Debates of Feb. 14th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Rising Inflation and Cost of Living

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am told that interpretation is not coming through online. It is working in the chamber, but not online.

We will try again.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start again because I was responding to my colleague and it is important that he hear the interpretation.

I was saying that if the Conservatives keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is no interpretation.

Let us just take a minute and a half to figure out what is going on.

Now that it is working, I will give the hon. member for Mirabel 30 seconds to finish his answer.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague thinks he can keep doing the same thing over and over with different results, he is clearly not listening to our proposals to permanently increase the incomes of Quebeckers and Canadians. We must give temporary help to those who are going through this crisis, and we must undertake an energy transition.

I wish the Conservatives good luck with the eighth, ninth and tenth motions. I will be happy to debate them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 5:22 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 28, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak on Bill S-222, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, use of wood.

I thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his sponsorship of this bill and his continued effort in championing this important industry in our province and, indeed, our country.

This legislation would require that the minister of public works, when considering maintenance and repair of public works or federal property, to “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.”

Ultimately, this bill aims to encourage the use of more sustainable building materials, including Canada's numerous forestry products.

Colleagues will learn from my speech today that I am a little bullish about our provincial forestry industry. My home province of British Columbia is Canada's largest producer of softwood lumber. B.C.'s largest export is forest products.

Since 2010, over 50 communities across our province have adopted wood-first policies. Quesnel, under the leadership of my friend, former mayor Mary Sjostrom, was the first community in our province to adopt a wood-first policy.

Indeed, my communities of Prince George, Williams Lake, Quesnel and Vanderhoof all have incredible world-class, award-winning facilities, such as the Prince George Airport and the Prince George art gallery. At one time we had the tallest wood building in North America standing at eight storeys, the Wood Innovation and Design Centre, which I am proud to say our former Conservative government supported.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my hometown Williams Lake's incredible tourism information centre, built by my good friends at Pioneer log homes. Colleagues in this House will know them as the world-famous timber kings.

Forestry has been a cornerstone industry in our province for over 100 years and contributes approximately $13 billion to B.C.'s economy. B.C.'s renewable forest products are in demand globally and are providing carbon-friendly building solutions in the U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, India and southeast Asia.

Wood is a renewable resource, which means that it can be replenished and grown over time. This is in contrast to other building materials, like steel or concrete, which are labour intensive and whose production create higher emissions. By building with wood, we can reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources, and in turn, reduce our carbon footprint. Carbon remains stored in wood products for the lifetime of the product. Is this not a prime example of a climate action plan rather than a carbon tax plan?

By building with wood, we can reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources and in turn, as I mentioned, reduce our carbon footprint. Fortunately, Canada is home to 9% of the world’s forests, which have the ability to act as enormous carbon sinks by absorbing and storing carbon. Each year, our forest companies invest millions of dollars in new technology. In fact, between 2010 and 2019, B.C.'s forestry companies invested over $14 billion in their operations and in developing new sustainable technology. They are leading the way in sustainable forest practices.

Annually, Canada harvests less than one-half of 1% of its forest land, allowing for the forest coverage to remain constant for the last century. In B.C., for every tree we harvest, we plant three to six trees. Since 2020, over 300 million trees have been planted.

Canada has some of the strictest forest management regulations in the world, requiring successful regeneration after public forests are harvested. Not only is wood a renewable resource, but it is also one of the few materials that is truly biodegradable. When a wood-framed home reaches the end of its useful life, it can be easily recycled or repurposed. In contrast, many other materials used in construction, such as plastics or vinyl, can take hundreds, if not thousands of years to decompose, filling up landfills and polluting our environment. Wood, lumber and other forest products are not only a sustainable construction option that cut our ecological footprint, but they are all vital economic contributors to my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

The Cariboo region was at one time British Columbia’s largest producer in the province. However, I am not sure we can say that anymore. In 2019, the Cariboo was home to 21 lumber mills; seven pulp and paper mills; six OSB plywood, veneer and panel plants; five chip mills; three pole and utility producers; three pellet producers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to stop the hon. member for a minute. There seems to be a problem with the headset. Either it is not plugged in properly or the wrong headset is selected on the computer. Can the hon. member maybe unhook his headset and plug it back in?

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George can continue.

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

Madam Speaker, the Cariboo region was at one time British Columbia's largest lumber-producing region; however, I am not sure we can say that anymore. The forestry industry is a vital sector not only for Cariboo—Prince George but for the Canadian economy, supporting thousands of jobs in countless communities across our country and creating many positive spinoff effects in related industries and services. At one time, over 200,000 jobs in my province were directly and indirectly forestry-related.

My wife and I are both products of the forestry and farming industry. As a young man in the Cariboo Chilcotin, I actually drove a skidder and loader and tied chokers. I also ran a chainsaw as a buckerman. I know first-hand how important this industry is to our region and to our country.

However, Canada's forestry industry has been hindered by unfair trade policies and tariffs imposed on Canadian producers by the U.S. government, which has negatively impacted both Canadian and American businesses and consumers. Our industry has been negatively hit by wildfires and infestations of the pine and fir beetle, which have absolutely devastated our forests. Reductions in annual allowable cuts were necessary. Ongoing rail transportation challenges and our own governments' policies, both provincial and federal, have led to B.C. and Canada being increasingly uncompetitive and costly.

In recent years, British Columbia has been hit hard by mill closures. The shutdowns have caused significant economic disruption and job losses in small communities throughout our province. These closures are punching a hole in the fabric of rural B.C.

Just recently, the Canfor lumber plant in Houston closed, eliminating 300 jobs. The Canfor lumber plant in Chetwynd closed and eliminated 160 jobs. Production curtailments are all too numerous to count. Most recently, it was announced that the Canfor pulp mill in my community of Prince George will be permanently closing, eliminating 300 jobs, which will have a profound impact on families and the local economy. For the approximately 300 people losing their jobs, families will have to struggle to make ends meet.

This closure will also have a ripple effect on the wider community, with local businesses and service providers also feeling the pinch. I cannot even begin to tell members what a heartbreaking loss this is for our community, with 300 good-paying jobs lost, jobs that employed husbands and wives, multiple generations and young people just starting out their careers. Beyond the economic impact, let us remember that these are leaders in our community who volunteer to coach sports and lead groups such as Scouts, Cadets and Brownies, or who show up to volunteer for events like the Canadian Cancer Society 24-hour relay, which just last week announced that, after 30 years, it is not returning to Prince George.

This is just another devastating mill closure in my community in an industry that has faced a never-ending series of setbacks. In addition to permanent closures, there are some mills that close temporarily, like the Cariboo Pulp & Paper mill in Quesnel. The closures and curtailments have further compounded the economic challenges facing the region and have left many families and businesses struggling to cope.

Beyond the ongoing tariff pressures, the U.S. is doing everything it can to support its lumber producers. In the U.S., decarbonization tax credits and subsidies are available through the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, and its buy American federal procurement policy ensures that Canadian softwood lumber is being left behind. How are we helping our lumber producers to compete with our American neighbours? Is it by tripling the carbon tax? I do not think so. We as a country need to do more to support our Canadian lumber industry.

It is important to note that Canadian softwood lumber is not just a cost-effective option, but also a high-quality product. The softwood lumber industry builds and supports our communities, and it can build our federal buildings.

In conclusion, I am so happy to support the legislation from my colleague from British Columbia. The benefits of using Canadian softwood lumber are definitely clear.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, on this Valentine's Day, I would like to celebrate a little event. My precious daughter, Sarah, who already has one son with my son-in-law, Simon, is pregnant. I just found out it is a girl, and I am so happy. Congratulations to them. They are an amazing couple.

Also, on this Valentine's Day, as I am destined not to spend my evening in better company, I will declare my love for forests, a priceless resource for all Quebeckers and Canadians to enjoy and benefit from.

The title of Bill S‑222 is an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. This bill is about the use of wood, and it is sponsored by former senator Diane F. Griffin of PEI. It went through first reading in the Senate on November 24, 2021, and is now at second reading in the House. It amends section 7 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act by adding the following after subsection 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.

In short, Bill S-222 encourages the federal government to support the forestry industry in reducing its carbon footprint. As a tireless advocate for the Quebec forestry industry, the Bloc Québécois will obviously be voting in favour of this bill.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois has proposed similar legislative measures in the past, although ours may have had more teeth. That was the case in 2010 with Bill C-429, sponsored by the former member for Manicouagan, Gérard Asselin. It was also the case in 2014 with Bill C-574, which was introduced by the member for Jonquière—Alma, Claude Patry. Unfortunately, each time, the Conservatives and the NDP voted down these bills.

If Quebec were a country—it is a nation, but a country in the making—our 900,000 square kilometres of forest would rank us sixth in the world in terms of total forested area. Economically, Quebec's forests represent 57,000 jobs, $12 billion in exports and a contribution of $6 billion per year to Quebec's GDP. Underestimating this wealth would obviously be a huge mistake.

With the decline of pulp and paper, modernizing the wood industry is obviously important and it is becoming increasingly so. The federal government has a huge opportunity right now to contribute to the revitalization of secondary and tertiary processing sectors in so-called weakened communities.

By secondary and tertiary processing, I am referring in particular to woodworking products and mass timber construction. Some of the world's leaders in the design and manufacture of wood buildings are located in Quebec. Chantiers Chibougamau and its Nordic Structures division come to mind. Although these businesses still do work in Quebec and Canada, their order books are largely filled by U.S. customers.

The Canadian government must stop dragging its feet. It needs to start encouraging the wood building industry in residential construction here.

On another note, I would remind the House that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has recommended increasing the use of wood in non-residential construction in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help fight climate change.

Wood products can easily replace synthetic materials from the petrochemical industry that have a huge carbon footprint. Transforming wood is a more energy-efficient process that lowers emissions by one tonne of carbon dioxide per cubic metre of wood.

Once processed, wood remains a living material. On average, every single cubic metre of wood captures an additional tonne of carbon dioxide. For example, a building constructed using 80 cubic metres of wood can store 80 tonnes of carbon dioxide during its lifetime, which is equivalent to the emissions released by driving a car for a decade. Imagine the savings for an entire building stock.

The forestry sector is probably the industry that is best positioned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture carbon already in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, between 2017 and 2020, Canada's oil and gas sector received $23 billion in taxpayer subsidies. For the same period, Canada's forestry sector received only $952 million. I would also like to point out that, at their last convention, the Liberals rejected a resolution calling for an end to public funding for fossil fuels. That is pretty weak.

Luckily, the Bloc Québécois will continue to fight for a dynamic forestry sector that focuses on preserving biodiversity, encourages innovation and diversification, and generates wealth.

In this regard, I would like to congratulate my friends and colleagues from Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean for their exemplary work on this file. Since 2019, they have undertaken numerous initiatives to bring together all the stakeholders and propose meaningful solutions.

In 2021, the Bloc Québécois developed a four-part road map to maximize forests' potential. First, the federal government could “implement a public procurement policy that would encourage the use of wood products, including establishing the carbon footprint as a criterion for awarding contracts”.

Second, the Bloc Québécois recommends “increasing budgets for basic research and to develop a value chain for the secondary and tertiary transformation of forest resources”.

Third, we suggest protecting exports of lumber from Quebec to the United States, our principal trading partner.

Fourth, we want to find ways to boost productivity tied to annual growth.

That is why my colleagues and I will vote in favour of Bill S‑222.

On this day, February 14, my wish is for the government to show the forestry sector a little love, to help keep jobs in our regions and to fight climate change. It has to stop ignoring that and instead be part of the solution.

Happy St. Valentine's day to everyone.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise for the last time today, on national Have a Heart Day.

Before I begin, I wish safe travels to all of the delegates who attended the Northern Lights trade show here in Ottawa last week. It is an important event that promotes the great work that Nunavummiut are doing to support Canada’s economy. It is a great event to showcase the beauty and talent that artisans from the NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut have.

I extend my congratulations to all the participants and winners of the Arctic Winter Games in Woodland, Alberta. I have heard great stories of triumph, heartache and celebration. I thank the volunteers who have devoted their time to the success of youth to achieve their best in such events.

I thank my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for sponsoring Bill S-222 in this place. It is a step in the right direction to help eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The government has the responsibility to do its part. We must all do our part to reduce emissions. We must all do our part to protect the environment. This bill, while short, has important implications. There must be a fine balance between keeping forests and reducing reliance on harmful materials.

Over the last 20 years, I have driven back and forth between Ottawa and New Brunswick to visit family. I have noticed major changes over those 20 years. Roads have improved. Communities have grown, and forests of trees have been decimated. Although I know that I cannot live in remote wooded areas for long periods of time, I know how important trees are. I know that we must find solutions to replacing harmful products, such as plastics and other materials known to accelerate climate change.

As Canadian businesses and organizations are shifting to more sustainable practices, this bill helps to ensure that the federal government will work toward those concerns. We are often asked to stretch the limits of our knowledge to learn about important issues that constituents are concerned about. In this speech, I stretch my limits in attempting to understand how mainstream society consumes resources.

The aim of this bill is to allow the federal government to use wood for improvements to infrastructure. By using wood in the repair and building of federal infrastructure projects, Canadian businesses can be better supported. In 2013, production in the forest sector contributed $19.8 billion, or 1.25% to Canada’s real gross domestic product. With the decline of the forestry industry in recent years, there is an opportunity to revitalize this sector while protecting the environment.

In my riding, although we are not manufacturing wood, families rely on wood for homes, heating and other projects. We rely very much on the import of wood from our neighbours to the south. I use this seat to make sure that concerns are brought forward, my constituents' questions are answered and their needs are met.

As the critic to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, my job is to amplify the voices and the concerns that indigenous peoples have. I meet with indigenous communities, chiefs, elders and advocates who are asking the government to listen and take meaningful action to repair the damage it has done. This is important work, but the government must also stretch itself. It needs to be putting in the hard work to make sure Canadians are heard and this is acted upon.

In Budget 2017, the government provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, starting in 2018–19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. We are calling on the government to make good on its promises and be true to its word.

This is important, especially in the context of the federal government’s relationship with the indigenous peoples of Canada. The government has promised to protect indigenous people's lands, consult with indigenous communities and work toward reconciliation. Too often, this does not occur. The government must take the issues being raised by Canadians more seriously. The government has promised greener solutions to address climate change.

All too often, I have watched the government break promises it has made to indigenous peoples and to Canadians. All too often, the government has taken minimal or incremental steps that improve the lives of indigenous peoples. The Liberal government has said that there is no relationship more important than that with indigenous peoples. Protecting and upholding indigenous people's rights is a responsibility of the government.

The bill is silent on this important matter. How will indigenous people's rights be respected? How will this amendment increase tenure for first nations communities? How will first nations management be guaranteed?

It is my hope that amendments will be made to acknowledge that Canada is founded on indigenous people's lands, and provisions must account for that. As Canada continues to work toward a better future, indigenous people must be heard and their land rights must be upheld.

Indigenous governance and management must be included. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be included. No development of any kind should exclude the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill S-222 this afternoon. I think what would come as a surprise to a good number of people is the degree to which wood is being utilized as a building component, especially for people—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be a lot conversations happening and individuals making comments. I would ask members who are having conversations to take them outside. If anybody is looking to make comments, unfortunately there are no questions and comments during this period of Private Members' Business. I would ask people to listen intently instead.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate it. I know the member for Abbotsford, who has been looking forward to my speech on this issue today, really appreciates it too, because he wants to digest, no doubt, every word that I am sharing with him. After all, if we take a look at the environment of Abbotsford, I suspect we will find that the wood and timber industry is of critical importance. I know the member for Abbotsford knows full well the significance of the wood industry to the province of British Columbia. In fact, as a former minister of Stephen Harper, he can relate, I am sure, to the many different types of trade issues related to our softwood industry.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

A wonderful prime minister.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, whether he was a good prime minister is a debatable issue, but that is for another day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to get to his speech, and I would ask other members to please keep their thoughts to themselves at this point in time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the member for Abbotsford for getting a little off topic there, too.

My first experience in dealing with wood in a substantial way, which goes beyond the general framing of a house in Winnipeg, is when I had actually bought a home on Burrows Avenue. I went into the home. We had to replace some drywall. Instead of a concrete foundation, it was actually a wood foundation. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me. I am somewhat familiar with the construction industry. I have family members who have been doing it for many years.

A thought that crosses my mind right away when I touch a wood foundation versus a concrete foundation is there is a far better insulation value. If one is from a city like Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary or Regina, out in the Prairies, insulation value is quite important. If members were to do a Google search, which I have, they would find, to the surprise of many, how skyscrapers are actually now being made. Someone made reference to a wooden structure of eight floors. In Wisconsin, there is a 25-storey timber building. In Canada, if we look at British Columbia, by UBC, I believe it is called the Brock Commons. It is an 18-storey complex.

More and more, we are seeing wood being used in these taller buildings. I believe it is a vastly underestimated potential for Canada's wood industry. Like others, I have had the chance to travel abroad. Often in the countries I have visited, we do not see wood being utilized as we would here in North America. I believe that it is speaks volumes to the potential markets out there if one could really get out there and communicate the advantages of wood over other products.

We have talked a great deal about the transition to a greener economy. When we think of that greener economy, a big part of it is within the construction industry itself. As we see our wood industry grow at least in part, recognizing the potential of that growth and talking about it would add even that much more value to it.

This is not the first time that we have had this type of legislation come to the floor of the House of Commons. Some have already made reference to, I believe, Bill C-354, which went through a while ago, passing in the House of Commons. It was the election in 2019 that killed the bill because it did not quite get through the Senate. It bodes well, in terms of where we are today, talking about Bill S-222. Within that legislation, given the very nature of the fact that it is originating from the Senate, and we have seen the wide support from a previous House, where members on all sides saw the value of supporting it, I suspect that Bill S-222 would in fact be able to pass the House, and ultimately receive royal assent. That is a very strong positive.

As I said, there is nothing new, from a government perspective, in dealing with the environment and having a greener transition, because I think it fits what we have been talking about. We have seen a number of legislative and budgetary measures to support a greener economy.

I am thinking of those magnificent timbers, beams, one-by-threes for sidings, two-by-fours and, nowadays, two-by-sixes that are being used in many of the construction codes for exterior walls, for example. We have seen far more opportunities in recent years. As building codes continue to evolve and give more strength, I believe we will see that the demand for wood will continue to increase.

At the end of the day we do want to see a reduction in greenhouse emissions, and the bill would support that in principle, because of the product itself, a product that is renewable. Someone made reference to the province of B.C., where one tree comes down and three are planted in its place. We have a commitment to plant two billion trees, coming from our government. Many of those trees are going to be planted within our cities to provide beautiful plush green canopies over our municipalities, cities and communities, but a good number of trees we see that are planted today are there so that we can ensure that we can continue to harvest.

We have heard a great deal about British Columbia, and we do not want to give the impression that it is the only place where there is an industry of that nature, because one could easily talk about hardwoods and others that go from Ontario to Quebec and a couple of the Atlantic provinces, where there is very much a healthy industry, and that is not to say my own home province of Manitoba does not have great potential in the development in that industry.

I think that, in looking at the bill, we see sustainable forest management. We see a government that is committed to greening federal buildings, whether it is by retrofitting, building new or just completing repairs, and what the legislation would do is allow the minister to recommend wood usage, not necessarily compel it, but recommend it.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise to debate important legislation in the House.

I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will give me a bit of latitude to start my intervention with an acknowledgement that it is Valentine's Day. I am not sure if she is watching, but to Danielle, I say that I love her and wish her a very happy Valentine's Day. Although we cannot be together in person, I so much appreciate her partnership, all the work that she does and what we are able to do as a family. I love my sweetheart. With that, I will get back to the subject at hand.

The topic of wood builds is certainly an interesting conversation, and one might ask how this prairie member of Parliament is speaking to it. Speaking of my wife, one of the things she commented on when she first came to visit me on my family farm shortly after we got together was that there was a lack of trees. Especially compared to northern Saskatchewan, where she heralds from, there were very, very few trees in the area. However, it is certainly an interesting subject of conversation, when we look at the architecture and the advancement that has taken place in the space of what wood builds can mean for both architecture and city planning and also for the benefit of the environment.

Bill S-222 is intended to help level the playing field in procurement where traditionally wood construction would not have been a feasible part of the typical procurement process. Bill S-222 acknowledges an evolution that has taken place in the building codes and in a type of engineered construction. In fact, an architect or even a home builder would not even call them “wood builds”. They would be called engineered builds because a significant amount of work goes into creating the products, wood-based in most cases, that go into these new buildings.

Therefore, what Bill S-222 endeavours to accomplish is to simply level the playing field. Certainly as Conservatives, we look forward to those. When going through the procurement process, one would pick the best, most cost effective and environmentally friendly procurement option. In this case, when it comes to the construction of public buildings, one wants to ensure that the procurement process is followed and that it is giving the best value to taxpayers. However, to include wood in the process is, I would suggest, a positive step in the right direction, which could very well provide that significant value to taxpayers.

Let me provide a couple of examples. Many people will look at the architecture that one associates with the Lower Mainland in B.C. I happened to go to university in Langley, B.C., at Trinity Western University. It is interesting, as I follow back to some of the developments that took place.

The City of Vancouver is now allowing up to 40-storey construction projects using engineered wood building. Previously, it was limited to 20 storeys, so that is a significant advancement compared to what was allowed before. We have seen the technology allowing for this, especially in a place like Vancouver, where they have to take into account seismic activity, high moisture levels and the various associated challenges that are involved with building in the Lower Mainland in what is essentially a rainforest. We are seeing that tremendous opportunity exists, and not only can it be good for the environment but it can also be very cost-effective. One of the potential benefits of wood construction is that it can be fast.

I would like to highlight my alma mater. A new dormitory was required, and it was built via wood frame construction in nine months to house a few hundred students. This new building, a modern facility to house students, was built in nine months using wood frame construction, which is something that simply would not be possible using more traditional methods.

This speaks to some of the incredible technologies being advanced in this space that allow for this conversation to take place. If we were to ask most engineers, they would share that many years ago, this would not have been possible in an engineering sense. The risk would have been too great to have a building built out of wood that went beyond what traditionally would have been a five-, six- or maybe 10-storey building. However, because of the advancements in technology, we have seen approval for a building of up to 40 storeys. It is a natural evolution of our technology and engineering capacity to allow public procurement and the construction of publicly owned buildings by the federal government to include wood construction as an option.

When it comes to the idea of using natural products, I will conclude my remarks by mentioning one of the bits of history associated with natural products being used for construction. It is the idea of sod houses. Many in this place will know about my affinity for the history of the area I represent, the history of the lands where my family has farmed for five generations. I think it is probably the most beautiful part of the country. There are beautiful prairies-scapes, coulees and wide open skies, and incredible geography, geology and history associated with that, from indigenous history to that of some of the early pioneers who set up in what was a very inhospitable place.

I would draw everyone's attention to one of the earliest examples of using natural products to build houses, and that is sod houses. For those who may not be aware, when early settlers came here and the west was opening up to pioneers, many who came from various parts of the world came to a place where there were no trees. They were poor farmers, workers and labourers who in many cases had escaped some very difficult circumstances. They were left with very limited supplies to build a home.

There are some examples of this. In fact, not far from where I farm, there is a pothole in the ground where there was a sod home. We can see a bit of what is left there. It speaks to some of the incredible history of the Prairies and how those who pioneered the way make up our country's history. In many cases, they learned from the indigenous folks who preceded them. There are incredible stories about the architecture of sod houses built more than a century ago, and now we are discussing in Canada's Parliament the use of natural products, engineered wood products, for public construction.

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in debate on this bill. I encourage members to look into the history associated with sod houses and the neat little anecdotes it speaks to. It is a neat part of who we are as Canadians.