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.

[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.