Natural Resources Committee on March 22nd, 2018

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

I might come back to you on that, but I'm going to make sure I can talk to Mr. Beaulieu.

You talked—and Mr. Auer just mentioned it—about the problem that, in universities and colleges' engineering and architectural schools, wood isn't taught as a structural material. That's one thing that your group does. Can you comment on how things are changing in Quebec because of these charte du bois policies and maybe perhaps in British Columbia and elsewhere in the world about how that might be changing and whether....

One of the reasons I brought this bill forward is to make people consider wood. Do you see that changing?

[Gérald Beaulieu]

You are right. Thank you for the question, Mr. Cannings.

The Wood Charter is very important to help change the thinking of the construction sector. Now, when the government invests in building projects, it asks that the choice of wood be considered. It's not about giving priority to wood over any other material. The government is only asking to consider the possibility of using wood and to document the decision of choosing or not choosing wood.

The idea is not to say that we no longer want steel or concrete. We want the local resource, which is produced in Quebec and creates jobs for us, to be considered in construction, in compliance with all the changes that have been made to the National Building Code. The message is very clear: wood must not be favoured, but it must be considered. That's very important. The message is also clear to professionals: if they want to work on public projects, they will have to learn more about how to integrate wood.

Universities do not teach it. Only a few have started making it mandatory in their courses. This includes Université du Québec à Chicoutimi and Laval University, which offers a wood engineering program. I will not comment on the overall situation in Canada, but the other civil engineering faculties in Quebec do not provide compulsory training on wood as a material.

If we want to engage in a conversation about the multi-material approach while fully considering environmental performance and greenhouse gases, it is illogical not to have compulsory training on wood as a building material, especially since knowledge and technologies have evolved and now recognize the performance of wood as a building material outside single-family homes.

I hope I have answered your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I have to stop you there, Mr. Cannings. I'm sorry.

Mr. Serré, you're going to take us home. I can give you about three and a half minutes maybe.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you so much, witnesses, for coming today.

I'll have a question in French but first, Mr. Auer, you mentioned earlier the benefits that the industry has received from the cap-and-trade system in Ontario. Can you give us a few examples of the benefits and what you've done to look at the innovation and, as you said, in your lifetime, carbon-free concrete? Are there any specific examples showing the benefit?

[Adam Auer]

I have a few examples. One is that the Government of Ontario has taken some of the, I think, $2 billion now that they've raised through cap and trade and directed it to the Ontario Centres of Excellence, which has a program called TargetGHG that is focused on accelerating innovation in reductions of CO2 in industry. As part of that stream, we have received some support to build out capital infrastructure to be able to use lower-carbon fuels.

Another, I think, very significant example in Ontario is that one of our members is involved in a carbon capture technology called Pond Technologies. They are feeding raw flue gas to algae, which absorbs the CO2 and also cleans other air contaminants. The algae grows obviously and can be harvested for use in all sorts of other products including biofuels. It is theoretically possible to take that algae and use it as a direct substitute for coal at the cement facility. You can make bioplastics. You can make food-grade feed for aquaculture. You can make high-value dyes. It's a very exciting and innovative project. That would be another example of what I would consider sort of a potentially game-changing technology that would get us towards that carbon neutrality target.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Beaulieu, Ms. O’Connor, could you each take 30 seconds to answer my question?

The bill mentions preferences in the industry. People who have come to testify before the committee have told us that the forestry industry is at a disadvantage. Can you explain how the National Building Code puts your industry at a disadvantage, or provide some specific examples of things that are not really equal at the moment?

[Gérald Beaulieu]

A number of examples come to mind, but let me quickly give you two.

When you build a six-storey building, which the Quebec building code now permits, as do codes in other provinces, the staircases must be made of non-combustible materials. As a result, when designers design a building, they have to install steel or concrete staircases. You see, wood is considered a combustible material, no matter the technologies used to make staircases with it. That is the one disadvantage that wood is at, despite our proof that solid timber complies with fire safety requirements. We are in the process of completing a series of tests along those lines.

In high buildings, although once again we have succeeded in demonstrating the fire-resistant qualities of wood, the requirement is for solid timber to be entirely enclosed in gypsum. The occupants are not happy about that, since they would like to see the wood partially, though not entirely, exposed. After all, they are buying the building for its ecological value, including the ability to enjoy the beauty of wood.

Those are two specific examples. We work with the rest of the sector every day to have the regulations amended. We have lots—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

I'm going to have to stop you there.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I just wanted to ask what influence Mr. Cannings had on Adam as a teacher and student. I'm really curious about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We are over time, and I suspect that's a very long answer but a positive one no doubt.

Unfortunately, yes, we are out of time. As you can see, we never have enough time to get all the questions out and get all the answers from you. I just want to say how grateful we are to you for taking the time to join us and be here today and contribute to our discussion.

We will suspend for two minutes. I mean two minutes. Please don't get out of your seats if you don't have to and we can get right into business.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome back, everybody.

We are going to do clause-by-clause here, or just “clause”.

(On clause 1)

I think we have one amendment proposed by Ms. Ng.

Just so everybody is aware, because there are two proposed amendments, we're discussing your amendment first. If it's adopted, that negates the ability to talk about amendment number two, so maybe we can formulate that into the discussion quickly.

Ms. Ng.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Richard, for putting this forward. I think all of us heard some really worthwhile testimony from many people, and I think what these amendments are intended to do is recognize that a piece of legislation in support of wood is what we have in front of us and what we want to do, but I think we heard a lot from many people that we probably need some other considerations.

What you all have are just some proposed amendments that I hope capture what we've heard and still preserve the intent, which is a piece of legislation that supports wood. I'll read it, perhaps.

In the clause, “in awarding contracts”, I propose removing “awarding contracts” and adding “in developing requirements with respect to”. The rationale for this change is so that we are respectful of our various international trade agreements on the basis of having a blanket statement with respect to one material. That's the rationale for that change.

Now, Mr. Chair, should I just go through the whole thing and then we can talk?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Yes.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

We go on, so that it would read:

(1.1) In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall

This is where the second amendment comes in, removing “give preference to projects that promote” and replace that with “consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits that may allow”.

I'm proposing this modification, again, to be respectful of our various international trade agreements and to also respect discretion that is afforded to a minister when he or she makes decisions on individual projects. The projects are going to differ across the country, and I think a blanket statement about one material may not help with that particular support. It's also to meet our trade agreements internationally. That is the rationale for the second modification.

I'll just pick up, and it would then read:

the Minister shall consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood

This is where the third one is. I propose we remove the rest of that sentence and add, “or any other thing—including a material, product, or sustainable resource—that achieves such benefits”.

This third edit is really intended to emphasize the goal of GHG reduction. We've heard throughout a lot of testimony that the benefits of a consideration for wood as a material will accomplish that objective. Again, to the earlier statement of just limiting, it may not work as well, so this is really intended to give us that support, while at the same time ensuring that there are other considerations that also come into play here.

I think with these three edits, the bill has the potential to encourage a whole suite of the next generation of innovations, research, discovery, and usage of green building materials and green innovation to the traditional industries.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Are there any questions or discussion?

Richard.

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

I just want to say that I'm okay with this amendment. The wording around “or any other thing” kind of caught my eye at first, but I passed this by the Forest Products Association, and they're okay with it. They like the fact that the greenhouse gas test is there, and they feel confident that they can be successful there.

Because that whole climate action part was a very important part of the bill for me, I am willing to accept this amendment.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Does anybody else have questions or comments?

Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mary, for the presentation of your amendment. We certainly support the language in terms of altering the preferential aspect that was embedded in the original proposal. We, of course, have no problem with the life-cycle emissions consideration of products and information on the face of it. However, given the fact that if this amendment passes it might eliminate an opportunity to discuss our proposal, I just wonder if you would consider an addition to your amendment.

It's our perspective that the broad, comprehensive testimony of the variety of witnesses we've had here in consideration of the bill, regardless of which organization they came from, made forceful arguments that there are a variety of important considerations in terms of the use of building products for federal procurement and infrastructure in federal buildings. We wonder if you would consider even broadening out your proposal, and in so doing reflecting the testimony of the people who participated in discussing the bill. Perhaps you might add a line at the end, or in whatever way works for you, to include a clause that says, “also taking into account aesthetics, availability, cost, performance, and safety characteristics, as well as the environmental impact of the use of the product”, or however you might accept the wording. It was pretty clear among the broad base of witnesses that there are a number of important factors that play into the decision-making for procurement and uses of materials.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Just so I'm clear, are you moving that subamendment or just asking whether there's willingness to accept it, if moved?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I was just spitballing an initial discussion about it, but if you would like me to move a formal amendment, I'd be happy to do that.

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

Chair, can I just move for a recess for three minutes, while we discuss what was proposed?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We can suspend for three minutes, sure. If we can keep it to three minutes, that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're back.

Ms. Ng, maybe we should hear from you.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you for those proposed amendments. I think we'll end up on the same page, and I'll tell you why.

Section 7 is the preceding section to where this amendment comes in. In paragraphs 7(1) (a) to (d), you have there in legislation already considerations that in the course and duty of procurement the minister has to consider cost, performance, availability, and safety. When you read the language in (c), where the minister has to consider and assure the quality of the material, the maintenance, and specifications and standards, that actually encompasses all of those things. So in our view what you're suggesting is already in legislation and it's not necessary. Therefore the amendment that we are putting forward achieves the objective of the legislation, which is to provide a consideration and a support for wood as a material. Also with the amendment, it considers the testimonies we've heard and the argument I laid out earlier around why those amendments would make this a stronger piece of legislation that considers what we've heard.