THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 24, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood); and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair. Should any technical difficulties arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience any other technical difficulties, please contact the ISD service desk through the telephone number provided.
The use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping will not be conducted. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate information. Senators should participate in a private area and be mindful of their surroundings so that they do not inadvertently share any personal information or information that could be used to identify their location.
With that, good morning. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Robert Black, senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I would like to introduce members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee who are participating in this meeting, starting with our deputy chair Senator Simons. We also have Senator Cotter, Senator Deacon, Senator Klyne, Senator Marwah, Senator Mercer, Senator Oh, Senator Petitclerc, Senator Quinn and Senator Wetston.
Today, the committee is continuing its study of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), which was referred to this committee on December 9, 2021.
It is my pleasure to introduce our witnesses today. I would like to welcome Jerome Pelletier, Vice President, Sawmills Division, from J.D. Irving, Limited; and Derek Nighbor, President and CEO, Forest Products Association of Canada. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. We will begin with opening remarks, which will be restricted to five minutes in length. We begin with Mr. Pelletier, followed by Mr. Nighbor.
Jerome Pelletier, Vice President, Sawmills Division, J.D. Irving, Limited: Good morning, everybody. I would first like to thank the committee for allowing me to present this morning.
I would like to start by providing the committee with a little bit of background on how the use of wood fibre — like lumber, wood panels and engineered wood products — has evolved in Canada over the last two decades. It is important that we start with that as it may allow the committee to better capture the opportunity for increasing the use of wood in new construction in Canada.
Historically in the country, standard two‑by‑four and two‑by‑six dimensional lumber, as well as four‑by‑eight veneer and OSB panels, were the most common uses of wood products in new buildings in Canada. They were normally or historically used for framing houses and also to build four‑storey apartment buildings.
Through several years of research and development conducted jointly between solid‑wood industry stakeholders, the Canadian Wood Council, FPInnovations and others, we in Canada are now able to build tall buildings with wood. A tall building is defined as a building that is over six storeys. We are now able to use only wood products for the erection of infrastructure like a 12‑storey office building or apartment buildings. We can also build large recreational centres like hockey rinks, hospitals and airport terminals using only wood material.
The combination of wood products, like cross‑laminated timber and glulam beams, allow Canadian engineers and architects to replace the use of other building materials that may have a larger carbon footprint when it is manufactured with natural, 100% renewable, made‑in‑Canada solid‑wood products. Canadian construction codes now have provisions that certify cross‑laminated timber and glulam products for Canadian construction, taking into account seismic and fire code requirements.
For several builders and developers in the country, it is a new way to build, so education and training have to be provided in order to learn and apply the new ways of how to use wood products in tall buildings. Several experts in Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver, are trained and available to help the builders to learn how to replace concrete and steel with wood products. One of the best known organizations that can support builders and developers is Wood WORKS!, which is part of the Canadian Wood Council. They have staff from coast to coast who can help connect builders with the right resources that will allow them to use more wood in the erection of new buildings in the country.
Replacing building materials that emit large amounts of carbon or that would have a larger carbon footprint is possible if we use more wood products. I just want to simplify this. If you look at a tree, as the tree grows, it will capture CO2, or carbon, and if we’re harvesting that tree and using the fibre to erect buildings, the carbon that was captured by the tree is now captured in a building for 50, 80 or 100 years to come. So not only are we replacing building materials that are emitting carbon to reduce the carbon footprint of the country, but we’re also now accelerating the pace at which we can sequestrate carbon in our country. That’s all possible with sustainable forest management, which is what the industry has been doing here in Canada.
I believe I only have five minutes, so I will conclude my presentation there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Now I will turn to Mr. Nighbor.
Derek Nighbor, President and CEO, Forest Products Association of Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to present here today. I am participating from our office in downtown Ottawa, which is on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. My job is a labour of love. I was born and raised in a community best known for its junior hockey team, the Pembroke Lumber Kings. My grandpa and my dad worked on the floor of the corrugated box‑making plant. It’s the same factory floor where I spent my summers to put myself through university. During my years working for provincial MPP Sean Conway in the Ottawa Valley, I spent a lot of time with the mills up and down the eastern Ontario highways 41, 60 and 62.
I am pleased to be here today to tell you a little bit about our story. I want to thank this committee and a number of the members of this committee who have been long‑standing members and champions of our sector.
In 2016, FPAC was proud to be the first major industry group in the country to launch a comprehensive sectoral plan on climate action. It was our 30 by 30 Climate Change Challenge to chart a course to help Canada achieve its Paris Agreement targets. We are blessed in Canada with over 9,000 trees for every Canadian, and our commitment to sustainable forest management means that we replace more than we take so we can keep our forests as forests forever.
An interesting fact — and a lot of people don’t realize this — is that over half of our forests in Canada are actually unmanaged. Of the remaining 48% of our forested land base that is sustainably managed, today about half of that is under some kind of a conservation measure, whether it is an ecologically sensitive area or a wildlife habitat zone. So conservation is inherent to how we do forestry in Canada.
It is also important to note that for Senator Mercer and my friend Mr. Pelletier from New Brunswick, it is a little bit different. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have a fair bit of private land forestry. But if you look across the country, the large majority of forestry — over 90% of that working forest — is on provincial Crown land, subject to provincial government laws and approvals. On top of that, the large majority of these same lands are subject to third party independent audits.
That rigour around governance is one of the many reasons why Canada is a much sought‑after market for forest products and really the envy of most forested countries around the globe.
We welcome Bill S-222 as a way to bring profile to the potential of wood to help decarbonize the built environment. Globally, the built environment accounts for about 40% of global GHG emissions, and that’s because of the way we chose to build through the 20th century with a heavy reliance on concrete and steel. It is the way we have long done things that got us here. This bill appropriately promotes a more innovative and open‑minded approach to procurement. We welcome this call to action and this disruption.
While the concrete and steel sectors will continue to be significant contributors and are both doing some really good decarbonization work of their own, it is important that wood gets a look at the front end of building design and procurement decisions — not as an afterthought but as an equal partner to other building materials. We’ve already seen countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden make moves to advance green‑building procurement, so there are a lot of ideas and examples to draw from.
There are a couple of other global efforts to draw inspiration from. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly referenced the forest sector’s potential to make significant contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions when trees store carbon and when carbon is sequestered for generations in long‑lived wood products in the built environment. Late last year, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a report entitled Forest Products in the Global Bioeconomy. It confirms the unique carbon, economic and self‑sufficiency benefits forestry and forest products can bring to our communities and our planet.
It really comes down to what we want to build with and where we want to get those materials from. If we want to draw some inspiration domestically, I know a number of members of this committee — probably about 10 years ago or so — had the opportunity to visit the stunning Richmond Olympic Oval, and much has been learned and achieved since then. We have the University of British Columbia’s Brock Commons — an 18‑storey building on the UBC campus in Vancouver — Quebec City’s Origine and George Brown College’s Limberlost Place. Three months ago, I had the opportunity to be at the George Brown College groundbreaking and to demonstrate the carbon benefits of this mass timber building alone. One 10‑storey building in the downtown core of Toronto: 15,000 cubic metres of Canadian wood storing 13,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, avoiding a further nearly 5,000 metric tonnes of GHG emissions. These carbon savings are equivalent to taking roughly 4,000 cars off the road every year.
We’ve got about 900 mass‑timber projects in Canada either completed, under way or under development. There is an opportunity for Canada to get a greater share of that pie — this market — that’s expected to exceed $16 billion globally by 2025. The four‑year, $40 million Green Construction through Wood Program launched by NRCan in Budget 2017 has been hugely beneficial. It has helped us show what we can achieve — climate resiliency, lower carbon footprint — by sourcing a product that’s renewable, that we have in abundance and that will support Canadian jobs and self‑sufficiency.
With 10% of Canada’s wood supply now directly controlled by Indigenous peoples — and that’s increasing — there is also an opportunity to advance economic reconciliation in the process.
The Chair: Derek, if you want to just wrap up, please.
Mr. Nighbor: I will wrap up by saying a couple of thank yous. I want to recognize recently retired Senator Diane Griffin for her engagement on this bill and South Okanagan—West Kootenay MP Richard Cannings who introduced the precursor of this bill in the House of Commons. I look forward to talking more during the Q&A.
The Chair: Thank you to both our witnesses this morning. We very much appreciate you being here. We will proceed with questions.
Senator Simons: Thank you to both our witnesses today. In our previous hearings, we heard from a representative of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs who was concerned about the fire hazard of wood construction and concerned, too, about chemical treatment of wood that might produce fumes that could be toxic to firefighters.
I wondered what you could tell me about the process by which you render this wood fit for purpose so that it is fire safe. Can you tell me if there are fire‑retardant materials used that could be problematic for firefighters in the event of an emergency?
Mr. Nighbor: Sorry, senator, is that for me or for both of us?
Senator Simons: For either or both.
Mr. Nighbor: Maybe I can start and Mr. Pelletier can come in behind. This is complex stuff. I did read the March 3 proceedings, and I saw some of the questions around toxins and combustible versus non‑combustible. I will share through the clerk a more detailed response because this gets pretty heavy technically. But in short, there are performance levels that are recognized through the building code process for both combustible and non‑combustible materials. Wood burns; we know that. But the standards, mechanisms and innovations through cross‑laminated timber and others are designed to ensure the safety of firefighters and people who live or rent in the building. There is a whole book of work in the broader fire safety and design space to provide at least two‑hour fire resistance in terms of the built environment.
To the question on toxins and whatnot, heat‑resistant adhesives are commonly used in the manufacture of engineered wood products, but they burn similarly to wood, and they don’t melt or degrade. The fire experts that I talked to after reading the deputation on March 3 stated there is no significant risk — or no additional toxic risk — because of any of those materials that are in the built environment or that are linked to wood in construction.
But as I said, I’ve got about a page and a half of information here. I would be happy to share the detail, because I think the detail does matter. The building code process is a very technical‑heavy one for good reason, but I would be happy to share that through the clerk so you have the most fulsome information.
The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, you have about two minutes.
Mr. Pelletier: I just want to echo some of Derek’s comments here. The building code is very complex. The Canadian Wood Council has been working very closely with the stakeholders around fire control and the impact of fires on wood buildings. The Canadian Wood Council is monitoring any new products that could eventually be used in new buildings.
As Derek mentioned, it is a complex question. There is a lot of good information. A lot of tests were done and a lot of tests are being done to monitor this. I think it would be important to schedule another session to have the experts and provide more details to the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would remind colleagues and witnesses that we are slotting four minutes per person, including questions and answers. I apologize up front; I will cut you off at four minutes.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. According to Natural Resources Canada’s The State of Mass Timber in Canada 2021 report, mass timber construction creates new markets for Canadian wood and jobs for forestry workers. To what extent and how would the enactment of Bill S-222 affect jobs in Canada’s forestry sector? I direct that to both of you.
Mr. Nighbor: Do you want to go first, Mr. Pelletier, from a company perspective?
Mr. Pelletier: I’m not sure I fully captured the question. I’m sorry.
Senator Oh: According to the report, The State of Mass Timber in Canada 2021, mass timber construction creates new markets for Canadian wood and jobs for forestry workers. Can you comment to what extent and how the enactment of Bill S-222 would affect jobs in the Canadian forestry sector?
Mr. Pelletier: I see two components where there could be a positive impact on jobs in Canada. The first one is on the forestry and logging side. I don’t think that we would see an increase in jobs in logging and trucking of more material. I believe today, in general, the fibre available for the industry is being harvested.
I see more of an opportunity on the manufacturing side where we could use the fibre that is being produced today — the lumber, and some of the byproducts — and go further in the transformation or in the creation of cross‑laminated timber, wood panels, laminated glulam beams. There is a lot more opportunity to further transform our fibre and add value to our current wood basket if we increased the volume of the number of tall buildings built in Canada with wood.
Mr. Nighbor: I concur with that, there is a huge opportunity. We have a brand new mass CLT plant in St. Thomas, Ontario just outside London. We have an opportunity to build more capacity.
If you look at the existing mass timber manufacturing facilities, we have massive wait lists in terms of the demands. We run the risk of that engineered wood and mass timber being manufactured in places like Austria or the U.S.
I see a huge opportunity on the manufacturing side. As an aside in my remarks, we have a wood charter or a wood‑first bill in Quebec and B.C. As an industry, we don’t advocate for wood first, but we had to years ago because we could not get in the door. It is cement and steel, cement and steel. But what about us in wood? We have great solutions and opportunities.
I think this bill further profiles wood, talks about the possible, and hopefully will drive more demand. And I think that means hundreds and thousands of jobs in manufacturing if Canada becomes a world leader and a destination marketplace for manufacturing of these products.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to the witnesses. This is a very positive bill.
I don’t have any questions directly related to the bill, but in a previous committee meeting, I asked whether Canada was leading the way or lagging behind in terms of promoting and using wood in the construction sector. What you’re saying today is that we are actually lagging behind.
Here’s my question. If the bill is passed and if demand grows considerably, does Canada have the capacity, expertise and skills to meet that demand? If not, what should we be doing at the same time to make sure we are ready for a potential increase in demand? I’m not sure who would like to answer that; it doesn’t matter to me.
[English]
Mr. Nighbor: I’m happy to start and Mr. Pelletier can come in from an Irving perspective. It is a great question. There are some fundamental challenges. There are a number of colleges that we are working with on the trade side to educate and get people upskilled and prepared for these new innovative jobs that are coming at us.
And we have fundamental staffing issues. We are short 23,000 truck drivers in this country right now. So beyond the value add, upskill roles, there are other issues.
I think we have a bigger issue in this country to be honest with you, and that’s the importance of managing our forests. I think most people on this committee get it. I get it, Mr. Pelletier gets it. Yesterday, 90 scientists, many from the U.S., sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying we need to protect our forests to fight climate change completely ignoring the carbon‑storing benefits of wood, the displacement opportunity of wood‑based bio products and completely ignoring that the boreal forests burn.
Old growth on the coast is a different conversation. In our boreal forest, the trees live 80 to 120 years. We are living in a country where our national parks are carbon sources. Fundamental to growing our sector, we need to have an honest conversation about what kind of Canada we want. How do we want to develop our resource economy?
Forty percent of the world’s third party certified forests are in Canada. We have the best social‑licensed, sustainability guidelines, yet our Prime Minister is getting a letter from 90 academics saying protect more. So we are inherent conservationists, but this idea of protecting, protecting, protecting, and forests being immune from the effects of a changing climate is lunacy.
Anyway, I don’t mean to get on my soap box, but those conversations are fundamental to the upstream opportunity in our sector and for our people.
[Translation]
Mr. Pelletier: Mr. Nighbor made a good point about jobs and the labour shortage. Let’s say we build more infrastructure with mass timber, with glue‑laminated wood. Normally, for a 12‑storey building, the amount of resources and the number of people on a construction site is 75% lower because, engineering‑wise, it’s like assembling blocks of Lego. If you’re using mass timber, instead of cement or steel, to build a residential building or 12‑storey office building, the work usually advances a lot faster.
[English]
Senator Wetston: I am not sure who wants to answer this question, but I would like a bit of insight, if I could pry a little bit. What did you say to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture about what they should put in the budget bill when it comes forward sometime in April regarding either this bill or about the industry generally?
Mr. Nighbor: I won’t take up as much time this time, Mr. Pelletier. I apologize.
Number one, we’ve got a big opportunity to come in the next budget cycle around some fundamental program renewals on building with wood. There is a big ask coming in Budget 2023.
For this budget, though, there are significant asks around upskilling and skills trade development. There are significant asks around Indigenous participation in the forest sector to help build back capacity. And the other ask is not a money ask.
If I am in the cement or steel industry and I want to decarbonize, my focus is on manufacturing and products. In forestry, we have a massive land base. We have wildland fire strategies, and challenges around pests and trying to find new markets for wood residuals or stuff that is left behind.
The biggest thing government can do for us is develop an action plan with us along that full value chain, from the forest to the product, to maximize the carbon benefits we can bring the country.
So our biggest ask requires no money at all.
The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, do you wish to respond?
Mr. Pelletier: I fully agree with and support what Derek mentioned. I have nothing to add.
Senator Wetston: I have a question about this cross‑laminated timber, adhesives and glues. These are obviously necessary products needed to manufacture these wood‑based products for construction, but they are also not necessarily low‑carbon products, as you might imagine; there’s a lot of toxicity associated with these as well.
Can you let us know a little bit more about that aspect of the manufacturing of these products for construction purposes, the potential impact and their toxicity on the environment?
Mr. Pelletier: Derek, do you want to take that one?
Mr. Nighbor: That’s one — at least in detail — that I’d have to follow up on with the specifics, because this gets into scientific territory to which I would not be doing justice.
On the innovation side of things, if you’ve heard of the term “lignin,” which is basically tree glue, there is a lot of innovation happening in that bio‑economy to turn that lignin into a bio‑adhesive, which could very well have future applications here. That’s a solution that’s in the pipeline and continues to be worked on.
But in terms of your other question, I would be happy to follow up with colleagues at the Canadian Wood Council on the technical side to get you a brief, through the clerk.
Senator Wetston: If it’s not inconvenient, I’d appreciate that.
Mr. Nighbor: Absolutely.
Senator Marwah: Thank you to both witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Nighbor. Could you talk about the macroeconomics of using wood versus the alternatives, which are steel or concrete? I’m talking about two areas: If you use wood instead of the alternatives, is it net GDP‑positive or -negative? This is excluding the reduced carbon footprint, which I fully get.
Second, what would be the cost per square foot of construction when you have wood versus concrete or steel?
Mr. Nighbor: I’ll leave the square foot question to Mr. Pelletier. If he can’t answer it, I don’t have that information, but I know where I can find it for you.
In terms of the market opportunity, this is an area, especially with the infrastructure growth that’s happening in Canada and around the world, where I think there are opportunities for all materials to get a bigger share of the pie and do very well. From a wood perspective, globally, the UN has reported that in the next 30 years, we’re going to have a fourfold increase in demand for wood globally. I know in talking to my colleagues in steel and concrete, they’re seeing significant opportunity in their sectors through new innovative products.
I get this question often. First, on the material side, is it one material? Yes, we’re all competing, but let the best material win. It’s the right material for the right application. On the business side, there’s growth for all of us. I don’t think a net‑X increase in wood means a net decline for steel or concrete. I don’t have the figures for steel and concrete, but I’m seeing their global market growth potential increasing in their reports as well, so I think there’s a huge opportunity for all of us and for all of us to bring more Canadian products to the world.
The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, do you have an answer to the other question?
Mr. Pelletier: Through the Canadian Wood Council, many studies have been done regarding the costs to erect a tall building with wood versus concrete and steel. In a normal lumber and steel market, the costs are similar. Typically, the costs of material for wood products are a little higher, but as I mentioned earlier, it’s less labour‑intense to assemble the building on‑site, so the cost of labour tends to be lower, which makes it very competitive when you compare both.
Through Wood WORKS! or the Canadian Wood Council, I’d be happy to provide you with more detailed information on case studies that were done in the last decade.
Senator Marwah: If you could get us some specific information on the cost per square foot, that would be good.
I fully understand the reduction of the carbon footprint, but excluding that, what is the net cost per square foot for construction? That is what I’m curious about. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Nighbor. What great presentations you’ve made. This committee cares a lot about value‑add and sustainability in the forestry and agricultural sectors.
I want you to speak a little bit more about the effects that these value‑added engineered products will have as that higher value allows for more investment as you head down through the value chain to the forest floor. I’m thinking about improved wages and new products being developed that will increasingly help us make sure that our forests are managed in the most sustainable way; that we can mitigate the risks of climate change as best as possible; store as much carbon as possible in the forest floors; and manage for insect infestation, drought, heat, fire, et cetera.
What other work can you cite? I see this as a strategically important decision in this country, and I just want to understand how, specifically, that increased value can translate into more sustainable forest management.
Mr. Nighbor: I’ll start by saying that I think there are two value‑add opportunities: One is in the mass‑timber engineered wood space, which we are really seeing more of an uptick in Canada — I mentioned the ELEMENT5 manufacturing development, and hopefully more ELEMENT5 is popping up in the years ahead. And second — I don’t like using the term “wood waste,” because it’s not waste, but it would otherwise be wood waste — the sawdust, bark and wood chips that could go into making things like bioenergy or fuel district heating systems, to or make lignin and bioplastics. Those are the two areas.
One thing I will note is that you’re not going to get an advanced value‑added sector without maintaining a strong primary sector. For the people who think we’re going to turn the two‑by‑fours off and just make mass‑timber, it’s not going to happen. Talk to any integrated company, you need a strong primary sector. We’re having this discussion in real time in British Columbia today, where we have a provincial government that is rightfully looking at the bio‑economy and looking at mass‑timber innovation, but at the same time, it is looking at restricting harvest or not providing certainty to companies operating on the ground. That is a challenge for investment.
One of the best things government can do to enable the possible value‑add is to support a certain, strong, stable primary sector, and that means sensible policy and policy coherence. From a federal perspective, that means not clean fuel reg here, caribou over here; this is all integrated for us. The more policy coherence we can see to provide stability and certainty, it’s going to provide a strong primary sector and then allow that capital and growth to be invested in value‑add.
Mr. Pelletier: I believe about a third of the Canadian production today is exported and used outside of Canada. As you know, we’ve had a trade case with the United States every 10 years for the last 40 years. There’s a huge opportunity to keep more of our lumber in our country and add value to it through mass‑timber, which would significantly reduce our reliance on other countries to consume our fibre.
Senator Cotter: Thank you both, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Nighbor, for the insights you’re providing us today.
My question relates fairly specifically to the actual legislative amendment. I’m sure you will be at least as familiar with it as I am. It focuses on construction, maintenance and repair of public works under the direct auspices of the federal government.
I don’t want to try to do your work for you, Mr. Nighbor, but I’m interested in the degree to which you had considered that this legislation should go further and actually incorporate buildings that may not be federal public works but would be funded by the federal government. It’s a common strategy to try to implement or shape policy that goes beyond just the ownership of federal buildings.
Could you comment a little bit on that and whether that is problematic from your point of view, or whether that’s something you would like to see but it is too early to ask for?
Mr. Nighbor: It’s a really good question, and for us it’s a place to start. This reminds me, I forgot what I should have said in response to the budget asks for this year, and that’s looking at demonstration projects to decarbonize the built environment more in the municipal sector and for Indigenous communities.
I think the natural extension beyond the federal government is through funding arrangements to Indigenous communities and municipalities.
We hear the feds talk a lot about greening government and procurement standards, and we’re also hearing a lot about a buy‑clean agenda. The Americans are way out of the gate on buy clean. They’ve already got the task force ready to go. That’s with the backstop of the buy America stuff going on. This is one of the biggest issues we have. We have to get moving on this buy clean stuff and develop a clear plan to support Canadian industry because the Americans are doing it, not only through the lens of decarbonizing the economy, but also through the lens of strengthening American manufacturing.
To be very honest, I’m not hearing a lot about that in Canada. I’m hearing a lot on the green side and I hear a lot about the economy and environment going together, and I agree with that, but I’m not seeing the same attention to detail in terms of the manufacturing benefit for domestic industry, which is among the cleanest in the world.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Thank you, Mr. Chair, my question was asked in a couple different ways, and I was able to get my question answered, so I’m good. Thanks.
Senator Mercer: I come at this from the point of having been on this committee for 18 years. I recall a study that was done a number of years ago where we were talking about the same subject, a different context in terms of this bill. And at that time, we had witnesses from a firefighters’ organization who were supportive of the use of this wood. And now I’m hearing that firefighters are much more hesitant.
I’d like the clerk and researchers from the Library of Parliament to review what was said then and compare it with what is being said now because if there’s a difference, we need to know before we vote.
Are you two gentlemen concerned about the fire problems with this wood?
Mr. Nighbor: I’m not because of the process. There are fire halls in Oakville and Vancouver that are built with wood. I was surprised by some of the testimony, and not to dismiss it, but when I saw the testimony on the third by the representative of the firefighting community, I went back to our technical people just to make sure. In the co‑developments, combustible materials and non‑combustibles are looked at differently, because it’s different reality and different measures need to be taken. I have full faith in the process. Talk to somebody like Len Garis, the former Fire Chief in Surrey B.C., who is one of the biggest champions and spokespeople of building with wood. I don’t want to speak for the firefighting community, that wouldn’t be fair, and I don’t want to be disrespectful, but my understanding is that everything is being done as safety is paramount here in code development. I’ll leave it there.
Mr. Pelletier: I’m currently the chairman of the board for the Canadian Wood Council, and I’ve had the opportunity for the last five years to witness all the work that has been done by highly skilled technical experts on how to understand the behaviour of wood in different situations, whether it’s fire or seismic, or high wind. I truly believe that the science and the data behind the analysis are reliable and that the code, as it’s designed today, can be trusted.
Senator Mercer: Thank you both, gentlemen.
The Chair: That ends the first round. We have a couple of senators asking questions in the second round, and others if we have some time.
Senator Wetston: I have a question for both witnesses. You may not have an answer to this. I will correct the record if my number is incorrect.
I’m a senator from Ontario, I live in Toronto, and I think the Crane Index for the city of Toronto is around 168 for the GTA. The Crane Index indicates the number of cranes in the GTA, which obviously means a massive amount of construction.
Would either of you have any idea of any percentage or number of buildings that might be wood construction or might represent wood construction in the greater GTA?
Mr. Nighbor: I don’t know by the region. We do track completed, under way, under development and that number is just under 900 right now across the country. I can follow‑up with the Wood Council down the hall here to see if we can break that out through Toronto numbers.
In forestry, especially with the urban/rural divide and the increased urbanization of Canada, one of the issues we have in the sector is how we punch through to that urban audience to get them to understand and believe in forestry.
There are two ways to do that; number one, the growth in urban forestry, understanding that urban trees need to be tended to, they need to be taken care of, they need to be managed. Number two is wood buildings in downtown Toronto, at U of T, at George Brown College. I think the presence of wood buildings holds tremendous promise for us in many ways as they pop up in urban centres, but I will follow up on GTA numbers for you to break down from the national ones.
Senator Wetston: I have a follow up, Mr. Chair. I’m interested in it, because I’m interested in the supply/demand issues associated with this particular market, and obviously you are as well.
I just might suggest — and it’s only a suggestion Mr. Nighbor — you contact some of the senior officials at Toronto Hydro Corporation, because they have to electrify all these buildings, and they would be able to provide that information directly to you. They may not be able to provide which buildings are of wood construction, because I think, as your colleague indicated, anything over six storeys now is considered a tall building, and there are obviously tall buildings of wood construction. That may assist you a little bit besides getting some information from the Wood Council, since their job is to electrify these particular buildings.
Mr. Nighbor: It’s a great point. In terms of supply of available fibre or available wood in Canada, there’s lots of it. There’s a huge opportunity. I think where the supply problem in Canada is still challenged is the manufacturing capacity in this cross‑laminated timber, nail‑laminated timber space. We don’t want to be importing the manufactured product from the U.S. or from Austria, so in terms of fibre and wood access, it is not an issue. On manufacturing capacity, there is still work to do as demand continues to increase.
Senator Wetston: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to the witnesses. This has been a really important session.
You started your comments, Mr. Nighbor, by saying how Bill S-222 provides sort of a launchpad for bringing profile to this issue. Can you roll forward from this bill and just explain to us how you see it helping to catalyze an important strategic change in how we view forest products and forest management potentially in this country?
Mr. Nighbor: The first thing is we have to shake up how procurement is done. The people making procurement decisions need to be thinking at the front end about doing stuff differently. I see that as the biggest benefit here.
I have talked to my colleagues in cement and steel who said at the beginning when they saw this bill that it’s wood only, we’re going to fight that. Go ahead and fight it because for us it’s not about wood only. All materials fit. But we have to fight a bit harder and smarter, because we’re later to the party here. I see that as being the biggest opportunity.
Even with the design or engineering or the architectural community, we’ve got some people who are really all in on wood. We’ve got others who don’t really know much about it, and we’ve got to get those people as well. So as we think about the extension of this, the other opportunities from this bill are to bring the possible to new minds who have not been thinking about us before.
Concurrent to that, it’s still important for us at FPAC and others to continue to talk about why we can be proud of products coming from Canada’s forests. We’re among the best in the world. We should be proud of that, and we’re not proud enough.
Senator C. Deacon: Your point on procurement is not limited to your sector, I hope you know that. Canadians don’t like to procure from Canadians. We’ve got to fix that, culturally. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pelletier, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Pelletier: No, nothing to add here.
Senator Simons: As I was listening to your answers to Senators Wetston and Deacon, it strikes me that most of the examples that have been provided to us of wood construction of this type have been public buildings, such as a dormitory residence at the University of British Columbia, school buildings in Toronto and the fire halls you’ve described. Clearly, the public sector has been more willing to experiment and pilot this kind of construction.
To follow up on your responses to Senators Deacon and Wetston, why have private sector projects not embraced this technology? Are the reasons economic, cultural or is it lack of information? It seems strange to me that we’re not seeing the Ledcors and the PCLs of this world embracing this kind of engineering technology.
Why is it that it is the public sector that is so overrepresented in the building stock we’re talking about?
Mr. Nighbor: That’s a really good question. Codes have lagged; we’ve been really slow. There was just an announcement last week of a commercial multi‑office complex in the Leaside part of Toronto that will be going up. That was announced with much fanfare a week or two ago.
Another thing is where you see the leadership, provincially, in terms of building with wood, it was in Quebec and British Columbia, two very forestry‑dominant provinces. They asked what they could do to kickstart and drive benefits here at home for this industry. That was hugely successful, and other provinces have followed.
I think the reason the public sector has been more in front of this is because we’ve seen interest in maximizing and promoting local forestry, which means more stumpage fees and more revenues for provincial, federal and municipal governments. That’s great news. I think it’s also because there have been demonstration projects and money has gone to promote them. Now as building codes are getting up to speed and modernizing, it’s going to create more opportunities in the private sector.
But it’s a really good observation that I had not actually thought about.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to both our witnesses.
The Chair: Thank you very much. As there are no more questions, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Nighbor, thank you very much for joining us today and for your participation. We appreciate you contributing to our discussion, and your assistance on this bill is appreciated.
I want to thank my fellow senators for their active participation and very thoughtful questions. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, at this time, are there any objections that the committee proceed to clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill S-222, an Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood)?
I hear none. It is agreed. I’ll move through this, then.
Shall the title stand postponed? Agreed or not?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
I understand Senator Quinn may have an amendment.
Senator Quinn: I’m filling in and am a rookie here. I’m filling in for Senator Griffin, and hers are big shoes to fill. But the motion I have is:
That Bill S-222 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing line 10 of the English version with the following:
“ter shall consider any potential reduction in greenhouse”.
The Chair: Do you want to speak to it, Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes, I would like to do that.
As I said, it’s a great honour for me to fill in for Senator Griffin. Building on what Senator Deacon said, this has been so interesting for me to sit in on. What a great group of colleagues. I’ve been called up from the minors to fill some big shoes from Senator Griffin.
My role today is to move this small amendment on behalf of our retired colleague Senator Griffin. As we heard from Public Service and Procurement Canada’s answer to Senator Griffin at the last meeting, it is their view, on advice from legal services, that the word “must” in the phrase “the minister must consider” should be changed to “shall” to ensure terminology alignment with the remainder of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.
It is Senator Griffin’s preference that this amendment occur in the Senate rather than in the House of Commons to avoid any potential delays with the Senate concurring in a Commons amendment. I’m simply here to facilitate that request, and I thank all of you for allowing me to do that.
The Chair: So we’re moving on to debate on this, then. I do see a question.
Senator Cotter: I was hoping to enter debate just to express support for the amendment, if this is the appropriate time to do so.
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Senator Cotter: Along the lines that Senator Quinn observed, I think the word “shall” is more consistent with typical legislative drafting in terms of the directive or discretionary nature of verbs in legislation. I wanted to intervene to indicate my support for the amendment.
The Chair: Is there any further debate? Seeing none, are there any objections that the amendment be adopted? Seeing none and hearing none, the amendment is adopted.
Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?
Are there any objections? Seeing none, it carries.
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to this report? If so, then I believe we need to move in camera to discuss the text of those observations. Very well. We will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)