Natural Resources Committee on March 10th, 2023

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Are there concerns?

[Carmen Santoro]

Through you, Chair, there are definite concerns—absolutely. We've included some of those comments in our testimony in terms of the first nations. There are definitely concerns there as well, especially, as I've said, with the wildland fires that encroach on those properties, and the risks they have in those areas. We certainly need to address that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

With that, folks, I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here.

You are released to go and to continue with your day. We really appreciate the time you've spent with us.

We're now going to suspend and do a quick swap of panels. We'll resume for the clause-by-clause in just a moment. For now, we're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call the meeting back to order.

We're now back in session, and we're going to be moving into clause-by-clause. For this part of the meeting, we're going to go through a few reminders first for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-222.

One amendment has been submitted for this bill. Should members wish to submit further amendments during today's meeting, those amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must also be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and on the bill as a whole.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report will contain only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

We'll now move into the clause-by-clause portion.

(On clause 1)

We'll call the first clause. We have Mr. Simard's amendment.

Mr. Simard, if you'd like to speak to your amendment, we'll have the discussion on that.

It's over to you.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay.

You heard Mr. Samray testify earlier that he had some concerns about the impact of Bill S‑222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

I support this bill as written. I want to see more wood used, but I seriously doubt that the bill will have any effect on wood use when it comes into force. Will it have any real impact?

There is a fairly simple legal principle called presumption of effectiveness. People say that the legislator doesn't speak for the sake of speaking.

However, Bill S‑222 provides that the minister can “allow the use of wood” and “consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”.

In my opinion, as it stands, the minister can already allow the use of wood and consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. No bill is needed to do that.

So my amendment goes along those lines.

I move the following:

That Bill S‑222, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 1 with the following: “shall maximize the use of wood. The Minister may also allow the use of any other thing — including".

I'm adding the idea of maximizing the use of wood. Using “maximize” rather than “can allow” would, at the very least, ensure that more wood is used as a building material.

If the purpose of Bill S‑222 is to give our buildings a smaller carbon footprint, it sounds like wishful thinking in its current form.

As I said earlier, there is a primary legal principle called presumption of effectiveness; the legislator doesn't speak for the sake of speaking. I get the impression that the current bill has the legislator speaking for the sake of speaking.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I wanted to point out to all members that online, we have Mr. Hamilton, director general of the technical service and real property services with the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

Welcome, Mr. Hamilton, and thank you for being here.

Mr. Hamilton is here as our technical witness, so if anybody has any questions they'd like to direct on amendments or the clause, see Mr. Hamilton. He's available to take those.

Mr. Angus, you have your hand up, so I'll turn the floor over to you. I assume you want to speak to Mr. Simard's amendment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I fully share the spirit of Mr. Simard's amendment. I think it captures the spirit of what we are doing in the committee. However, I would warn against trying to be perfect when we can be good.

I know Mr. Cannings did a lot of work trying to get this bill supported by all players. There were a lot of negotiations on this. I'm very wary about changing the wording or adding to it without having done that consultation, so I will not be supporting this amendment.

I believe the bill is good as it stands, and we've had a lot of support for it as it stands, so I'll be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

Next on my list I have Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'd simply like to remind Mr. Angus that, in 2017, his colleague Mr. Cannings introduced Bill C‑354, which used much the same language. I don't know if that would make him support this amendment, but I assume his colleague wanted the same thing that's being proposed today.

If it worked in 2017, I don't see why it wouldn't work today.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Next on my speakers list I have Ms. Dabrusin.

Julie, over to you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I think the point Mario Simard is raising is really important, and I appreciate his advocacy for the use of mass timber.

I am curious as to whether Mr. Hamilton would be able to help us understand what the impact of this amendment would be on government decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Hamilton, over to you if you're able to share your thoughts on that question.

[Kelby Hamilton]

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with everyone this morning.

Real property services would not recommend supporting the proposed change, as it is contrary to the position paper that our minister signed.

Selection and management of materials in real property is based on the recognized assessment tools we have in place, and we're working with the National Research Council in our continued process of innovation. If wood is, in fact, the best material for greenhouse gas reduction and environmental benefits, the analysis that we currently do at the commencement of projects will identify wood as the best solution to implement.

There also is no clear definition of “maximize”, which means using that word and implementing and tracking it would be extremely difficult. Because of that, Public Services and Procurement Canada would not be in support of the change.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin, do you have a follow-up question? Otherwise I have Mr. Simard on my speakers list. Okay.

Monsieur Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Hamilton, if I understood what one of your colleagues testified earlier this week, you already consider the carbon footprint when you study your projects. My understanding from that discussion is that you are already doing it.

Currently, the minister can allow the use of wood without the measures in Bill S‑222. That's what I understood from one of your colleagues who appeared earlier this week.

Did I understand correctly? Is what I'm saying consistent with your practices?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Hamilton, are you able to respond?

[Kelby Hamilton]

At the commencement of a project, we do what is called the “greenhouse gas options analysis methodology”. That methodology considers all the materials that will be used, and each of them has what is called an “environmental product declaration”, which identifies both the amount of embedded carbon and the carbon that will be sequestered or emitted by the product. I believe one of my colleagues, earlier in the week, also spoke about the price of carbon at $300 a tonne.

All of these things are taken into consideration at the commencement of a project. The total price of a project takes into account many contributing factors. Ultimately we are trying to do construction with all the materials that, at the end of the day, produce the lowest GHG emissions possible for Canada.

If wood is that product, the options analysis will clearly identify it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand.

You say that, at present, you are already doing what is proposed in Bill S‑222. The minister can authorize the use of wood, and you're already calculating the gains in terms of GHG reductions in your buildings. This bill has no effect because you're already implementing what is in it, which is why I think it is important to add a component for optimizing the use of wood.

Whether the bill is passed or not, there will be no difference in what you are currently doing in the assessment of federal buildings and infrastructure. There is no gain.

Did I understand you correctly?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Hamilton, could you provide a response? Then I have Ms. Lapointe next on my list.

[Kelby Hamilton]

The National Research Council is continuing to develop its database. It's called a life cycle assessment database, and it includes all of the materials that are currently available for construction. That database will be the baseline that will be used starting in 2025 as we request a 20% reduction or a 10% reduction that would go to a 30% reduction of GHG in construction materials.

Currently, wood is not in that database. The only materials currently in that database, to my knowledge, are cement and concrete. Various materials in construction are continuing to be added, and as those materials are added it will benefit the reduction of GHG in construction. That's the innovation that's happening as part of the greening government strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I'm going to go over to Madam Lapointe, and then Mr. Simard has a follow-up question.

Ms. Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Mr. Hamilton.

You talked about how the decisions around selecting materials are based on some well-established assessment tools. Can you briefly highlight for us what that looks like? Is it a reasonable assumption that those tools would identify resources other than wood, such as low-carbon steel, or concrete, that may be more suitable for building materials?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Hamilton.

[Kelby Hamilton]

The GHG options analysis methodology does just that. I listened in to some of the previous witnesses who were here, who spoke about both the emitted and the sequestered carbon in wood. This is a long and complex process with creating what is called an environmental product declaration for every type of material in construction.

It really depends on where that material is coming from. If a piece of steel or wood that's used in construction is coming from Quebec or coming from British Columbia, it will have a different environmental product declaration. Why? It's because transportation, and how it was sourced, all add to the carbon footprint.

The National Research Council plays an essential role in the creation of these environmental product declarations. This information is a critical component in the greenhouse gas options analysis methodology that is used, in addition to the $300 price that we put on carbon. When we start out doing the analysis of the best option when we're doing new construction and major renovation, the outcome of that analysis provides us with what is the lowest carbon emitting solution to do that project.