International Trade Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[Eric Johnson]

The reality is that on the domestic side, we use about 3% of our lumber supply to satisfy all our housing needs. If we were to build 500,000 homes a year, we could incrementally bring that up to about 4% or 5%. We need to look at industrial construction—hospitals, schools and that type of construction—and then building taller. In some regions, we have up to 18 storeys and in other regions we don't. Can we build to 21? In some countries they allow that. We're not there yet.

The other piece is how we use the wood in that construction environment. In fact, if you were to think of a building at its core, you could use steel and a concrete shell and wood floors, and that would be potentially your biggest market share increase for wood construction in an industrial or high-rise environment. When you talk about market diversification, at one point we were selling 3.5 billion board feet of wood to China. That's about a quarter of what we currently sell to the U.S. As we saw Russia start to flood the Chinese market and those dynamics shift, all of that supply ended up going to the U.S., so we were less diversified.

We are working with trade officials in Japan, in Korea, in Europe and in Mexico. As the U.S. claims they're going to be self-sustaining, they're going to move out of some of those areas in terms of the trade they give. Can we move in? As we look to build Ukraine and Gaza, Europe is going to supply a lot of that wood. Is there an opportunity for Canada to take some of that market share?

The answer to your question is that I don't know exactly what that market share will potentially look like. It will take decades to get there.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that we need to do secondary and tertiary processing, but that we also need to increase the use of wood in the construction of non-residential buildings.

At the expense of what materials would that increase be made? Currently, what percentage of materials used in non-residential construction is wood? In an ideal world, to what extent do you think we could increase the percentage of wood in these buildings?

[Eric Johnson]

I don't have the specific stats for that, but I can find that for you and get back to you.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Yes, that would be interesting.

At the expense of which materials would the increased use of wood primarily occur? Would it be at the expense of concrete?

[Eric Johnson]

Not necessarily. I think what would happen is that there would be market shifts in some of that construction. I don't think that there would be a massive decrease in the amount of material. It would just be that, as we're building more and more, we would see the opportunity to use wood in conjunction with concrete and steel.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it has been shown that wood buildings create more cool islands in cities than concrete buildings. Wood construction contributes more to an acceptable climate, if I'm not mistaken.

Can you confirm that?

[Eric Johnson]

There have been studies on how individuals and people react to seeing wood in their environments. It also tends to be a better insulator as well as a better cooling agent in construction. That would be correct.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

As a result, the increased use of wood on the domestic market would even bring benefits in terms of ecology and well-being.

[Eric Johnson]

Yes, I would agree with that statement. Also, if you look at using wood, from just an environmental and ecosystem perspective, the more we use, the better we are at controlling wildfires and other areas that aren't necessarily connected to that building too.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

In short, in addition to secondary and tertiary processing, there should be a public program for awarding contracts for the construction of non-residential buildings that use more wood. That would be helpful.

[Eric Johnson]

It would help, yes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

We know that you want an agreement to be reached quickly, given the American political context. I take it, though, that you prefer no deal to a bad deal. You're the ones who could tell us. However, you're saying that you want an agreement quickly and that this is what would help you.

Do you think a lasting agreement could be reached before the review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement? Does such an agreement have to be entered into as part of the agreement?

Also, is the dispute settlement mechanism set out in chapter 31 of CUSMA sufficient to challenge U.S. tariffs? We know that, in the current form of the dispute settlement mechanism, the problem isn't winning in the courts, because Canada always wins against the United States in the courts. The problem is more the fact that time is poorly regulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Please give a brief answer.

[Eric Johnson]

Listen we paid 10 billion dollars' worth of duties into the United States treasury already. We need a negotiated settlement to that challenge, which has been ongoing for the last nine years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McKenzie, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Yedlin, you mentioned critical minerals. To my general understanding, we have deposits across various provinces in Canada, but you mentioned specifically Alberta and Saskatchewan. We've heard testimony over the course of a number of hearings here in Ottawa about the importance that critical minerals play and could play in terms of a negotiating position, bluntly, leverage when it comes to our negotiations and discussions with the United States. My concern is that in our current regulatory circumstance the prospect of critical mineral development is somewhat hollow.

I wonder if you have any views on Bill C-69 specifically and what it means for project development.

[Deborah Yedlin]

Thank you for the question.

Of course, Bill C-69 and the challenges regarding resource development broadly speaking have been a barrier to development and attracting capital. Quite frankly, companies will not risk capital if there's no certainty that they will be able to develop the resource they want to develop, whether it's energy or critical minerals and mining.

We know that the time it takes to have a mine approved in Canada is far too long, at 16 years and counting; however, the U.S. number is actually 29 years on average—just to put it out there. The point is that we have significant critical mineral deposits in Alberta and Saskatchewan: lithium, cobalt and nickel.

I also would like to point out that the bilateral mineral trade between Canada and the U.S. was valued at $142 billion last year. We need to not only develop our critical minerals but also develop our processing capacity, because otherwise we're still beholden to other jurisdictions to process what we mine here.

It is important to decrease the regulatory time frames associated with the development and to accelerate the permitting process, but we also need to develop processing facilities, which is another conversation.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Ms. Yedlin, we recently saw the opening of the Major Projects Office in Calgary. I don't know if you've had a chance to visit, but it strikes me that if we can reform the foundational legislation, including Bill C-69, we're not going to need a Major Projects Office.

[Deborah Yedlin]

I think if we can have a place where major projects do start, it actually goes back to what my colleague Mr. Griffiths alluded to in terms of a concierge service. If we can actually have something in one place that the major projects are being funnelled through and there's a consistent, predictable process associated with those projects in terms of the time frames and the regulatory frameworks that they're subject to, it actually gives clarity and certainty to investors and companies in terms of risking capital.

What we're talking about is the fact that we need to risk capital for decades, not for an election cycle, and it's really critical that we have that clarity. If we can get some amendments to Bill C-69—in fact, the chamber's having a round table with members next week to discuss this very issue—this will go a long way to making sure that companies come back to the table and are comfortable risking capital, because we know that until there's a resolution from a certainty perspective and a regulatory perspective, and there are clear time frames, nobody's risking a dime. That's across the board—mining, energy, you name it.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Do you hear from your members about what type of time frame they expect? Are we talking two years or three years as a reasonable time frame to address environmental concerns and to address community concerns where projects are to be developed? Do your members give you feedback on that question?

[Deborah Yedlin]

They do, but I think it depends on what kind of project we're talking about. Obviously, we want to have the shortest possible time frame to make sure that all the stakeholders and the assessments that affect the area are completed.

We also know that we've made significant strides in our relations with first nations communities. Whether it's the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation or the federal program that's been put in place, this is also a mechanism to really be able to accelerate our consultations. It's also very important in terms of being able to further accelerate the approval process, because we have a very different approach than we've had in the past, which is critical.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I have one last question on this subject matter—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 20 seconds if you can squeeze it in.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

—about the interest of expanding our exports of traditional energy with an oil pipeline to tidewater that could be in a couple of different directions and also expanding liquefied natural gas export capacity.

[Deborah Yedlin]

It's absolutely critical. When we look at it from an economic standpoint, one of the easiest levers we have to pull as a country to generate economic growth and increase productivity is to make sure we can allow the energy sector to develop its resources and make sure we increase liquefied natural gas exports.

LNG Canada's phase one has a carbon footprint 50% lower than any other LNG facility right now, so let's build on that and, of course, increase the exports to tidewater.

If anybody wants to follow Rory Johnston on X, there's a very good graphic that shows how much more oil we're exporting to China as a result of the Trans Mountain pipeline, so there's a lot to build on in terms of exports to other markets, and there could be an opportunity for us because shale's peaking in the United States. That's a different conversation, again, in terms of exports and—