Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 11 - Evidence - Meeting of November 17, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:19 p.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I see that we have a quorum. I declare the meeting in session.
[Translation]
I want to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[English]
We welcome the witnesses to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick, and I am chair of the committee. I would like to start by asking all honourable senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Lovelace Nicholas, from New Brunswick.
Senator Mahovlich: Senator Mahovlich, from Ontario.
Senator Plett: Senator Plett, from Manitoba.
Senator Eaton: Senator Eaton, from Ontario.
Senator Finley: Senator Finley, from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
[English]
Our witnesses today are with us to discuss the Canadian building code. From the National Research Council Canada, NRC, we welcome Denis Bergeron, Director, Codes and Evaluations and Philip Rizcallah, Team Coordinator, Canadian Codes Centre.
[Translation]
We want to thank you for agreeing to appear before the committee. You now have the floor. Your presentation will be followed by a question period.
[English]
I thank the witnesses for accepting our invitation to appear. Mr. Bergeron, I ask you to make your formal presentation.
[Translation]
Denis Bergeron, Director, Codes and Evaluations, National Research Council Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. Mr. Rizcallah and I are very pleased to be here on behalf of National Research Council Canada.
To give you a brief overview of our presentation, I will first talk about the role of provinces, territories and NRC with respect to building codes in Canada. I will then address the national model construction codes published by NRC, the most well-known being the National Building Code. We will then say a few words about the requirements of that code as regards the use of wood as a building material. We published a new code in 2005, and I will go over the main features of that code, which is objective-based.
Lastly, we will touch on the conformity assessment of building products, how decisions are made in Canada regarding the conformity of products and construction systems.
I will begin with the role of provinces and territories. Basically, provinces and territories are entirely responsible for building construction in Canada, from adopting and establishing building codes and regulations, and implementing those codes and regulations, to inspecting buildings — which is often delegated to municipalities — and interpreting those codes and regulations, which they, themselves, adopted and put in place. Provinces and territories are also responsible for education, so all training programs involving construction industry stakeholders. Last, provinces and territories regulate the trades and occupations in each jurisdiction. We could end the presentation here by saying that provinces have all the authority over construction within their borders.
One may wonder why, then, do we have national model construction codes. The key word is uniformity. All provinces agree on the benefits of adopting more consistent building codes and regulations throughout Canada. There is an effort to achieve more consistent levels of building health and safety Canada-wide. Adopting similar requirements throughout the country also helps to expand the market for goods and services.
As for exporting our expertise, our products and our technologies, having consistent codes and regulations across the country clearly gives our methods more international credibility.
The provinces realize this and agree on the need for consistency. They have formed a partnership with National Research Council Canada, and the main feature of that partnership is that NRC create the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) to oversee a national model code development system. NRC also undertakes to provide administrative, technical and research support for the development of these codes.
The provinces and territories, for their part, will contribute to developing those codes, and will adopt and use national model codes as the basis for their own regulations.
Of course, this partnership has evolved over the years. The first national building code was published in 1941 further to an initiative by the federal government and National Research Council Canada. Over the years, however, the provinces and various stakeholders began showing interest in a model code, and now, in 2009, we can say that all the provinces and territories are part of this national system and use the model codes published by National Research Council Canada.
The commission's role is to oversee the system that produces, develops and updates codes. On this page, you can see the main model codes: the National Building Code, the National Fire Code and the National Plumbing Code. The commission is also responsible for developing farm building codes and model energy codes. It is important to keep in mind that when these codes are published, they have no legal authority. They are model codes, and it is up to each province to review them, adopt them and use them. That is the nature of the agreement between the provinces and NRC. All of the codes currently in place in Canada are based on these model codes.
The next slide contains an organization chart. It shows that the commission is a committee that itself creates standing committees, which deal with more technical issues, to help it in its work; these standing committees also have the power to form task groups. The committees are made up of volunteers, stakeholders from all walks of the industry: regulatory officials, municipalities, builders, designers, building suppliers, property managers, members of the public and special interest groups. There are at least 400 volunteers working on these committees at any given time.
In the upper left, we see the Provincial-Territorial Advisory Committee, whose members are appointed by the provincial and territorial deputy ministers responsible for construction and fire safety. It is a policy advisory committee on codes. Thus, the commission receives positions, opinions and requests from provinces through this advisory committee, creating a supplier-client relationship between NRC and the commission and the provinces and territories.
All these committees are at the core of the system, and the commission oversees that system. The system, however, is based on a high level of participation from the public and all stakeholders. It is based on consensus and transparency, and is guided by published policies and procedures, which are available to the public. So everyone can know how national codes are developed. Absolutely anyone can request a change or code. Committee meetings are advertised and open to the public, and every time a new edition is published, the proposed changes are subject to public review before they are adopted. Thousands of comments come in during the public review process, and they are studied before the commission approves any changes.
As for the National Building Code, specifically, which is the most important and well-known of the national model codes, we put together some information on building requirements regarding the use of wood. Obviously, we cannot sum up hundreds of pages of requirements in a few minutes, but, for the purposes of this hearing, we can tell you that the National Building Code sets out two major types of building construction: buildings required to be of non- combustible construction, mainly for fire safety reasons; and buildings permitted to be of combustible construction. Obviously, these terms are defined in the code, which sets outs very specific limits and specifications.
This is a picture of combustible construction with a wooden roofing structure. The image on the next page shows a building that uses combustible construction. In terms of limits, almost all buildings up to three storeys tall can be of combustible construction with certain limits on floor area. This is an image of a three-storey building model despite the fact that it has four floors, since one storey is in a half basement. As far as the code is concerned, this building has a building height of three storeys. The code also permits four-storey buildings to be of combustible construction, but there are more restrictions in terms of sprinklers, limited floor area, access to the street and occupant load limitation. But such buildings are still permitted. Buildings more than four storeys tall are normally of non-combustible construction.
The third image depicts what we call permitted combustible elements.
Of course, buildings permitted to be of combustible construction can have a very large quantity of combustible elements, thus made of wood. However, in non-combustible construction, certain elements can still be combustible, made of wood, as shown in this image, where we see flooring, railings, decorative elements, cladding, roof coverings, fire-treated wood and timber, and heavy timber roofs. Even with this type of construction, there are elements that can be made of wood.
The new codes published in 2005 are known as objective-based codes, an area in which Canada is leading the way internationally in new code design. It is important to view the codes as a set of recipes, offering solutions and examples of methods that work and are acceptable.
There are two approaches to code compliance. Clearly, you can use the solutions in the codes, which are deemed acceptable. In that case, it is fairly easy to show that you have complied with the codes. You can also suggest alternative solutions, different ways of doing things, but you must show that the alternative solution will provide at least the same level of performance. If it involves safety, for example, the alternative solution must provide the same level of safety as an acceptable solution would have.
The new codes set out the two approaches very explicitly and provide a lot of information because, for each requirement in the code, every acceptable solution identifies the targeted objectives. Does the objective target health, safety, accessibility or building protection?
A lot of information exists to help designers, builders and decision-makers evaluate whether an alternative solution provides an equivalent level of performance. In order for an alternative solution to be accepted, it cannot be new. All previous building codes, prior to 2005, allowed for equivalencies, but that idea was not nearly as well laid out or supported by the new information contained in the 2005 codes.
The decision of whether to accept the alternative solution or not is made locally, in the province, in the municipality. It is not up to the commission or National Research Council Canada to decide whether a proposed solution is acceptable or not. Administering and interpreting codes is the responsibility of provinces and territories. They are the ones that put all the mechanisms in place to evaluate alternative solutions.
And very often, when the proposed solution is somewhat complicated, building officials and those responsible at the provincial and municipal levels will seek out the opinion of a third party. The word "product" on the third-party conformity assessment organization chart can refer to a building product or system. It is being used in the generic sense.
For very simple matters, a building official goes to the site to check whether the solution complies with the code or regulation. But when the solution is a bit more critical or complicated, there are two major approaches. On the left is certification, which is based on a whole system of voluntary standards in Canada. The vast majority of those standards are produced within the Canadian standards system, which is overseen by the Standards Council of Canada, an agency of Industry Canada.
The industry agrees on product standards, agencies certify that the product complies with the standards, and building officials use that to form an opinion.
But products that do not fall under traditional methods or standards require evaluations, in which case, all kinds of organizations or individuals with a certain level of credibility can give their opinions. These can be engineers, building experts, or industry or standardization organizations; they evaluate a product that is not standardized and give their opinion, which a building official can use in making his or her decision.
In addition to publishing the National Building Code, National Research Council Canada offers a national evaluation service for innovative building construction products, through the Canadian Construction Materials Centre, CCMC. The primary goal of this service is to evaluate innovative products, promote innovation and establish testing, trial and performance protocols to ultimately give an opinion on whether the new product complies with national codes and regulations.
These opinion reports are published and made available on the Internet. Mr. Chair, that concludes our presentation for the committee.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. I have a number of questions. We have had some witnesses testify that Canada has the know-how to frame with wood buildings that could reach at least nine storeys high. Also, I have conflicting information here. We have had people tell us that some provincial codes allow a maximum of five storeys, and you said four storeys in your presentation.
One building in Norway apparently is 17 storeys high. We were told by one witness that the reason we cannot go more than four storeys high is because we cannot make ladders on fire trucks that go beyond four storeys.
Why is the code in Canada so restrictive, and why are we not going higher?
Philip Rizcallah, Team Coordinator, Canadian Codes Centre, National Research Council Canada: I will address your first comment, which involves nine storeys. We have heard of some construction in Canada where they have allowed six storeys. I have not yet heard of nine storeys.
Senator Plett: Excuse me; the witness said that we are capable of building nine storeys, but we are building them six storeys.
Mr. Rizcallah: Absolutely, they would be capable of building them to probably any height. If they can do it structurally they can go to any height. The code itself is limited to four storeys right now, with sprinklers. That is based on a number of factors. It is based on fire department response and exposure to adjacent buildings. If a fire were to break out in that building, adjacent buildings could be exposed. It is based on fire separations and fire breaks within the building itself. It is much easier to provide fire breaks and fire separations in a non-combustible structure versus a cavity that may be combustible, such as the voids within various walls. Those are some of the limitations.
As a matter of fact, I just left a technical committee meeting about three hours ago, and we just introduced a new requirement in the code to allow an extra height on a care occupancy of combustible construction. Originally it was limited to two storeys. We have now allowed them to go to three storeys, based on the research and data we had available to us.
We continually improve, add requirements and open the limitations to these combustible construction requirements. We have done it just as recently as today.
With respect to some allowing five storeys, some jurisdictions do allow five storeys of combustible construction, but it all depends on how grade is measured. I will try not to be technical, but grade is a defined term in our code and some jurisdictions can berm the side of a building, put a little mound on the side of a building, and get away from that four- storey requirement. They take their measurement from the top of that berm, so technically they do have a five-storey building. It is not really the true intent of the code, but it is the letter of the code; that is how they get around that.
The comment about ladders on fire trucks is very interesting. Ladders on fire trucks would not dictate whether we have combustible construction. Much of it has to do with fire fighting capabilities. The fire department needs to be able to access the building, and people need to get out of it before it is fully engulfed. A concern is also with exposure to adjacent buildings and properties. There is far more exposure from a combustible face than from a non-combustible face.
These are all issues that can be addressed, to a limit, through mitigating factors such as fire-treated wood, fire-rated gypsum board and sprinkler systems.
Senator Plett: I may return later to the subject of combustible or non-combustible wood. Although "non- combustible wood" may be an oxymoron, we have been told that some wood is almost non-combustible, that it only burns on the outside and that oxygen kills the fire, and that in fact wood is safer than steel. We might get into that as well.
Recently, I spoke to a very good friend who is a general contractor and does a great deal of building. He said that, during a slow day, he had watched Senate committee meetings and saw that I was on the forestry committee, so he wanted to talk to me.
Some studies show that while 80 per cent of non-residential buildings could be built in timber frame, only about 15 per cent are. My friend's argument was that as many buildings as owners, architects and contractors want to build in wood could be built in wood. This committee is trying to find more uses for wood. His argument is that it is not necessary to do that because we are not making use of the options that we have under the present code.
Do you agree with that? How do you explain the underutilization of wood in commercial buildings?
Mr. Bergeron: Several months ago, I was in the province of Quebec at a symposium of forestry engineers and architects where I heard the same thing you just said, that if designers and builders were to make all possible use of the current code provisions, they could multiply the use of wood several fold.
We cannot verify that, but definitely a wide range of buildings can be built with wood structures right now, protecting the wood with various materials.
I would like to return to your first question on why the code is so restrictive. I went very quickly through the code process, but our current code is the result of many decades of development, and the process has always been consensus. The code is based on but is not the result of research work done in laboratories. It is essentially the result of committees composed of people from all sectors agreeing on the right course of action. Codes are about minimums, which can be exceeded. When the commission approves changes or approves a code, it is with the understanding that this is a set of minimum standards on which there is a consensus among the stakeholders. The stakeholders are government agencies, builders, designers and fire services. This is evolving; as new submissions come to the table, as new knowledge is available and as new research is done, the codes change.
A committee deciding to add one level to a certain type of building that can be made of wood is an indication that the committee received a submission and evidence, looked at reports, studies and statistics and, based on consensus, decided that this was the right course of action.
A nine-storey building is not unthinkable. It is a matter of, with new knowledge and new technologies, demonstrating that these buildings provide a level of performance and safety that meets the minimum upon which the stakeholders have agreed. Codes exist to set a bar, and they are based on consensus.
Senator Plett: You have talked about the stakeholders involved in setting the National Building Code of Canada. I am assuming those stakeholders and players include representatives from provincial as well as federal governments. In my previous life, I used to do some plumbing. I have a Red Seal plumbing certificate which allows me to do plumbing in all provinces but Quebec. They have their own certification.
Does Quebec have its own standards on this as well? Do all the provinces agree to a national building code and work with that? You said very clearly that it is a national building code but provinces enforce it. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Bergeron: Throughout the country, nearly all buildings are built to a provincial regulation that is pretty close to the national code. The Code de construction du Québec is based on the National Building Code of Canada. The same is true for Ontario and British Columbia, with some variations. Sometimes the variations are technical. Some provinces may decide to go higher on wood construction, or they may decide to cover things that are not appropriate for a national code. They may have separate sections to deal with things of local interest.
The bulk of the requirements in the provincial codes are the same as in the National Building Code of Canada, with some variations. That is the core principle of the partnership. A number of provinces and territories use the code with no variations.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, gentlemen. This is very interesting. I would like to follow on from Senator Plett's question.
[Translation]
With respect to the partnership with provinces and territories, do you set the direction or are you subject to it? In other words, when people come to you, do you reach a consensus or do you set the direction and push things forward?
Mr. Bergeron: Do you mean with the codes?
Senator Eaton: The model codes.
Mr. Bergeron: You are talking about National Research Council Canada?
Senator Eaton: Yes.
Mr. Bergeron: National Research Council Canada is the organization that supports the national system, but it does not determine the direction. The council created a commission independent from National Research Council Canada. Under its mandate, the commission must put a process in place based on participation and consensus.
Senator Eaton: How could we use the national code to encourage people to use wood as a building material?
[English]
Several witnesses here have talked about cross-laminated timber. They said that it has very low combustibility and is better in buildings. Architects and engineers have said this to us. In fact, it can withstand more heat for a longer time than steel; steel will soften and collapse.
Do you take that, do research on it and, at the next meeting of your partnerships, say that you have to devise new codes or more codes dealing with cross-laminated timber, or do you wait until British Columbia or Quebec comes to you and says that they now have this material?
Mr. Bergeron: The partnership is an agreement that is behind the scenes. It is an agreement signed by the deputy ministers and the president of NRC to work together. From that moment on, the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes is the governing body. Those people with innovative solutions are welcome to come — as they have come to this committee — to the commission and the standing committees to submit code change requests. It is very simple. To request a change to the code, one provides evidence and supporting information to allow this broad consensus process to take place.
Senator Eaton: Just so I understand clearly, one of the provinces or someone, some entity, would have to come to you and say that they had learned certain things and create a consensus, is that correct?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes. They are doing this right now on many topics. Many provinces have moved ahead. In the broad consensus process, not all the provinces are at the same point at the same time. It happens that one province will move ahead sooner than others, make changes provincially and then bring it back to the national code system to be incorporated into those codes for all provinces.
Senator Eaton: You almost have to be dragged. Is there a time lag? We have heard that they are doing very interesting things in B.C. and Quebec. How long does it take — a year or two years — by the time a consensus is created?
Mr. Bergeron: From the moment it is submitted, we start to work on it. A trigger is needed, and the trigger would be someone such as a government, an industry or an individual. That one entry point lets us know that someone wants to make a change to the code.
Senator Eaton: Does the National Research Council Canada itself ever make suggestions?
Mr. Bergeron: Even NRC would go through this committee process. The information and knowledge that we develop in some areas are materialized in code change requests. We do research, and some of our research is really aimed at making improvements to technical aspects of the codes. However, once the report and findings are published, then the entry point is bringing this to the consensus table; the entry point is a code change request.
Some of our research departments have done this in the areas of acoustics or fire stops and with details of how to build fire separations. Therefore, as we have new knowledge, this is done in our laboratories in collaboration with industry. The reports are then submitted to committees. This is fed into the broad consensus.
Simply because the research has been done at NRC, it will not automatically be in the codes. Again, the codes are based on consensus. We may have new knowledge, but somehow, for some reason, the community and the stakeholders determine that, at this time, the way it is being presented, it may not be appropriate.
Senator Eaton: However you do not lead the construction community with your research?
Mr. Bergeron: We are there to support the construction community.
Of course, we have a direct relationship and an ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders. They approach us and collaborate with NRC in research projects so that we know what is happening, but we are not dictating.
Senator Eaton: You are not leading either; you are supporting. To me that is an important determination. We have listened to many witnesses across Canada, but there never seems to be one voice that leads.
Mr. Bergeron: We are leaders in developing knowledge, but we are not leaders in determining the direction of the codes.
Senator Mahovlich: The French government requires at least 20 centimetres of wood per square metre be included in all of its buildings. Would it be currently desirable or feasible to adopt such a measure in Canada?
Mr. Bergeron: As you have presented this to me, and the way I understand it, this is a measure to promote the use of wood. Am I correct?
Senator Mahovlich: Yes.
Mr. Bergeron: The partnership that we have with the provinces to develop model codes for them is to provide codes of minimum standards that have to do with safety, health, accessibility and fire protection of buildings. These are the objectives of our codes.
With the partnership that we have right now, and also considering that this is all a provincial matter, I believe it may not be the role of national model codes to have such measures. This is with the terms of the partnership that we currently have with the provinces.
Senator Mahovlich: On the new rink for the Olympic Games in Vancouver, the roof is all wood. This would be approved by the province; 100 per cent wood for the whole roof. Did they take the fire code into consideration when they built that particular roof, or did they only need approval from the province?
Mr. Bergeron: It is a provincial matter. It is my understanding that the province was probably the authority with jurisdiction over the construction of this building, probably in conjunction with the authority in the municipality where it was built.
I am not surprised. It is within the intent of the national codes to allow for alternatives that provide an equivalent level of safety. Of course, if someone comes with a design such as this that is not prescribed in the code, it takes a little more effort from the design, the team, the builder and the supplier to demonstrate that this is equivalent. However, if the authority — the provincial government in this case — is satisfied with the evidence that is provided, then it is the intent of the national model codes to allow this, absolutely. The final decision rests with the province or the municipality.
As a personal observation, two things may render these avenues less frequently used. One is the level of effort required to demonstrate. A cost is associated with it, as well as time. Also we hear more and more about the liability issue. If an authority accepts something that is different from a proven solution, risk and potential liability are always associated with it.
Many factors could contribute to make this alternative solution route perhaps not as frequently used as it could be. However, the codes definitely make it clear that nothing in the code is meant to prevent other ways of doing things. It is just a matter of demonstrating equivalent performance.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: During consultations on the building code, were the stakeholders from the forest industry invited? Could you tell us who they are? Also, how long does it take to change the code?
Mr. Bergeron: Our stakeholders' base is very broad. Of course, we have the wood industry, steel industry, cement industry and plastics industry. These are all stakeholders, regular partners. Three of the four that I mentioned are members of the commission in an ex officio capacity. They are there to help the commission make the right decision.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Could you tell us what industry people came to the table?
Mr. Bergeron: On the Canadian commission right now, we have senior representatives from the Canadian Wood Council with respect to the wood industry. Through this representation, we have input from the wood and forest industry. They do also participate on a number of technical committees.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: How long does it take to change the code?
Mr. Rizcallah: The code works on a five-year cycle, but it does not mean necessarily that a change will get through the system in five years. It depends on the complexity and when it entered the system. It may even depend on what priorities the committee has established for the committees to work on.
The commission sets priorities for all the technical committees, and the committees are obligated to work on those priorities; energy efficiency being one of them. Right now, we are focusing much of our efforts on those. Other priorities take a back seat to those.
It depends on when it gets into the queue, when it starts going through the channels of deliberation. Generally, it is five years; it will never get through any earlier than five years.
Mr. Bergeron: I would like to bring some nuance here. Although we publish our codes typically on a five-year cycle, at any point the commission can decide to publish interim changes if they are urgent in nature.
What Mr. Rizcallah said is correct. However, if an issue is ready, urgent and for some reason cannot wait for the publication of the next planned edition, the commission will release it and make it available on an interim basis.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: In other words, the wood industry is involved.
Mr. Bergeron: Yes. On the five years, because it is based on consensus and has many checkpoints, because we want people to agree and want the public in general to have an opportunity through a public review, changes cannot be introduced overnight. However, we have demonstrated in the recent past that substantial changes can be made to the codes. When it is identified as a high priority and when there is a strong consensus and support from the provinces to move ahead quickly, this time period can be shortened. However, these are special circumstances, very high priority issues.
Mr. Rizcallah: If I could speak to that point, we have had a situation — I will take Alberta as an example — where a number of house fires were occurring. You may have heard of the $25-million losses that they have had. That became a high priority for that province.
They came to us, and within about a year and a half, we developed about 40 technical changes for them. Although it has not gone into our code yet, the changes were finished, and they were able to put them into their provincial code well ahead of our code. The work was done and is sitting there waiting for any jurisdiction to take. It has gone through all the checkpoints, all the checks and balances, and it is available to them.
We had a similar situation where an industry came to us saying that something in the code was restricting their industry, restricting design. Within less than eight months, we were able to get the groups together, get a change and it went through last weekend. It took about eight months. In some situations, depending on the issue, we can get through it quickly.
Senator Finley: You witnesses strike me as being a type of rules-committee referees, I suppose. You do not actually, as Senator Eaton was saying, lead innovation to move things forward, but you set the standards or collect the standards for such things as safety and security. Am I right, essentially?
Am I right in picturing this as having a lumber company from B.C., an architect from Quebec, a cement constructor from Ontario and a steel baron from B.C. around the table? They will set or recommend code changes and, as you have put it so eloquently several times, a consensus will be arrived at. The mood of the room will determine an acceptable standard.
If that is what I am seeing, we have a number of different points of view, different interest levels perhaps, different merits and so forth.
In comparison to the steel industry, the cement industry or whatever, how aggressive is the lumber industry in pushing to move codes, to get codes accepted that would give the lumber industry more avenues or openings? Does that happen? Of course, it must.
Mr. Bergeron: You will appreciate that I will be careful with my answer here. All the industries that you have named are important stakeholders. They are all actively participating, both at the commission and at the standing committee level, during the public reviews. They contribute to research work, with or without NRC. They are very important industry stakeholders, all of them. I would not want to try to put them on a scale.
Senator Finley: You are being very politic.
Mr. Bergeron: They are very active stakeholders, contributors and participants in the system.
Senator Finley: Can a particular industry or a provincial jurisdiction — based on effort, money, will, temptation or whatever — inappropriately affect any of these building codes? In other words, if I represent a particular province or industry and I am looking at building codes and say that if I really go at this and really pressure this, I can affect that particular code. Can that be done?
Mr. Rizcallah: I would like to take this from a technical perspective and say, generally, no. The selection of members to our technical committee includes a director from the wood council, a director from the steel association, someone from the gypsum association and someone from concrete on this technical committee, all very senior. None of the 25 members is there to represent his or her association. They are members because of the knowledge base of their association. When they accept the role of volunteer member of our committee, it is clear to them that their role is not to push their agenda. When yours is the only voice of 25 voices at a table pushing something, you have to get the majority of the remaining 24 to agree with you. If the regulators, builders and others agree with the discussion, then the move will go through, but not because one individual pushed it through. It happens when the group agrees that the person has a good point.
I will take you back to the decision we made today about raising the number of stories, which was initiated by the Canadian Wood Council. It was debated and went through two stages of public review. We finally developed a compromise solution. I would not say that they influenced it because it still went through all the checks and balances. That is how we work generally at the technical level.
Senator Finley: That was the point I was trying to make. I was not being critical of the process. I have spent a number of weeks — and many colleagues have spent many more weeks, given their length of tenure — discussing numerous elements of various factors within the forest and lumber industry. I suppose I wanted to ensure that they were fulfilling their role as part of the code process and doing everything in their power to move it forward. From what you are telling me, in particular, in view of the decision you came to this afternoon, this is obviously happening.
Mr. Rizcallah, your comment that it takes five years for a normal change to take place and that on the rare occasions it might take as little as eight months, certainly took me aback. Five years strikes me, in today's society, to be an incredibly long time in what should be a fast-changing environment. We hear about new products, new materials, new fabrics, computer-generated designs, composites, et cetera, that come out at tremendous speed, yet changes to the code can take as long as five years. Could you rationalize that?
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Rizcallah was referring to our standard publication cycle. Determining how frequently we publish new additions to the code is a result of consultations with our stakeholders, principally the provinces and territories who adopt these codes and enact them into law. You can appreciate all the changes that the addition of a new code might trigger at the provincial level, such as adjusting to the new requirements with training and certification. At times, the changes are substantial.
It was determined by the commission, in consultation with the provinces and territories, that the five-year cycle is the most appropriate cycle. It takes into account the time required to do a good job on code changes and the ability of the provinces, industry and all stakeholder groups to adjust to the changes.
Recently, we examined the notion of a three-year code cycle. The conclusion was that, at this time, we are not ready for a three-year code cycle. The idea has not been excluded for future consideration, and we might change the frequency of the publication of our codes. However, it is pointless for us to publish codes that will not be adopted because the jurisdictions are not ready. We like to work in sync with all partners, and it seems that the five-year cycle is still the most appropriate.
Senator Finley: I hate to be a little pedantic, but we have heard from a variety of people as they appeared before the committee. Senator Eaton mentioned a witness who spoke to the use of cross-laminated timber, which is at a nascent stage in Canada. Given the code cycle, could it be five years before we see this cross-laminated timber in fairly widespread use in Canada?
Mr. Bergeron: I would not say that. As I mentioned, first there needs to be a submission by a research organization, an industry group or a province. If it is well supported and documented and the provinces and territories agree that it is urgent, then it could move forward more quickly.
Senator Finley: As an example, has such a process begun for the use of cross-laminated timber?
Mr. Rizcallah: As of today, we have not received anything about cross-laminated timber. However, we have dealt with other types of wood assemblies. Some changes have been made to phenolic-based lumber with the involvement of the industry group.
Senator Finley: You mentioned the National Building Code of Canada, which NRC quarterbacks with input from all areas. Given that a province or jurisdiction could improve arbitrarily the standards themselves, do they ever reduce the requirement of a code, or is that totally forbidden? In other words, would a province ever change the requirement from a 2-inch thickness of lumber to a 1.5-inch thickness?
Mr. Bergeron: The provinces have complete jurisdiction. The NRC and the commission do not police or put any restrictions on how they adopt, use and interpret the codes. We provide them with a set of sound, technical minimum requirements, and they are in a position to determine whether this is appropriate for them.
Senator Finley: If you do not investigate or police, are you aware of any provinces that go lower than the standards that you have set?
Mr. Bergeron: I am not certain, but it is possible. Some provinces, for various reasons, will take a set of requirements from the national code and replace it with their provincial regulations. At the end of the day, they develop regulations that suit their needs. They draw from the national model codes as much as possible.
Senator Finley: The variance could be plus or minus; it is not always plus.
Mr. Bergeron: Absolutely. Although the national code is based on a broad consensus, a jurisdiction could have reasons to believe that the bar should be set lower.
Senator Finley: Does that mean that even when you were going through the consultative stage, presumably they had registered an opinion that the bar was too high, but in the final analysis the consensus was that that is where the bar will be? Therefore, really, they have only a limited amount of skin in the game if they know that they can go back afterwards and arbitrarily change the rules.
I will ask one final question. I know I will not get an answer, but I would like to ask it anyway. Which is the most aggressive province in terms of doing this?
I knew that would be the answer — no reply. Thank you very much. It is okay.
Senator Eaton: You said something very interesting on which I would like a clarification. On the senator's question, you said that various industries are represented around the table, that no one should have an agenda and whatever comes up, comes up. Is that correct?
I am wondering why no one could possibly have an agenda. Of course, we are talking about wood in this committee. That is why it seems rather one-sided. We have heard that in universities, for instance, in architectural schools, that the concrete people and the steel people, will present seminars to young training architects to obviously encourage their use of those particular mediums, and that the wood industry has been remiss in doing this.
I am wondering why, around this table, the concrete and steel people would not have an agenda and would not try to squash out the wood people. If this is slowly built on consensus, with no leadership, I find it strange. In terms of construction, I am not surprised that wood has been pushed to the background because the others are more aggressive and better at lobbying than the wood industry has been up until now. Canada is a wood country, but we do not seem to use it in our buildings.
Mr. Bergeron: I think you are inviting us into a discussion with which we are not very comfortable. I do not think applying your observations at the university to the national code system is fair, in the sense that what we are seeing at the national system level in terms of contributing to the National Building Code of Canada is all these players being extremely active and participating strongly.
Senator Plett: I will further invite you into that quagmire that you do not want to go into, but maybe this is more of a comment.
Over the last number of weeks, as has been mentioned, we have had a number of different witnesses here. We have had the forestry people, architects, engineers and now, of course, we have you. Everyone, until now, has seemed to point the finger at someone. The wood people said that the architects and the engineers are not designing with wood; and the architects and the engineers said that the code will not allow them to. I already asked the question before — and you gave me a fairly decent answer. You said that we could probably build more with wood than we are even with using the existing codes.
For example, we have a large amount of steel studding going up that does not need to be steel studding; it could be wood studding. We put five-eighths inch drywall on either side to get a one-and-a-half-hour fire rating, whether it is wood or steel studding. I understand that.
I have also been in Las Vegas a number of times for conventions. I am well aware of the amount of money that the concrete people spend at these conventions. I have encouraged some of the wood people to go there and spend that same amount of money at these conventions.
I would certainly hope that NRC, if they go there, only go there to observe and are not being lobbied by the concrete people. I have the highest confidence that you are.
I would like you to at least comment, if you dare. I really wanted my comments more on the record than yours. I do believe that one of our problems is the lobbying that is happening, not with government but with private industry; with the concrete people lobbying the architects and maybe even the builders and so forth. I believe that, but I might be wrong. However, I would like to hear your comment on that, if you are brave enough to comment.
Mr. Bergeron: I think it is not, with due respect, senator, a matter of courage. It is a matter of not feeling competent, actually, to answer this question.
Senator Plett: I appreciate that. I am happy with that.
Mr. Bergeron: If I may, you have used the word "lobby." This is something that, in relation to our national code system — and this is pretty much what Mr. Rizcallah was trying to convey about having an agenda — we like to think and are proud to state that the system we have with the arm's length relationship between NRC and a commission of volunteers and the broad participation on which it is based with consensus protects, in a way, the process from the undue lobbying efforts at our level.
That is why I do not feel competent to comment on your other affirmations because this is something that we do not really experience.
Senator Plett: I respect that entirely. Thank you. It was more my comment that I wanted on the record.
Senator Fairbairn: This has been so good; I am not sure I need to ask any questions. However, I have a couple of questions in mind, and you have touched on this.
Are the federal government's research efforts sufficient on the utilization of wood in the non-residential and residential sectors? If so, could you give examples of research conducted or financed by the federal government on that?
Mr. Bergeron: We can speak mainly for the National Research Council. There are likely other initiatives in other departments. If your question is whether it is sufficient, probably the answer is no for everything. We are always looking for more funding and support. However, we do support the industry with leading-edge research.
Recently, we have done a research project that is unique in the world. We have tried to assess the overall safety level of houses that are essentially made of wood. With the increasing use of engineered wood products, engineered lumbers, NRC got together with a consortium of partners, including industry and provinces, and embarked on a multi-year project involving full-scale research with smoke measurements and fire scenarios to determine what the contributing factors are to the overall safety of occupants in houses and how this safety is affected by the introduction of new materials.
This is the type of leading-edge research that we are doing. Even on laminated wood and the product-evaluation side of NRC, the Canadian Construction Materials Centre, CCMC, I am aware that one of the manufacturers has approached us to get an opinion on the acceptability of the use of their systems. We are talking about huge pieces of wood for construction of buildings up to so many storeys. We are actually supporting through a number of initiatives. We cannot do it all; again, it is a matter of approaching us. Of course, we are out there identifying the needs. The reality of today is that most of our research is done in partnership with consortia, so funding comes from the NRC and partners, which speaks to the relevance of the work we are doing.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you for that. That is exactly what I was asking about.
As our Prime Minister is moving toward China, could you expand on the China-Canada relationship with respect to building with wood and the change in China's building codes? Do you foresee growth in trade with China in this area obviously creating opportunity for Canada?
Mr. Bergeron: There seems to be a huge market there. Many governments, federal and provincial agencies and departments are actively involved. On a number of these initiatives, NRC is providing support through research work to develop techniques that meet Asian construction codes and requirements. As an example, we are now doing research on the acoustic properties of wood assemblies. The requirements of some Asian markets are stricter than those of Canada. At NRC, we are doing research to support the industry in being able to export systems, ways of doing things that are made in Canada that will meet their requirements.
We participated in missions to China, South Korea and a number of other countries a few years ago. We did the same with Russia when there was a government initiative to help them adopt codes based on the national codes here in Canada to promote the use of wood.
As part of our normal mandate, we participate in, contribute to and support industry and government initiatives having to do with external trade.
Senator Fairbairn: That is very useful, and it is exciting to know that. Certainly, changes have been made in China, and it has a desire to do things differently while, at the same time, keeping its own culture. That is an opportunity for Canada. Thank you very much for your comments.
The Chair: I will ask one question, and I will not use the words "lobbyist" or "influence." Senator Fairbairn mentioned the Prime Minister. Forty million dollars over two years has been allotted to Natural Resources Canada for the Canada Wood Export Program and the Value to Wood Program.
One of the objectives of our committee is to find ways to utilize more wood. The four top objectives of the National Building Code of Canada are safety, health, accessibility, and fire and structural protection of buildings. As the code people, as we would call you in New Brunswick, do you think it would be relevant to add the fifth objective to the building code of having a focus on the environmental footprint of building materials in which engineers and architects could find technical specifications on the subject, keeping in mind that I believe part of the solution is to use more wood and sustain a better environment?
Mr. Bergeron: Everything is possible if there is consensus among the stakeholders and governments that the national model code is the proper vehicle for this. Using the rigour and discipline of the process, it is possible to think that something such as this could be discussed. The objectives you stated are those of the National Building Code of Canada. We are working on energy efficiency requirements for houses and for larger buildings, so soon there will be a fifth objective of the building code with respect to energy efficiency. We are no longer talking about the safety and health of people and the protection of buildings; we are talking about an economic objective or an environmentally driven objective.
The next objective, which we are starting to discuss with the provinces, is water-use efficiency. This shows how responsive to needs the system can be. If the provinces agree that a regulatory need exists for which the best vehicle is the national model codes, this is possible. However, there must be a consensus among the provinces that this is the approach that they want to take because there are many other ways to proceed. The provinces are currently pursuing very ambitious programs to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce the environmental footprint of buildings, without a national code, and this is working. However, if the consensus is that the codes are the preferred vehicle, the NRC and the commission are there to respond to the regulatory needs of the provinces and territories.
The Chair: There being no further questions, on behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank you, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Rizcallah, for appearing today and giving us the benefit of your knowledge.
(The committee adjourned.)