Natural Resources Committee on March 7th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 55 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Pursuant to the order of reference made Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting on Bill S-222, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act regarding the use of wood.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. I'd like to remind everyone that screenshots are no longer permitted when we're in session. There are a few quick things. I think we have lots of old hands and experienced people online with us.

Welcome, retired former senator and Mr. Angus. If you need to speak, use the “raise hand” function, and I'll ask anybody online to mute yourself, or unmute yourself, as necessary. Comments should be addressed through the chair. We'll use our handy card system. You'll have five minutes. When your time is up, I'll give a 30-second warning, and the red card is for time's up.

We're going to start with some opening statements from the sponsors of the bill. We have Richard Cannings, member of Parliament, who is the House sponsor, and Hon. Diane Griffin, retired senator, as the Senate sponsor.

We're going to take the first hour to go through with our first panel, and then we'll switch and have Natural Resources and Public Services and Procurement Canada for the second hour. At the end, I need to save a bit of time for a study budget and a quick question on committee travel, so that'll be the business for today.

With that, we'll go to Richard.

If you're ready to give your five-minute opening statement, I'll turn the floor over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Great. Thanks, Richard, for your opening comments.

We'll move right away to the Honourable Diane Griffin.

Senator, if you're ready to go, we'll turn the floor over you. When you begin, I'll start the clock so that you have five minutes.

Thanks for joining us today.

[Diane Griffin, Retired Senator, As an Individual]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for your opening comments. I really appreciate your joining us in your retirement. It's good to have you here.

With that, we're going to have time for one round of questions, which will be six minutes for each of the parties. Then we'll see where we are, but that should take us to the end of this first panel.

I'd also like to welcome Sameer Zuberi on the government side and Tako Van Popta on the Conservative side.

I have Mr. Van Popta as our first questioner.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Van Popta. You have six minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for welcoming me to the committee. It's an honour to be here.

Senator Griffin, thank you for being with us.

Mr. Cannings, it's not every day that we have a fellow member of Parliament from British Columbia here as a witness. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to meet with you and ask you a couple of questions about an industry that is so important to British Columbia—our forestry industry.

You said in a speech that you gave in the House introducing Bill S-222 to Parliament that this bill is modelled on the Wood First Act in British Columbia. I'd like to zero in on that a little bit. That might be a good model for us to see what impact Bill S-222 might have on the Canadian economy.

What difference did the Wood First Act of British Columbia make in British Columbia's forestry industry?

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

The Wood First Act in British Columbia was really meant, I think in the words of the government of the time, to “create a culture of wood” and wood construction in government infrastructure buildings in British Columbia. It hasn't forced the government to build with wood, but that bill, like this one and the Charte du bois or the wood charter in Quebec, was designed to put a spotlight, as you say, on wood as a great construction material for modern buildings, especially with mass timber construction.

Since the Wood First Act in British Columbia was introduced, there have been many provincial infrastructure builds, including the airport in Smithers. A fire hall on Vancouver Island was built out of engineered wood. That's what the Wood First Act in British Columbia was meant to do—to complement that across the country with federal infrastructure.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you for that.

I know that the British Columbia legislation provided the provincial government an opportunity to showcase engineered lumber and timber, so nobody would argue with that. My question is whether it had a marked or measurable impact on the industry. I'm looking at the Statistics Canada report. If I look at the number of hours worked in wood product manufacturing over that almost 15-year period, I see this made almost no difference at all.

This is aspirational, but is it having a real impact?

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

What I would say is that the Wood First Act and the wood charter came early on in the uptake of mass timber construction. When those bills were introduced, there were literally only two companies producing mass timber products in Canada. There was Chantiers Chibougamau in Quebec and Structurlam in Penticton. Now there are many more, depending on how you define that. There's StructureCraft in Abbotsford, and the member from Abbotsford's brother, I know, is involved with that. There's Kalesnikoff Lumber in Castlegar. It is growing.

The reason I first introduced this bill is that I've talked to the people involved in these industries, and they've needed some help with government procurement to really get them going. They were leading in North America, but it was such a small part of the market that they wanted that added government procurement to boost them.

The forest industry has been through such turbulent and tumultuous times that I'd be hesitant to put any stock in the numbers of hours spent building this or the number of projects, but the number of projects for mass timber has gone from 10 across the country per year in 2010, to about 50 now. There has been a quintupling of the growth in the last 10 or 12 years. I think that's a better indication of where this part of the industry is going.

Any time you promote the use of mass timber, you're promoting the use of the two-by-fours and two-by-sixes that go into that construction from mills across the country.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

I have a quick question for the senator.

In your address in the Senate you highlighted the fact that this legislation could put Canada in a better position with respect to our trade with the United States. I would note the lack of a softwood lumber treaty with the United States.

I wonder what your comments are with respect to this filling in where the Liberal government has failed to secure a softwood lumber treaty.

[Diane Griffin]

You're right that softwood lumber has been quite an issue over the years, as we know.

My experience is primarily from the maritime provinces. I'm from Prince Edward Island. In the maritime provinces this type of a bill, Bill S-222, would really benefit us, because we haven't had the same kinds of issues in the Maritimes as perhaps the rest of Canada has had with softwood lumber. I see this as being entirely beneficial in that respect.

Thank you for the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time on that round.

I'm going to go now to my second person. I have Mr. Kody Blois for his six minutes.

Mr. Blois, over to you.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to echo the comments of my colleague to you, Mr. Cannings, and, indeed, to Senator Griffin. Thank you so much for this project, for this bill. Senator Griffin, let me also say, of course, you being from the Maritimes, it's great to see a fellow Maritimer. Thank you for all your work and service on behalf of Canadians, but specifically those in Prince Edward Island as well.

I'm supportive of this bill. I really echo, Mr. Cannings, what you had said around the prospect for mass timber and the ability that this piece of legislation, and indeed the concept, represents.

In Atlantic Canada, we are working.... I say “we”, but there is a company called the Mass Timber Company that is trying to actually echo and build some similar plants to those that exist in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. We have the ability to use Atlantic Canadian wood products to help support the northeastern United States and, indeed, our own country.

I'm generally supportive of the bill. The few questions I have are around the use of “may allow the use of wood.” When I read the provision itself it seems as though, for those who might not be in the wood sector who are concerned about how we might be giving preferential access to wood products in the building, you were very intentional in the language by saying this is really about putting a lens on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions associated with procurement and may use wood products.

Was there an issue in the past of why wood products couldn't be used, or is it more about using that language just to promote the industry writ large?

I'll start with you, Mr. Cannings.

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

In the early versions of this bill that were basically just to ask the minister to consider the use of wood, there was no mention of the other products so there were concerns around picking winners and losers and even some perhaps trade implications that, as Canada is a wood-producing nation, we would be favouring ourselves in these things.

It was specifically amended to highlight the greenhouse gases, the greenhouse carbon footprint aspect of these materials. It says the use of wood or any other material that may achieve these benefits. That goes to when I talk to the people in the cement industry and they say that cement is such a long-lasting product and they have new ways of incorporating carbon into it, so that they would be able to compete. I said great.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I think about CarbonCure, for example—

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

Exactly.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

—a company in Dartmouth that's finding ways to put carbon emissions into the concrete itself. I appreciate the fact that this is promoting the wood products industry, but also it's keeping it open-ended in terms of any product that is going to be focused on GHG emission reductions.

Obviously, this is going to help promote and make sure there is a lens on wood products being used in procurement on the federal side. Have you had, Mr. Cannings, or perhaps you, Senator Griffin, any thoughts around on how we might have to amend building codes or federal standards? It's one thing if we have a lens on procurement in the country, that's good, but if our building standards don't allow these types of products in the actual standards is that something we have to look at above and beyond this bill as well?

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

Yes, and that has been ongoing. The latest national building code of Canada moved up. Wood buildings are now allowed to be 12 stories high under the new code. That was entirely the result of the development of mass timber construction. As Senator Griffin noted, Brock Commons is 18 stories. Those buildings are done on a case-by-case basis, where you bring in the local fire chief and the special engineer designs and everybody signs off on it.

We have to keep up with those codes. We have to keep up with the education of architects and engineers and construction people to make sure they know this is available and how to do it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I also want to ask about the full life-cycle analysis.

Mr. Cannings, you mentioned, of course, that's something the department should be looking into.

Obviously, you mentioned you had a prior bill. You are sponsoring this in the House with the help of our Senate colleagues. Have there been conversations with Public Services and Procurement Canada about their analysis tools and if they have adequate mechanisms right now to make sure that is in place? Have you had any conversations about that? Obviously, the concept is good. I want to make sure, if there's work we have to do on the government side to prepare, that we know about it.

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

Yes. When I first introduced the bill a few years ago, those things were being started. I have met with PSPC more recently. They said this fits in perfectly with how we're doing things. They are developing these tools. Some are already there. Again, it fits in with the demands of cement. They said we should be using life-cycle analyses, and cement in many cases would do well.

That's what I want to hear.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

This passed unanimously in the House. I think we're all on board. I think we support the concept.

Mr. Cannings or Senator Griffin, do you see this as a tool that we should be using more widely, beyond wood and forestry?

I'm the chair of the agriculture committee. I think about the idea of trying to procure local foods and having that type of lens. Do you think this is something the Government of Canada should be using, even beyond wood products in general?

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

I think we have to look everywhere we can. The climate crisis is something.... We have to do everything we can to alleviate it. Part of that is choosing, whether we're citizens or governments, what we buy or build things with. That's happening.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Cannings and Senator Griffin.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thanks.

Moving on, we will go to Monsieur Simard, who will have six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome Mr. Cannings, with whom I served on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in 2019, and the senator.

I am quite pleased to see this bill before us today. As Mr. Cannings mentioned, the Bloc Québécois introduced a similar bill in 2009. In 2014, when it was reintroduced by the Bloc Québécois, I laid the groundwork for the bill.

The bills introduced in 2009 and 2014 were somewhat based on the Quebec Wood Charter. That policy allows us to maximize the use of wood in government buildings in Quebec. Innovative wood solutions must be employed, as stated in the Wood Charter.

Personally, I find it very interesting, especially since the government is introducing new measures to promote green building practices, even though it did not set an example itself. In my opinion, it was high time to introduce a bill to promote the use of wood, especially since all the forestry sector stakeholders are in complete agreement on this type of measure. The forest industry council comes to mind as an example.

In fact, establishing a carbon footprint policy is one of the demands in the common road map. Today, we are going even further. Indeed, we are seeking to have the carbon footprint taken into account when awarding government contracts. In doing so, a material like wood will always have an advantage.

Incidentally, earlier, my colleague Mr. Blois asked why we wanted to use wood specifically. As any engineer will tell you, there is no similar material with such a low carbon footprint.

Mr. Cannings mentioned Chantiers Chibougamau. What Chantiers Chibougamau is doing with glulam and cross-laminated timber makes it possible to use what is called pulpwood, the small pieces that no one wants, to create huge infrastructure. There's a tremendous value added, but unfortunately, it's mostly outside Canada that these beams are being used. They aren't used as much in Canada or Quebec. Incentives are therefore welcome.

Mr. Cannings or Senator, have you considered using language in the bill that is a little more binding, that would emphasize the incentive aspect? As I read the bill, it struck me as wishful thinking, but that may be because of the legal jargon.

Do you think it would be possible to propose an amendment to make the bill's wording a little more binding as far as the government's use of wood was concerned?