Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of October 20, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 6:34 p.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
My name is Percy Mockler. I am from New Brunswick and I am chair of the committee. Before introducing the other senators, I wish to inform the witnesses that we were in the Senate and we had an item for debate and also a vote. Another matter then arose, and that is why we are late. I will take full responsibility for that. When the chamber is in session, we cannot have concurrent committee meetings. We must be granted permission to do so. Unfortunately, we did not have permission to do so today.
I will now ask our deputy chair to introduce herself and then the other senators to do likewise. I will then move to introduce the witnesses with us this evening.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you for coming here this evening. I am Senator Joyce Fairbairn, from Lethbridge, Alberta, close to the mountains and all the trees of any kind, all in the area. I have been here a long time in this particular committee, which is a good committee. We do as hard a job as we possibly can, especially on issues that are as important as this one is.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I am from Quebec City and I bid you welcome.
[English]
Senator Eaton: I am Nicky Eaton, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Finley: I am Doug Finley, a senator from Ontario as well.
Senator Plett: I am Don Plett from Landmark, Manitoba, at the centre of our great country.
[Translation]
The Chair: The committee is pursuing its study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
This evening, we will welcome Peter Moonen, Leader of the Sustainable Building Coalition of the Canadian Wood Council, and Marianne Berube, the Ontario Executive Director of the Canadian Wood Council.
[English]
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. I invite you to make your presentations, which will be followed with a question and answer period.
Marianne Berube, Executive Director, Ontario, Canadian Wood Council/Wood WORKS!: I apologize for the handout; we had a glitch. I sent it but it was not received, so this copy is not showing very clearly. We had to photocopy it at the last minute. I will not follow it page by page, but I promise to get you a proper copy later. There are some beautiful projects and pictures in it that I wanted to show you.
I will quickly highlight the Wood WORKS! program and the Canadian Wood Council and why it is important to use wood in non-residential construction. I will point out how we are changing perceptions across Canada. I will then talk about a few examples and case studies.
First, the Canadian Wood Council represents wood products associations across Canada. We represent companies across the country. The council is involved in creating market access, codes and standards and has been in existence for over 50 years. About 10 years ago, the industry and the Canadian Wood Council realized that the forest sector had not done a good job of promoting itself. There were all kinds of threats such as environmental threats. The steel and concrete industry had done a better job promoting themselves over the years, especially with all the environmental threats. They felt threatened to promote the use of wood.
A lot of things have now changed. We are seeing that increasingly now, especially with green building opportunities and changes to building codes. In Canada, we can build up to four stories in wood construction; however, B.C. just passed code changes allowing up to a height of six stories. This is now before the body that approves National Building Code changes, and it will be coming.
Canada's domestic market holds many opportunities in which we can promote wood. In Canada, only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of projects — and, this is what is allowed in codes — use wood. That translates to a $1.2 billion market opportunity for our Canadian industry. In the United States, it represents $10 billion if we were to capture more of this market.
The Wood WORKS! model is more of a grassroots approach; it is not a mass media, expensive public campaign. We focus on educating current and future design professionals. There has not been a curriculum for architects and engineers at the college and university level offering training in wood products and the changing codes. It is of utmost importance that we help them and educate them about our product. That is how we can influence them.
We also provide technical assistance to projects at no cost, for example, bringing in partners along with the expertise that they offer. We try to educate everyone about the challenges they encounter — that is, the perceptions that people have about not using wood in non-residential construction. Mr. Moonen will talk in more detail about the green building file. This is probably our most important opportunity because wood is the only renewable product, plus the opportunity of wood-capturing carbon and helping to mitigate climate change.
Ontario, while more conservative than B.C., has recently become internationally renowned for wood applications in hospitals. It started several years ago with the hospital in Thunder Bay, which was a landmark project in Canada. It was the largest institutional project in Canada to use wood. They worked with the local building officials in Ontario and looked at building code equivalencies. This has laid the foundation for future projects. Since then, the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga is another project by the same architect. They illustrate that large facilities of non- residential construction do not have to be all wood, but it can be applied in public areas, such as cafeterias. For Credit Valley Hospital there is new technology in the form of a fire misting system, instead of the regular sprinkler system. It was tested by Canada's National Research Council. A hospital in North Bay is currently under construction.
An increasingly significant message that favours the use of wood is ``go local.'' In supporting agriculture, we hear messages such as ``good things grow in Ontario.'' It has social and economic importance to our communities across Canada. At Wood WORKS! we are trying to make a cultural change. In Europe, a great deal of wood is used, and they take pride in their wood products. Why do we not do the same in Canada? Their wood usage in non-residential construction is about 20 per cent to 25 per cent, while usage in Canada is only about 10 per cent to 15 per cent. Yet, we have an abundant supply of forests and are leaders in forest management.
We are looking for government support and relevant policy. Different regions around the world, such as California and France, are mandated to use 20 per cent wood in any publicly funded building. That is more for carbon sequestration points because they are not economically dependent on the wood industry. British Columbia is looking at developing a wood-first policy, which could be done across the country.
We started working with the Wood WORKS! model to bring awareness by working with the associations of Ontario and many municipalities across the country, such as British Columbia municipalities, as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have had a lot of strong support because the communities know how important it is. Even Southern Ontario, which I thought would be really tough to bring on board, has embraced it. In my handout, I have some remarkable projects that are happening in Southern Ontario.
We work with professional associations, such as the Ontario Building Officials Association and the Ontario Association of Architects, and hold many seminars to qualify them for accreditation. We held a Wood Solutions Fair one month ago with over 1,000 professionals in attendance to provide them with the tools, resources and education. We also work with colleges and universities on changing curriculum to include more wood content for future professionals.
We have produced numerous case studies on several projects, such as the Timmins Public Library and the use of wood in long-term care facilities. That is becoming ever-increasingly popular, in particular with the aging population because wood is less institutional and much warmer aesthetically. Wood is also proving to be more cost effective. In our detailed analysis on the Timmins library, it was found that it was 15 per cent cheaper. To ensure this savings, it is important that a project is well designed and that technical assistance is available at the beginning. British Columbia also has numerous projects, such as the Richmond Olympic Oval and several others that will show the world at the 2010 Olympic Games what we can do with our wood products.
It is unfortunate that I cannot show the committee more of the projects in this handout. A great deal is happening in Canada and we are changing perceptions and helping people to use wood in more non-residential applications. I will make sure you have proper copies.
Peter Moonen, Leader, Sustainable Building Coalition, Canadian Wood Council: Ms. Berube has talked about some of the projects built of wood. I will go back a few million years and think about wood itself. If I were to invent a product that was a solar powered carbon dioxide sucking machine that stored energy in a beautiful building material, I would be a very rich man. However, we have billions of them in Canada and we call them ``trees.'' Wood is one of the world's best materials: it acts as a carbon sink, is renewable, reusable, recyclable, biodegradable and organic. It cleans the air and soil and provides oxygen. It is lightweight, strong, efficient, inexpensive and ubiquitous. We have this tremendous opportunity, but when most people in Canada or elsewhere think of trees, they often think of a man with a sharp chain saw going out to kill trees. With the emphasis on carbon and climate change, we have the opportunity to try to change that attitude and go back to our Canadian roots. We can recognize that our forests do not benefit just Canadians but can have global consequences by mitigating climate change as they act as a carbon sink. Canadian forests can provide us with material that acts as a carbon-sequestering agent and reduces the impacts of using other materials.
One of the difficulties that many architects and engineers face in considering what materials should be used is which ones will fit within the allocated budget and what will hold the building up, among other aspects. Designing green buildings adds another complexity to that decision-making process. However, that complexity is often solved easily if people are aware of some of the environmental benefits of wood or any material. Therefore, it is important to have a process that is objective and scientifically based and that can assist designers in developing buildings that are truly green, not just buildings that we think are green.
My grandfather lived in a sod hut near Drumheller, Alberta. It was made of biodegradable, organic, reusable local materials — all those nice warm and fuzzy things — but it did not perform very well; and green buildings need to perform well. The decisions we have to make these days are much more complex. It is not only about the budget and what will work but also about other dimensions. The life cycle assessment process, LCA, is becoming more and more accepted, accurate and accessible to designers.
For those who might not be familiar with LCA, it is about gaining a sense of the full environmental impact of our decision from the time that we make it until the time the material that we have chosen no longer has any use. In the case of wood, it encompasses the pickup truck to look at the trees, the logging equipment to harvest, the manufacturing equipment, the transportation to the building site and how the building performs because of using that material. The Athena Institute is Canadian based and recognized around the world as an example of a very effective life cycle assessment tool.
A couple of my slides show a comparative life cycle assessment between buildings designed in wood, steel and concrete. The first slide looks at four elements: greenhouse gas index, energy use, air pollution index and solid waste. The top bar is the index for wood and shows the energy used to create wood; the greenhouse gas produced by the production and use of wood; the air pollution index and solid waste, which are all less than for steel or concrete in the same building. This building was designed in three different materials and then assessed.
The next page, entitled Life Cycle Assessment, shows wood is a good choice. This bar shows several different construction methodologies — wood, steel, insulated panels, concrete forms — and again, the benchmark is wood, which is the 100. All the other materials, when you use a life cycle assessment approach, have a higher impact, whether it is for energy, climate change or pollution.
The next page puts it in terms that my nine-year-old understands; the amount of wood that is in our house at home is equivalent to the amount of CO2 emissions that our car would put out in five years. That is about 29 tonnes of CO2 that has been used to create the wood, using photosynthesis.
The opportunities are not just in solid wood products. This is a product here called cross-laminated timber. I am not sure whether any of the other industry sectors have shown this product. This is an exceptionally strong material.
If you go to the next slide, you will see the Waugh Thistleton mid-rise. This building is made of this material; there is no steel or concrete, except in the foundation, of this nine-storey residential building in East London. It is exceptionally strong and lightweight. It would be an exceptional use in an earthquake because it has much lower density but a higher strength-to-weight ratio than steel or concrete.
It is the tallest timber building in the world. It was completed last October, about a year ago this week. It is called cross-laminated timber. Essentially, it is like plywood, where the wood is oriented at 90 degrees. It is being developed in Canada.
It has been in use in Europe for several years, but several companies are cooperating to develop both propriety and open market manufacturing processes. That will enable us to have very efficient buildings and very carbon-intense buildings.
The next slide is one of my favourites. London is one of the jurisdictions around the world that has carbon footprint legislation. Any new building that is built in the City of London, England has to demonstrate how they have reduced their carbon footprint by 10 per cent. This building, because it was built in solid wood walls, met that requirement for 210 years. Essentially, they have a zero carbon footprint for 21 years.
The picture that you see is the total amount of waste that was produced by manufacturing this building on site. All the panels were pre-manufactured and delivered on site. Any waste from those pre-manufactured panels went into heating the building in which it was manufactured.
In addition, this is a very efficient system. The building went up in 27 days. A nine-storey building going up in 27 days is virtually unheard of, but that is one of the advantages of a light, strong, engineered product like cross- laminated timber.
The next one is entitled 2010 Carbon Footprint. We undertook to evaluate the carbon footprint of the Olympic buildings, based on what they were made of and what they could have been made of. Several of the buildings were designed in steel, concrete and wood, so we knew exactly what those materials would have been.
While it is interesting to see there is 8.5 million kilograms, 8,500 tonnes, of CO2 that has been sequestered — removed from the atmosphere when the tree is photosynthesizing — twice that was not emitted because other materials like steel and concrete were not used. It is a very large net swing; if you have an opportunity to use a material like wood over another material, you can make a significant difference from a climate point of view.
I have some suggestions. There was a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization meeting last week in which they addressed issues around carbon and green building in wood. They are making a recommendation to the Copenhagen 15, the United Nations Climate Change Conference that carbon and life cycle assessment are key elements in ensuring that we reduce the impact of our building and our designs while mitigating climate change.
It may be difficult for a government to say we want to build with wood, but it should not be difficult for a government to adopt a policy that says we want to have a reduced carbon footprint.
Most times, in small buildings, that will entail the use of wood. Other times it might not; but for the most part, reducing the carbon footprint of our built environment is a good thing. It is not necessarily a wood-first policy, but I think it is one that is practical for a government to adopt and defensible, which is essential.
We do need to have more capabilities among our design community and our procurement people, whether it is in a government body, a school district or a hospital board, to understand how LCA can be used to develop a better building.
As I mentioned earlier, many people just think of trees as something that a man with a chainsaw kills. We have to change that attitude by educating them that it is always absorbing CO2; it is always creating a solar-powered product that we can use to mitigate climate change; and that our forests are an incredible resource.
Finally, when it comes to forest management, it is very important to maintain the commitment that the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers has of being inclusive with credible, sustainable forest management tools.
The last picture I want to show you is a temple built in 700 AD in Japan. It is all wood. It is about 15 metres taller than the new legislation in B.C. would allow for a six-storey wood building. It is 1,300 years old, no metal, and people who knew how to use wood designed it. It is covered and protected; they did not set the material up to fail and it has not failed for 1,300 years.
I would be pleased to try to answer any of your questions. As an architect once told me, if you build a building to be endearing, it will be enduring. If we have the skills to do that, we will have buildings that endure for a long time.
Senator Mercer: I apologize for being late. Our parliamentary duties get in the way of committee work sometimes.
It was a very interesting presentation. I am anxious to talk more about this cross-laminated timber that you displayed and passed around. I have three quick questions: what is the cost of production; what types of wood can be used; and is anyone in Canada processing that type of timber today?
Mr. Moonen: Right now, there is an expression of interest that has gone out for designers to incorporate this product into some new structures. There are several companies in British Columbia, and I believe in Ontario and Quebec, that are experimenting with how to make it.
There is capital equipment that has to be involved. It is not an overly complex product, but like many things, it may not be hard to do but it may be hard to do well. When you are dealing with building safety, it has to be done well. However, there is a lot of expertise. There is a small building that has been built on Vancouver Island, using a small press as a template.
Senator Mercer: How big is small?
Mr. Moonen: About a two-car garage-style building. I have a photo that I can send to you for your information.
There is also a small affordable housing unit that has been developed by an architect in Vancouver.
As for species, virtually any of the softwoods that we grow in Canada can be used. The trials include dimension lumber, which is the typical two-by-four, which the industry produces very efficiently, as well as some of the one-by boards, which are the one-inch boards. The one you saw was made out of the one-inch, 19-millimetre thick boards and we are experimenting with both.
As for costs, I really do not know because no one is doing it yet. I know in Europe it is competitive with tilt-up concrete and steel structures. Europeans have a great zeal for wood, but they are also as conscious of the dollar these days as anyone else.
Senator Mercer: If I wanted to build something tomorrow, using cross-laminated timber, I would have to import it from Europe, would I not? Is anyone using cross-laminated timber in the United States?
Mr. Moonen: I am not sure. There is a company in Montana that is starting up but that is American wood.
Senator Mercer: We all agree we should not be using American wood, but I am trying to look at technology development.
Who in the world is doing the best job in the use of wood and making the best use of wood as green technology?
Mr. Moonen: I was just in Europe at a conference. Four of the key speakers were from North America. One was from Vancouver and one from Seattle. Some of the best techniques are being developed by Canadians. The lifecycle assessment tool is Canadian, for example.
Each area has its strengths, but Germany has done an awful lot with a system called Passivhaus, which uses an awful lot of wood. The houses built with this technology can have a net production of energy back into the grid. I would say that Germany has a leg up.
There was a green design competition at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and the homes in the competition had to be solar-powered. The winner was from Germany and a team of universities from Ontario and B.C placed fourth. Their project, called North House, made use of Canadian timber. We are not far behind the Germans and, we have some world-class wood designers.
Ms. Berube: I was looking at some of the demonstrations and some of these high-rise projects. France and Sweden have them. Some of these architects and engineers are working on projects in Canada. Some of the Olympic venues were joint projects with some of these architects.
Many of the large companies are looking at developing cross-laminated timber. What has to happen hand in hand is what is called the mid-rise or change in codes for taller buildings. You can either change the codes, like British Columbia, or get approval building by building like in Quebec.
There are several projects underway in both Quebec and British Columbia that will use this product. Codes are changing as new products are developed.
Senator Eaton: I enjoyed your presentation and we have had some very interesting presentations in the last six months. I am getting impatient because I want to hear what you want from the government. Why do we not have a wood-first policy? We have so much wood in this country. Why are you people not filling up the airwaves? Look at what the television and cable networks are doing right now. Why not run a campaign that tells the country to build in wood, use wood, design in wood and that wood is green. We have to go through the terrible garage stuff in Toronto trying to be green where we could be building in wood and be much more effective.
Ms. Berube: Part of it is that the Wood WORKS! campaign is more grassroots, because we have not had the funding. That is probably the biggest thing for going public. It takes a lot of money to do a public campaign.
Senator Eaton: Have you asked any levels of the governments to give you funding?
Ms. Berube: The government provides about 80 per cent of the funding for our programs. It is building momentum. I know, between provincial and federal governments, they are seeing a need. Again, the green building opportunities have really accelerated in the past year or year and a half. I agree with you. We would love nothing more.
Senator Eaton: Would it be helpful to have legislation that actually set out that, for instance, all government buildings had to have 15 per cent or 20 per cent wood; would that be helpful?
Mr. Moonen: In British Columbia, they were faced with several issues, the pine beetle being one of them. I think the item that tipped the scales was the carbon benefit of wood. Premier Campbell is involved with the Western Climate Initiative and a carbon tax. That tipped the scales.
Wood WORKS! has been active for over 10 years. However, because it is grassroots, we have to build the capabilities. If you just impose a wood-first policy when you do not have the architects, the engineers, designers and the clients understanding that wood is such an exceptional material, and then the legislation may fail, not because it was not good, but because it was before its time.
I think requiring that buildings examine the carbon footprint as opposed to specifying an individual product affects a lot more buildings, for one. It will also cause people to think: ``How can I reduce my carbon footprint?'' It will eliminate the perceived preferential treatment for wood.
You will not find any argument from me when I see a wood-first policy because I know the benefits.
Senator Eaton: Living in Toronto, one sees the debacle of what we have done with garbage. We are using windmills and trying to reduce our carbon footprint. We are doing these things while we should be looking at other forms of energy reduction. We have a huge amount of wood in this country, yet we seem to avoid it. Politicians seem to go all around the thing but seldom at it.
In this committee, we have heard and seen many wonderful examples of what they are doing in Quebec City, for the Olympic venues and for that temple. We have heard and seen so much but none of our elected officials seem to say, ``Wood first. We have lots of it.''
Mr. Moonen: In Ontario and British Columbia, we spend a lot of our time with the municipalities. They live, work and play in forest communities and they are the grassroots communities that we deal with. There are dozens of municipalities around British Columbia and Ontario that have said they will build their buildings out of wood. There is a ground swell, especially among forest communities that recognize the importance to their community, as well as to the environment. If it goes up, we will be there.
Senator Eaton: No argument, but I am not hearing it in downtown Toronto.
Ms. Berube: I would like to address downtown Toronto because I cover Ontario. British Columbia has the momentum and the premier pushing through a wood-first policy. We have a lot more work to do in Ontario.
At the same time, we are making presentations and educating the provincial government. We are also working on the federal government. A perfect example: There is one large federal government building in Ottawa. We are trying to get wood in it and you would not believe the hoops you have to go through between Public Works, real estate, et cetera. They need to change the entire public procurement policy before we can look at one building.
Senator Eaton: I believe this is what Senator Mockler is trying to do with the report; he is trying to come up with tangible steps that would make it easier in this country to appreciate the use of wood.
Ms. Berube: The same is true in Ontario. Right now, it is just a lot of awareness and educating because it will not happen overnight. The codes will not change in Ontario as fast as they did in B.C. Right now, people have to understand and embrace it. It is a cultural change. They need to see the benefits of using wood.
In Ontario, we have the steel and concrete industry, too, which present a challenge. If you look at many large buildings, many are made of steel. What is manufactured in Hamilton or Sault Ste. Marie is manufactured for cars; small steel studs. The big steel studs are coming from the United States and Asia.
Senator Plett: Thank you for the presentation. By pure happenstance, last night when I got back to my room and turned on the news, CBC was reporting a situation in Sandy Bay Indian reserve, which is an Indian reserve in Manitoba. A home burned and a child died in that home. I have worked up in Northern Manitoba, Northern Saskatchewan and many of the Indian reserves, where there are many of these tragedies.
A company called RJ Ecosafe builds homes out of insulated lockable metal panels. They brag about how green they are.
What research have you done on wood versus steel, one being greener than the other? Has that research taken into account what is involved in making wood less flammable? Has it taken into account the treatment of wood against bugs, pests, termites, et cetera, to make the wood safe, as well as to remain green through all of this treatment?
Mr. Moonen: With regard to the material, wood in residential construction excels from an environmental and cost perspective. From a fire safety point of view, a properly built wood stud wall with gyproc has the same fire rating as a steel or concrete wall.
With most fires, the danger is in the contents burning, not the structure. I do not know about Ecosafe, whether they have a special interior treatment, but I know that under the National Building Code of Canada you are required to have a certain amount of time where the structure must remain standing to allow for egress. Most of the issues involving death are caused by the contents.
With respect to bugs, bacteria and rotting, et cetera, wood, like any material, will fail if it is not designed and incorporated properly. We have seen that with steel or concrete that is exposed to salt without proper rebar. We have seen this with wood that is exposed to the elements. One of the things that Wood WORKS! does is explain how to use wood properly and how to design it so that it is not exposed to water. Bugs and bacteria can only attack wood when it is wet, at a certain temperature and with oxygen. You need to have certain conditions. If we give those conditions to bugs, bacteria or termites, of course it will fail.
There are treatments that can be used for wood that is in contact with the ground. There are ACQ treatments and borate treatments, but again the end user has to know how to use the wood properly.
Education is a key component. You ask about what might the ``ask'' be of government. Before a wood first policy, maybe we should say that there should be mandatory training for architects, engineers and design students, in all post- secondary educational institutions. The people taking those programs would come to understand the full range of materials available in the country.
Ms. Berube: The Canadian Wood Council did a survey two or three years ago of all universities and colleges across Canada. There were roughly 50 courses for steel and concrete, and 17 for wood. Again it shows how we have fallen behind. That is the key step going forward. The engineers and architects need to be comfortable using the materials and they need to be confident that the materials are strong, safe and the best product for that use. That is the support we are trying to provide, but again education at the college and university level is important.
With regard to the question on the green building, Mr. Moonen mentioned the life cycle assessment. From extraction, to the life of the building, manufacturing and recycling, along each stage, wood uses less energy, from cradle to grave. That study shows that the Athena assessment does that.
Senator Plett: As I said to the people who were here at our last meeting, it is not our position to debate with the witnesses, but I do want to voice some of my concerns.
First, I think that if a house burns down, it is irrelevant whether the person in the house has died because of the couch or because of the wall. The house has burned down and someone is dead.
Wood burns faster than metal, and yet I am hearing constantly that wood is as safe as metal when it comes to fires. I cannot accept that, unless the wood has been treated. I understand that you put on some drywall and gypsum board and you get a three-quarter-of-an-hour fire rating or a one-and-half-hour fire rating. I spent a lifetime in construction, so I know the fire ratings that you have to put on walls between apartments, whether metal or wood.
We have wet conditions and heat conditions in Canada, and you are telling us that you just make sure you do not build in those climates. I am not sure if that is what you were suggesting, but if you are treating the wood, does that take away from the greenness of the wood?
Mr. Moonen: In the case of preserved wood for exterior use, there is a greater environment impact because of the treatment process. Any time you do anything to a material, there is energy involved and the more basic the material, the lower the impact. It is the same with steel and aluminum.
With respect to fire, wood does burn. That is one of our perceptions. We burn wood in our fireplace. We see it in the forest and it rots. It is an area in which extensive research has been done. How can we design and build wood buildings that are more fire resistant?
They tried to set this material on fire and they could not because the fire would only hit one surface; it could not get around it. This material would burn in the fireplace, but as a solid wood wall, you would be hard pressed to get that to self-ignite. I have been talking to a guy holding a blowtorch to a piece of this material. It was a five-by-five panel. He held the blowtorch for an hour and he could not get it to sustain itself.
There are ways to do it. A two-by-four will burn, but steel also loses its strength as it gets hot. It is a tragedy when anyone dies in a fire. Sometimes it may be a material choice, and sometimes something could have been avoided in the structure. I do not know the circumstances.
Ms. Berube: I have pictures of heavy timber frame construction for presentations I make, which I would be glad to share with you. What happens to wood after intense fire? It chars and coats and then it slows down, but it will stay intact and standing. I can show you a steel building that in 10 minutes of intense heat melts and collapses. The codes work for fire safety and there is a certain amount of time to protect people in buildings.
Senator Plett: My last question is with regard to architects and engineers. We have had other witnesses tell us the same thing, which is that architects and engineers need to be educated. Senator Eaton has asked about what kind of lobbying is being done to get government assistance. I hope we will have some of the engineers and architects testify before this committee at some point, but why are your organizations not doing more to educate the architects and the engineers? Surely most of them with whom I have dealt over the years are trying to get the best bang for the buck as well as trying to build safe, energy-efficient buildings, whether hospitals, houses, apartment blocks or whatever the case may be.
Ms. Berube: We offer many educational seminars. In the past 10 years, we have offered 110,000 continuing education hours across Canada. We have only 15 to 20 people across Canada so the amount of resources and time that we have is limited. However, momentum is building and there is a growing thirst for knowledge because of green building. We have an incredible opportunity. People are interested and they know that using local materials and less energy is important. They are interested and want it. Anything we offer is sold out.
Mr. Moonen: We are working with many educational institutions and with student programs to engage the students in some of our activities. It is a long and sometimes painful journey, but patience has worked wonders. That is why we have such an exemplary use of wood in our Olympic buildings, why we have a wood-first policy, and why we have a premier who is big on wood. He needs a reason and the industry perhaps has not given architects and engineers the best reason.
The training we provide is one of the largest ongoing continuing education programs for any profession. It is well received. Architects want to do the right thing. They want to design with wood. However, if they do not know how to do it properly for the safety of their clients, then I would not build with wood, either. We need to showcase how these products can achieve what an architect needs to do for his client, whether it is a fire resistant building or a less expensive building.
Ms. Berube: We have a good model that is gaining momentum. We know it is working. We just need to accelerate it. It is important to show support between the education component, technical assistance and the case studies that show buildings across Canada. We have many kinds of non-residential buildings to show people. However, people want proof. We need to continue to accelerate it and beef up our efforts.
Mr. Moonen: Wood WORKS! started off to inspire and then we had to enable architects and engineers. We need to give them new information and constant professional development. We then must recognize success when we do have an architect, or an engineer, or a municipality that succeeds in incorporating leading edge technology or design because that is where the inspiration comes from. We are a small group and we do it because we are passionate about wood.
Mr. Moonen: These pictures show Canadian products made from British Columbia birch. It is a complete wood product, except for the staples. It is cellophane, which is not plastic. It is a wood product, and there is the paper and the birch.
Senator Mercer: It seems to me that Air Canada and WestJet should be using this product on their airlines instead of giving us the lousy plastic forks that are made elsewhere. We could be using good birch from British Columbia or from Nova Scotia, which would be even better.
Ms. Berube: Mr. Moonen was talking about recognizing wood champions. We have an annual wood awards program and gala. This is our ninth year in Ontario. It is so successful that it has been adopted in the United States. The Ontario Association of Architects has been vying for the awards. Momentum is picking up and the buildings are remarkable. You can wood in the street life of Toronto in such places as the Four Seasons Centre, the AGO, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the wave decks and the hospitals. These buildings are testimony to the use of wood.
Senator Finley: Thank you very much for your presentations. I was intrigued when talking with some of your colleagues from other parts of the industry about some of the nano-crystalline cellulose applications from biomass of wood and, in particular, on applications in things like the aerospace industry or the automotive industry and coatings.
As some people already know, I am from the aviation industry. I was not around when the Wright brothers first flew airplanes — maybe you guys were; I am sure Senator Mockler was — but it took about 60 years to get as far as the Concorde.
I was around when we started to build compressor blades and turbine blades from titanium and then carbon fibres from composites and composite materials. The technology was there but it took a long time to get applications into sufficient volume to make them worthwhile.
How far do you think cross-laminated wood will go? If it is labour intensive or capital intensive to set up pressing plants — and, I understand that is what you use to put them together — how far away is that from being a mass-marketable product in Canada, or have we already lost the race in the technology?
Mr. Moonen: I gave a presentation Vancouver architect, Peter Busby, who was the chair of the Canada Green Building Council. After seeing a picture of that nine-story building he said, ``Are you going to talk about the Waugh Building?'' I said ``Yes.'' I showed him this picture. He grabbed my arm and said, ``Peter, you tell anyone who is thinking of making this product that I want to talk to him because we want to use this and this is where we are going with green design.''
At his presentation at the Canada Green Building Council Conference this past summer, he showed 10 projects of which seven were of wood construction. He said, ``We realize the carbon benefit, the sequestration benefit, the low embodied energy benefit, and the substitution effect — plus, it is the only renewable building material grown by the sun.'' Those were his words.
This product is on a fast track. I say that for two reasons. First, it is not often that you get competitive companies collaborating to develop a product with which they will compete. Second, it has grabbed hold of the architects and engineers because one of the concerns they had was the structural ability of wood. They felt it was limited. Showing that nine-story building or an earthquake test on seven stories built out of this product tends to make the lights go on. I would be surprised if there was not a commercial business making this product within the next year.
Senator Finley: In Canada?
Mr. Moonen: Yes, in Canada. Someone I know personally built the first building three weeks ago on Vancouver Island. He jury rigged a press and said, ``To heck with this. I am going to make this stuff,'' and he did it. He is an entrepreneur that does not listen to the people who say that the price will be too high or too this or too that. He said, ``This is where we are going to go.''
There is enthusiasm and excitement about this because it has been demonstrated in Europe. We have to find out how we can use what we do here. I think it is a case of if you build it here, they will come.
Senator Finley: I have one technical question. Presumably, there is some kind of resin, glue or adhesive that is used in this product. Has that been fully tested for safety? How flammable is it? Does it accelerate in any way, as some glues do? Has this been tested as part of this development process?
Mr. Moonen: Several glues are rated for use in various countries. There are polyurethane glues. This has been tried in a couple of trial projects using a variety of different glues with a variety of different thicknesses of wood, one inch and two inch, and a variety of species of wood, mostly beetle kill pine and other SPF products and western Hemlock, which is a strong wood; and there is a lot of it in B.C. They are trying all sorts of different things to determine which is better from the point of view of structure and fire safety. Phenolic resin has been used for about 60 years and has been thoroughly tested. Very little resin is used. No one will be able to say; gee, we forgot to test that.
Senator Finley: Although I would love to see it work from coast to coast, the marketing would be the biggest task. It seems to me that we have a multi-facetted marketing problem. As Senator Eaton suggested, the application technology through architects and engineers appears to be somewhere behind the curve. What suggestions would you make as to how we might be able to put this on the fast track?
There is a culture within the construction industry that does not necessarily lend itself to wood first. There are some safety concerns about all wood multi-story buildings. There have been some conflagrations. I believe that a nine-story building burned to the ground in nine minutes.
This is not a criticism of the technology but I think there is a cultural perception that will be difficult to get over. People inherently believe that wood is more dangerous. One common factor, as I understand it, in most these major conflagrations is the fact the buildings were under construction and were not finished. I believe that the U.K. has reported that they have to put a fire marshal on duty full time at a building that is under construction. The concern is for surrounding buildings while the wood building is under construction.
Where can government help to put some of these perceptions to rest? Are there triumphs, tests, model sites or villages? Is there something that we could do to take what is a remarkably prolific Canadian resource and make use of it to help you overcome these marketing and industrial cultural issues, if they exist?
Ms. Berube: Our industry has not been good at promoting itself. I remember being in Finland and Sweden where they said that you have your back to the forest and you do not see the markets.
Forintek-FP Innovations is a top notch, internationally known research facility that does a lot of fire testing. The National Research Council of Canada does fire testing. We need to get the information out to the marketplace. We totally agree with you, and that is what our program and models are about. We need to accelerate this and get this information out.
Senator Finley: Is it a question of money?
Mr. Moonen: It is a question of money and a messenger. Anyone who is giving the message, ``Buy my product because it is good for you'' is seen to have a vested interest because you generate revenue. That is one of the things about the environmental attributes of wood which I think is excellent because it is not about only the wood industry. Some environmental organizations say that we have to use more wood and that it has to come from well-managed forests.
Canadians do not celebrate their successes with as much fervour as some of our neighbours do. We need to do that. We have small businesses and large businesses that do an exceptional job, either in creating awareness or in developing new products, so why do we not tell people? Why are we shy? We have so much to be proud of. If you are looking for some dynamic wood-enthusiast architects to appear before the committee, both Ms. Berube and I can give you a list of six such people who know their business and have taken it upon themselves to build in this way. They know how to do it. We need to celebrate those successes.
We have numerous projects, such as the Prince George Airport and the Olympic buildings. These buildings are used around the world as examples of exceptional design using exceptional products with exceptional efficiency. Wood is very efficient material, but we do not blow our own horn.
Ms. Berube: It is the same in Ontario. Many people think Toronto is really behind. I will speak in Detroit and Chicago on a green building tour next week to talk about our hospitals in Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Will you show them that beautiful wood room at the Art Gallery of Ontario?
Ms. Berube: Yes.
Senator Finley: Are there any other construction issues with wood in this scale? For example, I seem to recall reading something about mould and the Richmond Olympic Oval. You can correct me if I am wrong; perhaps the mould had nothing to do with the wood. I seem to recall something else to do with moisture settling in the wood and the length of time that it takes. Could you address that subject?
Mr. Moonen: On your last point, the issue with the speed skating oval is that moisture got in and mould began to grow. It was an issue with the membrane, which was replaced, not the material per se. Wood is actually a very forgiving material. It can be wet but as long as it dries, it will not rot or change. It has many exceptional properties. We must understand the required conditions to use this or any other material effectively. That problem was corrected and is not an issue.
Senator Finley: Would that have happened had it not been wood?
Mr. Moonen: If uncoated steel had been used instead of wood, there might have been rust. Water is the enemy of wood, steel and concrete.
Ms. Berube: If any building material is used incorrectly or if the building is not constructed properly, there will have problems. We always hear the horror stories. We hear if a roof collapses, for example.
Senator Finley: I do not get to read about the good things, just about those that are bad. I am simply trying to understand the technology.
Mr. Moonen: Wood is not a uniform material like steel or concrete. A little knot in wood can be a structural point of weakness. However, because engineered wood is laminated, the weakness is amortized over the whole block. One of the strengths of engineered wood is that it is uniform and more predictable. As well, wood buildings have lacked an expertise from the engineering and architectural filed to develop application systems. With steel buildings, for example, you can take the span, height, load and create the kit. It is like a Mechano set. Wood does not lend itself to that because it is not a uniform material, which is one of difficulties.
That has been offset in Europe by having a lot of computer numerically controlled cutting machines. You might have seen what we call rivets or pins where the hole is cut precisely where the metal plate is so that you do not even see the metal plate. That is now available in Canada. It took our glue laminators a while, but they are now capable of using it. Part of it is the technology; part of it is the ability of architects and engineers to design effectively and learning, as we go along, of material limitations.
Senator Finley: It sounds like Canada's answer to IKEA.
Ms. Berube: In the Finnish example, in 2000, the government and industry got together. We are very fragmented in Canada. When I talk about the research, getting that out to the marketplace, providing that technical assistance, having government support, having industry part of it, Finland pulled it all together in one cohesive program and doubled wood consumption in five years.
Senator Finley: That was a question I was asking some colleagues a couple weeks ago. Who is the go-to-guy for trees? Is there some overarching plan that is pulling all of this together? There does not seem to be anyone, even within government departments such as Natural Resources, Industry Canada, Agriculture Canada and some others.
Ms. Berube: Canada is so big that I think you are seeing more of a regional focus evolvement, province by province. You look at B.C. and the evolution of the wood first policy and Quebec, there are many good things going on now too and they are getting the programming together.
Mr. Moonen: We should collect all those successes and make them known; they are doing this here, can it be done there?
Ms. Berube: The Government of Ontario is saying that we need to pull this together.
Senator Fairbairn: You certainly have a very positive attitude about the many things that have been happening to disturb or upset the forestry industry and all that goes with it.
I will tell you a small story, and I would like to ask a question with it. A couple of years ago, this group was traveling across Canada on a study of rural poverty. At one point early on, we were heading north in the provinces. We were in Prince George British Columbia and were absolutely struck because everything around on the ground was quite an attractive colour of pink; the pine beetles had gone through and removed everything that was there. It was quite unnerving to even think of it.
While in Prince George, we received a message from a little town that the people in the town wanted us to come and see them because they had something to show us. We went there and they were young fellows who were using wood to make furniture. They had decided, why not give it a shot, and they were using the pine beetle wood that was lying out on the land. They were making beautiful furniture with the wood and had many customers. There was that certain haze around the colour of the wood. They were getting some support from Vancouver; it looked as though it was positive. We were not back in Ottawa very long after when we heard that they had to shut their door, perhaps due to the pine beetle controversy.
You have taken us across the country in British Columbia and parts of Alberta, Quebec and Ontario. What is the situation in the North where the small communities depend on the forest industry?
I am not talking about the pine beetle; I am talking about the industry itself, the opportunity of using what has always had a good reputation as very good wood. Is it happening now or is it shutting down?
Mr. Moonen: About 10 years ago, I moved to a small community where The Beachcombers was filmed, if any of you remember that program. There were many woodworkers there. This is a small town; my community is 2,500 people and there are several areas. The woodworkers were having difficulty selling their products and we formed a provincial cooperative — it covers all of British Columbia — to deal with some of the small producers, whether they are small sawmills who are creating niche wood products or whether they are artisans. Many of the guys make pens like this one, which are sort of value-added products.
The difficulty that some of these communities face is if there is not a solid primary sector, these guys are not equipped to go out and cut down trees. Many of them have suffered in their business — whether it is flooring, trusses, millwork or furniture — because if there is not someone who can make a viable business of cutting down trees to make lumber, they cannot get the high-grade wood or the wood that is specific to their needs.
As far as small communities go, I was in Fort Nelson last January when it was minus 55 degrees, and they have the same sort of issues. They have some big companies that are struggling with the economy and they have some small producers that depend on the infrastructure that is there essentially for the primary sector. They are dependent on that, either for transportation or for waste wood or for primary wood.
It really is integrated. I use this as an example, which I will pass around too. If you look at the value-added sector, that is the apex, but it is dependent on a foundation of large production of low value and small production of high value. I will pass this around. This illustrates the average daily consumption of wood by every person on the planet.
It is really integrated. The value-added sector, the secondary manufacturers and log home builders depend on an infrastructure that is largely dependent on the primaries.
Ms. Berube: Looking at the European Finnish-Swedish experience, many of the primaries get into the secondary and value-added manufacturers — again, different partnerships, looking at smaller businesses. There has to be some integration; it is still so fragmented. That is a lot of the problem.
Senator Fairbairn: But it is there still, waiting to be perked up again.
Ms. Berube: Are you asking about the industry as a whole?
Senator Fairbairn: Yes.
Ms. Berube: We all know that 85 per cent of our wood is shipped south of the border. That is the problem with Canada. That is part of why we started this awareness campaign in Canada. We do not use enough wood domestically. We must try to diversity our market; we rely too heavily on the United States. Why are we not using more wood here in Canada?
Mr. Moonen: I think we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking everything can be turned into a high- value product. We do not ask our wheat farmers to be gourmet bakers or pastry chefs, but there are some who use a very small portion of their flour.
Canada's resource is wood, and it behooves us to try to do as much as we can to produce items that the markets will buy. Also, to be honest, we need to be the first and best users of this resource, because if we cannot justify to other countries how we use wood, then we sort of lose any credibility to say, ``We want you to buy our product. We do not use it, but we think you should.'' That is why it is important for us to be the first and best users of the material.
The Chair: Certain stakeholders will tell you there could be job displacements if you look at the concrete and steel producers versus the wood industry. In what you have presented to us, have you done an analysis as to whether we would sustain or create more jobs using more wood versus the percentage that would impact on concrete and steel?
Ms. Berube: Small appliances, cars and small steel studs are manufactured in Canada. However, the big steel beams are coming from the States and Asia. Again, why are not we using our own resources?
We are not looking at taking on building everything in wood. Many hybrid buildings use a combination of materials. If we could even increase a certain percentage, it would be a great opportunity. If we went up 5 per cent and got to the level of European countries, it would be an incredible opportunity. I mentioned that earlier. It would be roughly $1.2 billion in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much for this information. On behalf the committee, I sincerely thank you for coming. It has been very instructive, informative and enlightening. For your information, we will have witnesses from the engineering associations and architects coming in the next week or so. If you want to share some questions we should ask them or have information we can share with them over and above what you have presented, please feel free to contact us, Mr. Moonen and Ms. Berube.
(The committee adjourned.)