Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, the author Antonine Maillet once said, and I quote:

Acadians, as a people, will know that they have come into their own when they are focused on their contributions to society, rather than what they need to maintain their own vitality.

To contribute to society, a community must maintain a healthy relationship with that society, have something to offer, and feel included.

That idea certainly applies to the reality of Quebec’s Black communities. The vast majority of Black Quebecers speak French and have an immigrant background.

This brings me to the Quebec election on October 3. Out of the 880 candidates, about 60 were from Black communities. This level of representation was found in every political party and was spread out among more than 40 ridings. I congratulate the 125 candidates who were elected, including the five Black people who will represent 4% of the seats in the National Assembly of Quebec.

I do have one observation to make. Voter turnout this year was just over 60%, well below the 85% that was reached when I arrived in Quebec in 1976. Without identifying a specific cause, a study conducted through the Datagotchi app by researchers at Laval University found that being in good health also means having more chances to vote. In light of the pandemic we just went through, do we need a sound body and mind to have a healthy democracy? That is something to think about.

Let’s continue to encourage all voters to go to the polls.

In conclusion, I hope that the presence of candidates from Black communities is a sign that we are welcome here and that we are fully contributing to a healthy democracy.

Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada‑Europe Parliamentary Association concerning the Meeting with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Third Part of the 2022 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg, France, from June 20 to 24, 2022.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, last week I could not help but be reminded of a department that the Trudeau government put together when it first came to power named the Results and Delivery Unit, which was based on the “deliverology” approach. Your government said it was adamant on keeping focused on its priorities and delivering what was promised to Canadians.

I was reminded of this thanks to an answer that you gave in this chamber last week to a question posed by my colleague Senator Martin on reconciliation efforts. You said:

This government has begun the work. In the tradition that I am part of and I’m proud to embrace, it is said that we are not obligated —

— this is interesting —

— to finish the work, but we are not permitted not to start it. This government has started it.

Leader, is that what your government meant by “deliverology” back in 2015, that it was not obligated to finish the work it started? Senator Gold, without shaking your head, please answer the question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Plett, thank you for the question. I was referring to an important teaching in the Jewish tradition that imposes upon all of us the responsibility to do what we can to make this world a better place. All of us here in the chamber, having agreed and been summoned here, would agree that that is what we are here for in our small, modest ways.

With regard to your question, I stand by my answer. The Government of Canada, this government — unlike any other government before — is taking seriously the work with Indigenous communities across this country to begin the process of confronting the truth of our history and doing what is necessary so that we can reconcile ourselves with our Indigenous citizens and with our history.

In that regard, the amount of work that has been done, though difficult, is impressive. There is a great deal to be done, and Minister Miller and the whole of government are to be congratulated for the seriousness with which they are approaching this work and the respect they are giving our Indigenous colleagues and partners in the co-development of the initiatives.

Senator Gold: The government is committed to doing what it has set out to do to improve the lives of Canadians, as it has helped us get through a worldwide crisis, the effects of which we are still feeling. This is about concrete action to help Canadians. It is not about appearances or scoring partisan points.

Senator Plett: The answer was a very direct answer to a very direct question. Senator Gold, your response from last week, in fact, rings truer than your government’s “deliverology” mandate at the start of its term.

This Trudeau government has a long track record of broken promises to Canadians, which are brought up week after week in this chamber: electoral reform, fixing the housing crisis, clean drinking water for Indigenous reserves, planting 2 billion trees and the budget that was supposed to balance itself. I can go on and on, leader. These are all promises that your government has not delivered on.

Leader, did your government ever have the intention to fulfill these promises; and, if so, when? Or was it always more about appearances, as it often seems to be with this government?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The minister and the department are working hard to address what is a very difficult situation for too many Canadians who are facing uncomfortable and stressful waits. The government is very aware of the burden that this imposes on Canadians who want to travel. It is seeking to do — and has done — many things to tackle these challenges.

There is a triage system in place in our larger communities, such as the Vancouver area — where you’re from, senator — the GTA, Calgary and Edmonton, to help people be served more expeditiously. Officials continue to look for solutions to what is a very troubling and difficult situation for far too many Canadians.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my next question is maybe somewhat of a supplementary to what Senator Housakos already spoke about.

Last week, you will recall that I asked you twice about your government’s reluctance to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist organization. In your answer, you spoke about the separation of powers, implying that it is not your government’s responsibility to decide whether to designate or not to designate — a bizarre response considering that the decision on whether to list an organization as a terrorist entity is taken entirely within the executive branch.

In fact, in 2018, the House government leader’s parliamentary secretary at the time outlined the process for listing the IRGC under the Criminal Code. A criminal or security intelligence report is drafted which documents the entity’s activities. The report is then reviewed by an independent council at the Department of Justice to ensure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this is the test that is to be met, he may make a recommendation to cabinet that the entity be listed.

Leader, the procedure is clear, so is it that your government can’t list the IRGC or that it won’t? Which begs the same question I asked you last week, leader: why?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I certainly did not intend to say that the government had no responsibility for the ultimate decision in the process that you described. So if you said my answer implied that, I think that was certainly not my intent.

But if I recall, your question also touched upon the role of security agencies that are seized with the responsibility to advise and make recommendations as part of an appropriate process to make sure that decisions of this nature are made intelligently and appropriately.

In that regard, the government remains focused on what further steps it might take to enhance the sanctions and the pressure on Iran, its agencies and its instruments to condemn and further underline our condemnation of the actions against their citizens and against our values abroad.

Senator Gold: Senator, you know from your own political experience and your experience in government that I’m not at liberty to disclose what advice or reports were issued to cabinet. I simply stand by the answer that I have already given on a number of occasions to this question.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is again for the government leader in the Senate and it has to do with “JustinFlation.” I have asked about this issue on a number of occasions, and it is an issue that is starting to destroy average middle-class and poor Canadians who are struggling to survive.

I’ll ask the question a little bit differently because in the past I’ve tried to hold this government responsible for some of the things they have done, and, of course, this government never takes responsibility. It’s market forces, international conditions, wars — it’s any other reason but the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Trudeau or his two finance ministers over the last seven years.

Will you agree that, with three small steps, we can solve “JustinFlation”? Number one, will you agree that this government should cap the Liberal government’s spending and taxation of the middle class with the Employment Insurance, or EI, taxes that are being implemented as of January?

Second, cap the Liberal government runaway deficit right now?

The third step, very importantly, unleash the energy sector in this country to produce energy that Canadians badly need to heat their homes, that farmers need in order to fuel their tractors and produce more food and, of course, that the rest of the world is so thirsty for because right now they’re under the grip of a bunch of dictatorships like Russia, Iran and I can go through the list.

Do you agree with those three simple steps the government can take in order to give middle-class Canadians, and those working hard to join the middle class, some relief?

Senator Gold: I’m choosing to find a question in your comments, which gives me the opportunity to say the following: These are serious matters. As I’ve said on many occasions, what Canadians are going through — with the rising cost of food and other essentials and with the challenges in finding appropriate and affordable housing — are real and serious problems. I have stood here many times, Senator Housakos, and tried to draw a distinction between the tone and content of the questions, as well as the use of slogans like “JustinFlation” — which does not violate any privileges in this place because there is no Justin here. It can’t be used in the other place, so I guess one has to cycle these slogans where they can be safely said.

I draw the distinction between the purposes, which I accept and which we all accept. Question Period is where you ask questions to hold the government to account, and I do my best to answer. These are serious questions that deserve serious answers. As I’ve tried to do on so many occasions — and I won’t sit here and lecture, because I think you’re tired of hearing me say the same thing, as are our colleagues here who may have a different view than you as to what the policy instruments or causes are. Suffice it to say, these are real problems that require real solutions and analysis worthy of this chamber.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, I do not. Thank you for your question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 29, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2022, to consider the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), with any proceedings then before the Senate being interrupted until the end of Committee of the Whole;

2.notwithstanding rule 3-3(1), the sitting be suspended at 5 p.m., rather than 6 p.m., for a period of 60 minutes;

3.if the bells are ringing for a vote at the time the committee is to meet, they be interrupted for the Committee of the Whole at that time, and resume once the committee has completed its work for the balance of any time remaining;

4.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-30 receive the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, accompanied by no more than two officials;

5.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-30 rise no later than 95 minutes after it begins;

6.the witness’s introductory remarks last a maximum total of five minutes; and

7.if a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-32(3)(d), including the responses of the witnesses, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator.

Senator Martin: Senator, excuses and further delays are unacceptable. The government knew that the 10-year passports were expiring and knew there would be demand once the pandemic was over.

Passports aren’t the only issue at IRCC. While life has returned to normal for millions of Canadians, new Canadians still cannot take their oath of citizenship at an in-person ceremony. As an immigrant myself, I know that for a new Canadian taking their oath, alongside dozens of other excited new Canadians, is among the most important moments and memories.

(1440)

Senator Gold, why is the minister continuing to deny new Canadians this once-in-a-lifetime experience?

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, before I speak on Bill S-222, I would like to quote Michael Green, a famous architect from Vancouver, who said the following in the preface of The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation report by the Agriculture and Forestry Committee in 2011:

I would love to see our nation move to a sense of ambition, of world leadership and dominance in the way we express wood and the way we build with wood. We are wonderful at cutting down trees but we still export them and hope others use them well. We have to learn how to celebrate our own material in the architecture we do.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, it is with great pride that I rise today as the critic of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). Bill S-222 is essential. It is a very positive initiative for Canada’s forestry industry that will benefit our country from coast to coast to coast.

[English]

Honourable senators, I would like to thank our recently retired colleague Senator Diane Griffin for sponsoring this bill, which is a reintroduction of an earlier Commons bill that died on the Order Paper.

Congratulations to Senator Griffin for her dedication to this file and her steadfast vision of the importance of using wood from coast to coast to coast in Canada. The benefits will be monumental for the industry — economically, socially and environmentally.

I would also like to thank a newcomer to the Senate, our friend and colleague from New Brunswick — a fellow New Brunswicker — Senator Jim Quinn, for carrying this bill through the remaining legislative stages in the Senate. Great leadership, sir.

Honourable senators, I want to congratulate the Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, Senator Robert Black, as well as the members of the committee, for the excellent report that was produced on Bill S-222. The report is very informative and enlightening and highlights the importance of the use of wood for our economy and for the forestry sector as a whole, in all areas of Canada and in our communities. There is no doubt in our minds that Canada is the leader of the best practices in managing forests.

Put into context, honourable senators, it is the story of our great country. No one can deny that, from our earliest beginnings, forestry was part of our life, and today it still plays an important role in our economic sector from coast to coast to coast.

I will share with you a bit of history, the reason I support Bill S-222 and why now is the right time for it to become law.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I cannot criticize the strategic objectives of this bill, which seeks to require the Minister of Public Works and Procurement to consider using wood in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I must say that although I am the bill’s critic, I am a friendly critic, as the people back home would say. Honourable senators, in the federal riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, the forestry industry has generated a total of $363 million and represents 26.6% of all jobs in the region. What’s more, New Brunswick’s forestry industry generated more than $1.7 billion in economic spinoffs in 2016. I think it is easy to understand that wood has been an economic driver for our region, our province and Atlantic Canada, and from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

[English]

Honourable senators, the Senate provides increased representation for smaller regions of Canada so they are not overlooked. It is our responsibility to ensure that laws are beneficial for all Canadians, regardless of where they live across Canada. There is no doubt in my mind that using wood has many benefits, which I will highlight as I share comments from stakeholders across Canada.

Honourable senators, we cannot deny the fact that successive governments, provincially and federally, since our humble beginnings in 1867, had a vision to legislate for natural resources and environmental management. As we are growing and modernizing our country, both jurisdictions, provincial and federal, shared a common national forest strategy that still benefits all regions of our great country.

Let us remind ourselves as parliamentarians that the sixth national forest strategy was groundbreaking. It was entitled A Vision for Canada’s Forests: 2008 and Beyond, and it was released in December 2008 by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. With that strategy, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, including representatives from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, identified two major priorities that still stand today: the transformation of all forest sectors and — yes — climate change.

[Translation]

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the two reports issued by a Senate committee in 2011 and 2018, which also drew the attention of successive governments to the importance of communicating the benefits of using wood in the construction of multi-storey buildings, both residential and commercial.

These two reports have been raising awareness among governments of different stripes for the past 10 years, ensuring that they recognize the important role that wood and the Canadian forest play in the fight against climate change and greenhouse gases. One of the reports was entitled, and I am looking at Senator Galvez, The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation.

[English]

Honourable senators, the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, chaired by Senator Griffin, was released in 2018 with the title Feast or Famine. One observation that is appropriate and telling with respect to Bill S-222 going forward. Observation 13 states:

That the Government of Canada:

a. ensure that research funding is available for high-level assessment to determine the most effective, economical investments in climate change action; and

b. continue to implement programs and initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging the use of new materials, such as advanced bioproducts, and new technologies to sequester carbon, like constructing tall buildings with wood.

That was groundbreaking. It is the right thing to do, honourable senators.

Please permit me to quote the Canadian Wood Council:

Canada is sustainable forestry, in conjunction with widespread use of wood as a construction material, is a simple and cost-effective way to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions of other industries. A typical 216 square metre (2,400 square feet) wood-frame house holds 28.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, an amount equal to the emissions of a small car over seven years.

Honourable senators, for additional information, Forintek Canada Corporation is also revealing important statistics on the use of wood. It is also reported that, according to science-based evidence, from an environmental perspective, for every cubic metre of additional wood used in Canada, the wood removes from the atmosphere one tonne of carbon dioxide. An increased use of wood by mills in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in Atlantic Canada would remove 160,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, which is the same as 35,000 vehicles being off of our highways.

When there is an alignment between environment and economy, we as a country must show leadership and rise to the occasion. We must continue to use smarter techniques to use wood in construction. There is no doubt in my mind that we are the best country in the world to lead that fight.

I want to share with you that on June 9, 2022, there was signed the Memorandum of Cooperation between the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of California of the United States of America concerning Climate Action and Nature Protection. The memorandum’s objective 1(a)(ii) is to promote, inter alia:

. . . the use of clean technologies to meet their emission reduction and Canada’s net zero goals, . . . and to build resilience;

In the spirit and intention of that memorandum, Canada should require the use of wood whenever federal buildings are converted to housing, creating an opportunity to contribute to a significant national need of reducing emissions. It is incumbent upon us, honourable senators, in order to maintain the quality of life of all Canadians going forward.

The Canada-California memorandum is an initiative working in the spirit of our debate today on Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Parliamentarians, we have a duty to act now. There is no doubt that Bill S-222 is a catalyst. Sustainably managed forests are a net carbon sink and a critical tool to fight against climate change. It will help Canada meet its emissions-reduction targets.

Lumber sourced from sustainably managed forests is a viable alternative for our economy, also.

Science-based evidence notes that lumber stores carbon for over 100 years. In North America, it is laudable that most Canadian forestry products companies, from coast to coast to coast, carry third-party forest certifications, like the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, which also means that the lumber is LEED, or green-building-certified. It is Canada’s leadership, and there is no doubt that we are the envy of many other countries.

It is a step in the right direction, and in the spirit of Bill S-222, I want to share with you that the new National Building Code of Canada 2020 allows the construction in Canada of 12-storey buildings using wood only and what is called cross-laminated timber, which has a smaller carbon footprint than conventional materials.

Bill S-222 is the next pillar to move forward with wood and cross-laminated timber to help create better jobs. Most of the commercial tree species growing in Atlantic Canada are accepted and can be used in cross-laminated timber and other wood‑engineered products. It has a role to play, just like concrete, and it has a role to play, just like steel.

Honourable senators, the erection time required for wood, mid‑rise buildings, that are 12-storeys high and use cross‑laminated timber is significantly less than a conventional building, which therefore reduces labour costs and allows for fast project completion.

Cross-laminated timber buildings are meeting all Canadian fire codes and seismic requirements, and have been used in new construction in Europe for many decades. Government policies that would favour and promote the use of engineered wood in commercial and government buildings would help to support the local forest product value chain, create more jobs locally and reduce the reliance of our Atlantic lumber industry on exports.

According to the Forest Products Association of Canada, if Bill S-222 becomes law, there is potential for 10% growth in the use of wood across Canada. When the bill is combined with a review of building codes to allow for the construction of tall, wood buildings, the Forest Products Association of Canada predicts the possibility of an increase of 500–750 well-paying jobs in the Maritimes alone and about 5,000 jobs across Canada.

Honourable senators, it is reported — as per science-based information — that from an environmental perspective, for every cubic metre of additional wood used in Canada, the wood removes from the atmosphere one tonne of carbon tax.

Therefore, the increased use of wood by mills in New Brunswick, and by looking at the impact it would have on our emissions, I believe that when there is an alignment between the environment and the economy, as a country, we can continue to show leadership.

[Translation]

To conclude, I would like to quote the Canadian Wood Council:

Canada’s sustainable forestry, in conjunction with widespread use of wood as a construction material, is a simple and cost-effective way to mitigate . . . greenhouse gas emissions . . . .

[English]

Honourable senators, when I was asked to be the critic of this bill, I thought back to my time as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry where we issued a 2011 report called The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation. The leadership provided to the senators in 2011 and the leadership provided now is the right thing to do.

Colleagues, we are starting to see the benefits of this long-term innovation, but its use is not uniform across the country. Bill S-222 is our last building block to ensure the use of wood in our construction cycle.

In conclusion, Sir Winston Churchill once said:

 . . . it is better to be both right and consistent. But if you have to choose—you must choose to be right.

Honourable senators, as I conclude, we are doing the right thing, and we are consistent in the spirit of Sir Winston Churchill and the challenges that we have to protect the quality of life of Canadians and create durable jobs. Thank you.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to this issue in the bifurcated view of being both a member of the Transport and Communications Committee and a journalist who spent 30 years working in the trenches.

I want to start first by talking about Scott Benzie and the excellent work he has done in highlighting some of the challenges of Bill C-11.

I have been speaking with Scott about this bill on and off in the course of my own research for months now. I have found him to be a thoughtful person with a strong point of view about Bill C-11, not all of which I necessarily share, but I think he is a good-faith witness who speaks passionately and with knowledge about the nature of his industry.

He has been a credible voice because he is not just one single individual. He is the executive director of a lobby group that speaks on behalf of digital creators and he is the artistic director of the successful Buffer Festival.

The issue which arose with Mr. Benzie was a question of whether or not he had revealed soon enough — because he certainly did acknowledge the fact — that his festival and his organization received funding from YouTube and TikTok. They provided cash funding and also goods in kind, providing transportation for artists and filmmakers who were displaying their films at the Buffer Festival.

The question is whether that was a breach of anything. Mr. Benzie has provided us with letters that demonstrate that the lobbyist registry assured him that he was in breach of no protocols. I’ve seen copies of that correspondence.

So whether or not you think Mr. Benzie is correct about Bill C-11, I put it to you that he is a good-faith voice on the issue and that he has not hidden or denied the fact that he has received funding from YouTube and TikTok, nor have YouTube and TikTok denied that they had provided that funding, which was not given to him as a lobbyist but in support of the artistic festival for which they were the underwriters.

The question is not whether Mr. Benzie has done anything wrong, but how suspicious we ought to be about the timing of this leak.

I acknowledge that the timing stinks of what one might call dirty pool, that it is convenient timing that this article came out the day before Mr. Benzie was to testify. Is that, however, a violation of any Senate rules? In the first place, as Senator Lankin has so eloquently said, we have absolutely no idea where this information came from and how it came into the possession of The Globe and Mail reporter.

I want to tell you from — I don’t want to say my vast experience — but from my 30 years of experience as a journalist, you might be surprised how information gets to journalists sometimes, and sometimes it’s not from the most obvious source.

I had a number of scoops in my career in which people had provided me leaks, and people would call and say, “It must have been so-and-so who leaked to her.” “This person should be fired because they must have leaked to her.” I would sort of smirk to myself because that person had not, in fact, been the source of my information.

So although one might induce or intuit where this information came from, we have absolutely no idea what this reporter’s sources were, and it would be a grotesque violation of our whole understanding of freedom of the press to ask the reporter to reveal her sources. Did her sources come from someone in the Department of Canadian Heritage? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. Did they come from a politician? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.

So who exactly created this breach?

Then we come to the article itself.

I read it on the day it came out, and I have read it subsequently. It is a perfectly fair and balanced news story. It is not a vicious attack on Mr. Benzie. It quotes Mr. Benzie at length defending himself, and it quotes both TikTok and YouTube defending their funding of Mr. Benzie’s festival.

I grant you that the timing smells fishy. I would also suggest that sometimes our friends in the other place are blissfully ignorant of the timing of what we’re doing here, and we would need to presuppose that somebody plotted knowing precisely when Mr. Benzie was going to be testifying to get this information to The Globe and Mail reporter to have it come out at just the right time.

I worked in newspapers 23 years. They don’t work that way. For all we know, Ms. Woolf could have filed this story a week beforehand, and it was stuck in the queue waiting to be printed.

Journalists can scarcely conspire to hold a staff picnic, much less conspire with the government to attack an artist and creator.

I grant you, when I saw the timing of the article, my back was up because I did not think that Mr. Benzie deserved to be placed in this very awkward situation, but I would caution us: Against whom are we supposing that we would be sanctioning here? We have no idea what the source of the leak was. We have no idea what the timing of the article was meant to be, and we have no evidence that this journalist wrote this piece with any kind of malice. It is a straight-up piece of good journalism that describes this issue and then accurately describes the testimony that we had heard in the committee earlier.

I agree that Mr. Benzie seems to have been the target of perhaps some unfair dealing and I’m grateful to Senator Tannas for raising this issue, but I don’t think you have the prima facie case here.

Senator Woo: You are very kind. Thank you, Senator Mockler, for your speech and your advocacy of this bill. Thank you to Senator Quinn as well and to former Senator Griffin.

I support this bill enthusiastically, in addition to all of the things that you said about the benefits of wood. Wood buildings also look gorgeous and they are very pleasing to the eye.

I wanted to ask you about your citation of research that shows wood buildings have a net reduction in carbon emissions. Maybe this is a bit technical. I certainly need an education on how that works.

Are you saying that the wood that is embedded in a wood building reduces more carbon from the atmosphere than the wood that is embedded in a forest in the trees? I do not know how that works.

Are you saying that the carbon emissions used to build a wood building are less than the carbon emissions from building a non‑wood building — say, a concrete building — and the net savings are what you are referring to? Sorry this is a little bit technical, but it is an important point that you raised and I do not fully understand how it works. Thank you.