Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 12 - Evidence - Meeting of November 26, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 26, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:06 a.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see we have a quorum. I declare the meeting in session.
[Translation]
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[English]
As chair, on behalf of the committee, we welcome the witnesses to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I will start by asking the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Mercer: I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
Senator Fairbairn: I am Senator Joyce Fairbairn from Lethbridge, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: Good morning. I am Marie Poulin and I represent northern Ontario in the Senate.
[English]
Senator Finley: I am Doug Finley, Ontario.
Senator Plett: I am Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Eaton: Good morning, thank you for coming; Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Good morning, I am Senator Michel Rivard, representing the Laurentides district, in Quebec.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
[English]
Today we are focusing on use of wood in non-residential construction. I know the committee visited parts of Canada. No doubt, with the witnesses that we have today, we will share information and also ask questions in order to look at the forestry sector of Canada to find ways to assist all stakeholders to use more wood.
Today we welcome Gerrie Doyle, President of the Ontario Association of Architects, and Thomas Mueller, President and CEO of Canadian Green Building Council.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to be here this morning for the committee. I now invite you to make your presentation. I am told Ms. Doyle will start. The presentation will be followed by questions and sharing your views with the committee.
Gerrie Doyle, President, Ontario Association of Architects: Thank you, chair. I will start with an introduction of the Ontario Association of Architects. It is a self-regulated association that represents approximately 2,800 licensed architects in Ontario. This membership also includes about 1,500 firms.
The OAA both regulates and advocates for our members. I am currently the president of this association, and all our council members are volunteers for a minimum of three years.
I will start with a story about the history of a project I was involved with here in Ottawa, the Ottawa International Airport. When we started the project, as we demolished the first hangar that had ever been built at the Ottawa airport, we discovered that it contained substantial timber beams. They were 14 inches or 18 inches wide to 24 inches and 28 inches deep — solid, old growth B.C. fir lumber. Together with the architect, Michael Green — who I believe has also presented at this hearing — we thought it would be wonderful to use this lumber in this particular location. For those of you who have travelled through the airport, it is on the east side, where the ramps go down to the odd-numbered gates.
That idea was the start of a long story that went on for almost a year. We wanted to use them on the east side of the terminal for wind brace columns. The first problem was finding a lumber inspector to approve and grade this lumber. This issue is subjective and it should not be; there should be standards in the country to grade this lumber.
When we finally moved past that hurdle, the next problem was finding a mill that could take the dimensional size of this lumber and finish it so that we could use it. We did not want to sandblast it; we only wanted to sand it.
We looked all over Ontario and Quebec. There was no mill that could take this lumber size.
We finally found a mill across the border in the U.S. capable of taking the lumber. We had it all set and ready to go. They suggested that we call the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT, because sending the lumber to the mill was not the issue but sending it back might be.
The agreement is called the Softwood Lumber Agreement, which is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I went to the top person at DFAIT and there was nothing the department could do. We could not use that lumber; we could not send it across the border and we could not bring it back.
We ended up using it at the retail counters in the airport. It was cut down to less than a quarter of its size. Most of the pieces were sold off. Some pieces were bought by a local architect and used in his cottage for framing. However, that story seems to be a sad one. This lumber was old-growth B.C. fir. We can no longer obtain this lumber in Canada.
DFAIT would not allow it to come back because of a rule. The rule is that if we cannot produce an authentication certificate of the lumber from the mill it came from originally, we cannot do it. Of course, this mill was well over 60 years old and long since gone.
That is my sad story for the Ottawa International Airport.
I will go back to the top here. As I speak, I will let images run in the background. The images are of award-winning projects that the Ontario Association has awarded over the last few years to projects that are constructed in wood and that have been used. They were awarded after the airport example.
A number of lessons were learned from the Ottawa airport. Canada has some of the finest forests in the world, but Canada does not have the required mills to handle the dimensional size of the lumber that we grow, certainly not across the country. The majority of our lumber is cut down and used for stick framing for residential construction. Full-size trees are often shipped out of our country to the U.S. for milling as large-size dimensional lumber. Canada should review what other countries are doing and how they are harvesting their own resources.
I will now discuss the current status in Canada. Medium- and high-rise commercial construction has been limited to a majority of steel and concrete structural framing systems. Residential construction structural framings are usually a combination of wood frame or heavy timber. Combinations of the above framings include load-bearing masonry, and almost all residential construction is stick frame. There is little evidence in Canada of the use of wood in the exterior design of houses. We do not have multi-use housing, unlike Scandinavia.
With the introduction of new performance- or objective-based national building codes, along with innovative structural wood products and systems around the world, this introduction has contributed to the design and construction of several tall timber-framed buildings internationally. There are good examples that have pushed the envelope and reached new heights.
A series of five buildings of eight-storey residential timber-based buildings have been built recently in Sweden. A nine-storey residential building of cross-laminated timber panels has been built in London, England.
Canada's new 2005 National Building Code recognizes both acceptable solutions and alternative solutions that facilitate and encourage the use of more technological innovations, so long as the expected level of performance — what we call objectives — is demonstrated and achieved.
What are the institutional and technical difficulties for construction of commercial buildings in wood? Our building codes still restrict us in terms of limiting the size of the buildings using wood as structure. Right now, we cannot build combustible buildings beyond five floors is Canada. The National Building Code has mandated sprinklers for construction over three storeys but has not liberalized restrictions significantly on building height where wood structure is used.
In mandating sprinklers for buildings, such as high-rise residential, the high reliability of sprinklers was emphasized. If sprinklers are so reliable and effective, it seems reasonable that their use could enable taller, combustible- construction wood-frame buildings.
I will discuss some of the problems and pitfalls in using wood in commercial construction, and what changes we think should be made to the code. We should enable buildings to be constructed in wood to greater height limits, say to six storeys, or to nine storeys, as in Europe. A six-storey sprinklered wood construction has been proposed recently in B.C.
Not only can timber frame reduce carbon footprint but research has shown that using timber also helps to save energy over the life of the building as it provides excellent thermal insulation. In fact, timber is 15 times more efficient than concrete, 400 times better than steel and 1,700 times better than aluminum.
In Sweden, multi-storey, multi-residential timber frame construction is proving to be cheaper and faster to build than equivalent buildings in concrete or steel. It is also rated as much better by tenants who had previously lived in concrete apartments.
A considerable amount of research has been undertaken in labs in Cardington in the U.K., as well as at the University of Lund in Sweden covering fire, acoustics, differential movement, construction costs and disproportionate collapse. The main concern of building authorities has been fire performance but those concerns now appear to have been allayed. Having building regulations expressed in performance terms rather than in prescriptive terms has been a significant breakthrough for timber in this application. Research and development and new advancement in forest products, specifically in Scandinavia and Finland, are much more advanced and they are much smaller economies.
It is important to develop and promote new forestry products and technologies, and to promote good design to Canadian and international architects. We need to promote wood designs beyond the industry, and to the general public. Recent examples include the Art Gallery of Ontario, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and Trillium hospitals, the first hospitals of this size to use wood extensively.
As we scroll through, you will see that the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre is featured in this slide show.
Changes to the building codes are necessary to increase the number of building types and designs that can be built of wood. The B.C. building code recently changed to permit certain building types up to six storeys to be combustible. This change is recent and has no real history or monitoring. Current building codes require construction greater than four storeys to be non-combustible.
In terms of whether our architects are adequately trained and competent to design and specify wood in structural framing, I think, as can be seen from the slide show we have been scrolling through, that architects have the capability to design and detail buildings in wood.
Thomas Mueller, President and CEO, Canada Green Building Council: I represent the Canada Green Building Council, a national non-profit organization that promotes green building practices across Canada. We currently have 2,300 member organizations that cut across the building industry in Canada. We have projects and chapters in every region of Canada, and over the last five years, we have taken on about 250 million square feet of green projects through our processes.
I want to speak to you this morning about the sustainability and environmental aspects of using wood in construction.
There is a new context for the forest industry in Canada. Recent reports have shown that approximately 50 per cent of carbon emissions are associated with building construction and operation. Operation makes up roughly 30 per cent to 35 per cent and embodied energy and building materials make up about 15 per cent to 18 per cent. The forest industry and wood products are operating in this new context and this new market.
Green buildings and homes are becoming mainstream in Canada and globally. The demand for sustainable wood products in the marketplace exceeds supply. Many designers and builders want to use these products, but the availability is limited in the Canadian marketplace. I will go into more detail on that subject later. There is competition from steel and cement products that have been well positioned in the green building industry. These industries are showing the green attributes of their products. For steel, green products use recycled content. In cement, they use fly ash as a cement substitute to lower the carbon footprint.
Although the forest industry has made many changes in sustainable forest management practices, nationally and internationally the Canadian forest industry is not recognized currently as the leader in the sustainability field. It is not that progress is not being made; it is simply not recognized in a marketing context.
According to The American Institute of Architects, AIA, buildings make up 48 per cent of carbon emissions in North America. That percentage is significant. It also provides a significant opportunity to use buildings, and the products and solutions used in buildings, to reduce carbon emissions.
I attended the 2008 Ecobuild conference in London in 2008. The conference was the largest green building conference in Europe with about 30,000 to 35,000 in attendance. The theme was all about lowering carbon. The UK Timber Frame Association was marketing their products as the lower carbon choice. Canada also exhibited at that trade show, but did not emphasize the environmental sustainability benefits of its products. Instead of focusing on environmental benefits, Canada focused on how much forest we have, how much we harvest and how much is under public ownership.
What is the path forward? What are the market advantages of wood products? Wood products from sustainably managed forests are a renewable resource. They act as carbon sinks. Wood sequesters carbon, which is an important consideration currently; wood can be recycled into other products; wood can be salvaged and reused as my colleague has pointed out; wood can be a substitute for higher carbon materials; and wood can also be a renewable energy resource for biomass facilities.
There is increasing global demand for wood products from sustainably managed forests. Canada currently has three forest certification systems: Forest Stewardship Council Canada, FSC; Canadian Standards Association; and the Sustainable Forest Initiative, which has come out of the United States.
I understand from my colleagues at the Canadian Wood Council that Canada has the largest acreage under certification of any country in the world. Moving forward into this new sustainability market, it is important for Canada to use an internationally recognized forest management system to position Canadian wood well within the international context.
Wood is the only natural structural material made from energy from the sun. This advantage is tremendous, compared to steel or concrete. Steel and concrete generate significant carbon emissions. Wood sequesters carbon, and it is the only natural building material, which again has not been well noted in the industry.
Wood products are 50 per cent carbon by weight. A typical wood frame house is equivalent to cumulative emissions of 30 tonnes of carbon. That amount of carbon is how much carbon is generated from a car in five years of average driving. There is significant carbon sequestration when we use wood and it is sequestered in those building for a long time, or it can be. It depends on the longevity of the buildings and what we do once the building reaches the end of its useful life.
That brings me to construction and demolition waste. About one per cent of our building stock in Canada is demolished annually. Construction demolition waste makes up 30 per cent to 40 per cent of our municipal waste stream in Canada. Of that waste, wood waste makes up about 80 per cent of construction waste and about 50 per cent of demolition waste. Of that wood waste, less than 10 per cent is salvaged or recycled. The rest typically ends up in landfill sites.
We can sequester the carbon in wood for a number of years, but if we dump it in a landfill and the wood decomposes, the carbon is released. Wood construction delays the carbon emission, but it does not solve it. There is an opportunity for builders and the forest industry to increase stewardship of wood products after the end of their useful life.
Some wood is recycled, but it is recycled mostly into low-end uses — as a landfill cover, to build construction roads or as fuel. There is an opportunity to increase wood salvage and reuse. Many applications across the country have used salvaged materials. Wood trusses and laminated beams have been used in structural applications, but the building code does not favour this kind of work. It requires reframing and re-engineering. Typically, there is no national re-grading standard for wood and lumber that structural engineers can use to re-grade trusses and so on. It is based on personal interpretation and the risk that a structural engineer wants to take in reincorporating those materials into buildings.
There is an increasing remanufacturing of materials such as glulam beams being cut into flooring and other applications. Entrepreneurs use existing technology to use these materials, but if there were better technology, investment in technology or market research, I think this remanufacturing would occur at a much larger scale than it occurs now.
An award-winning building in Vancouver was built using 80 per cent salvaged materials; the majority of those materials was wood. The whole structure was from salvaged material and was highly designed.
Wood also has a substitution effect. If we use wood products in place of higher impact products like steel and concrete, carbon emissions into the atmosphere are reduced. A cubic metre averages 1.1 tonnes of carbon.
A number of projects in the next slides are considered green buildings. The Canada Green Building Council administers the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, Green Building Rating System in Canada. Merritt, B.C. has a LEED platinum building. The Parks Canada building in this slide was our first platinum building. In this slide, this wood structure achieved the highest rating and was built with B.C. wood.
A multi-residential building in Calgary is also LEED platinum. The building is wood-frame and also uses wood in architectural applications. Stratus Winery in Niagara-on-the-Lake is a LEED silver building. Wood has been used extensively on the exterior.
To conclude my presentation, I note that the next generation of green buildings is underway. They are built with wood to achieve a carbon neutral or carbon negative position.
The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability at the University of British Columbia is probably the leading green building in Canada currently. It is under construction. The target is to make this building carbon negative. The building has a prefabricated wood structural system. There is much more to the building, but I am focusing on its wood aspects. Building designers have calculated that construction with wood will sequester 600 tonnes of carbon.
A total of 525 tonnes of that carbon will come from transporting materials and in consideration of the complete carbon balance, designers predict the result will be 75 tonnes net negative carbon on the construction site. This reduction is a good news story about wood that needs to be shared on a larger scale. Another innovative project is Dockside Green, which is a large development-driven project in Victoria, British Columbia, that has achieved the highest LEED Platinum certification rating in the world at the completion of phase one. The unique aspect of the project is that it uses wood waste for a biomass facility to generate heat for the project development. This project will house about 5,000 to 6,000 people when complete. Wood waste and a gasification process convert the scrap wood into heat without generating carbon emissions. A bacterial paralysis gasification project generates heat without producing carbon. This process is a great use for wood waste. There are not many such projects across the country.
With that approach, for a typical building using the ASHRAE 90.1 (2004) standard, designers reduce carbon emissions and energy use by 58 per cent through building design. The ASHRAE standards were developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. By using renewable heat generation with the biomass gasification facility, designers reduce carbon emissions a further 21 per cent. As well, 21 per cent of the remaining carbon is purchased in green power certificates from B.C. Hydro. Thus, the project achieves carbon neutrality. The biomass facility for wood waste is making an important contribution aside from the design because wood is incorporated into the designs of many buildings.
In closing, the use of wood in green buildings would benefit from improvements to the building code, in particular in consideration of reusing materials, from better stewardship of the materials at the end of their useful life, and from investment in technology that allows the recycling of wood into content products. There are few low-emitting recycled content wood products currently in the marketplace. These products do not use chemicals in binders and finishes and so there is a big demand for them in the new green building environment, but not enough products are available.
Using wood waste in biomass gasification facilities is important because wood is a renewable energy source. As well, it creates a good market for the forest sector with proper positioning in the international market because of the environmental benefits of wood.
Senator Mercer: Ms. Doyle, you depressed the heck out of us. We are no longer even good hewers of wood and we cannot even mill our own products. The description of the attempt to reuse the wood from the old Ottawa airport terminal, which needed to be torn down, is a great demonstration of governments bumping into one another and getting in the way of people trying to do good work.
You talked about the fact that no mills in Canada could help you and so, to use the beams, you had to go to the U.S. Of course, we trip over ourselves there as well.
The solution is to have mills on this side the border that can perform that kind of work. How does government become involved? I am a Liberal and I do not mind government becoming involved. However, I have difficulty understanding what kind of motivation or incentive government can offer to private enterprise to develop such mills. We all agree that it would be ideal to do the work in Canada but how do we give that little push?
Ms. Doyle: We found mills, one of which was located nearby in Manotick. However, the mills do not have machinery capable of taking larger dimension lumber. They milled only smaller dimension lumber. The primary focus in Canada seems to be to take large dimension lumber and reduce its size to stick frame, which is a shame to me. Canada has the finest forests in the entire world producing the largest dimension lumber pieces. Yet, we do not have mills capable of dealing with their size so they are reduced to smaller dimensions. Previously, the local mill in Manotick had taken lumber from the old hangars at the Ottawa airport and salvaged it to build the mill. However, they sandblasted the lumber, which is a different type of finish.
When we spoke to them, they said they were about to purchase in the next year or two a new piece of equipment that could take this large dimension lumber. The airport offered to pay one half of the cost of the equipment if they bought it now because it would be a great news story and great for the local economy. The mill would not do it, and we could not convince them to do it. The government could promote the sustainable environmental use of Canada's large- dimension lumber instead of shipping the lumber off to the United States to be milled.
Senator Mercer: Ms. Doyle, you said that architectural schools across the country are capable of using wood products in non-commercial building design. Do specific programs in architectural schools address the issue of the unconventional use of wood? We are trying to retool ourselves to rethink how to use new wood as well as recycled wood to ensure that we maximize the proper use of wood. Are specific programs offered in architectural schools?
When we asked this question of other witnesses, we did not receive a positive answer.
Ms. Doyle: Yes, architects throughout their lives were always taught to use all materials in the best way. We have continuing education throughout our professional career. We take LEED courses and promote the 2030 Challenge from the U.S. and sustainable design. We are much further ahead than many other professions in terms of knowing what is happening in the rest of the world and in our exposure to it. We do not have an issue with regard to architects being capable of using the products. The issue is more the code and promotion by government.
Senator Mercer: Mr. Mueller, you have outlined many things. Your presentation was an interesting one. If we could make one recommendation to help change the situation now as a country, what would that recommendation be, from your point of view?
Mr. Mueller: The single recommendation would be to produce value-added wood products in Canada for the Canadian market that incorporate environmental criteria elements. The architects and the designers want to use the material, but there is limited availability.
By value-added products I mean products that have recycled content — products that we call "low emitting'' that do not use any chemicals that when used in the interior, pollute the indoor air; materials that are salvaged; and materials that can be used in structural application. It goes back to the carbon side that could be used in structural applications instead of steel and concrete.
I think if more products like that were available, the architects would use them, and so would the engineers. However, there is not enough of those products in the marketplace. The situation applies also in the interior design — case work, desks and things like that. There is a big market — not national, but an international growing market — for these types of products, and we are not producing enough of them.
Senator Plett: Thank you for coming out and giving us another marvelous presentation. My friend said he was a Liberal and did not mind government becoming involved. I am a Conservative and I have more of a problem with government becoming involved than he has. However, I have had the opportunity of traveling with him and looking at many forests, and we are working jointly on trying to find solutions for some of our problems.
We had an interesting trip to Quebec City earlier this week. We saw three buildings; Laval University had a building that was some 90,000 square feet. The building code did not allow them to go beyond 40,000 square feet, so designers placed a concrete wall in the middle and created two buildings with a total of 90,000 square feet built entirely of wood. The structure is marvelous; a two-storey building where everything literally was built out of the wood.
We then traveled further into the city and saw a six-storey office complex under construction. Builders had stretched the code again and obtained special permission from the Quebec government and the City of Quebec to build a six-storey building almost entirely of wood. We also saw a soccer stadium built out of wood. A lot of buildings are built of wood, as you have shown us here.
I share this information because, respectfully, I submit what we have had many differing views on what the actual problem is. That difference goes from not having the proper mills to perform the proper work and more demand than supply, as was shared by Mr. Mueller. Building codes have been an issue; some architects have come here and said they do not have enough training. You suggest today that there is significant training.
One reason I had not heard before came from the architect at the soccer stadium. He, by the way, also is designing a hockey rink in Quebec City that will be built entirely of wood. That idea is not new; many small arenas have been built of wood, but this rink is a much larger building.
Similar to Senator Mercer's question, I asked him what is the main reason we do not build in wood? He said, they used wood from the tree that normally was not used. They used the tops of the trees, he said, for their beams. They used glue-laminated beams — one-by-two pieces laminated together, and they used the tops of the trees. A few years ago, that part of the true would have been left in the bush to become a fire hazard or whatever.
When I asked him what is the largest problem in why we are not constructing more wood buildings, his answer was labour force. He said in Quebec, only two contractors were capable of building this arena and the soccer stadium. I would like your opinion on that point.
The other problem is still education, I believe, and I want your opinion. Last week, I was at a fundraising banquet in the city of Winnipeg and happened to be sitting with someone who I consider the largest general contractor in the city, along with another friend of mine, a smaller general contractor. Both contractors had the same argument that I would have had two months ago; fire hazard.
I am convinced that we have accomplished much and much is yet to be accomplished. The beams you were talking about are probably safe as far as fire is concerned. However, these two general contractors are not aware of that situation. They still think that steel is safer than wood.
No one will convince me that wood or steel are safer than concrete. I still believe, as far as fire is concerned, something built out of concrete will not burn, melt or collapse. However, be that as it may, I am convinced that wood is safer than steel.
I ask you to address both issues. First, how do you feel about labour availability, because you were talking about supply versus demand? This architect said he cannot find enough people to build what he wants to design. Second, how can we educate contractors, developers, et cetera to convince them that they need to build in wood? I honestly do not believe that the simple answer is to have more government intervention.
Ms. Doyle: I will answer your first point. In terms of the labour force, that is interesting. I had not thought of that situation. You are probably right, but the problem is not only a limited labour force. Right now, we face a limitation in labour force in many of our skilled labours, including masonry. I think the labour force and the training of labour to build in heavy wood details will come if more wood buildings are constructed.
My view is that wood buildings are few and far between. You saw a few examples in Quebec, but it is a great effort to move a wood building through a permit process. Wood building is not the normal building. There needs to be more acceptance, more openness in terms of the building code for accepting wood.
I completely agree with you that concrete is far safer than steel and wood, but a solid wood member is probably even safer than steel. With regard to the contractors who talked about combustibility, the combustibility of wood is only a mindset we have all had for many years.
Senator Plett: How do we get rid of that mindset?
Ms. Doyle: We start constructing buildings and have them last for years. I think we could get rid of the mindset if the national building code accepted larger buildings in wood frame. That acceptance would go a long way toward ridding ourselves of that mindset, because in Canada the code is seen as the be-all and end-all in the safety factor. If the national building code accepted taller buildings in wood construction, it would go a long way, in my opinion.
Senator Plett: Mr. Mueller, before you answer, this particular general contractor is originally from Europe where much more is built with wood than here. Therefore, I find his answer a little strange in that regard.
The other thing I want to state is that we have also been told that right now with the materials that are available, we are building only about 15 per cent of what we can build even with the present building codes. Much more can be done using the present building codes. We can use wood to build more than quadruple the amount of non-residential buildings we are building, if we so choose.
Therefore, is there not inconsistency there?
Ms. Doyle: There is a little inconsistency. Yes, we can construct one-of-a-kind buildings, and many of these buildings here are one of a kind. They are large-space and single storey. We are limited by the code in the number of floors we can build with wood construction. We cannot go above four storeys in Canada with wood construction.
Senator Plett: They cannot, unless they have special clearance like they had in Quebec.
Ms. Doyle: Yes, and it is proposed in B.C., as well. However, current changes to sprinklers in buildings have changed considerably in the last few years. If they are to sprinkler all residential buildings, no matter how many floors they are, then sprinklers should make every building a lot safer. When there is an automatic sprinkler system, it deals with the fire, whether the building is steel or wood.
We need to change the building code in terms of the number of floors we can build, which is much more of a standard-type building. The reason building with wood is only 15 per cent might be because probably only 15 per cent one-of-a-kind "feature'' buildings are built. The average building is the low-rise motels or five- or 10-storey hotels or residential buildings. That type of building is what they are starting to change and what they are trying to push in B.C. They are changing in Europe. I believe a nine-storey building has been built recently in Ireland.
Mr. Mueller: I am not an architect, so I cannot speak to the fire hazards of wood. However, I had the benefit of growing up in Germany. I know Germany does not have nearly as much forest as Canada, yet Germany uses a lot of wood in its public buildings.
The interesting thing is that the wood industry, particularly the industry that manufactures wood products, is extremely sophisticated and advanced on the technology side to produce glulam beams to use structural wood elements. The industry is highly sophisticated. It can make structural wood products out of small pieces of wood. In Canada, I do not think we even consider using such small sizes in these kinds of applications.
Therefore, I guess they have invested in their industry because Europe, generally, is a resource-poor region, whether the resource is energy products or forests. We do not find any national forests anymore in Germany; they are all plantations, essentially. Germany has established an industry that is sophisticated in creating structural buildings of wood that are highly engineered.
In Canada, as my colleague said as well, we do not have to travel a long distance to have the sophistication of glulam beams or structural elements. I was part of the discussion around the skating oval in Richmond that was built for the Olympics. It uses pine beetle wood and large-span beams. I think it took the builders a while to find a company to manufacture those glulam beams. They ended up finding a company in Alberta, which was great. However, would it not have been nicer if they had been found in Vancouver, B.C.?
Perhaps there is not enough investment in the forest industry to reach the level of technology and sophistication to produce such products. Architects, particularly with public buildings, like to have flashy buildings with a high level of finish and so on. Perhaps wood products in all regions of the country do not meet those expectations of the architects.
On the other hand, the other building industries, like concrete and steel, have been effective in marketing their products, and they are supported by the building code. They do not build a residential building in B.C. over three storeys with wood. It must be concrete.
In terms of the building process and so on, it is easy to see why they use a product that is easy to use, has great availability, et cetera. Concrete can be shaped into many shapes and sizes.
I think an investment is needed in the forest industry, particularly on the manufacturing side, to produce products that are of a high quality and of a particular finish that architects will use in buildings.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Thank you for this excellent presentation. My friend, Senator Plett, who accompanied us to Québec City on Monday, has asked most of the questions I was planning to put to you.
However, I would like to address a point that disturbed me. The Kruger Pavilion on the Laval University campus in Quebec City is a 90,000 square foot building made of wood. After some years of operation, it was established that the heating costs were 30 per cent less than for a conventional building. This example shows that we should use more and more lumber.
When we toured the Chauveau soccer stadium, I, like Senator Plett, was flabbergasted to learn that there is only one mill in Quebec — the Chantier Chibougamau, owned by the Filion family — that can produce and deliver within a reasonable time frame roof beams as large as the ones we have seen. It's a question of supply and demand. Barely two years ago, they started with 400 employees, and now, despite the economic downturn, they have 700 employees. If using lumber in non-residential buildings becomes more popular, other companies will sprout up, competition will increase and more opportunities will be created.
The architect told us that his first problem was that there is only one supplier, and also that the employees are not trained to work on more than two construction sites at a time. We will have to make greater efforts to convince the trade schools that they must train our youth to take over and be ready for this new trend which, I hope, will see more and more Canadian lumber used in buildings.
We also asked the architects what they expected the governments to do to encourage consumers, developers, architects and engineers to consider wood as a priority in their buildings, when it's feasible. We know there are limits in terms of square footage. We have a suggestion, and that is to engage governments, whether federal, provincial or municipal and even the school boards, to opt for buildings built primarily with wood. Do you agree with that?
[English]
Ms. Doyle: I absolutely agree in terms of the promotion of wood, and it will go a long way if the federal, provincial and municipal levels promoted the use of wood. You can see from the various slides before us that architects find wood to be a beautiful product. It brings warmth to every building in a way that concrete and steel cannot.
In terms of labour training, it ought to be more acceptable to use wood as opposed to having to battle to do so. Currently, we architects find it atypical and not accepted to use wood. It is a battle; we have to "go to bat'' in whichever city we are to have wood approved in terms of the building code. It should not be that way, in my opinion.
Mr. Mueller: I concur with my colleague. However, I also want to bring an environmental perspective to the table. We are in a time where climate change is under way. As I said in my presentation, we need to reduce environmental impacts on carbon, water, et cetera from building.
If we take the three main building products — steel, concrete and wood — wood make good strides in sequestered carbon. Other building materials also have environmental benefits. Concrete buildings are good in modulating the energy efficiency of buildings. These buildings can retain what we call passive solar gains. Green architects are using concrete in that way. Wood sequesters carbon, but neither wood nor steel has that modulating ability. Only concrete has it.
The mandate of the Canada Green Building Council is to examine how to achieve the best environmental performance from a building. We need to look at all building materials. Each building is uniquely designed. We need to determine how to achieve the best environmental performance out of that building. Wood plays an important role in carbon sequestration. In terms of operating a building, concrete has an important role to play because of the passive solar gain and how it can retain heat in a building where wood cannot. We need to look at wood and other building materials. Buildings are an assembly of different materials.
In terms of interior finishes and so on, I agree with my colleague. There is plenty of room to use wood in buildings that we have not fully realized, which will contribute to the environmental performance of buildings as well.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I have a suggestion. For about two months, we have been listening to evidence from very interesting people who have come here to meet us, amongst them architects and proponents of the use of wood. I would be curious to hear traditional architects explain why that they do not want to get on board.
There must be some reason. The developer does not want to go over budget, and if he asks an architect or an engineer to build to a specific cost, very rarely will he request that there be more glass, more of this or that. It is the architect or the engineer who makes the decision. So, I would like us to invite people who might be prejudiced against wood, and to listen to what they have to say.
The Chair: Thank you. It is a very good suggestion; I will ask our clerk to consider it.
[English]
Senator Plett: Ms. Doyle, you are the President of the Ontario Association of Architects, which represents 2,800 architects.
Ms. Doyle: Yes.
Senator Plett: You are obviously in favour of using more wood. I am sure the people in British Columbia will support that use and I know the people in New Brunswick will support that use.
We are hearing that the building code is a problem. I suggest that if 75 per cent of the architects across the country form a group and start pushing the people writing the building codes, they can have a large impact on the building codes. I truly believe that there is strength in numbers. You obviously have the numbers. Is there a way for you to push the people in charge of building codes?
Ms. Doyle: I wish I could say there was. There are a total of approximately 8,000 architects in Canada. We are not a large group within groups of professions. We are 2,800 architects in Ontario. Our counterpart, the Professional Engineers of Ontario, has 70,000 members. That is the scale of difference. When we want to make a point, it does not go far.
You have seen the Thunder Bay hospital, which has wood framing. That hospital was one of the first hospital buildings constructed with a large open atrium space. It was constructed by Infrastructure Ontario. I have heard through the industry grapevine that because the hospital went over budget, Infrastructure Ontario decided they did not want any more big, open, beautiful atriums using wood.
I wish I could say architects as I group can push the code, but we cannot. We can try. We have tried to push many other issues and we did not have much success with them either. The initiative would be a great one in conjunction with the government.
Senator Plett: That is something I will support.
I suggest there are not many hospitals in our country — whether they have been built of wood, steel or concrete — that have not gone over budget. Because this particular one went over budget should not prevent you from lobbying.
Senator Eaton: I want to pick up on both Senator Rivard's and Senator Plett's questions. What if we looked at the issue from another way? The code people testified before the committee that they never take the lead. People come to them and they build consensus, et cetera. We had the impression that things stagnate.
From an environmental point of view, the federal government can decide because of Copenhagen and pressure to reduce emissions in greenhouse gases that all federal buildings as of 2015 or 2016 will have 3 per cent wood; all program buildings as of 2018 will have 5 per cent wood; and on and on.
Will it work if the federal government takes the lead from an environmental point of view? Do you think that lead will push the code people, trades and schools to increase training or encourage young people to become carpenters, joiners and fitters? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Will that initiative receive a little publicity and start people talking?
Ms. Doyle: I absolutely agree with that initiative. I have somewhat of a different opinion that the code does not take the lead and that they build consensus.
Senator Eaton: They said they do not ever take the lead.
Ms. Doyle: For example, currently in Ontario, Dalton McGuinty came out with the proposed green energy act. It is a 20,000-foot level view of things. To make the act a reality, changes will have to be made to the Ontario Building Code. Premier McGuinty has established a committee through his ministry. We lobbied to have four people on the committee because we have a sustainable built environments committee. We take all these issues to heart at the OAA council. We apparently will have one seat on this committee, but the association is not leading it.
As architects, we are leaders of innovative and sustainable design. We are the only profession that pulls everything together. We create the envelope of the building — mechanical, electrical, architectural and structural. If Dalton McGuinty wants to attain his proposed green energy act and make changes to the code, we are the people who can help the most in that goal. However, the committee will be made up of architects, engineers, trades people and green energy people that will decide ultimately what changes will be made. The code people may be told what changes to make down the line, but that committee is where the decision-making comes from in terms of the ministry.
In reference to your point, I cannot agree more. If the federal, provincial and, down the line, the municipal governments make a collective decision that we will have a percentage of buildings constructed in wood, that decision will make a huge difference.
Senator Eaton: Premier Charest came out last week saying that Quebec will meet X emission standards. B.C. is setting an emission standard as well.
Senator Mockler mentioned several times that we seem to work in isolated silos because Canada is so large. In the wake of what will come out or not come out of Copenhagen, will it be useful if we hold a national round table on sustainable green building?
Mr. Mueller: With regard to Copenhagen and what Canada can do, the federal government can demand that a certain percentage of wood be used in buildings. Our council has emphasized for the last two years that buildings in Canada are the greatest opportunity to reduce carbon emissions right away. That opportunity speaks to the operating efficiency as well as the use of materials.
Senator Eaton: We do not hear about that opportunity. Instead, we hear about recycling garbage, reducing the amount of garbage and reducing emissions in vehicles.
Mr. Mueller: Vehicles are big polluters but buildings are the immediate solution to carbon emissions in Canada. Buildings present a great opportunity. If we want to reduce carbon emissions for buildings, wood is the best material. The other part is renewal energy with the use of wood to heat buildings.
Senator Eaton: You talked about building with a combination of concrete and wood.
Mr. Mueller: Yes; we can have not only the benefits from concrete but also the benefits from sequestering carbon with the use of wood. A national round table on sustainable buildings will be beneficial to bring sustainable building to the forefront in the carbon discussion. We can also then emphasize the use of wood. Your suggestion to use more wood in buildings is good. To be frank, the current building codes will not lead to that change because codes follow after.
Senator Eaton: If legislation or a set of standards was developed that gave everyone five years lead time, then they can start the process and the supporting codes can follow.
Mr. Mueller: Yes; it will create a market for the industry so they can invest in products. We are an industry-led and market-driven council. Industry will invest in the products when there is a market for the products. Many municipal governments and the federal government are building to LEED rating system or other standards for green building. This initiative creates greater markets for architects and suppliers. The issue is market-driven such that if there is a market, the industry will invest. The issue is not about the codes at this stage.
Senator Eaton: Senator Plett and I had an interesting conversation yesterday about developers in this country. We have a great deal of tract housing. Can those developers be given tax breaks to encourage the use of more wood? For example, in Ontario, Premier McGuinty can provide a tax break to builders of tract housing outside Toronto if a certain percentage of wood is used in that construction. Will that approach work?
Mr. Mueller: Tract housing is built from wood using stick frame. The biggest use of wood in the country is for such housing up to three storeys.
Senator Eaton: That kind of tax break will not change anything.
Mr. Mueller: It will not change anything. As an incentive, they can be more energy efficient but, in terms of material, there is a use of wood in housing.
Senator Eaton: Is it not the worst kind of housing because they use two-by-four framing that is highly combustible?
Mr. Mueller: The best is two-by-six frame construction. Vancouver, for example, allows only two-by-six construction, which means more space for insulation in the houses, thereby making them more energy efficient. Some innovation can happen around energy efficiency and the use of wood.
Ms. Doyle: It might be more interesting if developers and builders are given a kind of credit for using local products. If they use two-by-fours or two-by-sixes produced locally, there is a carbon factor as well. The construction of houses as well as general construction amount to 40 per cent of our energy only for the buildings. Then, we must take into consideration the energy used to transport the products to the building site. For example, the columns we used in the Ottawa airport are glulam beams from B.C. We constantly ship from B.C. to Ontario and from Ontario to B.C.
Senator Eaton: Educate me. What do you consider to be a value-added wood product? Do some products fall into that category?
Ms. Doyle: Stick frame lumber, which is available across Canada, is not a value-added product.
Senator Eaton: What is an example of a value-added wood product?
Ms. Doyle: Wood of a larger dimension that is exposed, such as supporting columns.
Senator Eaton: Does the product have a specific name? We have heard about cross-laminated timber, for example.
Ms. Doyle: Glulam beams and columns are such pieces. They have been used at the Ottawa airport. They are factory-made by taking small pieces of wood and gluing them together in the desired sizes. Not many places in Canada have such facilities and there should be more of them.
As well, we should make greater use of solid dimensional lumber. I would promote both, not one or the other. Value-added products involve more than simply taking all our lumber, cutting it into two-by-fours and sandwiching it between two layers of drywall.
Senator Eaton: Is tax relief for people who use value-added wood products a good idea?
Ms. Doyle: Yes; it should be tied to where the product comes from as well, relative to the building site where it is used. Both factors should be considered to promote local development of mills.
Senator Eaton: It will promote sustainability as well.
Ms. Doyle: Yes.
Senator Eaton: For this report, if you were to go to one or two countries in Europe to see and to learn, what countries would you choose?
Ms. Doyle: Finland and Germany.
Mr. Mueller: Germany.
Senator Eaton: Can both of you explain your choices?
Ms. Doyle: Finland is the top of the heap in wood products in terms of design, value, large dimension lumber, laminated beams and columns, and exposed wood on the outside of houses and buildings.
Senator Eaton: It was explained to the committee that in Germany and Austria, they have to char the wood that is applied to the outsides of buildings in consideration of the weather elements. Is wood charred in Finland?
Ms. Doyle: I am not sure about that. In Finland, they treat the exposed lumber with a product to make the wood last longer. We used wood columns on the outside of the Thunder Bay hospital. Because we are in a northern climate does not mean we cannot use wood on the outside.
Finland uses large dimension wood and laminated wood panels generally in commercial buildings. As far as I know, Finland is the leader in that use.
Mr. Mueller: Finland, Sweden, Germany and Austria are highly sophisticated in how they manufacture structural wood elements and finishing products. They tie all of those products into their respective environmental strategies. In Europe, they have a concept called "the passive house'' that is built using an engineered solid wood wall structure. They use that concept in thousands of houses.
To give you an example of their energy efficiency, in Canada best practice for housing is EnerGuide 80, which is roughly 200 kilowatt hours per square metre per year. The passive house uses 15 kilowatt hours or less. It is a wood building. That kind of innovation also drives an industry in Europe; we do not have the same drivers here.
Senator Plett: Further to what Senator Eaton suggested concerning tax credits and so on, I appreciate you are saying that housing developments typically are stick frame, but there are things that developers can do. For instance, every house that has a garage probably has piers, and we can use wood pilings instead of piers. The majority of basements are still concrete and there are acceptable wood basements. Also, more wood can be used inside the houses, if we choose, for hardwood floors and so on.
We are giving tax credits for upgrading insulation. I suggest there can be programs for houses, if they up the wood content in that house with those kinds of products. Every housing development has at least one shopping mall in the development. We can start promoting that idea to the developer to make sure that the strip malls are built of wood. Perhaps they already are — I am not sure — but they certainly can be with the codes we have now.
I suggest that there are possibly ways even in developments that we can promote what Senator Eaton has suggested. It is more of a comment than a question, but if you want to reply, by all means do so.
Ms. Doyle: I completely agree. We have to take into account the energy use to produce steel versus the energy use to produce wood. Wood is naturally grown. It will help us in our 2030 Challenge in meeting our energy savings, for sure. It is also better looking, in my opinion.
Senator Plett: Wood siding is another one.
Ms. Doyle: Yes.
Senator Plett: There are a lot of things we can do if we put our mind to it.
Mr. Mueller: I also suggest, to tag on to what my colleague said, that we need to better understand the life-cycle aspects of using wood in construction, along with steel and concrete. There has been work done in the past but not enough.
I suggest it because it gives a clear picture. This issue is research related, which someone like perhaps the National Research Council can invest in — studying the life-cycle aspect of wood products to best understand, from an environmental perspective, where wood products are best used in buildings and residential construction.
I think that research will go a long way also to helping architects and engineers make good decisions on when wood is the best choice. Currently, that research in Canada is fragmented and incomplete. In terms of further promoting the use of wood, and for designers to make better choices on how and when to use it, research is something that will go a long way to making better decisions.
Senator Mercer: I want to go back to something Mr. Mueller said in his presentation, which is that less than 10 per cent of wood in construction demolition waste is recycled, salvaged or reused. Mr. Mueller went on to say that a lot of the waste is used for landfill cover, construction, roads and fuel. What happens to the other 90 per cent; does it go into landfill?
Mr. Mueller: Yes, it all goes into landfill. The problem with wood once it is used, particularly in an old house that is being demolished, is that there is no value in it. Compared to the cost of taking two-by-fours out of a house, the resale value is so low that no one can recycle it economically. When the houses are demolished, the concrete is usually separated out because there is a recycling market for it, and the wood goes straight to landfill.
In rare instances is wood from a demolition used even as fuel. The best use is maybe landfill cover. Often we talk about buildings that are built with tight grain, old-growth wood; and until recently, maybe 10 years ago, even full- length beams were broken up and taken to the landfill.
They can have an excellent reuse. I think the industry — and that is why I referred to stewardship — is not well set up. All this wood that is coming out amounts to millions of tonnes in Canada each year; how can we make better use of that material?
Maybe it is biomass, but it goes back to research and technologies. We have not looked at how this wood can be used economically in a different application — in a product, for biomass, for heat or other applications, but value-added, not downgraded.
Again, there is a huge opportunity here. Municipalities will also welcome the initiative because if 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their landfill waste comes from construction demolition, it can fill up the landfill site quickly.
Senator Mercer: We talked earlier, as Senator Eaton suggested, about providing some sort of tax incentive to encourage contractors to use more wood. Perhaps we need to provide incentives for those who demolish houses to reuse the wood. That incentive may be the opposite of the tax credit, perhaps something that is an extra cost to put all this wood in a landfill.
I partially heat my home with wood. Only a couple of weeks ago, I bought kindling from a fellow on the side of the road and asked him where he obtained it. It was nice, clean, dry wood, and it was old palettes that he had recovered in his recycling. He probably received them for nothing so everything was profit. Some people may think it is a waste to burn it, but at least it is a use. We are using the wood for something.
What kind of incentives can we offer? Incentives may not be from the federal government; they may be from municipal or provincial governments that need to put the pressure on the construction and demolition industry to recycle this wood.
Mr. Mueller: In my previous life, I worked in the waste management recycling field for 10 years in Metro Vancouver. I dealt with a lot of construction demolition waste and how it could be diverted from landfill.
Construction waste is easy; it is only a case of educating the builders, who save money by recycling it. The wood is clean and they can use it for a number of applications; but even in construction, a lot of the wood is not recycled. The builders say, that is how we have always done it; why should we change now to save $1,000 or whatever on landfill disposal costs?
The demolition side is different because of the challenges of separating out the wood materials in a demolition. If it is an airport hanger, it can be deconstructed. They can take out the big structural items and the good wood because there is a market value for those products.
It is about how much time they have to take the building down; it is related to the permit and how quickly the owner or developer wants the new building up. The issue is more a time issue than not being able to use the material.
On houses, it is different. Most of the demolition waste comes from houses. The dimension of the lumber is small; it is usually two-by-fours, but full two-by- fours because the houses are old. The house will have maybe two or three beams, and the rest is small-dimension lumber so there is no market value.
If they take the house down and separate out the concrete, metal and drywall, so mainly wood remains, the question is around the technology to clean up that wood so it can be used elsewhere. That is what we in the recycling industry refer to as "sorting'', how the contaminants can be removed so we can have another use for the wood.
For demolition wood, the best use is something like biomass or co-generation of energy. A renewable kind of energy component comes from wood.
Ms. Doyle: To add to that answer, I support your idea of a penalty, perhaps, to demolition contractors, specifically in the housing market. That idea can be compared to what happened in the carpet industry over the last 10 years to 15 years. They used to be able to dump carpet, then a penalty arose and they could not dump carpet at the landfill site anymore. They had to pay and it became expensive, and that penalty generated a market to reuse and recycle carpet.
I think a penalty for disposing of lumber from houses will help generate a market to recycle it, as happened with carpet.
Mr. Mueller: Most municipalities now are moving toward zero-waste policies, so a penalty will receive a lot of support from municipalities because such waste makes up a big proportion of the waste stream.
I will also add that the demolition industry in Canada is totally unregulated. I can obtain a truck and a backhoe tomorrow and call myself a demolition contractor and, as long as I follow the permit process from the local municipality, I can take down any house or any building I want to.
The industry is unregulated and it has a significant environmental impact. A lot of training is required in that industry to move it towards something like a separation of materials, recycling and salvation reuse.
The Chair: Senators, I have a few questions to bring to the attention of the witnesses.
Mr. Mueller, you said that the forest industry currently is not recognized as a sustainable leader. If we look at the Canadian industry, such as mills and other stakeholders, and we look at their end products, major North American wholesalers or retailers — without naming them — will require certification.
Can you expand on that point and give us your thoughts on how we can improve recognized certification for sustainability in forestry practices?
Mr. Mueller: By that comment, I meant that I understand from my colleagues in the Canadian Wood Council that Canada has the largest acreage of forests under certification in the world. They are using those three different standards: Forest Stewardship Council, FSC; Sustainable Forest Initiative, SFI; and Canadian Standards Association, CSA, standards. CSA is only in Canada, and SFI is U.S.
I think it is key, particularly for international markets, to have a forest certification in Canada that is internationally recognized. Of those three standards, the only one that is internationally recognized now is the Forest Stewardship Council certification. You can find that certification in South America, Europe and so on.
It is generally considered to be the most stringent standard. It is supported by many environmental organizations, such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club and so on. They all support FSC because the standard is grassroots and it requires a lot of consultation with local communities. It also requires consultation with Native communities that have lands claims on the forest in question. It is an inclusive system.
Moving forward internationally, CSA's standard can benefit from being strengthened to be a player in the international area of forest certification. SFI is a U.S. standard, so I do not think we have any influence over that standard. However, CSA can be strengthened to be more on par with FSC and other emerging forest certification systems. That strengthening will open international markets for us.
Ms. Doyle: There should be one system, I think. It would be beneficial in the country.
The Chair: We have visited forestry operations. Mr. Mueller, when you say CSA's system could be strengthened, can you please comment on what you mean?
Mr. Mueller: Forest certification is complex and complicated because we deal with ecosystems. For that reason, I cannot only relate some of the comments I have had from people who are involved in forest certification.
One issue is the certification of the forests and how we manage them. Then that issue is involved in how and when they harvest the wood. A part of that harvesting is also what they call chain of custody. The wood is tracked essentially from the forest to the mill to the end supplier, which can be Home Depot, Rona or any other supplier. When a consumer goes into the store, the consumer can see that something is FSC- or CSA-certified lumber.
FSC seems to have the stronger chain of custody. When someone goes into a store and sees FSC on wood, they know that 80 per cent of that wood comes from FSC-certified forests. CSA does not seem to have the same rigour when it comes to chain of custody, so when someone purchases the wood, they do not have the same level of comfort in terms of where it comes from.
The other comments I heard with regard to CSA was that there is not enough consultation with the local communities around how the forest is managed, particularly with Native communities, whereas FSC seems to perform better.
However, the issue is complex. I think it would be beneficial if Canada had one certification system.
The Chair: Having been involved for a number of years in certification standards systems, I do not want to disagree, Mr. Mueller, with the CSA standard. When you visit North American wholesalers and retailers, the CSA approval is a window of opportunity.
Mr. Mueller, can you advise the committee and expand more on CSA? I have had the opportunity to visit Boston major wholesalers and retailers and, when Canadian products have CSA, FSC and SFI, generally speaking that company receives more attention in the marketplace.
Mr. Mueller: That is correct, particularly in terms of FSC.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to add to them because I believe the standards are a factor that can be considered, to implement national and international marketing strategies, in view of emerging markets like China and Asia.
Mr. Mueller: That is correct. FSC currently has the upper hand when it comes to the environmental market. For example, paper used for publication is increasingly FSC-certified pulp from certified forests. The same is true for dimensional lumber. FSC is currently the best standard environmentally. It has a global constituency. The council is well organized globally and continually strives to put the best possible forest certification system in place.
CSA is in the business of producing standards. The association produces a standard and then it is done with it. There is no further stakeholder participation to advance the standard. There it is to do what they want with it. There is nothing there. FSC continually advances the use of its standard. CSA does not. It is a different way of looking at standards. CSA can be the Canadian standard to be recognized internationally, but it will require further work and further stakeholder input, in my opinion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mueller. There is no doubt that we can envisage the committee asking the certification people to make presentations to strengthen what both witnesses have said today.
You made a comment on Copenhagen. I would appreciate it if you could send additional information and even recommendations to the committee to add to your comments. Feel free to do that.
We talked about a national forum with engineers, architects, developers, professors and workers to discuss implementing regulations and strategies to use additional lumber in non-residential construction. Would a national forum be desirable? What would you recommend to the committee for the agenda if we move forward with such a forum to bring all stakeholders together?
Ms. Doyle: It would be almost like what Ontario is currently undertaking with regard to the proposed green energy act. You could look at how Ontario is bringing in their industry stakeholders and expand that model to a national level. Include similar stakeholders and look at how to achieve what we want to achieve. That model would be a good one.
Mr. Mueller: The challenge in the building industry is always that there are so many players involved, from the owner, architect and engineer to the specific trades and contractors, et cetera. They will each have their own questions, concerns and opportunities for using more wood in buildings.
That challenge needs to be well understood to move forward. A national consultation with stakeholders around what is necessary to increase the use of wood in building design and construction will go a long way in moving the issue forward.
Ms. Doyle: You can contact the national organizations of the various groups, whether it is trades or professions. The Ontario provincial group is the Ontario Association of Architects and our national group is Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. You have already heard from John Hobbs of that group, but the group can put you in touch with architects across Canada specialized in this field. The situation will be similar for engineers and contractors. Everyone has a national organization as well as a provincial organization.
Mr. Mueller: We represent a cross-section of those professional developers, owners, architects and engineers interested in the sustainability aspect of design, construction and operation of buildings.
The Chair: Mr. Mueller and Ms. Doyle, thank you for enlightening us with your informative presentations this morning. As we go forward with our study on forestry, feel free to add anything as partners to help us make recommendations to governments. I have said many times, there is a time when the industry can sit together at the table. It would have been impossible 10, 15 or 20 years ago because the market was buoyant. With the current challenges in forestry, community involvement is important. We see great strides in stakeholder involvement and community participation.
On behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank you for appearing this morning.
(The committee adjourned.)