Evidence of meeting #86 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was procurement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Cannings, for coming and for your interest in wood. It's great. It certainly aligns with some of the government's existing priorities on the use of wood. I think you have already mentioned that the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change supports projects and activities that encourage the use of wood. It's right there. As well, as you noted, in budget 2017 we allocated almost $40 million for NRCan to examine the expansion of the use of wood.
What exactly is it that your change would do that the existing government initiatives do not?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I think the existing government initiatives are good at that very early stage. You mentioned the $40 million over four or five years. That specifically will look at projects that are doing very innovative things, so they will stand as examples.
This would do take that and move it across government infrastructure. A lot of these projects we're talking about are really iconic buildings—big government buildings, art galleries, and things like that—that use wood in very innovative and different ways; but I'm talking about warehouses and things that are maybe a bit more boring, but where wood can be used as well. It would take those specific projects that are examples, use that technology, and support the use of wood. It could be used in bridges, for example.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
It's all really interesting. To the three areas of concern that you highlighted initially—fire safety, free trade, winners versus losers—I would add maybe a fourth one that I might focus on a little bit over the course of the hearings. That would be how this change to section 7 of the act would fetter the minister's discretion and what tools would then be given to suppliers to bring law suits against the government under the procurement ombudsman or the other sections in contracting within the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. It seems to me that this is quite a big stick. Where the government is already interested in using wood and is promoting soft ways to do it, it's doing it in a non-adversarial way. My concern is that the change that's being proposed would turn the use of wood from something that is being promoted into something that is being demanded. Can you speak to that a bit?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I wouldn't say it's being demanded. It says to show preference to wood after you've done these two tests. The cement industry is confident that it can come out ahead in these tests. That would be—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
We'll leave it to that little thing. For instance, if a contract is being awarded and now there's this extra layer, this extra step, every time government procurement goes to do its work, it's going to have to go through an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of whether wood should be shown a preference over another building material. That's time and energy and effort. If that step is missed in any procurement contract, would you expect that a contractor who is offering to do the work with wood would be able to contest the tender?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
If I'm not mistaken, I think this lifetime cost analysis of embodied carbon is already done on most or all federal infrastructure projects. That aspect is already happening. I don't know how it plays into decisions, but I think these tests are relatively simple compared to the whole process of building a large federal building, which is quite an involved one. This would be a fairly small part of that. It wouldn't add a huge layer of bureaucracy. It's something that would be done fairly quickly up front.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Maybe this is something we'll explore over the course of the meetings in a review of this bill. My concern would be that maybe there is a test that people are using to determine whether it's more or less carbon advantageous, but when the people are making that decision, they're not making it under the threat of future litigation in the tendering process. Once you add this extra layer of enforceability directly within the act, I wonder whether the types of measures that are being used would survive scrutiny, whether we'll end up with umpteen court cases about what measure of carbon we should use, whether we have to count the full life cycle cost of the carbon footprint of extracting the limestone out of the ground for the concrete. It all gets very complicated. It's okay to say you have a tool that's useful as a guide. It's different from having a tool that's useful as a guide, to go to a tool that's going to stand up to legislative scrutiny in the tendering process. In Canada there's already too much litigation on tendering.
What are your thoughts on that?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
From what I understand, those calculations on those costs of taking limestone out of the ground, of cutting trees down and trucking them in, those are already there. Those analyses have already been done and are being used, not only in Canada but around the world. I think those analyses have already been subjected to some severe scrutiny. I don't know how litigious this could become. I would hope.... It's just that we have this—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Maybe on that point, I could propose something that we think about over the course of.... Would you be open to amending your private member's bill to provide some clarity around the fact that people won't be able to litigate on the failure of the government or a particular procurement not to have engaged in the analysis to the extent that one of the proponents might feel would have been appropriate?
Would you be open to those amendments?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I'm open to amendments. I would like the intent of the bill to remain intact. I want the bill to still be effective in moving to that culture of considering wood. Whether these are...and I'll look at any amendments that come forward.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I think that's great. You may see this line of questioning from me further in the course of the discussion.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Cannings for getting this bill to committee. That's a huge step. I admire anybody that can get this far.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I certainly admire the intent of the bill. I love working with wood. I like making things with wood, but I'm also an aggregate producer in my other life. I operate quarries and gravel pits, so I believe in concrete construction as well.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I understand that you have companies in your riding that have been huge benefactors of legislation like this.
I am a little concerned. I support the bill, even though—
February 27th, 2018 / 9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I think there's a way you could improve it that I think might be palatable to everybody. I'm just wondering about some feedback on that.
In your bill, it says that “the Minister shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood”. That tells me that you're not actually promoting the use of wood, but you're promoting specific projects. You're making winners and losers, whether a project incorporates wood, or whether it incorporates concrete and steel, or a combination of both. There's actually going to be consideration given to the project, not the use of the material, but the project. I'm concerned with that. I would like some feedback on that.
I'm also wondering if you thought about changing the word preference to consideration. In my opinion, I think that it would make it much more amenable. Actually, I think that it would do what you want it to do. In some of your earlier responses to some of the questions, you use that word, but really what you're after is consideration. You want these two tests that you've indicated in the bill to be applied when there's consideration given to projects. You're confident that, if those tests are applied, wood will get it's fair share of acceptance.
Could you comment on the possibility of maybe changing some of that?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Again, as I mentioned to Mr. Whalen, I'm open to amendments. If it comes down to changing preference to consideration, I would have to consider that.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
As long as I'm confident that the bill will accomplish what I want it to accomplish, then I'd be happy. Maybe that would work with a change like that, so yes, I'm open to—
