Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 10 - Evidence - Meeting of October 27, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:06 p.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Having quorum I declare the meeting in session. The committee is continuing its study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector. Today, we are focusing on the use of wood in non-residential construction.
I would like to introduce, from The Canadian Society for Social Engineering, Mohamed Al-Hussein, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta. We also have Jon Hobbs, Executive Director from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I would like to invite you to make your presentation, to be followed by questions from the senators.
Jon Hobbs, Executive Director, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, I am an architect and I have been the Executive Director of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada since 2001. The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada is an association regrouping of architects in Canada. We have over 4,000 members and we are well over 100 years old; we were founded in 1907. Among other things, we are the voice for architects and architecture in Canada, so it is probably appropriate that you invited us.
Among our advocacy initiatives, we provide professional development for architects, practice support and an extensive array of honours and awards, including the Governor General's Medals in Architecture. I have left with your clerk some examples of our Governor General's Medals in Architecture booklets.
It might be interesting to note that, in 2004, there were about four or five award winners, mainly in wood. In 2006, there were two and, in 2008, there was one. I do not know if that means anything at all but it is interesting to note.
There are about three issues that affect the architecture profession and the forest industry. One would be lumber products and sustainable design. When I say ``lumber products,'' I guess I also mean timber. Other issues are research and development, the promulgation of the latest in forestry products and engineered lumber, and, finally, changes to building codes and those buildings which can be constructed out of wood.
It is important for you to understand the current role architects have in building design. Most buildings that require human occupancy require an architect; that is, those buildings greater than Part IX buildings. Part XI is a section of the code referring to small buildings. Those buildings in Part III or greater require the services of an architect if they are for human occupancy. Industrial buildings are usually designed by engineers solely. The architect usually provides conceptual and detailed design during the phases of the building project and generally selects the material and the structural framing system, which is then engineered by engineers.
There are three main types of structural framing systems: steel, concrete and wood frame or heavy timber. As well, there can be combinations of the three materials or load bearing masonry with a combination of the above. Wood is a significant system that architects select but it competes with concrete and steel.
I just learned that the focus of this is on commercial or non-residential buildings. Most residential buildings in Canada are stick frame, which means 2x4, 2x6 and 2x8 timber framing. There is significant absence in Canada, as opposed to Scandinavia, of wood appearing on the building. We usually see stucco, vinyl siding or brick. The Scandinavians do not typically express their structural material, which is something we could learn from them.
I will begin with lumber products and sustainable design. Several years ago, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada was one of the founders of the Canada Green Building Council. The CGBC rates or accredits how green or sustainable a building is. You receive points or credits for selecting green products, such as lumber harvested from a sustainable management system or that is recycled. There is considerable confusion in the marketplace over these various rating or certification systems for sustainable lumber. That is not the case with the use of steel or concrete. The CSA standard or ASTM standard is clear for architects or designers, whereas in the lumber industry, it is not clear. Although there is a Forestry Stewardship Council and a Forestry Sustainable Initiative Trade Association, the government could take leadership and clarify things in this area. The architect's view is such that although we do not select a system, we would like a common, clearly articulated and rigorous standard in sustainable forestry management.
I will address research and development and advancements in forestry products. I assume that you have heard from the Canada Wood Council, which publishes annual design awards and innovative uses and designs of woods. They offer a regularly published magazine called Wood Design that is distributed essentially to those in the industry such as architects and engineers. I do not believe it is well distributed to the public.
Many new technologies, applications and innovations in wood are well demonstrated. Finland has a much smaller economy but shows some truly fascinating developments in the use of lumber. Somehow, we need to support that kind of advancement much more in Canada. That is not to say that we in Canada do not do great things. For example, the Richmond Olympic Oval received an award of excellence. The roof frame is made of recycled lumber from trees killed by the pine beetle. They utilized an available resource.
In Ontario, the building of the Thunder Bay Trillium Hospital was the first time that there had been such a large use of lumber for a structure of that size. I noted in the handouts, which I gave to the clerk of the committee, the hurdles that the architect had to clear to use that lumber. We do not make it easy.
Last thing I will address is building codes. You might be aware that British Columbia changed the building code a few months ago to allow buildings greater than four stories to be made of lumber. I do not know about the changes in the building code and there is not a lot of history, but that should be monitored and considered coast-to-coast. Typically, when lumber is used in larger buildings there are new requirements for other systems, such as sprinklers, et cetera. I have no history and there has not been much uptake yet in British Columbia.
Mohamed Al-Hussein, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak here on behalf of the Canadian Society for Social Engineering. It is the largest society in the country but sees a limited use of wood, unfortunately. I will reflect on that.
I will mention something about my model in answering the five questions that I received via email. I will give you an example of the Network for Excellence on Research that I headed, including 36 other scientists. We were invited to apply for a network manufacturing grant. In my research I promote manufacturing of buildings. Why not change Canada to become a manufacturing society of buildings? The challenges we have in the current practice have an impact to some degree, although it might have little relevancy to the subject. The CO2 footprint of the way in which we build buildings is that we shuttle the framers and trades back and forth to the site, contributing as much as 50 tonnes to 100 tonnes of CO2 when building a single family home.
The proposal is to move to the manufacturing of buildings. We look at the effect of the current practice on public health due to the way in which buildings are constructed. Materials such as drywall have an impact on public health when the sanding dust is inhaled. As well, there is material waste. Wood is so cheap that trades-based industry framers do not give it much thought when they work. A framer can fill up a truck with waste while another framer using the same floor plan might leave very little waste. There are many elements to consider.
We put on the network the approach we can take and how we might move Canada to become 50 per cent industrialized by 2020 and how we can approach that. Today I left some charts about that which, to some degree, I am planning to make use of to reflect on the five points that were asked. There would be a social and economic effect on the country.
The left-hand column of the chart before you shows research areas. It not simply engineering or the building code that we need to look at. It is more about the effects of what we do on the social and health aspects for the public. Social scientists must be involved. I have a model to propose in response to some of the questions about what the government can do.
Without going through the application, which is 60 pages, I am hoping to receive an answer by December 2009 and we will let you know our perspective.
The first question is on the current development in green standards and building codes.
As mentioned by Mr. Hobbs, the rating system is confusing, and focuses on renewable, recyclable and local; and wood is in competition with other materials for which the standards are very well established. Concrete and steel were mentioned. It is easy for engineers and architects to quantify and rate buildings using those materials.
In the future, we will be looking at how we can minimize waste. Wood has been wasted big time, and I am here to send the message that we should think about that carefully. It is cheap, but it is not a product that we should continue wasting the way we do today. Construction methods and environmental footprint are arguable. Wood is renewable, but it is in competition with other materials which compete with that concept.
I want to talk about the building code. Unfortunately, in North America, and widely so in Canada, wood construction is a trade-based industry. It is not tailored to engineers, which is the society I am representing today, or architects. You can sketch on a napkin and get a building approval or a building permit anywhere in any municipality for a small building. That must change. We should respect the fact that architects should be part of the system, and engineers as well.
The building code is prescriptive design. It is not engineering design. That is another challenge we have. Europe has changed dramatically to conformity-based design. If an architect comes up with a system similar in nature and quality, it could be used. There is lots of argument about fire, and you can have two schools of thought. Scientifically speaking, we know that wood is a good product to resist fire. If the size of the lumber is large enough, it could become a better product than steel. Steel will collapse a building at 300 degrees, where with wood, if the fire is put out in time, the building could stay intact.
I will go to the second question, which relates to the specific role of the federal government. As was mentioned just earlier, we could learn from the small country of Finland, which is two thirds forest. They have made wood and the wood industry a jewel of the country, and it is becoming part of the society. When you talk to people in the street, they will tell you that yes, the forest is a jewel, but the industry is the real jewel for us. They educate and promote the use of wood, and you can see it from inside and outside of the buildings.
Invest in research and some nanotechnology, such as nanofibres. We sell the wood cheap today, but if we apply some technology, we could lead the world and sell it for a much higher price, and that will probably bring more funding to the industry.
As to investment, a centre of excellence is the best way to indicate support. The wood industry and the Senate alone will not be able to make it happen. All parties must work together. Universities probably are the key for the success of most of these initiatives. Support research networks, which is similar to what I described. When NSERC came along to ask for applications for networks in manufacturing, they received 22 applications interested in doing something for Canada that would be different than what we were doing in the past. Create industrial research chairs, and that will promote the industry in some way or other. Involve the social sciences and bring them to the table. The Wood First program is an interesting program that has been implemented in British Columbia and could propagate with the help of the Senate and become part of the entire nation.
I was asked about an overview of the environmental benefit of wood in construction. It is clear, but not to everyone, that wood is a CO2 sink. Unfortunately, this information is probably limited to very few in society. If we can make that known to the rest of the country and publicize it, it could become a tool to promote the product. I mentioned fire stability. Health wise, wood is better than any other material. It is limited in height and how high you can go with wood, and that is true and will probably stay so until we come up with a product that will sustain the applicability of more than five or six stories, or even higher.
As to past and future achievements, I think we should all look at the single family example in Canada or North America. If it is not 100 per cent, it is near to 100 per cent wood frame. Why does it succeed there but not in other places? Your committee is targeting commercial buildings, and if the question is raised the answer will come.
Minimization of waste: I am amazed at the wood wasted in construction. That is another reason that it must move from being trade based driven to a more automated process.
On the role of training and engineering, I can tell you that training is either limited or non-existent. I discussed this option with the chair of our department and other departments. Canadian universities probably graduate 1,000 or 2,000 civil engineering graduates every year, but no one is receiving any training, not even a single class, in wood design. I asked why. The view is that there is not the need, that if students spend a year or half a year out of four on training in wood design, they may not use their skill because nobody will ask for it outside. You can sketch on a napkin and get a building permit. Universities really care about the future of their graduates, and that is why they are pulling away from providing that type of training. When budget concerns take place, the first thing cut, in any department, is anything related to wood design.
I am putting forward the facts. We need to change the building practices and to accommodate. If we train engineers, they will find jobs and do the work for which they trained. I will give the example of the precast and concrete industries. I teach a fourth year class, and every year they visit the class and donate their manuals and books, worth $200. In so doing, they make my students aware of the fact there is something called precast, and they want them to understand the way it works. When they leave, they make use of those skills and techniques.
With that, I conclude my presentation, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses. We will move to questions, beginning with Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: We have had a number of witnesses over the course of the last month or so suggest that we are not using more wood in our buildings because of the architects and engineers, and you have alluded to some of it as education at the universities and so on. That was a question I asked. Are there university courses, and why not have a certain percentage of every architectural course dedicated to wood construction.
Again, we have been told that the 2005 National Building Code does not represent an impediment to the use of wood in non-residential buildings and, while 80 per cent of non-residential buildings could be built with timber frame, only 15 per cent are, according to some witnesses we have had before us.
From a technical or logistics point of view, how do you explain the under-utilization of timber?
Mr. Al-Hussein: I was hoping Mr. Hobbs would answer this question. Architects in Canada are not interested in dealing with wood. They will tell you it is a at the lower end. A very limited number of architects will get involved, even with those four-storey buildings across the country. Those architects are isolated, to some degree — I hope I am not saying too much on this point — because they take these jobs to survive.
It is an image thing, in my opinion. If someone in forestry asks the owner why they do not consider wood, they will tell you the architect did not consider it. The architect will tell you the structural engineer did not consider it, because they are trying to find other answers. I do not really have an answer to that question. This is my personal opinion.
Mr. Hobbs: Part of the problem is cost. If you are building a building of the occupancies you were suggesting, it probably has to be timber construction, meaning heavier construction, which is over a six-by-six or greater. Also, it likely needs ``sprinklering.'' Therefore, by the time that is factored in with all the comparisons to other systems, it is likely more expensive.
You can look at these books and our books. A lot of architects can and do use wood. It is a beautiful material. It is great. However, there are some restrictions. Mostly, the decision, ultimately, comes down to cost.
Senator Plett: I have asked a few times here in the last month about the fire hazards of wood versus other materials. You, sir, alluded already to, at least, the fact that steel is also a problem because there comes a point when it collapses.
Are non-residential structures that are built with timber or with other woods as safe in terms of fire risk, resistance to earthquake and forces of stress placed on the building due to sagging and contraction? Further to that, what are the greenhouse gas implications of using wood versus concrete or metal?
Mr. Hobbs: I think heavy-timber construction is generally safer; it is certainly safer than steel. With respect to greenhouse gas implications, certainly all three are being compared under lifecycle assessment costs. I believe lumber is the lowest. Concrete has incredible greenhouse gas emissions in terms of the development of cement, and steel uses a lot of energy but is very recyclable. I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Al-Hussein: I am not really an expert on fire. However, given my limited knowledge on the subject, with solid wood of the right size, if the fire is put out on time, you can chip away the burnt portion and the inner part will still be functional. In other words, you can still use the same piece of wood, which is not the case with steel.
The biggest issue in wood construction is the method of construction. We must think about better ways of building. I will give an example. Once we finish the framing we leave the building open, with no windows. That is a huge potential for fire. If methods change, for example, by putting up drywall right away, which resists the transformation to fire, wood will sustain and be far superior to any other product.
The challenge here is the size. The type of wood is also a factor. Softwood should not be used. It must be harder wood; a slow-growing wood that better resists fire. The other thing is the method of construction, one that will prevent the potential of fire during construction. Most fires happen during construction.
If there is a better system to put out fire quicker, wood will probably be better than other materials.
To answer your second question, there are those who push for concrete, though they may tell you otherwise. They will tell you steel, for example, is 100 per cent recyclable for the next 400 years; that they do not have to touch the ground to come up with another gram of steel. There is an argument there. Wood will take other forms of energy to bring it to the site, so I do not think that is the target.
I would have to push myself to tell people to use wood because it is less energy than any other product. I do not think we have enough evidence to support that. Maybe it is the lowest in the rating. However, again, it does take energy to make the wood, to harvest the wood, to fix it and to ship it to the site. That is not the strongest argument to make that point, in my opinion.
Senator Plett: It seems to me that lobbying is a huge issue here. The concrete people are doing more lobbying. They might have more wherewithal to lobby or have done more research, whatever the case may be.
You said there was not a lot being taught at the universities. It saddens me a bit that we would not be doing that. We have had a discussion on whether legislation is the answer in that percentages of a building must be built with wood. I would favour legislation requiring that a certain number of hours be spent in studying wood, if we are not teaching it.
How would you feel about some government legislation to promote wood within education? I do not know how many hours a person needs to go to school to become an architect or engineer. However, if it is 1,000 hours, how would you feel if 100 of that was spent studying wood; or if it is 5,000 hours, 500 of that be spent studying wood? Would that help in the process of using more wood?
Mr. Hobbs: I do not think that is the answer. We just finished the architecture profession, which is a seven-year university program, for the most part, in revising the Canadian education standard for the profession. There are certainly engineering courses and technical courses involved. There is some exposure to wood, but there is too much in there already. There is not enough time to even complete it. Therefore, adding or requiring courses through legislation from the government would not be favoured by the profession.
However, post graduation, there is very little education offered. Right now, our association is doing a course coast to coast called Concrete Thinking. It is essentially funded by the concrete industry. We have never done one on wood because I guess it has never been funded.
I think there is a need for education, but I would argue it would be at a post-university level, when you have practitioners, architects and engineers out there using it, looking at the technical things. The educational level is more theoretical than practical and I think the time to do it would be post-university. That is for the architectural profession.
Mr. Al-Hussein: Similarly on the engineering side, that is the argument. We only have four years to educate. What is required from an engineer today is completely different from what was required when I graduated. All they needed to learn was how to size a beam and ensure the building is safe.
Today, they have to understand the environment, the social effect and beyond all that. There are many competing needs today in training. I believe university education is provincial and to some degree guided by federal legislation.
Other places for enforcing the use of wood could be through the professional societies. Every province has a professional society. We are looking at training on cold-weather construction or design and these kinds of things. Maybe that is a place that it could be put forward.
Whether it is either legislation or a simple request, I think universities would react, and they will probably listen. However, their concern is whether the graduate will be needed when they leave school. If we give them that training and they never use it, at the end of the day, the conclusion is that perhaps the individual would have been better off spending that time doing something else? That is the message I received from the people I talked to.
Senator Mercer: I will follow up on what Senator Plett asked. I am surprised and disappointed that both engineers and architects think we should study the elements of wood after we become engineers and architects. In reality, once you are out practising, you are into the habit of designing buildings of concrete and steel. We are suggesting that we break those habits and get people to consider using wood. The only practical place for that to happen is at the university level where architects and engineers are trained.
For years medical schools never taught palliative care until a Senate committee made sure people understood that it needed to be taught. Today, palliative care is part of the gerontology curriculum in medical schools. You cannot wait until after the fact. I am surprised that you are suggesting that.
Mr. Al-Hussein, you said that the building code which is based on a prescriptive design needs to move to engineering design to allow for flexibility and become conformance-based as in Europe. Would this not mean adding costs to construction if we needed engineers involved in the design process?
Mr. Al-Hussein: A fee would be paid for the architect to build the house. The architect is trained to give you that sustainable design. He is trained to give you the wow factor. I am not an architect. Even if I won the lottery, I would not become an architect because I am not good at it. The one who gives you the wow factor and the sustainability is the architect. The dollar invested in the architect is regarded as an investment, not a cost. When we consider big buildings, the architects come up with the concept that fits. Unfortunately, they become too friendly and fit our budget. They should be enemies, make better use of their talent and charge us for giving us a better building.
My answer is: Investing in engineering is not a cost. It is an investment in terms of the building and what that product will become at the end of the day. At the end of the day, the product is the building you will receive, which will be designed for sustainability into the future.
Senator Mercer: The issue is: What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do we change the building codes first and then change how we teach architects and engineers or do we change our teaching curriculum while the building codes are catching up? We know the building codes in British Columbia and certain parts of Quebec are further ahead on this subject than in other provinces.
Mr. Al-Hussein: I come back to your first point about teaching students. No, universities would react. I am from the civil engineering department. We have disciplines that did not exist when I was a student. For example, environmental engineering is a big part of the curriculum because it is needed. When the students graduate, they will need it. Construction used to be conceptually known as a discipline that you learn in the field when you leave school. Today, virtually every single civil engineering department in the country has a construction engineering discipline that teaches the science of construction. Universities would react eventually. I can see that happening in the same way with wood. Universities are not resisting, in my opinion. They are simply trying to do the best they can for their students.
We do not have to wait. I am talking about the prescriptive nature of the building code. If you ask the framer why he puts a space between two sheathings, he will tell you. ``That is how it has been done and that is what I was taught.'' He does not know why he is putting that that space there in the first place. Those who put it forward are the ones who design in a way to allow for expansion, contraction, and, as you just mentioned, settlement.
The prescription is that the framer can frame the house. He should not be able to frame it unless it has been instructed by engineering bodies. If we had been graduating 1,000 civil engineers every year with a little knowledge of wood, there would never be a need for this meeting. The start will likely involve changes to both the building code and education. However, I do not think we can make it mandatory.
Senator Mercer: I was also surprised by your comment that we should create chairs at universities. Are there no universities across Canada with chairs who focus specifically on the next stage of forestry?
Mr. Al-Hussein: I do not know of one. I do not think there is one. At the University of Alberta, the masonry contractors came forward and said that their industry is shrinking, that they needed to do something. Their membership invested in a masonry contractor who goes about saying, ``Think masonry first.'' He is a great advocate of the trade and teaches 100 students in the class about masonry. We never had such classes one year ago. I do not know if we have industrial research chairs on that.
Senator Mercer: You have mentioned the catch phrases ``masonry first'' and ``concrete thinking'' and sponsoring by the respective industries. We need someone to come up with a catchy phrase around the use of wood and as well sponsors from the wood industry. Is that what we need to do to help get the message across to educators and others. Do we need such a program?
Mr. Hobbs: I would say absolutely, yes. To back up a bit, I did not mean to imply that architects did not receive teaching or training in wood at university. They do, but it is part of the overall curriculum and they have as much teaching and training in steel and concrete.
Senator Mercer: As much or more?
Mr. Hobbs: It is probably equal because they are equally chosen or selected as materials. Whether that is right in a country like Canada, I am not sure. However, your suggestion is absolutely appropriate. A chair that promulgates wood design and construction would be critical.
Senator Eaton: If the federal government were to prescribe codes such that certain buildings were required to have a specific percentage of wood, would we be hard-pressed to comply in terms of engineering and architectural design?
Mr. Hobbs: It would depend on the building site but it is achievable, although it would not usually be put into a building code. Building codes pertain mostly to public health, safety and welfare.
Senator Eaton: We have been hearing for the last year that the use of wood in buildings is very green, given its carbon storage capacity. With the new fire resistant way of building, it can be equally fire resistant. I see that the change could happen not too far down the road. Would we be stuck up a tree if Canada were to decide that we had to do something about carbon emissions and were to push that especially in provinces that are ahead, like Quebec and British Columbia in promoting green building?
Mr. Al-Hussein: I believe it is very achievable. That will probably be a good win for everyone. I do not see wood alone, lumber, being used in one building. Wood with masonry would work very well. Wood with concrete or steel could become a really good combination. Great architects are using that combination and making really good products at the end of the day.
My answer is yes, and I would support such an initiative. As I said, I want to consider the forestry industry as a jewel for society, and we all understand the implications of that. It becomes a challenge not a problem, and scientists will work around solving the challenges, whether trades or engineers. If it is a challenge, there is a solution.
Senator Eaton: Professor, in your presentation, you talked about what the specific role of the federal government should be. One thing that is becoming very apparent to the committee is that there are exciting programs in Acadia, for instance, forestry programs, growing good lumber, educating kids, and there are very exciting programs in Quebec, with FP Innovations, which has managed to get architects and engineers and environmentalists working together. Are you talking to each other? Do you find yourself talking to your fellow academics in other areas of the country about what they are doing in engineering?
Mr. Al-Hussein: Definitely we talk to each other. We view each other's work, but again, within the scope of research we work on. Sometimes we may miss what our neighbour has on his table and in his research, but I am talking about construction. I was the chair of the construction division of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering for four years, and I do not know anyone who was heavily involved in wood. Currently, education in wood use is probably focused on one end, the harvest and forestry and how to make it and reclaim it, et cetera, but I am not sure education on making use of the product itself is moving forward. If it is there, I may have missed it myself.
Senator Eaton: Some interesting things are happening across the country in various academic areas, but there does not seem to be much correlation between all of you, which I think is a problem.
Mr. Hobbs: The Canada Wood Council does do a trade fair and show every year that they take coast to coast for architects and engineers, showing the latest in products, lectures, et cetera. That is probably the only thing specific to this industry that is of a sharing nature.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Hobbs, Professor Al-Hussein remarked that the architect usually selects or suggests the material. Why were we so lucky to get the skating oval in B.C.? Was that because they wanted to showcase wood from British Columbia? Was it very deliberate? Was it the client or the architect? How was that engineered?
Mr. Hobbs: That one was done by a Canadian firm out of Vancouver. We gave it an award of excellence. I think the architect came up with the solution partly because of sustainability. They wanted to showcase sustainability, so they were able to recycle these dead trees that were killed from pine beetle, and then it was engineered.
Senator Eaton: Where there is a will, there is a way. Senator Rivard knows many beautiful buildings in Quebec that are now being built in wood.
Have either of you heard of something called cross laminated timber?
Mr. Hobbs: I have heard of it, yes.
Senator Eaton: I am wondering how we could encourage the growth of its use or manufacture in this country, because you were talking, professor, about creating modules.
Mr. Al-Hussein: Yes. This is one of the innovations that will come. There is a need for innovation in wood. Nanofibres, according to what I am hearing from my colleagues and scientists in that area, will make wood 10 times stronger than steel. The surface of these fibres will become so strong and could potentially become even resistant to fire. Innovation is required, and I know there is an industrial research chair coming soon to the University of Alberta in nanofibre. They are just hiring someone from the U.S., I believe, who will join the university very soon to do research with the forestry industry on that. When I talked to the chair of the department, he said instead of selling a huge piece of lumber for $20, you can sell a kilogram of that wood for $10 all around the world.
I am proposing modernization and industrialization of the process, moving the work from stick built to factory based, and there is lots of motivation in doing that, including public health safety, CO2 emissions reduction and the cost reduction, as was mentioned here. If we use wood for high-rises, it becomes costly, but if you move that work into the factory, you can control the cost. I have done a lot of these projects in the past and been successful.
I will go back to your comment about how we do not share what we do. When NSERC requested proposals asking for people to apply for research networks in manufacturing grants, 22 applications came forward, and my application involved 37 scientists from across the country, anyone that could do something for the manufacture of buildings. Suddenly the dissemination of knowledge in this area became driven by this application, and that is what I am proposing. The Senate could maybe push for some of these initiatives, and you will find people will unite around this initiative. That is my take on that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Mould is a big problem in First Nations communities, where we have stick-built buildings. Is that because the buildings are stick built? If we were to build concrete or steel buildings, would there still be a mould problem? Are there mould problems in other countries?
Mr. Hobbs: Mould is usually maintenance and operation. I think you could have mould in concrete if it is a very damp building. There is no reason you would not. It is not necessarily the wood. Wood is just a medium. It could be drywall or any material. There is mould in other countries, yes.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: So it could be from defective materials being sent to the communities?
Mr. Hobbs: It is usually a case of ventilation. It is the maintenance and operation of the building so it is properly vented. It could perhaps not be well designed, but my inclination is, if it is a residential building, it is maintenance.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Comparing the life span of timber versus concrete and steel, which is the best?
Mr. Hobbs: Again, I think it is an operation and maintenance issue. If it is properly maintained, it will last as long.
Mr. Al-Hussein: To both questions, again, it is maintenance and the quality of construction as well, constructing it right and tight. The mould appears when water penetrates through the building members, through the walls, and then you have oxygen or whatever. If you build it tight enough, you will prevent that from happening.
One challenge of the research I worked on was the basements. Basements are not designed for liveable space. Unfortunately, many people in Canada will finish the basement for their grandparents or teenagers to live in. However, they are not a good place to live in. There are gases and so forth. Unless we really seal basements tightly and not allow penetration of those walls, they are not healthy places to live in.
The method of construction and to some degree better maintenance are important. With the kind of manufacturing I am promoting, you can guarantee the tightness of the building.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: We just have lousy carpenters.
Mr. Al-Hussein: In Alberta, in 2006, anyone who could lift a hammer could call himself a framer. We needed them, so everybody became a framer.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Over the last few years, I had the opportunity to make a decision with respect to the construction of public buildings in the city of which I was the mayor. We organized the building of a $10.5-million indoor soccer complex and an approximately $15 million pool complex. Architects and engineers had submitted a laminated wood project, but the problem we had had to do with cost assessment. Costs for wood were 25 to 30 per cent higher than for steel. We also had a problem with respect to suppliers; there is only one Quebec supplier. The other supplier was from Europe. So we ended up with a single source supplier and with public calls for tender, whenever there is a single source supplier, there will be price and competition issues. So, we had to choose steel because of issues of height and flexibility, it was easier, but mainly because of reasons of costs and of having a sole source supplier. The cost problem was not really due to sprinklers because even though the buildings were made of steel, sprinklers are mandatory.
Has this sole source supplier issue been raised by your members, architects and engineers?
Does this happen elsewhere than in Quebec? In Quebec, that is really the reason why we chose not to use wood. The engineers and architects were prepared to go ahead with wood. If the client asks for it, the architects and the engineers will adapt to provide the service. There really was a sole source problem. Is that the case in other provinces?
Mr. Hobbs: I believe so. That is the problem I just discussed with Senator Plett. I have done a lot of laminated wood construction. Fifteen years ago, there was a greater choice of manufacturers, but today, I believe the problem is widespread throughout Canada.
[English]
Mr. Al-Hussein: Yes, competition could bring down the cost. If we have more need for the type of service, you will probably have more competition. I am surprised you could even find someone to do the service given that it is not widely needed.
That is why I am promoting manufacturing. If you have a manufacturing process, it will be independent from the trades because anyone can do the job but the problem is whether it will be supplied from an outside supplier or local supplier.
Again, I am probably biased, but it is my belief that manufacturing is the way to eliminate these problems which are related to limited expertise, suppliers or even trades. That is my personal opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: But have you experienced and are you aware of the sole source supplier problem, or of the fact that there are so few suppliers of the type of wood required to build frameworks for tall buildings in the public sector?
[English]
Mr. Al-Hussein: It is a problem any time you come up with a product that is associated with a limited supplier. I do not see a supplier saying that he is the only one and will make maximum profit because he will lose credibility.
That is another situation. If I understand your question correctly, that we have one single supplier, I would suggest we ignore that product. I am not sure if that is the case.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question was in fact the following: as a decision-maker, I noticed that there were very few suppliers and that that caused prices to rise and interfered with competition among bidders. I wanted to know whether in your field, you have noticed the same thing or whether that was peculiar to Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Al-Hussein: I am thinking about a different product. If someone comes up with an innovative product and patents it for 10 years, they will be the sole supplier of that product. For example, Insituform was the only supplier of sewage system liners, maybe in the world, for 10 years. They were so good at it. Again, they may dictate the cost but their product was used regardless of cost.
I am not sure if that particular situation exists in any other part of the country; that a single supplier is available for one particular product. I do not have an answer to this question.
[Translation]
M. Hobbs: The success of the Richmond Olympic oval is. . . I am going to explain this in English.
[English]
It was successful because it could use ordinary carpenters who were competitive and did not have a laminate supplier or an elaborate, innovative system. It chose a new system using simple trades. It was competitive, but I think the suppliers of glue laminated beams in Canada are very limited. There used to be many but now there are very few.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Travelling throughout California, I noticed among other things that many buildings of 24 units and more were made of wood. Do standards in California favour wood or would the use of wood be due to specific conditions designed to withstand earthquakes, for instance, which may have had this effect? Do you know?
Mr. Hobbs: I believe the codes in California are practically identical to those we have here. You said 28 units?
Senator Carignan: Twenty-four and over. These were really rather large four- or five-storey buildings.
M. Hobbs: The same thing probably exists in B.C. today. In Canada, you cannot use wood for buildings that are four storeys and higher.
Senator Carignan: Because of the building code?
Mr. Hobbs: Yes.
Senator Carignan: But why would people not use wood for buildings that are four units and less?
Mr. Hobbs: Generally speaking, wood is used for residential and multi-unit residential structures. Generally, wood is used and other materials are used, such as brick, but the frame is made of timber.
[English]
Senator Mercer: My question follows Senator Carignan's and Senator Eaton's questions on cross-laminated timber, and you talked about laminated beams. What is the difference between laminated beams and cross-laminated timber? Last week, what we saw on cross-laminated timber was extremely impressive. It is strong and fire resistant, but what are laminated beams and how do they compare with cross-laminated timber?
Mr. Al-Hussein: A laminated beam is an engineered product that is treated to withstand load and pressure and to increase its capacity. When you place these pieces in different directions, it will give you the strength you need for spanning. They are the same. The laminated beam or laminated timber can be used for beams or for cross-bracing. That is what I understand.
Mr. Hobbs: Traditionally years ago in Canada, we had glue laminated beams. They are still used but, generally speaking, there are horizontal members and the components are thick. Today's engineered lumber with thin veneers of cross-lamination can be used for all parts of framing larger members. That is the difference.
Mr. Al-Hussein: They have more capacity for spanning rather than the glue laminated beam of the past.
Senator Mercer: I do not want the student to be teaching the teacher but it would seem to me that perhaps laminated beams are a weaker version of cross-laminated timber. The next time you go to the Canadian Wood Council trade show, please seek out cross-laminated timber because I think it is something we would all benefit from.
Senator Fairbairn: I am delighted to see a friend here from the University of Alberta. My colleagues have gone over the issue very well tonight but I have a couple of questions because you are working at the University of Alberta. I was in Fort McMurray this summer. There are not a lot of trees up there. I saw coming back that so much has been destroyed in northern Alberta, which is very much an agricultural area. One thing fascinated a number of us as we looked at all the equipment in connection with the tar sands and that was that the trees were still there. Obviously, they have been sustained and encouraged. Could you tell us how the situation in that area is doing? I could not let you go without asking you about those darn pine beetles. Have they beetled out or are they still there? Is it pretty much under control now? There is still an awful lot of forestry up there. Could you paint us a bit of a picture?
Mr. Al-Hussein: Certainly, I can explain to some degree, but I am not into forestry because I have no experience and my science is in a completely different area. In Canada the forest industry is legislated and follows strict rules as to the amount of wood that can be harvested, reclaimed and so on. That costs money as well. Looking at other examples around the world, Russia does not have the same rules. We follow prescribed rules and the forest industry is doing a good job to ensure whatever percentage is being harvested will not devastate the area. I believe it is all due in part to the management of the forestry; the way in which they cut the trees and plant new trees and the percentage that is harvested. I know that the forest industry in Alberta is strong. However, if you have seen many trees still there, I salute them for what they are doing and credit their good management.
I do not know anything about the pine beetle. I understand that we need cold weather to eliminate it but it is not cold yet. September was the warmest month in history in that area. I hope it is gone but I think it is still around.
Senator Fairbairn: When they landed in my area, they did not like the trees so they went to Montana. We are in deep disorder over that but it is not our fault. What you are saying is encouraging. We will visit that area of northern Alberta and it is good to hear those comments before we go.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations. My colleagues asked good questions and received good responses. However, there is one question that I was saving until the end. The National Building Code of Canada was amended in 2005; do you recall if the amendments opened up commercialization of softwood lumber in non- commercial construction? Was this the effect of the 2005 changes to the code?
[English]
Mr. Al-Hussein: I understand the changes in 2005 have to do with providing flexibility to some degree. I do not think it was specific to a particular product. It was not changed to accommodate commercial buildings, from my understanding. It was changed from prescriptive to provide an opportunity to come up with an alternative method. It was similar to what the Europeans have but I do not think it was to that extent.
Mr. Hobbs: It was prescriptive, and less so, and allows performance-based standards. It has a long way to go, and it does not address materials.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: There is the National Building Code, as well as several different codes that the provinces have individually. I will not ask you to comment on each province one after the other, I respect all of the provinces, regardless of their populations; however, if we were to draw comparisons between the most densely populated provinces, Ontario and Quebec, would there be major differences between the National Building Code and the respective Quebec or Ontario provincial codes with respect to the use of softwood lumber?
Mr. Hobbs: I am not aware of all of the provincial building codes. The National Building Code is a model for provinces to apply in accordance with their specific needs.
Senator Rivard: The National Building Code could serve as inspiration.
Mr. Hobbs: Yes.
Senator Rivard: The master code is the National Building Code and provinces will adopt the components that they need?
Mr. Hobbs: Yes. I am not an expert on the codes. However, I believe that there are not many differences as regards softwood lumber.
Senator Rivard: Earlier, Senator Carignan mentioned that in his municipality, a soccer stadium was built using traditional methods.
In a few weeks, in Quebec City, the Chauveau Soccer Centre will be inaugurated. The building will be quite a sight to see, as will the Fonds d'action CSN whose construction is in its final phase. It is an impressive seven- or eight-storey building that has to be visited before everything is completed. The site is reminiscent of certain residential neighbourhoods in California. The use of mineral wool in this region is rare because of the climate.
When seeking to promote the softwood lumber industry, one simply has to turn to the buildings in California and their similarity to what can be seen here. The softwood lumber problem would be solved.
Projects have been completed, at competitive prices. They will serve as a showcase for other similar projects.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Al-Hussein pointed out that wood does not have as much status right now as stone or other materials such as stucco that we presently see in urban dwellings. Would you agree?
Mr. Hobbs: I am not sure I would use the term ``status,'' but there is a lack of appreciation by the public in the potentials of wood, mostly as a cladding or exterior material. That is why our homes may be framed in wood, but they are not clad in wood. They are clad in vinyl siding, for example.
Mr. Al-Hussein: Appearance itself is architecturally controlled, and it is controlled by municipalities, not by the building code. The municipalities will decide the façade. They will tell you 25 per cent brick, for example, and if you use vinyl, you must have 20 per cent brick, or you can use stucco.
Senator Eaton: If I were to build a house in downtown Toronto or downtown Vancouver, I could not say to my architect that I would like to build a wood house.
Mr. Hobbs: You could, absolutely. Some do, but very few municipalities restrict the exterior cladding. Most houses are developer driven, and most developers do not use designers or architects, so our residential buildings for the most part do not involve professionals. Certain high-end custom residences do, and they often do feature wood.
Senator Plett: British Columbia and Quebec seem to be the leading provinces in this area. What would be the leading municipalities? If we wanted to look at wood construction, where would we see the most of that in non- residential buildings?
Mr. Hobbs: That is a good question. I would have to think about that. I am not sure of the leading municipalities. There are fine things done in much of British Columbia. Perhaps Banff. I am not sure.
The Chair: We have asked you to participate because now is the time in our history to get all the stakeholders looking at solutions or the vision for tomorrow in value-added products and wood first or wood thinking. I like your phrase ``concrete thinking.'' Tagging on to Senator Mercer's and Senator Eaton's on the cross-laminated timber and also laminated timber, previous witnesses have shared with us some of the great benefits of cross-laminated timber, and also the fact that the University of New Brunswick is doing major R&D.
That said, I have two questions. In the event that you want to share additional information with us as you follow our study, please feel free to do so. Should there be a national forum in Canada where engineers, architects, developers, professors and workers can discuss how to promote the use of timber in non-residential construction and find solutions to institutional barriers to such uses? I am thinking as well of the forest industry, plus colleges or trades institutions in the lumber industry and the construction industry. What would be your comments on that proposal?
Mr. Al-Hussein: That is probably the best thing you can do. I will give you an example. I have been promoting modular construction and industrialization for many years, and all of a sudden, in February, Alberta health sent out an RFI, request for information about building modular facilities for elderly care. They have a name for that — assisted living. All of a sudden, every contractor in the city is modular. I asked them what kind of modular construction they have done. In my opinion, it would ignite interest and it will probably become the focal point for all stakeholders. You would be surprised at the many people who are doing something to promote it, but quietly in different corners and we never hear or know about it. A forum of that kind will disseminate the knowledge to all parties. It will probably be sustainable, in my opinion. It could even go international, and many countries are doing that sort of thing. China called for an international conference on toilet seats, and all of a sudden, you could find all kinds of things about their sustainability. It is a good suggestion, in my opinion.
Mr. Hobbs: I would repeat what my colleague has said. I would look to the success stories in such a forum, such as Finland. How they have achieved it, I do not know, but I certainly know that for such a small country, wood and forestry products are huge.
The Chair: This committee report will eventually be part of a process to influence government. It is not just the federal government because forestry is the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, and we do not want to debate the Constitution on the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and territories. That said, we can look at the Richmond Olympic Oval, and we have all kinds of success stories.
We have been conflicting information by previous witnesses. Some are saying that we have a cost benefit of anywhere between 15 to 22 per cent, if we use wood. I heard a few minutes ago that it can be a cost overrun of between 20 and 30 per cent.
In closing, do you have any recommendations to the committee on how we can get the percentages right? We have success stories, and one of our major renewable resources is our forests.
Mr. Al-Hussein: There were some interesting comments on the floor, as well, about whether you have enough trades that can compete to drive the cost down. You sometimes pay for the risk of not knowing. If we do not know much about what we are doing, it will probably be taxed heavily and that would drive up the cost of the risk of not gaining the knowledge of how to do it, maybe. That is what I think. Maybe I am biased.
People have asked me about whether I have constructed modular buildings. I built five buildings in 10 days in the U.S. They were three-storey, with brick outside and everything else. People asked about the cost. Yes, it is cheaper but, down the road, it will become even cheaper. There is a way to make it cost effective. Precast was once very expensive to do. Nowadays, you can get precast very cheap because they managed to make it nice and produce it efficiently. The cost was driven by errors. You paid $15,000 for the first plasma TV. Now, you can pay $500 and the difference is because of the errors in the initial stages. That is my personal opinion.
The Chair: Mr. Hobbs, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Hobbs: You are talking about the cost of commercial buildings using wood, is that correct?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Hobbs: I am sure it would be easy to extract some data from buildings that have been built, either through the real cost, quantity surveyors, the Journal of Commerce or the Daily Commercial News. However, particularly for public buildings, the figures on building costs are out, so it would be just some analysis of what the wood component cost and how it compared with other structural systems.
[Translation]
The Chair: It was a pleasure to listen to you at this evening's committee meeting. We greatly appreciated the comments you submitted for our consideration.
[English]
(The committee adjourned.)