux, President, Canadian Wood Council]

Good morning, standing committee members. Bonjour à tous.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-354 and the Wood Council's reaction to it.

I do apologize. I have a bit of a speech impediment at this time, but I'll work my way through it. It only affects me when I try to say anything with three syllables or more.

I'll tell you a little bit about the Canadian Wood Council. We are a national industry association. We represent more than 90% of the wood product production in Canada, so that means lumber, panels, and engineered wood products. Unlike in the case of other structural materials, our members are almost exclusively Canadian-owned, proudly so, which means that they not only produce in Canada but also that they have interests in growing the markets in Canada. They are totally invested in this market.

The CWC's mission is twofold. The first part is to ensure that current and innovative new products and building systems are fairly represented in the building codes, because what gets represented in those building codes gets built. They are regulatory tools, which is a very important point. The second area our mission talks about is the area of education. In that area, we support students and professors in their curricula as well as the continuing education of practitioners, including architects, engineers, and builders.

I'd be remiss if I didn't give you a couple of quick facts about building codes, which will be relevant a little later on.

The first thing is that building codes and related standards take about five years to develop. There's a five-year cycle ingrained in all of this. You might think that's long, and it is, and you might think that it impedes innovation, and it does, but it ensures that the codes actually meet the objectives as stated by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. So, yes, Canada has objective-based building codes, and their targets are energy and water-use efficiency, fire and structural protection, fire and structural safety, as well as health and accessibility, but there's nothing in there that speaks to carbon or greenhouse gas, and there is nothing in there that speaks about the use of wood, although that would be really nice.

Why is this information important? Since the mid-1900s, before the advent of sprinklers and protection systems or what we call encapsulation, concrete and steel products in building systems kind of ruled. They were the only game in town. These were used in institutional, commercial, and industrial applications, as well as in multi-family residential applications. Much has changed.

Earlier on, the codes were prescriptive. An example of a prescriptive code would be, for a firewall, something like a firewall must be made with masonry blocks. That's prescriptive. It tells you what to do. A change took place about 10 years ago when the National Research Council's codes centre embarked on the development of an objective-based code. Because of those objectives which I stated earlier, codes then became a little more objective-oriented. Instead of, for something like that firewall I just mentioned, that it must be built out of masonry blocks, it now says that a firewall must have a two-hour fire rating. This allows for an increased use of innovation in the solutions. There are some wood solutions associated with drywall on them that can be used now. It also has allowed us to move further into the codes with mid-rise provisions of five and six storeys. It allows us to look at tall buildings, but in the end, it's the 2025 move by the National Research Council towards performance-based codes that will allow us to really get more into the market of these tall buildings.

This is important because, as slow as the building codes are to get updated, and there's that cycle, the federal real property and Public Works purchasing practices are also. They are sometimes updated, but we don't know this. Those updates are not transparent.

It is for that reason, and that reason primarily, we support Bill C-354. At the end, they will update these as the result of this bill action, either through the bill itself or an act, or a policy developed from this will cause the Public Works department to actually take action and consider wood more equally. That doesn't mean they have to win on a first costs basis, but at least there will be a balance.

At the end, the solution is to update those practices to make them product neutral and greenhouse gas savvy or, as Bill C-354 suggests, to force Public Works, through an act or policy, to consider wood use with that carbon metric. In this way, the federal government can catch up to B.C.'s Wood First Act or Quebec's Charte du bois, or wood equally policy.

I'll say a few words about costs and reductions in greenhouse gas. The first is something that is no surprise to me, particularly in our innovation. Wood does not always score first when it comes to costs, especially new wood building systems, but because of the work of some of our funders and research partners, including FPInnovations and the NRC, we see an increase in new solutions that are helping us to evolve these building systems. If you look at Brock Commons, it's the tallest contemporary wood building in North America, well, in the world really, at 18 storeys. You can look at that building and say that it did not win on a first costs basis, but when you look at the construction practices that evolved from it, that building came under budget. Future buildings of that nature will do very well.

In terms of greenhouse gas tools, Derek mentioned that the Athena institute has tools of this nature, life-cycle assessment tools that not only look at greenhouse gas but at other environmental impacts. The Quebec government, working with Cecobois, which is associated with the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec, also has a tool in development that will help them in policy judgments associated with carbon or greenhouse gases. For them, it's not just a question of “wood equally”, as in the Charte du bois. It's also to compare or to look at that extra metric. That is the tool that's being developed. That tool is now being co-funded by the Province of Ontario. B.C. is interested, and the American Wood Council is interested as well. There is an opportunity to take this to governments for policy support.

Is the greenhouse gas metric important? Yes, obviously, to meet government policy objectives. A more rapid adoption considering embodied or avoided energy or greenhouse gas is really important, because early action compounds over time. I would encourage that we consider or look at embodied energy in the products, as well as the operational side, the whole life cycle. Early action is really important in order to meet those life-cycle goals.

Are wood products or wood building systems the final solution here? In my view, maybe; but really, speaking practically, down the road we will see hybrid systems evolve that will use wood, concrete—all those products. Think about the problems we want to solve, including the seismic situations in B.C., for instance. We saw this in Christchurch, New Zealand, particularly. An earthquake happens, the building shakes, the building survives, and people get out. It meets code. However, the buildings are damaged in such a way that they are not reusable. Wouldn't it be nicer to have lighter buildings that could move on their podiums? That area, that lightness, is important. Wood products, and wood fibres in, for instance, concrete, could serve us well into the future.

Mr. Chair, those were my opening remarks. I do have some other comments, if I have another minute or so.

[Derek Nighbor, Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Copies of my remarks are available for committee members.

Bonjour. My name is Derek Nighbor, and I'm the chief executive officer at Forest Products Association of Canada. I'm pleased to be here today to discuss Mr. Cannings' Bill C-354 and to talk about why it's important that wood be given every consideration as part of the federal government's procurement strategy.

I would like to thank Mr. Cannings for his diligence for being a strong and thoughtful voice for our sector, not only in his community, but throughout British Columbia.

My colleague Bob Larocque appeared before this committee a couple of times back in November and again in February on the secondary supply chain work this group has been doing. In those remarks, Bob shared a fair bit of information about the importance of our sector to the Canadian economy, especially as it pertains to the over 600 communities across rural and northern Canada that depend on forestry. I see Mr. Harvey and others here who can attest to that in a personal way.

Not only economic benefit, but also real environmental benefits are derived by the way in which we manage Canada's forests, because wood products lock in carbon and are, therefore, a key solutions provider in our fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I won't go into a lot of detail on that information, as I know all of you are well aware of the importance of our sector to communities where, more often than not, the forest and mills jobs are among the best in town.

I want to thank the members of this committee for their focus on forestry over the past number of months. We're a sector that has not been without its challenges. Although many of the headlines tend to be about the Canada-U.S. trade disputes we're kind of stuck in the middle of, I know I speak for FPAC members and the broader industry value chain when I say it's very important for us to focus on the things we can control.

One of those things is the acceleration of innovation in forestry. In the forests, at the mills, and through the carbon-storing products we make, our sector holds promise to deliver on 13% of the federal government's overall GHG reduction goals under the Paris Agreement, but we need the ongoing support of federal and provincial governments to help us make that happen. Predictable and reliable access to wood fibre, a competitive tax regime, a skilled workforce for tomorrow, and a reliable transportation network to get our goods to market are all essential to the future of our success.

I want to speak more specifically now to the role we believe wood should play in the federal government's procurement plate per Mr. Cannings' private member's bill. We view this bill as an opportunity to give wood the recognition it deserves as a material of high value and choice in construction.

Similar bills have come before the House in the past in the same sphere as this bill. I know former Bloc Québecois MP Claude Patry from Jonquière tabled the bill back in 2009 and then again a couple of years later. What has changed since 2009 when M. Patry tabled his bill for the first time is quite simply innovation in wood construction, a greater awareness, and a heightened worldwide understanding of the benefits building with wood can bring.

You heard on Tuesday from federal officials about the examples of wood construction projects in Canada and the growing chorus of engineers and architects who are turning to wood as a safe, resilient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly material of choice.

Eight years ago, when M. Patry tabled his bill, there was less enthusiasm among federal officials regarding changes to procurement approaches. Changing that is the big opportunity that's before us here with this bill and this discussion today.

In passing this bill, the government will send a clear signal that governments around the world have already recognized: that wood is a safe, durable, and high-performing material that fares well against competing materials in building construction and, in the past, has often been overlooked.

The built environment accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions, so if Canada wants to make real headway in reducing GHGs, a procurement strategy focused on reducing the carbon footprint of construction materials represents a real opportunity. We have already seen countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and others make moves to advance green building procurement, so there are many examples and ideas to draw from.

Here at home we have seen provincial procurement strategies rolled out in Quebec and British Columbia in the same vein as Mr. Cannings' bill, and the B.C. story, which I know my colleagues from Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. will speak to in greater detail in the next session, we have seen B.C. emerge as a market leader in the design, manufacturing, and construction of wood products and systems, largely in part to B.C.'s focus on wood building.

In addition to Mr. Cannings' bill, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the leadership from other members of the House in this space like Halifax MP Andy Fillmore in the tabling of motion 45, a motion supporting the greening of infrastructure projects over $500,000 funded by the federal government and the greening government initiative that has been led internally by Vancouver Quadra MP Joyce Murray.

Innovation has changed how procurement should work. It's no longer about using the same materials and the same forms we've traditionally turned to. We believe it's important to ingrain this in Canada's procurement strategy.

To the point about how things have changed, earlier this week researchers at Purdue University spoke to the opportunities that microscopic wood nanocrystals fused in concrete can bring to support an even stronger bridge they plan to build in California. While some are trying to position Mr. Cannings' bill as favouring one material over another, we view it as a bill that sends a signal that the game has changed. This bill rightly profiles the growing role that wood can play as a leading green option in building construction, and therefore that should be reflected in federal government procurement.

Let me be clear. We support fully and expect that thorough life-cycle assessments will and should rule the day when it comes to the evaluation of materials in procurement decision-making.

Experience in Canada and from around the world tells us that when it comes to the carbon question, wood-based materials perform very well against other materials. I'd encourage the committee to look at the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute as a leading not-for-profit research collaborative that's supporting a lot of life-cycle analysis work in building construction.

Mr. Chair, thanks for the opportunity today.

Thank you for your attention. I welcome your questions.

[Veronica Silva, Director General, Technical Services, Real Property Services, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in regard to the private member's bill, Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act with respect to use of wood.

To begin, I want to acknowledge that wood and wood products are indeed important contributors to the Government of Canada's infrastructure needs. For example, Public Services and Procurement Canada, alone, is already spending approximately $160 million a year, on average, for office fit-ups and interior finishes, of which approximately 15% is directly related to the use of wood products. We believe that, in order to have a complete discussion on this topic, we need to first set the stage by sharing with you the important work that PSPC has undertaken and is continuing to undertake to support the Government of Canada's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This includes PSPC's current policies and practices associated with the use of sustainable materials.

PSPC's commitment to sustainable government operations is enshrined in our policies, frameworks, procedures, and tools that govern the design, construction, and operations of our assets. In support of the federal sustainable development strategy and as part of our department's mandate, we are firmly committed to making government operations more sustainable with the green building practices and other initiatives. This includes using sustainable materials, moving toward optimizing our space use, and lowering the energy consumption of our federal buildings.

To put this into context for you, buildings are significant emitters of greenhouse gases and contribute 23% of Canada's overall GHG emissions. As providers of accommodation to the Government of Canada, our department is in the unique position to have a direct and significant impact on the greening of government operations. PSPC is the first federal department to complete a national carbon neutral portfolio plan that takes into account all real property–related greenhouse gas emissions and energy reduction initiatives that we have undertaken. An example of this includes the investment we have made in the energy services acquisition program, through which we are modernizing the heating and cooling system that serves approximately 80 buildings in Ottawa. This includes many of the buildings on and around Parliament Hill. In advance of this modernization effort, we are currently piloting and testing wood chips for use as a possible biomass fuel. The results will help determine the potential for expanding this option to other federal heating and cooling plants.

PSPC has also undertaken a leadership position in embedding GHG reductions in project design. By undertaking a comparative analysis of the cost versus GHG emissions reductions for different project design options over a 25-year life cycle, decision-makers are able to select the best balance between fiscal and GHG emission considerations.

For example, in the case of the Arthur Meighen Building in Toronto, designing for the minimum departmental requirements would lead to a 24% reduction in GHG emissions as compared to the current building. However, by incorporating additional sustainability requirements, it is possible for the project to achieve a substantial GHG emission reduction of 88% with a minimal net increase in life cycle costs over 25 years, that increase being $13 million or 5.6%.

As part of PSPC's commitments under the federal sustainable development strategy and pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, we are committed to designing projects and buildings to meet sustainable performance standards such as leadership in energy and environmental design, LEED, and Green Globes. These performance standards encourage the use of products and materials for which life cycle information is available and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life cycle impacts.

For example, PSPC's Quebec City regional office, which was completed in 2012, is certified LEED gold and is currently the most energy efficient building in our portfolio. Another example is the Greenstone Government of Canada Building in downtown Yellowknife. Completed in 2005, the Greenstone Building was the first building above the 60th parallel that was certified LEED gold, representing a remarkable achievement in this unique environment.

PSPC's policies, standards, and tools set out a holistic approach to fostering sustainable practices, which include the use of sustainable building materials in construction and renovation projects that meet performance requirements while also giving appropriate consideration to environmental and economic factors.

As well, through the delivery of a range of real property services to, and in collaboration with other government departments, PSPC is provided with opportunities to understand demand, aggregate similar needs, and develop proposals that will reduce the Government of Canada's overall footprint in GHG. The National Building Code of Canada, or the building code, allows the use of wood and other combustible construction materials in structural elements for buildings up to six storeys in height, unless it can be demonstrated that they can perform in the same way as non-combustible construction materials. In alignment with the building code, PSPC continues to allow wood to be considered in the design and construction of federal buildings.

The next speaker from Natural Resources Canada will brief you on other actions the Government of Canada is taking to support the use of wood, and more generally, to reduce the GHG emissions. This includes innovative research and development that could result in updating the building code to allow wood buildings up to 12 storeys and beyond. We are following this closely and are excited by the material use possibilities these potential changes could bring. As you can see, there is so much that we are already doing to implement holistic, integrated project design that takes into account the use of sustainable materials like wood to reduce GHG emissions.

The Government of Canada and PSPC are committed to fairness, openness, and transparency in the procurement processes, principles that are also deeply enshrined in both policy and law. Canadians expect the government to adhere to the principles of fairness in procurement. With this in mind, PSPC is committed to ensuring that, through the procurement process, it does not give preference to one building material over all others. These commitments support Canada's obligations under key trade agreements such as the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, or CFTA, and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

For example, the CFTA prohibits discrimination among the goods or services of a particular province or region. Giving preference to projects that promote one primary material—in this case, wood—may be interpreted as discrimination against regions that do not supply this material. Similarly, as a technical specification, referring to a particular type of material for which no alternative is permitted could be interpreted as creating unnecessary obstacles to trade.

To conclude, PSPC initiatives and policies reaffirm our commitment to protecting the environment and to ensuring a fair, open, and transparent procurement process for all suppliers. PSPC continues to work to integrate many sustainable practices in our operations and to take an integrated and holistic approach to project design and construction, which includes the use of a variety of sustainable materials while giving appropriate consideration to environmental, social, and economic factors.

Thank you. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions at the end of the opening statements.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you. I'd really like to thank you, Mr. Cannings, for introducing Bill C-354. Forestry is very important in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. We have about 12 mills, ranging from internationally owned to family owned mills. People of Kootenay—Columbia really care about climate change and carbon. We'd welcome more federal government buildings and offices in the riding as well.

You mentioned earlier that B.C. already has legislation similar to what Bill C-354 proposes. How has that policy worked in British Columbia? Does it offer us a template for how this could be rolled out federally?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. It's quite an honour, of course, to be here testifying before my own committee. I didn't sleep last night because I was pretty keyed up about this.

I'm here obviously to talk about my private member's bill, Bill C-354. It's such a short bill that I'm just going to read the one clause that is really all there is to the bill. It just amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, I believe. I didn't put that in there. Under Use of Wood, proposed new subsection 7(1.1) would read:

In awarding contracts for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

That's basically it. It does state a clear preference for using wood, but that decision would be predicated on two tests, one that looks at the overall cost to the project and the materials used, and the other looking at the carbon footprint of the project.

I'm just going to open with a short piece on why I chose this bill and why I decided to move ahead with it. It's because this bill brings together several themes that are important to me and, I think, to many Canadians. One is the support for the forest sector in Canada. This is one of the big natural resource sectors across our country, which built our country. It's important in almost every province. I don't need to go into much detail on why the forest sector needs our support. It's had several challenges in recent years, but suffice it to say that if we can develop new markets for our forest sector, both domestically and internationally, I think we can maintain and grow our forest industries, creating jobs and wealth across the country.

Second, it speaks specifically to the important role that buildings play in our carbon footprint as a country, as a society, and therefore, the important role they must play in our efforts to significantly reduce that footprint.

Third, although it's not specifically mentioned in the bill—but you all know it around this table—it's meant to promote engineered wood or mass timber construction. This innovative technology is taking hold in North America with the leading manufacturers being in Canada, both in British Columbia and Quebec. These companies, and others like them, would greatly benefit from government procurement that allowed them to grow and maintain this leading position in the continental market.

Now, there are other models of this bill out there. This is not a new idea. For one thing, there have been several bills like this that have been tabled in the House of Commons before, in past Parliaments. There are several pieces of legislation in provinces, notably in British Columbia and Quebec, and other countries, especially Europe. I would like to touch on some of these.

The first is the B.C. Wood First Act. This is an act that was brought in, in British Columbia, in 2009. Again, it's a fairly short and succinct piece of legislation, and the one paragraph that is really sort of half of that bill says:

The purpose of this Act is to facilitate a culture of wood by requiring the use of wood as the primary building material in all new provincially funded buildings, in a manner consistent with the building regulations within the meaning of the Building Act.

It simply says that there should be a preference for using wood in provincially funded infrastructure. The Wood First Act has been successful in creating that culture of building with wood in British Columbia.

Michael Green, who appeared before us in our study on the value added aspects of the forest industry, is an architect, and he said that the Wood First Act has “made a big difference simply because it introduces the concept into the conversation”.

Bill Downing of Structurlam, one of the two main companies building mass timber products in Canada, said that the bill was a wake-up call that prompted B.C. architects, engineers, and contractors to consider wood in their projects and that it would be very helpful if the federal government did the same on a national scale.

Quebec also has a policy promoting the use of wood in government infrastructure called the Wood Charter and it states that:

in every project financed wholly or partly by public funds, the project manager must consider the possibility of using wood before the project begins, and must carry out a comparative analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for different materials.

It goes on to say:

A greenhouse gas emission measurement tool, which uses the tried-and-tested life cycle analysis method, is available to all professionals who wish to compare wood with other construction materials. The tool is reliable, effective and easy to use, and produces objective, standardized results that are easy to compare.

Other countries have similar policies. France offers incentives for meeting embodied carbon and net zero energy targets and has a plan to move from 5% wood buildings to 30% over the next 30 years. Other European countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K., require or promote full life cycle analysis and embodied carbon reporting for many or all large building projects.

I'm just going to go on with a few of the concerns I've heard about this bill in debate in the House. I think there are really three main areas. One is about fire safety. I just have to say that these mass timber buildings are very different from the wood stick construction, the two-by-four wood frame buildings. Numerous tests have shown them to be as safe or safer than standard steel and concrete construction.

The NRC performed tests on walls and floors that were built by Nordic Structures, which is the main company in Quebec that produces these products, before they constructed a 13-story building called Origine in Quebec. The walls and floors resisted fire for the three and a half hours of the test at 1,200 degrees Celsius, far longer than the standard two hours that is required for that test.

Another test used a mock-up of rooms with stair and elevator shafts, and in spite of a full scale blaze in the room there was no detectable increase in temperature or smoke in the vertical shaft.

In British Columbia, where several buildings have been constructed using this method, fire chiefs are generally comfortable with mass timber construction and I hope we can get one of them here before us to talk about that. In fact, one of the newly built wood buildings in the province is the Qualicum Beach fire hall.

Another theme in the concerns I've heard is about trade and exposure to trade concerns, free trade agreements where there might be some issues about restricting what we build our buildings with. I assume we would have heard about these trade concerns if there are any legitimate ones. We've had a B.C. Wood First Act for nine years. No one who I know of has come forward with issues about that, and the same with the Quebec policies. I think in this litigious atmosphere we live in, in terms of other countries going to the WTO or NAFTA, we would have heard about concerns on those policies.

This bill specifically does not use the word...it's a use wood bill, it's not a use Canadian wood bill. I think that protects it as well. If we said, you must use Canadian wood to build buildings, then I think we might hear some complaints. It might have some serious trade implications.

I also think that the dual test of the cost and the carbon footprint of the project will allay other trade agreement concerns, but we'll hear from department witnesses on that. I've heard from British Columbia that they feel their act stands that test because they don't say “use B.C. wood”. I've heard from the Forest Products Association of Canada that it's that dual test that is also useful in protecting trade concerns.

The other concern I've heard is that this bill picks winners and losers. It says that we should prefer to use wood and not other products like concrete or steel. Of course, those industries will likely express some concerns about that.

To that I would say, first, building large buildings with wood is a very new thing. Only about 5% of our buildings use wood as a structural component, so even if we doubled or tripled that market share, it wouldn't affect the cement and steel industries significantly.

Second, in talking to the cement industry, they came to my offices and perhaps to yours as well with a specific ask of the government. Their ask was that they wanted projects to be looked at with the dual lens of carbon footprint and overall lifetime cost. That's exactly what this bill asks. Cement feels that they would do well in that test, and that would be great. If they use those lifetime cost analyses and come out ahead, then I think that's great because it will have achieved what I think is really important in our building, and that is to reduce our greenhouse gases, our carbon footprint. I would be happy, and they would be happy.

Third, most of the buildings using this mass timber construction are hybrid buildings of some sort. The first floor is often fully concrete. They use steel in the elevator shafts. A lot of them use cement in flooring for sound issues and heating. These buildings will use a lot of those other materials as well, so all sectors would benefit from this new construction.

I'll just close by saying that this bill is about giving wood a chance. We are facing a dramatic change in how we construct buildings, and Canadian companies are on the forefront of that change now in North America. Europe is way ahead of us. Government procurement would allow that sector to grow and maintain the leadership position. We need to actively promote the use of wood in new buildings during this shift, so that we don't lose out to American and European products and technologies.

This bill is about nurturing that culture of using and building with wood; creating beautiful, safe buildings with a low carbon footprint; and supporting the Canadian forest industry from coast to coast.

Thank you.

[Michael McSweeney, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cement Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members, for this great opportunity to address you today on what our industry feels is society's greatest challenge, which is the fight against climate change and how we tackle that through reducing greenhouse gases from the industry building sector and the transportation sector.

The cement and concrete industry represents a direct and indirect economic contribution of about $73 billion to Canada, and we employ about 151,000 Canadians. Our industry supports strong action on climate change, including putting a price on carbon. As of this year, all cement facilities in Canada but one operate in a province that already has a price on carbon.

As governments move towards carbon pricing, they have had to consider the impact of carbon pricing on competitiveness, especially for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries. Cement is among the most trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries in Canada, and we are very vulnerable to our competitors in the import and export markets that do not have similar carbon-pricing systems, such as almost the entire United States, with the exception of California.

Thankfully, though, with the exception of British Columbia, carbon-pricing systems across Canada, including the federal backstop carbon-pricing system, on the whole strike the right balance between incentivizing emissions reductions while introducing other measures to protect and even enhance Canadian industry and competitiveness as we transition to the low-carbon economy.

Why are carbon pricing and energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries important to a discussion about climate change and the built environment? Because, while well-designed carbon-pricing systems can foster low-carbon innovation in industries that support Canada's built environment, these innovations cannot flourish in a policy environment that does not actively pull them into the built environment decision-making discussion.

Consider that, on aggregate, all three levels of government purchase, directly and indirectly, some 60% of all building materials consumed in Canada, and concrete makes up the majority of those building materials. Further consider that our building and energy codes are minimum codes. Our building codes are not the gold standard that you or most Canadians believe them to be, and unless they are significantly changed, they will serve to impede low-carbon innovation, not accelerate it, as Michael Giroux mentioned in his comments.

Procurement decisions made by governments in general emphasize low-cost tenders. We always award tenders to the lowest-cost bidder, and only rarely do they ever consider GHGs or climate adaptation. When governments have considered climate change in a built environment, they've done so with prescriptive policies—for example, policies like “wood first”, rather than leveraging markets towards comprehensive and systemic clean energy or clean growth innovation.

Let me offer an example. Our sector recently came together in total across Canada to promote a new cement, portland-limestone cement, as an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases from concrete. Portland-limestone cement will reduce the GHG footprint by 10% at no cost. If adopted as a full replacement for all cement sold in Canada, portland-limestone cement could yield annual CO2 reductions of almost one megatonne and, as I said, at no additional cost.

While portland-limestone cement meets the same performance standards as general use cement, has been used in Europe for decades, and is recognized in the 2010 national building code of Canada, it does not enjoy deep penetration across Canada. This is because construction industry codes and standards bodies in the public procurement agencies responsible for planning and commissioning infrastructure projects do not yet value or incentivize new innovations in the low-carbon construction materials and design industry.

Governments, as purchasers of more than half of all concrete produced in Canada, with the stroke of a pen could make portland-limestone cement the default cement in the majority of all projects across Canada, yet our industry's efforts to get this done are inexorably rebuffed. With this one innovation, we can address about 2% of the emissions gap that this government has identified and needs to fill to realize our 2030 target.

Pavement infrastructure offers an important example. Robust third-party life-cycle assessments irrefutably demonstrate the cost and climate benefits of concrete pavements over asphalt pavements. Asphalt pavements last seven to 12 years. Concrete pavements last 40 to 50 years, cost less over their life, and can actually improve fuel efficiency by 7%. These properties alone could result in savings of up to 12,000 tonnes of GHGs per lane kilometre over a 50-year lifespan, compared with a typical asphalt road.

Contrast those two examples with the incessant political interventions in building codes across Canada and the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by federal and provincial governments, being poured into championing wood products, especially tall wood buildings, as a significant carbon mitigation strategy. You can then see where our exasperation lies.

The implications of such policies on the built environment, including the prospect of a robust, open, and competitive market-driven clean growth strategy for buildings and building materials, are profound, yet the underlying assumption that wood buildings yield net carbon benefits over alternatives has never, ever been fully articulated, let alone subject to a comprehensive peer review. This is all the more troubling considering the increasingly well-documented shortcomings with the current understandings of the carbon profile of wood products.

Research on GHG impacts of commercial logging suggests the effect on the carbon profile of wood products is significant. A Bureau of Land Management report in western Oregon proposes that when land-use change impacts of deforestation are taken into account, even accounting for regrowth, some 13 tonnes of greenhouse gases are lost to the atmosphere for every tonne sequestered in a wood product. That's a far cry from the carbon neutrality claimed by the wood industry and federal and provincial natural resource ministries.

You can therefore understand our frustration when we saw in budget 2017 that this government is spending some $40 million to support preferential treatment of wood building materials at the expense of other building materials across our country, or recently, your vote on Bill C-354, which has passed second reading, attempting to tilt the playing field towards wood in government infrastructure despite a growing body of evidence that this in fact may increase greenhouse gas emissions and make our buildings more vulnerable to climate change.

In Canada, the most significant carbon impacts from buildings relate to heating and cooling. These operational energy needs account for over 90% of the global warming potential for buildings. Even if the claims the wood industry makes that they are carbon neutral were true, and they're not, the impact that the substitution of wood for steel or concrete would have on the life-cycle emissions of a structure would be marginal. In fact, concrete's thermal mass capabilities can play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing operational demands. Today, the strategic use of thermal mass has reduced operational energy needs of large commercial buildings, such as Manitoba Hydro Place, by over 70%.

We need stronger building codes. We need stronger energy codes, and concrete can play a significant role in affordable strategies to meet the much sought-after net-zero building target. Only a robust cradle-to-cradle life-cycle cost and life-cycle climate change assessment can draw out these GHGs and cost-saving performance attributes. Policies by politicians that favour one building material over another without considering the whole are definitely not in the public interest.

More exciting but less understood is the role that concrete will play in the emerging game-changing class of technologies known as “carbon dioxide utilization”. Concrete is a critical source and sink for captured carbon. By virtue of the sheer volume of concrete consumed every year, more than any other material on earth with the exception of water, our sector will be pivotal in developing technologies that will ultimately reduce carbon.

Canada's clean growth strategy for the built environment must look to the future it wants, a low-carbon climate-resilient future, and make space for transformative innovations that will get us there.

Let me be clear. We're not asking for government to mandate concrete roads or buildings, nor are we disparaging the competition from other building materials. We are simply asking that government take a sector-neutral approach to planning and using tools focusing on GHGs as we transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient economies.

In conclusion, our primary request is that you recommend that the Government of Canada mandate the use of full life-cycle and environmental assessments for all federally funded infrastructure projects at all three levels of government.

Thank you.

[Robert Larocque, Senior Vice-President, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Copies of my remarks are available for committee members if you wish to have them.

My name is Robert Larocque, and I am the senior vice-president at the Forest Products Association of Canada. I'm very pleased to be here today to further discuss the connections between the traditional forest industry and innovators who are seeking to capitalize on new markets and technology innovation.

In my remarks today, I will focus on the supply of forest resources, demand for advanced forest bioproducts and services, and a possible role for the federal government to accelerate the bioeconomy in Canada.

I would like to remind the committee that the Forest Product Association of Canada provides a voice for Canada’s wood, pulp and paper producers, nationally and internationally, in government, trade and environmental affairs, as well as on the topic we will be discussing today, the increasing speed of the bioeconomy in Canada.

I would like to provide the committee with the status of where we stand today in regard to forest resource uses and bioproducts innovation. Based on “The State of the Forest Report 2017”, the forest products sector harvested 160 million cubic metres of wood to produce 77 million cubic metres of wood products and 23 million tonnes of pulp and paper products. The sector also produced 12 million cubic metres of wood residue, which is mainly used to generate clean electricity at our facilities. Natural Resources Canada has evaluated that there are currently 25 million cubic metres of wood residue that could be used to produce new products. The sector currently employs more than 230,000 Canadians and supports more than 600 communities, mostly in rural Canada.

The sector has also invested over $2 billion in innovation over the last decade. By innovating, the industry has already greatly improved its competitiveness and expanded its product and process portfolio.

An impressive array of innovation examples exists across the country and across every segment of the sector. Some highlights include production of clean energy across Canada; new materials and advanced building systems that revolutionize the construction and carbon footprint of larger buildings and structures in the built environment, such as cross-laminated timber; new chemicals, such as nanocrystalline cellulose, cellulosic filaments, or biosourced chemicals that add new valuable characteristics and renewable properties to everyday products such as solvents, insulations, paints, and cleaners; novel product developments, such as wood fibre in composite car parts, electronics, and sensors; and development of new tools and information, such as forestry genomics and enhanced forest inventories, to support long-term forest health and security of fibre.

A critically important success factor to date has been the strong partnership and collaboration that the federal and provincial governments have forged with the industry to develop and support innovation across the forest product supply chain. From facilitating global research collaborations to partnering with industry to support FPInnovations to providing clear funding support for first-in-kind commercialization projects such as the investment in forest industry transformation program, IFIT, and market access-specific supports such as the expanding market opportunities program, the federal government has contributed significantly to the innovation performance of this sector.

In terms of our traditional products such as timber, pulp and paper, I would like to emphasize the need to continue supporting the sector so that we can be assured of a prosperous future.

We are grateful for the current efforts in innovation, in international trade, and in infrastructure products, and they must be maintained. But new supply chains, in which the sector can produce biofuels, biomaterials and tall wood buildings, are within our grasp.

One of the key factors for a prosperous forest sector in the future is to ensure a sustainable, stable, and economic access to fibre from our Canadian forests. Climate change impacts such as increased forest fires and pest infestation have a significant impact on Canadians, our communities, and the forest industry. We also believe that more can be done to make sure our forests stay more resilient and ensure long-term sustainability based on three broad themes: research and development, policies, and support.

Concerning research and development, we must continue to study the long-term potential climate change impacts, such as through modelling of forest fires and pest infestation; enhance our forest inventory methods; accelerate innovation in our forest harvesting practices and equipment; and optimize the Internet of things by expanding the communication capabilities in the forest—for example, by having movable cell towers where forest is harvested. As we harvest at different locations, you can move those cell towers to ensure communication.

With regard to policies, we need to start now to implement climate-resilient solutions, such as FireSmart communities; work with our provincial counterparts to modify our forest management activities to allow for selecting and planting trees, based on changing climate conditions; and evaluate and modify current forest management plans to take into consideration climate change impacts.

Withregard to support, more government support is required to ensure a healthy forest. Currently, most federal funding programs are tailored to mill capital investment support, with significantly fewer funds for forest innovation. Furthermore, current carbon policies are only focused on energy. The same financial support or credits should be available for forest projects that either reduce GHG emissions—for example, forest fires—or improve the amount of carbon a forest absorbs—for example, afforestation.

FPAC believes that now is the time to consult across Canada to develop a series of recommendations and potential actions that we can all take to minimize climate change impact on the forest, enhance forest management, and remove policy barriers to ensure a healthy and resilient forest.

It is also important to highlight those currently proposed federal government policies and decisions that could affect the supply of forest resources. Carbon policies such as a clean fuel standard and implementation of key recommendations from the forest bioeconomy framework will put an additional demand on forest biomass, while species at risk and conservation decisions could reduce the amount of biomass available for harvest. While the use of biomass is beneficial to address climate change, accelerate the bioeconomy, and support a healthy forest products sector, it is critical that we evaluate and work together on all those policies and decisions to understand the overall impact on the supply of forest resources.

Assuming we have a healthy and resilient forest, the sector is well positioned to develop advanced forest bioproducts, and the federal government can play a role that will accelerate the bioeconomy in Canada. One key role the federal government can take is to lead the implementation of the forest bioeconomy framework recently announced by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, CCFM.

FPAC supports the ministers' four key pillars: communities and relationships; supply of forest resources and advanced bioproducts; demand for advanced bioproducts—for example, creating new value chains; and continued support for innovation. We look forward to working with the CCFM in the implementation of the framework.

The sector's road to full transition to a low-carbon economy will create new secondary supply chains. In the transportation sector, it could be as a supplier of biofuels; in the energy sector, as a supplier of renewable natural gas; in sustainable living, as supplier of products used by Canadians in their day-to-day lives, producing bioplastics, nanomaterials, and car parts; and in new construction, through construction of tall wood buildings made of engineered wood with wood fibre insulation, but to get there, we must work together.

Current funding like Sustainable Development Technology Canada, IFIT, or even recently the clean growth fund, which are necessary, focus on capital investment for new technologies at the mills. Moving forward, it is crucial that we modify or create new policies and funding programs to accelerate access to new markets and value chains.

Providing support for product testing—for example, compatibility and quality of the bioproduct— small-scale trials at the user's facility, or funds for testing equipment—for example, trial engines that run on biofuels—is critical to opening new markets in the supply chain. The supercluster concept did provide that support, but unfortunately, the biodesign supercluster proposal from the forest products sector was not successful.

The federal government can also show leadership by accelerating the implementation of the greening government strategy announced just before Christmas. The strategy shows promise, but implementation will be key. I would also like today to acknowledge and congratulate committee member MP Cannings on his private member's bill, Bill C-354, which passed second reading in the House yesterday. This bill proposing to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that, in the wording of certain contracts, preference be given to projects that promote the use of wood, while taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, is another great example of federal government leadership.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the governments, our communities, and our academic and indigenous partners who have contributed to the initiation of our forest sector's transformation. With programs such as IFIT and the clean growth program, government vision through the forest bioeconomy framework, and partners such as FPInnovations, we are moving towards a fully transformed sector, but to really accelerate it we must capitalize on economic and job growth, ensuring vital benefits. We all need to work together to ensure sustainable and healthy forests, maintain current programs for the forest sector facilities, and accelerate access to new markets and value chains.

Thank you very much for your attention. I will be happy to answer your questions.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of a deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-354.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to reply to the second reading debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act with regard to the use of wood in government infrastructure. I want to begin by thanking all the members who have taken part in the debate. I really appreciate that engagement, and all the views that have been put forward.

This is a critical time for our forest industry and for our fight against climate change. This bill could play an important role in both those issues.

The bill is timely, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said, because we are at the cusp of a significant change in how we construct buildings. For over a century, large building have been built with concrete and steel. While that will continue for years to come, we have new engineered wood, or mass timber technology that can replace some or all of the concrete and steel in buildings. This is a very small part of the construction market right now, but Canadian manufacturers of engineered wood are industry leaders in North America. They just need a foot in the door to maintain and grow that position.

We need to provide direction to the government to consider wood when building large infrastructure, since, until now, it has only had concrete and steel to look to. It is not used to turning to wood as an option. We need it to turn and have a look at wood when making those decisions.

This bill simply asks the federal government to put the project materials to two important tests. The first test is the overall lifetime cost of the materials. The second test is the impact those materials would have on the carbon footprint of a building. The bill seeks to balance those two costs, the dollars and cents cost and the environmental cost. It is very similar to the wood first bill, enacted in 2009 in British Columbia, and the government procurement policies in Quebec that promote the use of wood.

In answer to what the member for Gatineau said, the bills are very similar, and they have stood the test of international trade agreements.

Off the top, I would like to discuss the two main criticisms I have heard about the bill and explain why they should not be of any real concern.

One is that it picks winners and losers, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan alleged just now. People say that it distorts the market. It does not do that at all. It simply asks the government to look carefully at the real costs and climate costs when choosing the best structural products. In fact, the cement industry recently asked the federal government to use exactly the same dual lens, lifetime costs and greenhouse gas emissions, when choosing structural products for infrastructure.

The second concern I hear is about fire safety of tall wood buildings. The fact is that mass wood buildings are as fire safe, or safer, than those built with steel and concrete. Those that have been built already have been designed with direct involvement and sign-off by fire chiefs. Remember, we are not talking about stick-frame buildings here. Fire acts completely differently when it encounters a beam that is a metre thick than when it encounters a 2x4. It is like sticking a match to a big log.

What are the advantages of building with mass timber? Why should the federal government want to use wood as well as the conventional steel and concrete?

First, wood sequesters carbon, and tall wood buildings can play a significant role in reaching our climate action targets. Each cubic metre of wood in a building acts to sequester one tonne of carbon.

Second, wood buildings can be built economically and efficiently, since they are typically constructed off site, then reassembled on site as each section is needed. Each piece is made with a precision unattainable with normal structural products. Engineered wood products can be exported to the United States without softwood lumber tariffs, and as other members have said here, wood buildings are beautiful.

Climate action demands a lower carbon footprint for our infrastructure, the forest industry needs more markets, and the mass timber revolution offers a means to fill both those needs. Wood buildings are safe, cost competitive, beautiful, and they fight climate change.

I am encouraged to hear words from the government side about sending the bill to committee for closer study. I really look forward to that. I ask all members here to support Bill C-354 to foster the engineered wood sector in Canada and keep our forest industry sustainable and strong.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate on Bill C-354. It is a bill that seeks to encourage the use of more wood in construction. Up to this point in the debate, members have talked about their belief in the importance of the forestry sector.

A debate like this provides members with an opportunity to attest to their love for wood and their love for the forestry sector. However, what distinguishes our party is that when we were in government, we actually took action to support the forestry sector. When Conservatives were in government, it was not just a matter of words and professions but a matter of concrete steps that we took to ensure the health and vitality of Canada's forestry sector.

I had the pleasure of working as a political staffer for the then industry minister, a current member who is doing a great job still. In the context of the financial crisis in 2008-09, the work that he did and that we were able to do as his political staff to support Canada's forestry sector through those difficult economic times were a great credit to the last government. Frankly, the current government is far behind where we were in terms of understanding and appreciating the value of Canada's forestry sector.

When it comes to this particular bill, I generally do not like the words “virtue signal”, because I think they bring virtue ethics as a philosophical concept into disrepute, but they are often used when individuals want to signal their support for an idea, cause, or group but are not actually taking the right or necessary substantive actions to support them. There is an effort to send a signal but there are problems with the detail and a lack of action on substance.

The bill, in particular, would add language to the the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, which would say the following:

In awarding contracts for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, there is not a huge amount of clarity on the mechanism, the way in which the minister would give preference, taking into account other things, but it certainly does seek to direct and in a certain sense limit the flexibility of action for a minister, who I think most Canadians would agree should be looking at the best value for taxpayers, the best long-term value, as well as taking into consideration the broader public interest issues like environmental well-being and impacts on communities. All of these things are and should be taken into consideration.

However, the bill in a way seeks to give preference for one kind of building material over another. Of course, there are a range of other building materials that are produced in Canada that benefit Canadian workers, families, and communities. Therefore, it is not obvious to me why we should write into legislation a requirement to preference one kind of building material over another.

Members have given eloquent speeches about the benefits of wood, and I applaud those members and I applaud those sentiments. However, certainly, given all of those benefits, a specific preference written into legislation is not needed. In recognizing those benefits, the environmental benefits and the benefits to the Canadian economy, when decisions are made on the basis of an objective criteria between different building materials, the best option should always rise to the top if there is an effective, dispassionate analysis of the merits of different types of proposals.

Our inclination would be to not introduce into legislation a particular preference for a particular kind of industry over another industry, especially recognizing our obligations in terms of international trade and recognizing that Canadians work in different kinds of industries. It is not for the government to be trying to pick who the winner and loser will be in that kind of competition. Rather, it is in the public interest for these evaluations to happen in an objective way.

Any time we introduce additional considerations, additional factors to consider, besides that clear objective public interest analysis, it adds potential costs and leads to a situation where, because of a presumed preference, an outcome might be different from what it would have otherwise been if the criteria had been a simple evaluation of which material makes the most sense in the context of this particular project. We in the Conservative Party strongly support the forestry sector, but we do not think that support has to involve hurting other sectors. We do not believe in what seems to be a bit of a tendency on the economic left to believe that wealth is finite and that if we give support to one person we have to take it away from someone else. We think that governments should develop economic policies that benefit all sectors rather than choosing one sector over another.

The kinds of initiatives that we undertook when we were in government to support the forestry sector were on that basis. We sought international trade opportunities that would benefit all Canadian sectors. We lowered taxes in order to benefit all Canadian sectors. We lowered business taxes. We lowered the small business tax. We cut employment insurance premiums. We sought to remove regulations that prevented all sectors from succeeding in this country.

We now have a government that wants to go in the opposite direction. The Liberals are nickelling and diming all sectors. They are raising taxes through their new national carbon tax proposal. The initial proposal was to raise the small business tax rate. Then they unbroke the breaking of that promise. Across the board we see efforts by the government to impose new regulatory as well as tax burdens on all sectors. I am sorry to say that it simply is not good enough for the Liberals to try to come back from that disastrous record and say to the forestry sector, “As much as we are overburdening you with new taxes, we are going to have an ambiguous section of this bill that is going to involve giving some preference to the forestry sector over other sectors.” I say let us work on policies that will mean a rising tide lifts all boats whether they are made of wood or not.

In terms of the specific issues that the government needs to address and has failed to address thus far, one of the clearest areas affecting Canada's forestry sector is the total failure of the government to effectively engage on the international trade front. Let us contrast that with the work done under the previous government. When Stephen Harper became prime minister, he immediately said to the Americans that addressing the softwood lumber issue was a core priority. He said that directly to the president of the United States, and within a few months they got it done. The then prime minister secured a good deal for Canada, and one that lasted a very long time, until we had a new government.

The current Prime Minister has thus far dealt with two different presidents in the United States, two presidents who, dare I say, are relatively different in their approach and outlook. The first president that the current government dealt with was President Obama. We heard a lot about bromance and “dudeplomacy”. Unfortunately, this “dudeplomacy” did not get us anywhere. The diplomacy part of “dudeplomacy” was totally missing from the Prime Minister's engagement with President Obama, so he did not get it done. In the infamous words of Michael Ignatieff, he “did not get it done”. Now we have President Trump, a different president, again with no progress or results with respect to the softwood lumber issue.

The government wants to try and send a signal. It is loading up this industry with more and more taxes. It is failing to stand up for its interests with respect to international trade. It dropped the ball with President Obama. It is dropping the ball again. Now the government is saying, “We have an idea. We will support this change to the procurement rules that suggests we might, in certain circumstances, give a preference for wood.” That is not good enough. The government should stop simply trying to send signals and should start doing its job by standing up for Canada's forestry sector.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start off by commending my friend and colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay for bringing forward this legislation. It demonstrates not only to his constituents but to the people of British Columbia, and to people across this great country who are involved in the wood industry, that we can bring forward practical solutions to support the work they do to promote what is truly a sustainable industry.

I have had my own personal involvement in this industry, although in only one section of it. In a previous life, I had the honour of working as a tree planter in British Columbia's forests for eight years. I have planted trees everywhere, from Kamloops to Merritt to Prince George to northern Vancouver Island. I have had an incredible glimpse of the wonderful province I call home.

We have had bad forestry practices in the past, but those practices have largely changed. I have seen, from my own point of view planting trees, that forestry companies really are taking in what consumers want. They want certification, because they know that a lot of the people who buy wood products are looking for wood that is harvested in a sustainable manner.

Across this great country, thousands of Canadians either directly or indirectly make a living working in this important industry.

Let us look at what Bill C-354 purports to do.

The bill would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that in the awarding of certain contracts, preference be given to projects that promote the use of wood. We can see that in the bill. It would add, after subsection 7(1), proposed subsection 7(1.1).

It has been noted in a few speeches, but it should be noted again, that great advances have been made in tall wood construction. We now know that with today's technology, it is possible to construct large, safe wood buildings quickly and economically.

Building with wood produces lower greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters more carbon than other products. This can really help Canada achieve its greenhouse gas targets under the Paris agreement. That is something all members and many citizens of this country want us to do with sound policies.

In my own neck of the woods, in coastal British Columbia, the forestry sector has had very tough times over the last several decades. Given the difficulties the forestry sector has faced over the past 20 years, innovation and new developments, such as those that allow this kind of construction, offer a path forward for the future health of this sector. As the largest procurer in Canada, the federal government can give this sector a major boost by using this cutting edge technology at home.

Most of the sawmills in my riding of Cowichan--Malahat--Langford are operated by Western Forest Products, which has facilities up and down Vancouver Island. It has a total number of employees of just over 2,000, based on 2012 figures. It might even be higher by now. The company has sold over $1 billion in products both at home and abroad.

There is a sawmill in my riding in Cowichan Bay. There are two facilities in Chemainus. In the last election, and even since then, I have had the pleasure of getting to know many of the men and women, proud unionized members of the United Steelworkers, who operate those facilities. They have good-paying jobs. They have the ability to live in our communities, raise families, and contribute to the local economy, all because of the focal point of those important sawmills in my riding, and I am sure within the ridings of many hon. members in the chamber.

People are a critical part of the wood processing industry. That includes everyone from employees to the people who live in the communities where they operate. Many people, directly or indirectly, depend on the sustainability of the business. They continually build the business, protect the tenure they have, and work co-operatively with external agencies and groups on progressive approaches to policy and operations.

I believe that the industry has come a long way and is very much committed to the communities in which it works, through employment, through sponsorships, and various operational public forums such as our public advisory groups. We know that the employees are the heart of any business operation. They are dedicated to safety, to professionalism, to their co-workers, stakeholders, and customers. They have a unique skill set which they use to achieve excellence.

I want to say a few things about wood itself as a building material. First of all, it is beautiful. Each piece of wood is a unique creation of nature. It is a fascinating process that allows such a small seedling, which I had the honour of planting throughout British Columbia, to grow into a massive and mighty giant, and from which we can derive such an amazing material. It is durable. It offers more strength in proportion to its weight than any other material. It is renewable. All the trees are harvested sustainably in sustainably managed timberlands, and they are renewed through reforestation. That is part of the law in the province of British Columbia, that every company that harvests timber is responsible for replanting it.

It is also an environmentally friendly product. It is a low-impact green alternative to energy intensive building materials, such as concrete, aluminum, steel, and vinyl, which all must be manufactured from non-renewable resources using petroleum and other carbon intensive resources in the production. I do not want to say that we should stop using those other products, but if we are serious as a nation in finding a sustainable building material that will help us achieve our goals in greenhouse gas reduction, wood is the first place to be looking.

It is biodegradable and recyclable. Wood products decompose and naturally return to the environment, unlike most manufactured or composite building materials, which can end up spending hundreds of years in landfills. It is reusable, whether as beams or compost products. It is also a natural insulator. It insulates against heat and cold which saves energy. In fact, wood is 400 times more effective as insulation than steel, and 1,800 times more effective than aluminum.

One of the big things we have seen in the debate tonight is the importance for carbon storage. Forests absorb carbon dioxide emissions that are part of the greenhouse gases connected to climate change, and store carbon in the fibre of the wood that they grow. The structures that are built from wood products continue to store this carbon while healthy young forests continue to absorb it.

Consumers, retailers, investors, and communities are taking an increased interest in how their buying decisions affect the environment for future generations. That is something that, as the father of young children, I am very much concerned with. Considering factors beyond the traditional attributes of price, service, and quality, when all of wood's positive attributes are factored in, it is obvious that wood is a good choice.

I see that my time is starting to run low, so I will begin my conclusion. I will note that in the federal government's budget 2017, it provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, which will begin in fiscal year 2018-19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. I believe that bringing this forward is our way of calling on the government to act on a good idea that it already supports in a very reasonable way. It will allow us to show our important support for the forestry communities across Canada, and those who work in the industry, while reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

In closing, I want to again thank my friend and colleague for bringing forward this important bill. From what I have seen so far, I think there is general support from all of the major parties, especially from members who are lucky to have forestry communities within their ridings. I very much look forward to seeing the bill proceed to committee. That is where the hon. members of the committee can do the important work, hear from witnesses, and get the factual basis for why it is a good idea for the federal government to move forward on.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I am pleased to rise in the House once again.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, use of wood.

I would like to thank the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for putting this bill forward. I enjoyed our time in Kelowna discovering bookstores. I think we spent a day on the finance committee. It was a great pleasure to get to know him.

I fully agree with the spirit and intent of this proposed legislation, as it aligns well with the government's goals of supporting the Canadian forest industry and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I listened to my colleague and friend from Trois-Rivières, and I appreciate his teaching skills. I also appreciate his romanticism over forestry. I share this romanticism since my own region, the Outaouais in Quebec, was also built essentially on wood, log drivers and forestry workers. My colleague spoke about the CIP and we also have a CIP tradition in Gatineau. I very much saw myself reflected in what he said. I thank him for his speech.

First, let me speak to the motivation behind the bill, which is the desire to support the Canadian forest industry, an objective the government certainly shares.

Few countries are more bound to their forests than Canada is. Our forestry sector helped build our country and contributes significantly to the Canada of today. It is an industry that accounted for $22 billion of Canada's gross domestic product last year alone.

It also has a significant impact on more than 170 rural municipalities with economies that are tightly bound to the paper industry, pulp and paper plants, and other areas of the forestry industry. The industry employs more than 200,000 Canadians.

This includes 9,500 jobs in indigenous communities, making this industry one of the leading employers of indigenous people.

Our government is looking to the future and is proud to do its part to help the forestry sector to innovate and continue to be a vital component of our communities and our economy.

I would also remind hon. members that the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change requires that the federal, provincial, and territorial governments collaborate in promoting the greater use of wood in construction. Part of this promotion will involve updating the building codes.

This approach avoids the challenges that come with trade and supply. The 2015 National Building Code of Canada normally authorizes the construction of wood frame buildings as tall as six storeys.

However, Natural Resources Canada is supporting research and development to have the updates to the code in 2020 and 2025 authorize the construction of wood frame buildings as tall as 12 storeys.

Natural Resources Canada is also leading demonstration projects, in conjunction with industry, to encourage acceptance of high-rise wood buildings and to boost Canada's position as a global leader in wood-building construction.

I have talked about wood as a building material. I would now like to turn members' attention to areas where wood plays a part in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, another worthy component of the bill.

As we know, the government has recently committed to reducing GHG emissions from federal buildings and fleets by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. In support of the federal sustainable development strategy, PSPC is making government operations more sustainable through green building practices and other initiatives. I have been very impressed by the work of our officials in this regard.

One such initiative is the energy services acquisition program, which is well known here in our capital region, through which we are modernizing the heating and cooling system that serves about 80 buildings in Ottawa and Gatineau, including many of the buildings on and around Parliament Hill. A pilot project being carried out in advance of this modernization effort is testing woodchips for use as a possible biomass fuel. The result of this pilot project will help determine the potential for expanding this option to other federal heating and cooling plants.

PSPC is actually leading the way in embedding environmental considerations, and specifically greenhouse gas reductions, into the design and approval stages of its proposed projects.

I am pleased to say that in support of the commitment to a low-carbon government, PSPC is the first federal department to complete a national carbon-neutral portfolio plan. As such, the department now factors greenhouse gas emissions into its decisions on energy-related real property projects, from new roofs to updated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.

All of this is to say that there is much that we are already doing in the course of our real property operations at PSPC to support the use of wood and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I want to thank the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for introducing this bill, which will be another tool for achieving these objectives. That said, this bill would conflict with certain principles and policies and well-established, sensitive obligations of the Government of Canada, and therefore Canadians, and it may have unintended consequences. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources should consider amending Bill C-354 yet maintain the general objectives to resolve the following problems.

The proposed bill states that “the Minister shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Though well intentioned, this provision raises some issues, two of which I will mention in particular.

The first issue relates to the Government of Canada's commitment to fairness, openness, and transparency in the procurement process, principles that are deeply enshrined in the Public Services and Procurement Canada policy. As much as Canadians no doubt want their government to support a sector as important as forestry, and we do, they also expect the government to adhere to the principle of fairness in procurement. With this in mind, we have to ask ourselves whether a minister who represents all economic sectors and all Canadians can realistically give preference to one building material over all others. If this bill were to pass as currently written, we would eventually find ourselves debating similar bills calling for similar preferences for other commodities.

The second issue I want to raise is how this bill would interact with Canada's trade obligations. This is an important consideration in federal procurement. Depending on how the provisions of Bill C-354 are interpreted and applied, the bill could be at odds with Canada's obligations under key trade agreements, such as the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

For example, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement prohibits discrimination against the goods or services of a particular province or region. With Bill C-354 giving preference to projects that promote the use of wood, it may be interpreted as discriminating against those regions that do not supply wood.

The bill could also be interpreted as setting out a technical specification in terms of a "design or descriptive characteristic" rather than ''in terms of performance and functional requirements", or referring to a particular type of material for which no alternative is permitted. This, in turn, could be interpreted as "creating unnecessary obstacles to trade" under article 509, paragraph 1 of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.

NAFTA, too, prohibits any technical specification with the purpose or effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to trade.

This is not even an exhaustive list of possible trade implications.

At the same time, let us not forget that the government is already an important consumer of wood products in the form of furniture. Public Services and Procurement Canada policy requires contractors to propose materials that meet the needs of a project, including the criteria of durability and performance, and that comply with the National Building Code of Canada.

In addition to being elegant, wood is a solid, durable, environmentally friendly, and sustainable material. Approximately 15% of the average annual $160 million allocated by Public Services and Procurement Canada on interior design and furnishing is spent on wood products.

While Bill C-354 poses practical challenges in its current form, its goals are sound. With the co-operation and collaboration of all members in this House, it could be amended so as not to contradict long-standing federal principles and policies. The Government of Canada is committed to leaving future generations of Canadians a sustainable and prosperous country.

I therefore encourage hon. members to support the bill so that it may move forward to committee for further study and amendments.

The House resumed from November 27, 2017, consideration of the motion that Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have been able to speak to this legislation. As a former parliamentary secretary for natural resources for six years, I saw a couple of different versions of it. It came out in 2010 as Bill C-429, which was written a bit differently, and then in the last Parliament, in 2014, as Bill C-574. The bills might have had some different text, but the approach was the same as the Bill C-354 that is before us today.

The bill calls on the government to amend section 7 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act by highlighting the use of wood. It talks about the following:

In awarding contracts for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I am not sure that the wood industry needs this type of protection and government involvement. As a parliamentary secretary in the past, I saw the strength of the wood industry across Canada. I had an opportunity to go to forest products innovations, FPInnovations, in Vancouver. It has three centres across the country that work on promoting wood. It is a multi-partnership project. The government and private industry worked together to set up a non-profit company so it could study wood and wood manufacturing, new technologies, and the creation of new products. It has certainly been a successful non-partisan project, with both working together.

It is interesting to note the size of the wood industry. I read that the U.S. non-residential market was worth $289 billion in 2010. That is a phenomenal number. In Canada, the industry has been valued at $29 billion. Those are big amounts of money being spent on wood construction in North America, and that is non-residential.

I should touch on the fact that early in our government, we were able to make a softwood lumber agreement that was acceptable across this country. That agreement was extended in 2015 and went to the end of 2015. It brought peace to that industry for a number of years. Canadian companies had the opportunity to go not only around the world with their products, but particularly into the United States. Canada has had access to the U.S. market for so long that it is unfortunate the Liberal government has failed to be able to bring a softwood lumber agreement forward. That has had an impact on the Canadian marketplace, and that will continue.

The Liberal government is talking about sending this legislation to committee, but we are certainly not dealing with some of the bigger issues, the bigger failures, that the government has faced in dealing with this subject.

A number of flaws are created by supporting this legislation. As soon as government picks one industry or one person or one entity over others, there are imbalances and challenges right away, in a number of places in the system.

I would like to point out that picking one product in order to highlight it for construction across Canada certainly, in our opinion, contravenes Canada's legal obligations under a number of provisions in international and domestic trade agreements. Those agreements typically prohibit any kind of discriminatory, unnecessary barriers to trade, and any legislation that then begins to highlight and amend that process will be challenged basically immediately.

With respect to contract tendering requirements, we built provisions into the tendering process so that one type of product could not be highlighted or favoured over others. It is obvious that if that were to happen, other industries, such as steel and concrete, are going to question what is going on when their products are set aside while the government tends to favour a competitive product.

It also would contravene domestic agreements, for example, the agreement on internal trade, if we start talking about government tendering being affected by the use of particular products. That agreement actually prohibits the introduction of any kind of a bias in the form of technological specifications in favour of particular goods or services, unless there is some need in terms of safety or those kinds of things, for that to be there.

We do not believe that Bill C-354 is going to be a good bill for the government to pass. I know it is a private member's bill, but it seems like the message we are getting from the other side, which is a very strange and different one for the government to be giving, is that the government is going to be sending this to committee to be studied. Typically, if that is the case, we see these bills going forward from there.

I do not have very much time to speak to this issue today, but one of the other things we are concerned about is that this could be begin to affect things like NAFTA. The government has failed on NAFTA negotiations as well. It is apparent that things are not going very well there, at all.

The Liberals have never had a commitment to trade. They have never been able to see a way through to getting these free trade agreements done. Certainly we do not want to see something else that is going to start impacting NAFTA, or whatever follows from that. We do not want to see things impacting our WTO agreements. We certainly do not need our free trade agreements to be violated.

The market is a powerful thing. It chooses, based on the quality of the products that are available there. We all believe that wood is very competitive. It is able to compete with concrete and steel. There are other places where the other products are critical. I have watched four high-rise apartments go up in the area where we live here in Ottawa in the last 10 years, and if they did not have concrete and steel in them, they certainly would not have been built to the height that they are.

It is good to see that the new lumber building codes are changing as well, so they can do the four-storey buildings now. They are also looking at six stories, and perhaps up to 10. Those are the kinds of innovations that we need to see, new products and new technology. We do not need the government to be interfering with the marketplace, especially on things as important as construction across this country.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and commend her for her excellent speech. I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

As my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, said in the House of Commons, this bill asks the government to assess the material options for large buildings, balancing the overall dollar cost of the project and the impact of its greenhouse gas footprint.

During the October 19 debate, he stated:

This bill is not meant to exclude non-wood materials but simply to ask the government to look at these new wood technologies that can be used to create beautiful, safe, and environmentally sound buildings.

The forestry sector plays a key role in the economy of my riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and the Canadian economy in general. I know that I speak on behalf of the government when I say that we strongly support the Canadian forestry industry.

According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada, the forestry industry provides over 230,000 quality jobs for middle-class Canadians across the country. Last year, it contributed over $23 billion to Canada's nominal GDP.

The forestry industry is a high-value, high-tech industry that plays a key role in addressing some of the biggest challenges of our time, such as combatting climate change, driving innovation, and creating economic opportunities for indigenous and rural communities.

Those are not just empty words. We have taken practical measures to support the forestry industry. I would like to take a few moments to remind the House of those measures.

Our government allocated over $150 million over four years to support clean technologies in our natural resource sectors, including the forestry industry.

As part of our softwood lumber action plan, we are investing $867 million to help workers and communities diversify their markets to make it easier for them to access a range of financial services on commercial terms.

This is what we are talking about: loan guarantees through the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada; access to the work-sharing program to help employers and employees supplement their incomes; funding to the provinces to provide financial support to workers who are looking for work during the transition; new funding for the indigenous forestry initiative to support indigenous participation in economic development activities; extending the investments in forestry industry transformation program and the forest innovation program.

Thanks to initiatives such as the program for export market development, we are actively seeking other foreign markets to export to, in order to strengthen the forestry industry's competitiveness and sustainability.

One of our government's top priorities is the fight against climate change, and the forestry sector will have an important role to play in that regard.

The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, adopted in 2016, is a comprehensive plan to reduce emissions, promote clean economic growth, and build resilience to the impacts of climate change.

The framework's actions, supported by announcements in budget 2017, will help Canada to meet or even exceed its target to reduce emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments will work together to promote greater use of wood in construction, for example, by updating building codes.

Budget 2017 also proposes to provide Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years to support projects and activities that promote greater use of wood as a greener alternative for infrastructure projects, as well as opening up new markets for more sustainable Canadian products.

In the framework, our government committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and its vehicle fleet to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. As the government's common service provider, Public Services and Procurement Canada plays a leading role in achieving those objectives.

To further support those objectives, our government uses the latest tools to assess environmental impact. Public Services and Procurement Canada is committed to using industry-recognized assessment tools for high environmental performance to measure the impact of construction projects. These tools help the department make informed decisions when evaluating the use of various materials in any given construction project and their environmental impacts. These measures show that we are steadfast in our support of the Canadian forestry industry and its long-term health and transformation.

I feel that the bill we are debating today deserves to be studied in committee. All potential measures our government could take to support the forestry industry deserve a closer look. I encourage the committee to ensure that this bill complies with the free trade agreements we have signed and with the government's procurement principles.

As everyone knows, Canada is signatory to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Government Procurement. Each one of these agreements imposes certain obligations on Canada with regard to public procurement. It is therefore important to examine the repercussions this bill could have for these agreements.

Furthermore, the government must adhere to the principles of fairness, openness, transparency, competition, and integrity in procurement. These principles are intended to ensure Canadians' confidence in their procurement system and in the way we do business on their behalf.

That being said, these issues are not insurmountable. Some creativity may be required, but it is absolutely worth the effort. We parliamentarians have a duty to ensure this bill receives proper consideration. I hope my colleagues from all parties will come together to continue seeking ways for our government to support the forestry sector.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to continue the debate on this private member's bill.

I first want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for introducing this bill. In my view, discussions of private members' bills, which advance the ideas and individual interests of MPs and the concerns of their constituents, constitute the most important hours of debate in the House. I do not always agree with all the bills introduced in the House; sometimes I must oppose them, and other times I support them. However, It is always good to see what MPs are interested in when they introduce bills, and also the discussions and ideas that they bring to the House to be debated.

I would like to mention that I worked for a sustainable development department. I was in financial administration, and a special division of this department was responsible for Alberta's forests. I worked very closely with this special division.

After that I was a political advisor to the sustainable development minister, who was responsible for forestry. One of our key roles was to oversee the renegotiation of forestry management agreements with individual companies, something I am very interested in. I also worked with forestry companies in Alberta during those renegotiations.

This is not the first time Canada's Parliament debates a bill like Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). One hon. member told me that this might be the fourth time; this has been discussed in previous Parliaments. Bills C-429 and C-574 also addressed the topic.

The bill states:

(1.1) In awarding contracts for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, I appreciate the intent of this bill, which seeks to strengthen Canada's forestry sector. We can all agree that any effort to strengthen any economic sector in Canada is commendable.

I will be sharing my thoughts on the member's bill. His intention is understandable. However, we must think of the repercussions this bill will have not only on the forestry industry, including sawmills, for example, but also on other industries, like cement manufacturing, public and private construction, and construction in general.

In February 2014, the former member for Jonquière—Alma introduced Bill C-574, which was also supported by some members of his party. The Conservative Party opposed the bill at the time.

As we know, the amendment being made to the act will result in changes to the way the government approaches procurement and how it renovates its buildings. This could be interesting. However, this bill, which will affect the maintenance and repair of federal real property, will cause problems in the public procurement process that will be difficult to solve. I read the debates that have occurred in other Parliaments many times, because I wanted to inject some new ideas. I did not want to merely repeat the same thing other members have already said, because I hope to contribute a more philosophical perspective to this debate. I did not want to just repeat the opportunities this will open for the forestry industry and the repercussions it will have on workers in that sector.

I know that a life-cycle cost analysis produced by the United States Department of Defense some years ago demonstrated that wooden structures cost 40% less per square foot than steel or masonry structures. The cost of construction was 37% less for wood than for other materials.

Operating costs are also less for wood. I always say that a free-trade-based market should be able to benefit from theses sorts of efficiencies and the lower operating costs. Architects and others who decide what type of building will be built and with what materials look at those costs and that type of report.

It is the marketplace that will decide. I think that implementing this sort of legislative measure would require a major regulatory review and update and would put financial pressure on entrepreneurs and some provinces to conduct policy reviews and make changes. What is more, any potential legal challenges from construction sectors other than the wood sector could prove to be long and costly for the government. I believe that the best people to make these types of decisions regarding buildings are construction professionals, architects. They are in the best position to make this sort of decision. We should not rely on a law that would favour one material over another. That would take away the architects' and construction companies' power to choose. They can choose to go with wood if they want to and if they can do so in a way that will cost the government less, or they can do renovations that will reduce the government's operating costs in the future.

I believe that the code of practice and professional standards for architects and builders would be the best place to promote the benefits of wood construction. This building is a very good example. It is built of stone but much of the interior is made of wood. This building has stood for a very long time. We know that building with wood has advantages, and it is also beautiful, as we can see around us. The House was a success for those who built it.

This legislation would also have a major impact on the regulatory regime, as I mentioned. It would probably result in unexpected changes to the regulations of other departments and would establish a precedent that could lead to challenges in other sectors. As I mentioned, the steel and concrete sectors are two examples that come to mind. The National Building Code, which is the basis for provincial building codes, would definitely be affected by this legislation.

When I read the bill, I asked myself what the member's objective was and what effect he hoped it would have on those who bid on projects for the construction of government buildings. If we give preference to wood for the construction and renovation of federal buildings, the bill will indirectly promote one sector over another. All these sectors are vital to Canada's economy. We do not take away from one sector or another. Every sector is vital to Canada's economy to ensure growth and good jobs.

This would favour the economies of certain regions over others, in direct contravention of the mission of Public Works and Government Services Canada, which is to apply an open, fair, and transparent procurement process in order to obtain the best possible value for the government. This for me is the problem with the bill. It could result in job losses in the concrete and steel industries, which would be an economic substitution. There may not necessarily be new growth, but other sectors could lose contracts and be unable to continue working in the construction sector, as concrete, stone, or steel is discarded in favour of wood. I think this is a problem. It does not necessarily lead to new economic growth or to new jobs, but simply replaces one sector's jobs with another's.

In closing, I would like to talk about Frédéric Bastiat, a 19th-century French economist, member of the French National Assembly, and well-known Liberal polemicist who wrote a book called Economic Sophisms. Chapter 7 of his book is known as the Candle Makers' Petition. He wrote this fictitious petition as a way to prove an economic point. The premise is that candle makers are petitioning the government to force everyone to board up all windows and live in the dark so that they will have to buy candles. By depriving people of sunlight, they hope to create economic growth. The petition says that it is not fair for people to have access to sunlight for free and that they should be forced to buy the candle makers' products. This is a bit of an extreme example of sophism.

In simpler terms, this is about the economic substitution effect and consumer choice. In short, new jobs and potential economic growth are not necessarily a source of economic activity. At the end of the day, who will make the decisions? Will it be the architects, the builders, or the MPs in this House? We should allow the architects and the builders to make the best choices they can rather than legislating to impose one choice or another.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-354, which was introduced by my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay. This bill amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act with respect to the use of wood.

We recognize that the purpose of this bill is to give preference to projects that promote the use of wood in awarding federal construction, maintenance, and repair contracts, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to initiatives our government has already introduced to support the Canadian forestry sector.

First is the assistance package for the forest industry. In June 2017, the government announced its continued support for the softwood lumber industry in the form of an $867-million assistance package for the forest industry, workers, and communities impacted by recent tariffs imposed by the United States.

Second is the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This framework, adopted in 2016, is a comprehensive plan to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy, accelerate clean economic growth, and build resilience to the impact of climate change. The framework's actions, supported by announcements in budget 2017, will enable Canada to meet or even exceed its target to reduce emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Under the framework, our government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal government buildings and fleets by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.

I should point out that these measures include federal-provincial-territorial collaboration to promote the use of wood in construction. One way to do that is by introducing new building codes. In the 2017 budget, Natural Resources Canada received $39.8 million over four years to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood in construction and create new markets for sustainable Canadian products.

Lastly, to assess the environmental impact of construction projects, Public Services and Procurement Canada is committed to using industry-recognized assessment tools to ensure the best possible environmental performance. These tools help the department make informed decisions when estimating the environmental impact of construction materials and their use in construction projects.

Any changes made to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act must be in compliance with Canada's free trade agreements and must uphold the government's contracting principles, namely equality, openness, transparency, competition, and integrity. Our government strongly supports the Canadian forestry sector, which represents hundreds of thousands of good jobs for the middle class all across the country. This high-tech sector has serious value-added potential and is key to some of the biggest issues of our time: combatting climate change, fostering innovation, and creating economic opportunities for rural and indigenous communities. This is why were are allocating more than $150 million over four years to support clean technology in the natural-resources sector, including the forestry sector.

Through our softwood lumber action plan, we are investing $867 million to support workers and communities to diversity our markets, which I think my colleague mentioned when he referred to the Chinese market, a very large and interesting opportunity for Canadian lumber, and to facilitate access to a range of financial services for our producers on commercial terms.

Through programs such as the expanding market opportunities program, we are looking to increase exports to other foreign markets in order to increase competition in the long term and to make the forestry sector more sustainable. We strongly support Canada's forestry sector, as well as the long-term health and transformation of this sector.

To conclude, I believe that the aspirational objective of Bill C-354 could be a complement to the actions our government has already taken to support the long-term sustainability of Canada's softwood lumber industry. In my opinion, it merits an in-depth study by committee to evaluate all the potential ramifications and to avoid unforeseen consequences.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved that Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to begin debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, with regard to the use of wood in government infrastructure.

I introduced this bill at a critical time for our forest industry and for our fight against climate change. This bill could play an important role in both of those issues. There is a revolution happening around the world in how we construct buildings, the revolution of mass timber construction of engineered wood. The revolution began in Europe and has spread to North America where Canada is the leader in that technology. However, we have to work hard to keep on top here, and this bill is about that revolution and about that work. It is a bill designed to support our forest industry, and the forest industry needs support.

For the last 30 years, we have suffered through the onslaught of several softwood lumber disputes with the United States. We need to develop other markets for our wood and there are several obvious ways to do this. We could use more wood at home. We could export more wood to Asia. We could export engineered wood to the United States since it is not covered under the unfair softwood lumber tariff. All of these strategies can be tackled through mass timber construction through engineered wood.

I would like to go back to the bill itself, what it says and what it aims to do. On the surface, it is a simple bill designed to support our forest industry but there is much more to it. First, it is a recycled bill like many private members' bills and motions in this place. Similar bills have been tabled in past parliaments by members of different parties. Like those bills, it asks the federal government to give preference to the use of wood when constructing buildings, with two important caveats. Those caveats form a dual lens to help the government decide what structural material or materials to use in a building. The first issue is the overall lifetime cost of those materials; second, the government should consider the impact that those materials would have on the greenhouse gas footprint of that building. Therefore, the bill seeks to balance those costs, the dollars and cents cost and the environmental cost. It is very similar to the Wood First Act enacted in British Columbia and to government procurement policies in Quebec that promote the use of wood.

I want to say here that there is nothing to stop the government from choosing to use a number of materials in the primary structure of a building. Right now, large buildings across Canada and around the world are largely built of concrete and steel. It is the way the industry has worked for decades. However, what this bill seeks to do is to get the government to consider wood by applying that dual test. Many buildings now use a combination of wood, concrete, and steel and that would continue. One of those hybrid buildings partly made with engineered wood is the Ottawa airport, a building that I imagine a number of the members here are very familiar with.

My bill differs very little from the previous bills. What has changed is our ability to use wood as the primary structural material in large buildings, and that is why this bill is so timely and so necessary to the well-being of our forest industry and indeed the construction industry across Canada. To take advantage of these new wood technologies, we will have to steer the mindset of designers, architects, and builders, and the government procurement agents who hire them, to consider the use of wood in large buildings.

I would like to move on here to talk in a bit more detail about engineered wood, how it is made, why it makes good sense to build with it, why it is safe, why it is economical, and how it plays into Canada's climate action goals. There are two main types of engineered wood used in large buildings. First, there are the glulam beams made from dimensional lumber glued together to form large, sometimes a metre by a metre in thickness, beautiful support beams that support the floors, ceilings, and roof in the building. These beams can be used instead of the large steel beams we now use. Second are the cross-laminated timber, CLT, panels that are made in a similar manner to glulam but are formed as panels about eight or nine inches thick. These can replace some of the concrete used in walls and floors. The beams and panels are made with extreme precision, much more precisely than concrete or steel. These products are made off-site in a manufacturing plant and then moved to the building site just as they are needed, where they are joined together to construct a building, floor by floor. It is an extremely efficient way of building.

In traditional construction, the site is prepared over a number of weeks or months, the time depending on the complexity of the site and often the weather. Delays can be caused by wet weather or cold weather, both of them very common here in Canada. Then the building goes up with a concrete foundation, steel girders, building concrete frames, pouring concrete, letting the concrete cure, and then moving on to the next floor. More delays can ensue because of weather. In tall wood buildings, the concrete foundation is prepared much as in other projects, but because the beams and panels are made off-site, they can be constructed as the site is prepared. They are light enough to transport long distances to the site.

This fall, the University of British Columbia opened Brock Commons, an 18-storey student residence on campus. Brock Commons is the tallest wood building in the world. Only its foundation and the elevator shafts use concrete or steel for support. Brock Commons was built with engineered wood made at the Structurlam plants in Penticton and Okanagan Falls, 400 kilometres away. It was built in nine weeks, two floors per week, about twice as fast as a typical high-rise. The cost savings in that speed are significant.

Tall wood buildings are not only efficient to build, but can play a significant role in reaching our climate action targets. We are at a moment in history where we must take bold steps in tackling the global issue of climate change. We must reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and increase our sequestration of carbon. The Green Building Council of Canada has calculated that buildings account for about 30% of our energy use in greenhouse gas emissions, significantly more than any other sector, and the UN Environment Programme identifies buildings as offering the greatest potential for achieving significant energy and GHG emission reductions at the least cost. How we construct the buildings and what they are made of can be a huge part of those reductions.

As architect Michael Green states in The Case for Tall Wood Buildings, “Wood is the most significant building material we use today that is grown by the sun. When harvested responsibly, wood is arguably one of the best tools architects and engineers have for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in our buildings.” FPInnovations has calculated that each cubic metre of wood in a building acts to sequester one tonne of carbon. A 20-storey wood building takes the equivalent of 900 cars off the roads in carbon dioxide savings every year.

We can do all this and help our forest sector at the same time. As I said earlier, that sector has had tough times over the past 30 years because of the unfair tariffs on softwood. Mills have closed across the country, tens of thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and many rural communities have been very hard hit.

We can help our forest sector in two ways: develop new markets and create value-added opportunities within Canada. Engineered wood does both of these at the same time. If we build more infrastructure using wood, that would automatically boost our domestic market, and engineered wood can be exported to the United States without softwood lumber tariffs, which would expand our U.S. market. China is actively exploring the concept of building with engineered wood. Just a tiny part of that market could be a significant win for Canada.

We are in the middle of a study in the natural resources committee on the value-added sector in Canadian forestry. Engineered wood and tall wood buildings have come up time after time as the biggest opportunity for us to make gains on that front. Bill Downing, the president of Structurlam in Penticton, mentioned that his company has just received a contract to rebuild the Microsoft campus in Silicon Valley with engineered wood. From that one contract, he put in a purchase order to local Canfor mills for $4 million of dimensional lumber. The amount of $4 million is a big payday for any Canadian company, even a big one like Canfor, and that money is going to rural communities in the B.C. Interior.

Any new technology, any change, comes with concerns about the unknown. One of the questions I get most often is about the fire safety of tall wood buildings. I talked to one fire chief who said he breaks out in a sweat whenever he hears the word “wood”. The fact is that mass wood buildings are as fire-safe as those built with steel and concrete. First, the heavy beams and panels that are used are completely different from the old stick-frame construction we are used to. Fire acts completely differently when it encounters a beam that is a metre thick than when it encounters a two-by-four. It is like holding a match to a large log. Tests have shown that the material typically chars on the outside and then the fire goes out. Even a building with exposed beams and panels offers more than the standard two-hour exit time in a fire.

The U.S. Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory published findings this year from the burning of a two-storey test building, concluding that the exposed cross-laminated timber essentially self-extinguished after fire consumed the building's furnishings.

The Brock Commons student residence included design features meant to provide added assurance for safety. The panels and beams were clad in layers of fire-resistant gypsumboard, for instance. The architects pointed out that this was unnecessary, but it may well be necessary to include these features until this technology becomes more common and Canadians feel more comfortable about tall wood buildings.

Others have asked me if we have enough wood in Canada to provide the material for this new sector. The forests of North America can grow the wood used in Brock Commons, a very large building, every six minutes.

I have also been asked about the reaction from other industry sectors. Interestingly, the Cement Association of Canada was on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago lobbying for their industry, and their big ask of the federal government was to consider a dual lens when choosing material for infrastructure: the lifetime cost of the materials and the greenhouse gas emissions. That is exactly what I am proposing in this bill.

The fact is that steel and concrete have enjoyed a century of a duopoly in large-building construction. This shift to tall wood construction would not suddenly result in a significant loss in market share for either industry. We would still be constructing many buildings with steel and concrete, but any small increase in market share could be significant for the forest industry. This bill simply asks the federal government to consider wood and to remember that there is a new way of building. The wood industry just needs that foot in the door.

I have been encouraged by government action on this front. Natural Resources Canada will be providing almost $40 million in funding over the next four years to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. This money will be used in research and testing that is essential to growing that needed confidence in a new product and in incentivizing new construction to serve as examples of just what we can do with wood.

There are many examples out there already. Chantiers Chibougamau has built numerous bridges for the mining industry in northern Quebec using glulam beams. Their engineered wood was used to build the Buffalo Sabres' training facility. The architect first proposed steel for that project, but a second look showed that wood would be more economical. The Art Gallery of Ontario was transformed by world-renowned architect Frank Gehry using Douglas fir glulam arches made in Penticton, British Columbia, by Structurlam. The 284,000 square foot Rocky Ridge Recreational Facility in Calgary boasts the largest wood-constructed roof in North America, again built by Structurlam. These are iconic buildings. What I hope to promote in this bill is the construction of much more conventional buildings, such as office buildings and warehouses, from engineered wood.

Government procurement could play a huge role in expanding the engineered wood industry in Canada. Bill Downing, at Structurlam, would tell us that their company would not have gotten off the ground without the wood-first policy in British Columbia, and now it is one of the leading manufacturers of engineered wood in North America, along with Chantiers Chibougamau.

Forest companies across Canada are looking to this new sector to help them survive or even flourish. All these companies would benefit from government procurement to make that leap into a new technology. J.D. Irving has gone to Europe to look at the burgeoning mass timber construction sector there. France intends to build 30% of its new residential buildings with wood over the next 30 years.

Wood buildings are safe, cost-competitive, and beautiful, and they fight climate change. I ask all members to consider wood, support Bill C-354, foster the engineered wood sector in Canada, and keep our forest industry strong.

Wood Infrastructure

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, later this month, we will be debating my private member's bill, Bill C-354. The bill calls on the government to consider wood when building federal infrastructure, applying a dual lens of lifetime cost and greenhouse gas reduction.

First, we are witnessing a revolution in the architecture of large buildings around the world, tall wood buildings that are beautiful, safe, and cost competitive. The government loves innovation, and Canada is at the forefront of this mass wood innovation in North America. Government procurement will help our industry thrive and stay ahead of the curve.

Second, the government made commitments in Paris to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Much of that footprint is in our buildings and how they are constructed. The carbon captured in wood could significantly reduce those emissions.

Finally, building with wood will support our forest sector. Unfair softwood tariffs in the U.S.A. have hit this industry hard, and expanding our domestic markets will help workers across the country keep good, well-paying jobs.

I ask everyone here to support Bill C-354.

Opposition Motion—Support for Forestry Workers

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this motion, because I am proud of the Canadian forest sector. I know how important it is to hundreds of communities, small and large, across the country and I am concerned about the future of our forest industry.

However, I must say, off the top, that I cannot support this motion put forward by my Conservative colleagues. Their former government is equally to blame for this crisis, and for them to play partisan politics with people's livelihoods is something I cannot condone.

My riding has the complete range of forest industry operations. There is the big Celgar pulp mill in Castlegar; big Interfor sawmills in Castlegar and Grand Forks; Kalesnikoff's more specialized sawmill at Thrums; the ATCO plywood veneer plant at Fruitvale; the Vaagen Brothers mill at Midway that processes small dimension logs; the family-run Son Ranch just south of Eholt; pole mills at Nakusp community forests and woodlots; and Greenwood Forest Products in Penticton that produces wall panelling and edge-glued laminated panels; and Structurlam which the minister mentioned in his speech just now, a continental leader in the manufacture of glulam beams and cross-laminated timber panels that are at the heart of the large wood building revolution. As well, there are all of the fallers and truck loggers, and the whole logging sector that supplies logs for these mills.

It is a long list, and I hope I have not left anyone out. It is repeated many times over in many ridings across Canada, in communities big and small, from Campbell River to Cornerbrook. More than 200 communities across rural Canada depend on the forest industry for at least half of their base income.

Across my riding today, I see a forest industry that is innovative and efficient, each mill specializing in some niche that will allow it to survive and, hopefully, thrive. I imagine that is the case throughout the forests of Canada. The forest industry is critical to the Canadian economy and to the hopes and dreams of thousands of hard-working families across this country.

In British Columbia alone, it contributes $12 billion to the economy every year, and $2.5 billion in direct government revenue. It creates 145,000 British Columbia jobs; one in every 16 jobs in British Columbia. Across Canada, the forest sector contributes more than $20 billion every year to our real GDP.

Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management. Our forests account for 40% of the world's forests certified as sustainably managed, the largest area of third-party certified forest in the world. Canada has become a leader in the use of biomass energy, using waste and residues from forest manufacturing practices to power mills across the country.

However, the industry has suffered in the past few decades. A vast pine beetle epidemic swept across B.C. in the last decade, killing trees throughout the interior. That epidemic has now moved into Alberta and is threatening the forest industry there. Catastrophic wildfires burned over a million acres of forest in British Columbia this summer, and climate predictions tell us that these hot, dry, and smoky summers will only happen more frequently in the future. That, of course, has reduced the annual allowable cuts for these mills. Mills that were already suffering from the pine beetle epidemic now have even less forest to access.

Then there is the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States that has pressured many mills to close in the last 10 to 15 years. I will talk more about softwood lumber at the end. I just want to say that in my riding that dispute resulted in a lot of job losses: the Weyerhaeuser mill in Okanagan Falls closed in 2007, putting 200 people out of work; and the closure of the mill at Slocan hit that small community hard. In fact, during the years of the Harper Conservative government, Canada lost over 134,000 jobs in the forestry sector, including about 21,000 jobs in British Columbia, 40,000 jobs in Ontario, and 41,000 in Quebec.

I would like to spend the next part of my speech talking about the positive ways to give the forest industry a boost in Canada. An obvious strategy to mitigate the losses from the softwood dispute is to develop markets outside the United States. We have been working on increasing our share in the Asian market, particularly in China.

The minister mentioned some recent efforts there. British Columbia exporters have been in China for over 10 years, though, and doing quite well. However, those efforts have plateaued because we are up against Russian competition that can simply move products to the Chinese border by train. With the low value of the Russian ruble, it is very difficult for Canadian companies to compete from the other side of the Pacific, for the foreseeable future. That is what I hear from the industry in British Columbia.

As an aside, lumber prices are so high because of the softwood lumber dispute that builders on the east coast of North America are starting to turn to European markets such as Romania and Germany to supply their needs. It is crazy. I think a better strategy in the mid-term is to expand our domestic markets through innovative new wood products and new ways to use wood in buildings.

As I mentioned earlier, in my home town of Penticton, there is a company called Structurlam that creates glulam beams and cross-laminated timber panels that can be used to construct large buildings entirely out of wood. The company just completed an 18-storey project at the University of British Columbia, Brock Commons, the tallest wood building in the world. The only steel and concrete in the building is in the elevator shafts. As the parts were pre-built off-site, Brock Commons took only 66 days to construct. That is 18 stories in just two months. The UBC project used 1.7 million board feet of B.C. lumber. Structurlam gets its lumber locally at mills such as Kalesnikoff, so the benefits spread through the region.

I was happy to see that the government included some money in the latest budget to help this innovative part of the forest industry grow. The minister mentioned that as well. Canadian companies are real leaders in this new technology in North America, but they need to expand to maintain that lead.

With this in mind, I have tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-354, which promotes the use of wood in government infrastructure buildings. This bill asks the government to assess the material options for large buildings, balancing the overall dollar cost of the project and the impact of its greenhouse gas footprint. That way we can decide whether wood, concrete, steel, or a combination of those materials is best for the building.

This bill is not meant to exclude non-wood materials but simply to ask the government to look at these new wood technologies that can be used to create beautiful, safe, and environmentally sound buildings. I was happy to hear from the concrete industry a couple of days ago that it has almost exactly the same ask of the government. It was not, of course, asking for the government to use more wood in buildings; but it was asking the government to use the same lens to look at the lifetime costs of the materials and the carbon footprint of the project when building infrastructure.

I believe that this process would result in more large wood buildings being constructed by the federal government. Many of them could be hybrids, of course, built with concrete and steel as well. This would have three positive impacts on the forest industry. It would stimulate the growth of this exciting new technology, keeping Canada ahead of the pack in North America; it would help all the players in the local forest industry to weather the difficulties they are facing through the softwood lumber dispute; and it would be taking real action to meet Canadian goals in the fight against climate change.

The forestry sector is facing serious challenges in Canada: a future with declining wood supply, more catastrophic fires, insect epidemics due to climate change, and rising costs associated with trade disputes with the United States. I want to turn now to that trade dispute, the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

About year ago, on October 17, 2016, in this place we debated a similar Conservative motion that specifically focused on softwood lumber. The motion urged the government to take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber exports. I supported this previous motion, of course, because for the many thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on this important industry, it is imperative that Canada secure a fair deal with the United States, a deal that respects our regional differences and protects high-quality Canadian forestry jobs.

However, a year later, here we are. The Canadian government continues to fail in its ability to get a deal. The industry has been hit by the U.S. Department of Commerce with massive, unfair tariffs reaching as high as 27%. These tariffs and our government's inability to secure a trade deal have led and will continue to lead to devastating job losses and damage to this vital Canadian industry.

A report released by The Conference Board of Canada at the end of May 2017 stated that the U.S. softwood lumber duties will result in the loss of 2,200 jobs and a $700 million reduction in Canadian exports over the next two years. Softwood lumber is a vibrant part of Canada's forest sector, and as I mentioned, for many rural communities it is the backbone of the economy.

According to Canada's labour force survey, in 2015 the forest industry counted for 300,000 direct and indirect jobs, compared to more than 400,000 jobs in 2003. Hundreds of sawmills across Canada have been shuttered, taking with them high-quality, well-paid jobs.

Today, the softwood lumber industry is on the verge of more job losses. If we consider such factors as the crash of the U.S. housing markets and the other environmental impacts I mentioned, our already hard-hit industry will be further devastated. Canadian producers and workers need a new softwood lumber agreement that will bring fairness and predictability.

This dispute first began back in 1982. For 35 years, the American industry has argued that the Canadian producers benefit from subsidization, which is a claim that has been defeated time and time again in trade tribunals. I think it has been 14 or 15 times.

Over the years, there have been several managed trade agreements, but upon their expiration Canadian exports have seen more duties applied, and Canada has spent approximately $100 million in legal fees to defend our position. While it is true that Canada has consistently won tribunal warnings under the free trade agreement, NAFTA, and the WTO, which found that U.S. tariffs were unjustified, Canada has lost tens of thousands of jobs. I find it extremely disingenuous that the government touts these so-called tribunal challenges as wins. However, I am quite certain that the people who lost their jobs due to poorly negotiated agreements are thoroughly unimpressed with them.

I also find it extremely concerning that Americans are hell-bent on eliminating NAFTA's chapter 19, the dispute resolution mechanism that has protected Canada against those challenges for so long. After the previous agreement expired in 2001, the U.S. levied $5.4 billion in duties on Canadian imports. This was money that should have stayed in Canadians' pockets, but instead was given to the American industry. It was the beginning of a decade of massive job losses in the Canadian industry.

Soon after the Conservatives were elected in 2006, they negotiated a new agreement with little or no consultation with Canadian stakeholders. The result was a very controversial agreement that many argue represented a sellout of Canadian interests. That agreement took $50 million from Canadian industry to create a binding dispute settlement system whereby the U.S. was able to bring more actions against Canada. Perhaps most egregiously, the agreement allowed the U.S. to keep $1 billion of the duties it illegally levied on Canadian producers. Canadians were furious with the 2006 SLA. When the Conservatives brought it to Parliament in the form of Bill C-24, the NDP argued vehemently against the agreement.

When we look back at this agreement, it is fair to say that the Conservatives caved to American interests. Today, it is imperative that the Liberals do not do the same, and yet, considering the lack of leadership they have shown during the NAFTA renegotiations, I fail to see any change between our past and current governments.

As we know, the 2006 agreement was renewed in 2012 and expired last October. Again, after the Liberal government failed to negotiate a new agreement, the Liberals seemed to spend more time denying their own responsibilities and blaming the previous Conservative government rather than ensuring forest industry workers had the job security they so desperately needed.

Despite the Prime Minister's highly flaunted bromance with former president Barack Obama, the Liberals broke yet another one of their own commitments and failed to get a deal done before the time ran out.

Now we must negotiate with President Trump, whose administration has moved to hit our softwood lumber industry with even more tariffs. As with the huge hit lumber companies took in 2006, our industry is again reeling, and it is the forestry workers who will suffer most. After years of being unable to negotiate a fair deal, Canadians are left feeling unsure and, quite frankly, abandoned by their government. There seems still to be no path forward.

After two months of foot-dragging, the government introduced a compensation package, which the NDP welcomed, but I must point out that it contained nothing to improve EI benefits for workers who lost their jobs because of this dispute. The $867 million support package was a good short-term measure for industry and forestry companies; however, forestry workers need long-term solutions.

While many concede that another managed trade deal is better than more costly litigation, there is something inherently unfair about the fact that, despite continued findings that Canada is not in the wrong, we continue to negotiate agreements that are clearly in the interests of the U.S. industry.

Many witnesses expressed a desire to see Canada and the U.S. reach a negotiated settlement, one that would work for all our regions, but we also heard in committee, very clearly, that people do not want to see another bad deal. In Quebec, for example, they made a lot of changes in their forestry practices, and any new agreement must recognize these and other regional differences. A one-size-fits-all solution simply will not do.

In the spring of 2016, the Standing Committee on International Trade held meetings on the softwood lumber agreement and submitted a report to Parliament. Sadly, one important voice we did not get to hear at all at the committee was that of labour.

The United Steelworkers, which represents some 40,000 forestry workers, has laid out several requirements for what it would like to see happen. First, it wants to see the creation of a provincial forest community restoration fund, to be invested in workers, forest-dependent communities, and forest health. It wants fair access to the U.S. lumber market, and it discourages a new quota system. It also wants a guarantee that Canadian producers will have the same access to the U.S. market as other countries will enjoy.

I appreciate the Steelworkers' perspective because it represents the workers' point of view. These three things would help give workers greater job security and strengthen the industry instead of weakening it.

In the committee's final report, there were five recommendations made to the government, including that it get a deal done that serves Canadian interests, that it consult with big and small producers, and that any new deal respect regional differences.

I want to raise an issue I have seen more of recently, due to the NAFTA renegotiation process, one that has affected many aspects of the trading relationship Canada has held with our American neighbours. That is, it is an extremely unbalanced and abusive relationship. Repeatedly, whether it has been the 35 years we have argued over softwood lumber, or the nearly 30 years we have had a bilateral and trilateral trade agreement with the Americans, consecutive Canadian governments have continually negotiated bad deals. Perhaps this has to do with the size, strength, and wealth of the United States, but I cannot dismiss this huge lack of leadership and apparent cowardice and weakness shown by consecutive federal governments.

We often speak of political will in this place, so when I see Canadian producers being hit with U.S. tariffs of around 27% in forestry or 300% in aerospace, when I see mills and manufacturing plants being shut down right across Canada, and when I see thousands of people's lives at risk and jobs lost, I have to say that something is wrong. The way we negotiate trade deals is wrong.

I hope the government understands the gravity of what these job losses mean in our communities. Thousands of people have no job to go to and no more paycheques to bring home. Families are worried about how to pay the rent or make the next mortgage payment. I urge the government to act in the interests of those whose jobs are on the line. That means getting the right deal and working collaboratively with the communities.

If the Liberal government is serious about holding out for a good deal, instead of signing a bad one tomorrow, then it owes Canadians more transparency and openness about how it will help Canadians and Canada's industry weather the impending trade storm. Canadians deserve answers from the government, not more empty promises and hollow words.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Moving to the mid to long term, I will grant you your point about large wood buildings.

You talked about diversifying into Asia and Europe. I was at the COFI meetings in Vancouver last month, where there was quite the opposite feeling about China. The analysts who specialize in that market were kind of negative about the opportunities—in the mid term, at least—of moving into China because of the Russian competition, the low ruble, and things like that...but I don't want to go there. I'm just talking about this opportunity to really boost our domestic market, and the market with the United States, through the use of wood in large buildings.

You mentioned the $40 million or so that you're providing in this year's budget. Unfortunately, that money won't be spent until next year, 2018-19. I want to know why the delay, when we could be helping these companies now. I would like to know how much of that $40 million will actually be spent building buildings...to use our industry.

I have a private member's bill that I tabled just before the break, C-354, that asks the federal government to consider the use of wood in building large wood buildings to help the industry right now, as we have in British Columbia.

Those are my three questions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to debate Bill C-44, the budget 2017 implementation bill.

Back in the days when I taught zoology at UBC and comparative anatomy labs at Memorial University, we talked a lot about form and function. Today I would like to begin by talking about the form of this bill and move on to its function, its contents, and what that means in regard to government priorities.

As others have commented, the most obvious thing about this bill is its sheer size. It is almost 300 pages long. It amends more than 30 separate acts and even incorporates Bill C-43 within it, which was already on the Order Paper. Many of these components have nothing to do with the implementation of the budget. For instance, the bill includes major changes to the powers of the parliamentary budget officer, which I will talk more about later.

This bill is the very definition of an omnibus bill. Many Canadians will remember quite clearly what the Liberals said about omnibus bills in the previous Parliament. They and the New Democrats pointed out that omnibus bills were clearly designed to pass disparate pieces of legislation without providing opportunity for proper debate or committee study. The Liberals loudly complained that one of the Conservative budget bills was 175 pages long. That was a micro-bill compared to this one.

The Liberals were so outraged by the omnibus bills of the Conservative government that they put clear promises in their 2015 election platform, saying, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny” and “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice”, yet they could not resist doing the same thing with budget 2017, and in a very egregious way. The Liberals have broken a growing number of election promises, but this broken promise, one that puts them in the same camp as the Conservatives when it comes to eroding Canadian democracy, must be one of their most disappointing acts for many of their supporters.

Now I would like to move from form to function and some of the consequences of Bill C-44.

One of the main themes of the last federal election was the struggle to reduce income inequality in Canada, an inequality that has been steadily increasing for the past 20 years or more. The NDP has led this battle for years, and in the last election the Liberals agreed with us in principle and said they would, as we have heard so often since, support the middle class and those trying to join it. In the last budget, the Liberals disappointed most Canadians in the middle class by doing absolutely nothing for those making less than $45,000 a year, instead bringing in income tax changes that gave tax relief primarily to those making $150,000 to $200,000 a year.

The Liberals promised that they would plug the loopholes that allowed CEOs to pay taxes at half the rate of middle-class Canadians, but did nothing in last year's budget and, I am sorry to say, did nothing in this budget as well. Bill C-44 has no provisions to close this loophole, which costs the government almost $800 million each year and leaves that money in the pockets of the wealthy Canadians who least need it.

Who do the Liberals choose to squeeze money out of instead? It is transit riders, the middle class and those seeking to join the middle class who take buses and trains to work every day. Under Bill C-44, they would lose their public transit tax credit so that the government could pocket $225 million in savings. Wealthy CEOs get to keep $800 million, while bus riders have to cough up $225 million. Budgets are about choices, and this is the unfortunate choice the Liberals have made.

On top of that, we in the NDP were hoping that the Liberal government would take concrete steps to shut down offshore tax havens, where the wealthiest of Canadians and corporations that have pocketed billions of dollars in tax cuts move their profits to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. However, neither Bill C-44 nor any other legislation before us addresses this critical step in reducing income inequality in Canada.

As I mentioned at the start, one of the features of Bill C-44 is a section that would change the role and powers of the parliamentary budget officer. This has no place in a budget implementation bill. Maybe the Liberals thought they could slip it in because of the word “budget” in the title of this important office. The parliamentary budget officer must be independent and neutral, but Bill C-44 would degrade that independence in several ways.

First, it requires the parliamentary budget office to submit an annual work plan to both the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate. This requirement could only benefit the government, as the PBO would not be able to undertake any study unless it had been approved in the annual work plan.

Second, only committees—committees dominated by government MPs—would be allowed to request that the PBO estimate the cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction. At present, individual MPs can request the PBO to undertake these analyses, but if Bill C-44 becomes law, they could only request cost analyses on proposals that relate to a bill, a motion, or an amendment that they themselves had made.

Again, this bill would greatly restrict the independence of the PBO and restrict the abilities of individual MPs to study the costs of government proposals. It was this type of independent initiative that exposed the true costs of the F-35 fighter jets to Canadians, and it was this independent action that showed that the so-called middle-class tax cuts of this Liberal government only benefited the wealthy in our country.

Another point of disappointment in the budget is the change that would index the excise duty on wine to the consumer price index beginning in 2018. My riding, I must admit, produces the best wine in Canada, and the wine industry plays a large role in the economy there and in other wine regions of the country.

Canadian wine producers are very concerned that this duty will now rise automatically every year, despite already being almost twice as large as the duties levied by other countries. For instance, the duty is 63¢ per litre in Canada versus 38¢ in the United States, while Germany has no excise tax on wine at all.

This automatic increase will exacerbate those differences and undermine the growth of the wine industry in Canada, impacting the entire economic value chain from farm gate to retail.

I would like to end on a positive note by mentioning a few measures that I am happy to see in the budget.

One is the promise to spend about $40 million to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. Using wood as a primary material in large buildings is a technology for which Canada is already a world leader. One of the leading companies in Canada in the construction of these buildings is Structurlam in my home town of Penticton. Structurlam sources a lot of wood for its glulam beams and cross-laminated timber panels from the Kalesnikoff mill near Castlegar on the other side of my riding.

Expanding this part of the forest industry in Canada would give it a much-needed boost in these troubled times as mills across this country face trade sanctions through the softwood lumber dispute. We have heard a lot recently about efforts to diversify our foreign markets, but here is an opportunity to build the domestic market as well, and to build it quickly. Unfortunately, this spending is not scheduled to start until next year, when it might come too late.

Another way that the government could move forward on this file is by adopting my private member's bill, Bill C-354, which directs the government to consider the use wood in building projects. Government procurement is a powerful force that would immediately boost the forest industry across this country.

I am pleased that the Liberal government is keeping at least one of its election promises, albeit a year late, which is to phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. In 2014, the Pembina Institute estimated that more than $1 billion in fossil fuel subsidies still exist in our tax framework, so I am happy to see that budget 2017 will exclude producing wells from the Canada exploration expenses tax deduction.

In conclusion, I will simply say that budget 2017 represents yet another lost opportunity for the Liberal government to turn the corner on rising inequality in Canada.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia for seconding the bill.

The bill calls on the government to give preference to construction with wood when building infrastructure, balancing those decisions on the relative costs of various building materials and the savings in greenhouse gas emissions that those materials might produce.

Designers of modern buildings too often do not think of wood when creating new infrastructure, and there are many reasons to consider wood. It would provide a boost to the Canadian forest industry that is looking to increase domestic markets for their products. It would lower the carbon footprint of large buildings. Buildings made of mass wood products can be built more quickly than conventional buildings, and they are just as safe.

Canada is a world leader in the design and construction of wood buildings. I hope that the bill will promote the construction of many beautiful, clean, and safe buildings made from Canadian wood.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)