Summary#

This bill changes the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to guide how the federal government sets requirements for building, maintaining, and repairing its buildings and other public works. It requires the Minister to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and other environmental benefits, and it permits the use of wood or any other material that achieves those benefits (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). It does not force the use of wood and does not set targets.

• Requires the Minister to consider potential GHG reductions and environmental benefits when setting project requirements (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• Lets the Minister allow wood or other materials that deliver those benefits; it does not mandate them (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• Applies to construction, maintenance, and repair of federal public works, real property, and “immovables” (property in Quebec civil law) (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• Does not amend building codes, safety rules, or procurement law beyond this consideration step.
• Sets a broad scope by including “any other thing” (e.g., material, product, sustainable resource) that yields environmental benefits (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • No direct change. This affects federal projects and contracts, not private homes (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).

• Workers

  • Construction trades working on federal projects may see more bids that consider lower‑emission materials. Training or methods could shift by project, but nothing is mandated (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Data unavailable on scale.
  • Forestry and wood-product workers could see more opportunities if project requirements permit mass timber or other wood uses. This depends on project-by-project choices (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Data unavailable.

• Businesses

  • Building material suppliers (wood, concrete, steel, low‑carbon products) may face new evaluation criteria focused on GHG impacts and environmental benefits. No material gets an automatic preference (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
  • Federal contractors may need to document environmental benefits of proposed materials to meet requirement-setting considerations. Exact documentation standards are not defined in the bill. Data unavailable.

• Federal departments and agencies

  • When developing project requirements, officials must consider GHG reductions and other environmental benefits and may allow materials that achieve them, including wood (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
  • Internal procurement policies and design guides may need updates to reflect this consideration step. The bill does not prescribe a method or metric. Data unavailable.

• Local and provincial/territorial governments

  • No direct change. The bill applies to federal public works. It does not change provincial/territorial or municipal building codes or procurement rules.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• The bill makes a policy change but contains no direct spending or appropriations (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.
• Possible administrative costs to update requirement-setting policies and to evaluate environmental benefits are not quantified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Adds a clear duty to consider GHG reductions in federal project requirements, aligning procurement with climate goals without mandating any one material (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• Enables use of wood and other lower‑emission materials where appropriate, potentially lowering emissions from construction and maintenance activities (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Extent depends on project choices. Data unavailable.
• Keeps flexibility by covering “any other thing” that delivers environmental benefits, allowing innovation and competition among materials and products (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• Avoids legal or safety conflicts because it does not override building codes or force a specific material; it only guides requirement development (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• May support domestic industries that can demonstrate environmental benefits, including advanced wood products, without creating a mandated preference (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Data unavailable.

Opponents' View#

• Mostly symbolic: the Minister “shall consider” but only “may allow” materials; there are no targets, metrics, or required outcomes, so practices may not change (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• Vague terms like “any other thing” and “environmental benefits” are undefined, which could lead to inconsistent evaluations or disputes in procurement (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).
• Could add time and administrative burden to develop and defend requirement decisions focused on environmental benefits, without added resources. Costs and delays are not quantified. Data unavailable.
• Risk of de facto favoritism if stakeholders interpret the change as a signal to prefer wood, potentially disadvantaging other materials even when they perform better on cost or durability in some cases (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Evidence on frequency or impact is not provided. Data unavailable.
• Without a standard method to measure GHG reductions, agencies may rely on varied tools or claims, raising concerns about “greenwashing” and uneven oversight. The bill does not set methods or verification (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).