Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 23, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:08 p.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Ms. Boulanger and Mr. Whalen. My name is Percy Mockler. I am a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee.
[Translation]
At this time, I would ask senators to each introduce themselves.
[English]
I will ask the deputy chair, Senator Robichaud, to begin.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Fernand Robichaud, St-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Frank Mahovlich, Toronto, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, Ontario. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Annapolis Valley—Hants, Nova Scotia.
Senator Duffy: Mike Duffy, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, Quebec City.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
The committee continues its study on the current state and the future of Canada's forest sector. Today, we focus on the use of wood in non-residential construction.
[Translation]
The purpose of today's meeting is to examine the use of wood in non-residential construction.
[English]
We invite the representatives of the steel industry to talk to us about the possible consequences on their industry, and to be partners with us, the Senate committee, so that we may bring the information to the attention of governments and stakeholders in order to recommend to government or governments the solutions and partnerships to enhance wood usage. We also want to know from the partners their recommendations to the committee.
Today, honourable senators, we welcome, from the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Ed Whalen, President.
[Translation]
We also welcome Ms. Sylvie Boulanger, Director, CISC Quebec, Director of Sustainable Development.
[English]
On behalf of the committee, Ms. Boulanger and Mr. Whalen, thank you very much for accepting our invitation to appear this afternoon.
I invite you to make your presentation. It will be followed by a question and answer period. I have been informed that the first presenter will be Ms. Boulanger.
Sylvie Boulanger, Director, CISC Quebec, Director of Sustainable Development, Canadian Institute of Steel Construction: I am national manager for sustainability. This role is a new one. We know this issue is important for Canada and it is one of the reasons we have been involved in it for some years.
[Translation]
I am Director of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction for Quebec. As such, I have much interaction with the architects and engineers with whom we work closely in order to create and develop safer buildings that also meet sustainable development criteria.
[English]
I am an engineer. I have nearly 25 years of experience. We want to thank you for the opportunity to share our experience in overcoming difficult times. Sharing this experience is why we responded to the invitation. We have lived through difficult times. We know the wood industry is going through difficult times and we want to share some of the ways that we have tried to overcome these hardships. We sympathize with the wood industry. We want to be partners. We are here to help. We are familiar with the B.C. Wood First Initiative and the Quebec Coalition Bois. You will see a recurring theme, namely, that we believe that architects and engineers have an important role to play in a safe, sustainable, and competitive construction industry.
I believe you received the document that I sent. I will go through that document now. I covered my message with the first image, so I will move on to page 2.
The steel construction industry in Canada represents approximately 17,000 direct jobs. Those jobs involve both the fabrication process and the direct involvement in the actual fabrication. I will explain what I mean by "fabrication" in the next slide. Sometimes there is ambiguity between what a mill does and what a fabricator does.
If we count welders and the people in mills — a portion of these people represent the construction industry — and erectors, those who erect the product, we can easily multiply that number by five. That number includes indirect jobs.
We have been here for a long time. We have been the voice of the steel construction industry since 1930. We have always had that focus and promoted the use of steel in construction through research and development, codes and standards, education and training. I cannot stress enough the CISC experience in codes and standards development. It is almost a century old. We started with bridges. They are still here, actually. There were a lot of rivets involved. For example, in the Quebec City bridge, there are a million rivets. We were involved in the standards for that bridge. We knew that, for the bridge to be safe, we had to develop standards.
On page 3, I clarify who we are. We have three images. The first one on the left represents the mills. We buy our steel either from the United States or from Canada. We then transform it. The middle image is fabrication. That is where we are really good. That is the component we care about. Dominion Bridge started the industry in this country and linked the two coasts. The industry transformed itself through several stages. That fabrication component is the part we do well. We then have to erect it. We erect steel either in Canada or in the U.S. We are present in the U.S. In 2008, about 30 per cent of erected steel was exported.
[Translation]
Allow me to make a small aside. Quebec is an important exporter. The Maritime Provinces are as well. Close to 50 per cent of Quebec's manufactured goods are destined for export. These products are shipped, among other countries, to the United States. Exports have obviously not been immune against the difficult times we are experiencing. We need only think of the Buy American clause.
Exporters are coming back to the Canadian and Quebec markets and are overloading the market place. We have our challenges, which translate into 30 to 40 per cent losses with regard to labour in various parts of the country. Ontario is very much affected, as are exporting provinces such as the Maritimes and Quebec. In British Columbia and throughout the rest of the country, the situation is more variable, but major losses have been suffered there too.
[English]
Times are difficult for everyone. With respect to page 4, our concerns are focused on the safety of occupants. Safety is our first priority. It has always been the criterion for us that, whatever we do, we have to ensure that we can justify our changes in a way that we do not endanger people in the buildings; that is, people who use our structures. The sustainability of buildings is not a fad. We know that. We have to be part of it. All industries are trying to have an impact. It is a challenge because the way we try to quantify it is new. We have to think about how we make our decisions in a sustainable way.
We want to ensure that we have a level playing field in the marketplace. We will make comments on how we feel you may alter this level playing field if measures are taken that might alter the marketplace in, perhaps, unfair ways.
I am an engineer. I am searching for words, but I think you understand my message.
With respect to safety, it must be the number one priority. Canada has an incredible history in codes and standards. We are the envy of the world. I have lived on three continents: Australia, Europe, and in the U.S., in California. We are well known for our code development. I think it is important that we maintain that level. It is so important to us that our previous president Hugh Krentz is now president of the Canadian Standards Association.
The National Building Code sets minimum standards for safety for Canadians. The code is based on laws of physics. Yes, results of tests may not be black and white, but the code is there to protect the public. It is then adopted by provinces into their building codes and the code becomes the law. This code is what people have to work with. It is what ensures the safety of people.
There are countless examples where, if a good code is in place, there is less loss of life. One example is the difference in the earthquakes in Chile and Haiti. The magnitude of the earthquake in Chile was 10 times worse than Haiti but the damage was far less severe. That difference was linked to Chile's superior code structure. It is important that we keep that point in mind whenever we make decisions. Code changes should be justified technically for a safer, sustainable built environment. You will see the technical side recurring.
In terms of sustainability, all materials have something to offer. You will hear all of us say that wood is renewable, and steel is recyclable, reusable and has a lot of recycled content. Many people do not realize that many steel construction products have over 90 per cent of recyclable content. The other half is around 25 per cent to 30 per cent. We have a lot of recyclable content in steel. The other side is that we have to make sure we are efficient in gathering that content and melting it in ways that are sustainable.
At the same time, we hear a lot about wood and its sequestration potential, the fact that it can capture CO2. This strategy to capture CO2 is an excellent strategy, but it is one of many. That point is important. If we want to capture CO2, that is one thing, but at the end of life, if wood is burnt or if it rots, the CO2 is given back. During the whole process, to sequester CO2, we have to ensure that the end of life is consistent with that goal.
In the sustainability world, what is very much an issue is that we are going past the embodied energy, so not just materials or what sequestration does, capturing CO2. However, if we look at the life of a building, the embodied energy — the amount of energy used for materials — represents about 10 per cent of all energy used during the life of that building. The rest is the use of the building. We need to ensure that we can recycle at the end of life, and that we can do something to make the building last longer. We have to ensure that the building can be maintained and that it can adapt to change. If we can make the building last only a little longer, we have already avoided an enormous amount of CO2 emissions because we made the material last longer.
The whole concept of life cycle assessment is in its infancy. We are all struggling to find the right numbers. No one can pretend to have all the right numbers, and we are all in the same boat. Alternative energy sources, the ability to use wind or water, and their ability to generate energy are all important elements.
If we look at the market, page 7, we have also gone through rough times. I know you will hear from other industries. The situation is not easy for anyone right now. This situation is unprecedented for many of us, but we have seen rough times before. At the beginning of the last century, we built big bridges and after their construction we had to find new markets. We started to build arenas and buildings. We went into the industrial sector and started to build these wonderful tall buildings that are unique.
One way we were able to combat recession in the 1990s was to develop an export market, which was small, but it became almost 50 per cent of the Quebec market, as I mentioned before. We developed that export market because we were having a hard time. The local market was too small for us and we had all this capacity.
We increased our productivity by embracing technology. We are probably the ones that are most up to date on technology used to represent a steel structure in 3-D. We are oriented towards high tech in representation, and we use that technology to cut steel in different ways; to manufacture it in a way that it is efficient and in a way that we are able to export it.
We should not underestimate the fact that because bigger companies were replaced by smaller ones, when we brought in big jobs, we needed to be able to share those big jobs among smaller companies. If we only talk to competitors and not to each other, we will not deliver a good product. There is a whole networking scheme that has helped us with working together.
When we think about the market, we feel that the attitude of "May the best team win!" must be present. If one sector develops, it is at a cost; that sector has more jobs, but another sector has its jobs reduced. To create jobs, the net number must increase. We have to ensure that jobs are created in a safe and sustainable way.
Our position is to trust architects, engineers and professionals in the construction industry. They have a lot of knowledge. They have long-term involvement with buildings. They can adjust when there is a shortage. What if a five- year economic cycle makes one material better than another, or more accessible, or more expensive? These professionals are constantly adjusting to new technology, and they are in a good position to make these recommendations.
To summarize our solution, which is on page 10, it is to initiate change and to increase the health of an industry. We have to have that core. At that core, we have to think about safety first, the law, which is the building code. To effect change, it must be through technical merit. That core has been tested through time. Our solution is to initiate change through technical merit: perform research and development; propose modifications in code committees; and educate and train.
We have the Steel Structures Education Foundation, which was created in the 1980s. Every year, we devote $100,000 to research, and it helps universities develop seed money to access funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which is a good program, by the way. We have developed a lot of research and researchers through that.
The Steel Structures Education Foundation also develops courses. Since the 1980s, we have spent between $25,000 and $50,000 per course. The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction took the research and development and implemented it. We have given presentations to thousands of engineers across the country over the past 25 years. That is why they know how to design with our material.
The efforts through the Steel Structures Education Foundation are accomplished strictly with industry money. We hope to have more opportunity to develop ourselves, and to have government assist in ways that also helps our industry. However, we are not waiting for that assistance. To us, this issue is too important, and the Steel Structures Education Foundation was founded for that purpose.
The result of all this core work is that we have lighter and more efficient structures. We have structures that are better at resisting earthquakes. This safety is important because it creates fairness between the different material groups. We have to convince our peers that whatever change we make is recognized as a safer approach. Then the change is integrated and creates momentum for our material to be used in better ways.
We are celebrating our eightieth anniversary. I have a document that I will share with you. It celebrates our seventy-fifth anniversary, but it shows our history. There are great people in this industry who have gone through many challenges. We are known in North America for being efficient and for doing good work.
[Translation]
I have five copies of the French version, and the rest are in English. It is up to you to choose.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Boulanger.
Mr. Whalen, do you want to comment?
Ed Whalen, President, Canadian Institute of Steel Construction: If we look at a steel building, we generally do not know it is steel. Steel is typically a building material that lends itself to partnerships with all sorts of building materials, whether concrete, wood or glass. Steel is generally a material that partners with other groups.
If everyone remembers the Olympics — and I am sure we all do — the Richmond Olympic Oval is the ideal example in Canada of a partnership between wood and steel. Steel supported the structure, but it married with the benefits of wood in that they have a perfect structure where the benefits of both materials are utilized efficiently and ideally. This result is what we are looking for from this committee; the realization that every building material has its benefits and every building material has its ideal uses.
We support the concept of continuing research in wood. We, as the steel industry, survive with a strong wood and forestry industry here in Canada, and we want to see it prosper.
The message that Ms. Boulanger delivered well is that whatever happens, we want a level playing field. We also want decisions to use a certain building material to be left in the hands of the people creating the design, allowing them to have flexibility and innovation. Governments should help us innovate in all building materials, and, ideally, we will be able to export that innovation to other parts of the world. That is where the steel industry has done well over the years. That is where the wood industry has done well over the years.
We need to focus on, and bring to the government, innovation, productivity and efficiency within our fabrication environments, whether fabrication be in wood, steel, concrete or whatever building material.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Whalen. We will ask the deputy chair, Senator Robichaud, to start the line of questions.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you to both of you for your presentations.
Without wishing to speak on behalf of the committee, I wish to assure you that I do not think that the idea is to recommend the use of certain materials that do not fulfil the safety requirements demanded by the codes. It is not a matter of weakening our standards, but rather of finding better ways to integrate the use of wood, for example. And you say that this could absolutely be done with steel.
I had the impression that you perhaps envisage a too forceful promotion of the use of wood as unfair competition vis-à-vis the use of steel.
Ms. Boulanger: I would like to add that there is at present under way in British Columbia a change to the code that did not undergo the usual process. And this is a concern for us.
Senator Robichaud: Could you tell us more about this specific case?
Ms. Boulanger: A recommendation has been made to allow buildings made of wood, which is considered a combustible material, to reach a maximum of six stories instead of four.
Usually, in order for the Building Code to be changed, one must convince a committee, based upon scientific research work, that it is safe to increase the maximum number of stories from four to six. There remains a concern because of the fact that it is a combustible material; it is also a material that retains a lot of humidity, and that will therefore shrink and adjust over time.
There have been situations where this could have been unsafe, could have affected the sheathing, the cladding of the building; there could be cracking over time because of this. The major criterion, of course, is the fire risk.
What happened in British Columbia is that the usual process was bypassed. It is a government agency that asked that the Building Code of British Columbia allow the use of wood for residential buildings of up to six stories high, rather than four, which is the standard at present, under the National Building Code. We consider that this is not normal.
Senator Robichaud: We heard a witness, last week, Mr. Maltby, who is Division Chief for the Fire and Emergency Services of Brampton, from the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. A senator asked him what would prevent us from going from four, to five or to six stories, and if he had any reservations in this regard. Mr. Maltby responded that as long as fire safety standards are observed, through the installation of detectors and sprinkler systems, he saw no problem there.
Are you telling me that these requirements have been circumvented?
Ms. Boulanger: This limit exists is several countries, always for the same reasons, relating to the fire hazard. It would be worthwhile to discuss it with other firemen in order for the picture to be more representative, because we are not hearing the same things from all of these representatives.
Very recently, in Calgary, a four-story wooden building very quickly burned to the ground. This can happen with both materials, but if you put the question to a group of firefighters, the response that we have received is that they are less in favour of wood. There are several countries that do not allow wooden construction above a given number of lower floors in a building. The proportion of wooden construction in Canada is one of the highest in developed countries.
Wood is already very well represented, and to move from one material to another, if the limit does exist within the National Building Code, then it is because there is a group that believes it is better that way. We do not want to be mean-spirited with regard to wood construction; there are scientific reasons at play. And a move from four to six stories is something that should fall under the National Building Code and it is up to committees to deal with this. In our opinion, this is not the role of the government.
Senator Robichaud: I agree with you to a certain extent. Often, governments initiate projects, new ways of doing things, because these matters should not continually remain within the confines of a closed circuit.
Ms. Boulanger: But you create a precedent, which worries us. If the message is that if the National Building Code is not satisfactory to you, you have the possibility of circumventing the process, then other industries are going to come knocking at your door.
One must be careful; there are all sorts of things that we consider to be not particularly favourable to steel, and there is also the fire issue. Everyone is going to say that it is better in Europe. For many materials, that is the case. But this cannot be transposed here; we must do our own testing locally.
There is a whole process that gest underway. In our opinion, you are opening the door to a process that does not represent Canadian culture with regard to the development of codes and standards. All we are saying is that you must be careful, because you are opening the door.
Senator Robichaud: We are going to be careful, because we are going to be hearing people who will be coming to speak to us about the National Code. Our intent is not at all to recommend something on a whim and to move towards any construction model without having all of the information and ensuring that public safety is enforced.
[English]
Mr. Whalen: Let us be frank: if you throw enough money at a design, you can make anything work. In this situation, we can go to 25 storeys and come up with a solution in any product material, but it may not be the most efficient system. We could add sprinklers and put many layers of fireproofing on whatever building material that we chose to use, but when the criteria is to make the most efficient building system possible, it will make good economic sense to use one building material or another.
If research has been done and the building material makes sense from a building code perspective, the costs should be sorted out by the owner and the designer. One can argue that you can do anything if you have the money. We advocate letting the market determine the price that will be paid for the product. I would love to have a committee promote only the use of steel, but will that promotion benefit Canada in the long run? Will that promotion make my industry competitive globally? It will not, and it will not be good use of taxpayers' money.
We need to develop new products. We need to conduct research on wood, steel and other building materials so we can move forward and develop better and safer buildings. We are not arguing that wood may not be good in certain applications. However, let us be careful in how we develop our policy so that we are not creating a bigger problem than we started with.
If we mandate a wood building, that will take one or two jobs from one industry and move them to the wood industry. Ms. Boulanger made the point earlier that job creation needs to be a net win for Canada and for construction. If we move a job from a steel plant to a wood mill, there is no benefit. That movement only causes one person to become unemployed and another to become employed. I hope that our future policies will ensure that both industries can thrive in Canada.
Senator Robichaud: I agree with you.
Ms. Boulanger: They already have an opportunity to go beyond the four storeys, and that has happened in Quebec where there is a six-storey building, but they must demonstrate that they can deviate from four storeys in a safe way.
In the most recent code, there is a performance- or objective-based approach that the industry can adopt. There is an area in the code that says they can use alternative designs provided they can demonstrate that it meets the objective intended by the code. This approach was taken with the six-storey building. We have no trouble with that, because they were able to demonstrate that it met the objective. To go higher, they had to add more wood, which was sacrificial; it would burn and protect the rest of the structure.
An infrastructure does exist. The government also has an opportunity to submit to the Provincial/Territorial Policy Advisory Committee on Codes, PTPACC. The government can submit a proposal to that body to raise the limit from four storeys to six storeys, and ask for research on the proposal. PTPACC submits that proposal to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, where it is analyzed. Priorities are set and a standing committee is established. The necessary resources are put in place, and then it can be scientifically determined, based on the laws of physics and research, whether we can move from four storeys to six storeys.
This is one example. Changes in several other sectors can be proposed, based on what people learn from experience, but they must be scientific. I have a PhD, but I am not trying to find work for others with PhDs. We have used this approach. However, the government must be careful about the recommendations it makes.
Senator Plett: This is the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, not on steel or concrete. Our mandate is to find more use for forestry products, and not necessarily to help the steel industry. We want to do the right thing for the country, however.
I had a negative opinion of this approach when I became a member of this committee. However, I have been converted.
In response to Senator Robichaud's question, you talked about the shrinkage of wood. I have been in the construction industry all my life. Wood shrinks to a certain point. When they use dry lumber, it does not shrink a lot more because it has shrunk as much it will shrink. In homes, we often use green lumber, and there is a lot of shrinkage. I built a new home a couple of years ago and I need to bring in a drywaller to fix all the nail pops because my wood studs shrank. I appreciate that problem, but if we use dry lumber we will not have as large a problem.
You spoke about the building code, and you seemed somewhat out of sorts with the fact that the code in British Columbia allows a six-storey building. You then referred to the building in Quebec. A number of us here have had the pleasure of visiting that building in Quebec. Although I am not fond of heights, I managed to go to the top via the outside stairs and examine the building. It is a great wooden building. Although British Columbia does not yet have a six-storey building, their code allows for it.
Senator Robichaud referred to the fire chief who was here last week and said that as long as we have enough sprinklers, everything is safe. Steel will collapse, wood might burn and concrete might spall, so there are problems with every building material.
I had occasion during my previous life to attend conventions in Las Vegas, and I know about the money that concrete and steel industries spend at conventions there.
Senator Eaton: In Las Vegas.
Senator Plett: In Las Vegas. I have the feeling, and maybe I am reading something into it, that you think we should not promote one over the other and that we should let architects and engineers decide most of what happens. If we take that approach, it opens the door wide to lobbying and to not necessarily encouraging the proper structures at all times. I have talked to building contractors who have told me exactly the same thing. One of the largest building contractors in the city of Winnipeg said, Don, leave this stuff alone. The industry will decide. The people will decide what they should build their building out of. Do not promote wood over steel, because I own a concrete company.
That is, in essence, what he said; not what he said verbatim, but what he said at the end. It does allow for that.
I am making a lot of comments rather than asking questions, but I will end with this question: What is your feeling about provinces having their own building codes? We have a National Building Code, but everyone so far has told us that, yes, even though we have a National Building Code, provinces are allowed to deviate from that National Building Code and have their own codes. What is your perspective on that comment and the rest of my comments? If you want to speak to them, I would be happy for you to rebut the pointed accusations I made at the steel industry. Thank you, chair. I hope I have not gone too far.
Ms. Boulanger: I will start with your question about whether the structure of having provincial codes and the National Building Code is a good structure. It is important that provinces have a say, to reflect some of the local flavour of the provinces. However, that being said, some of the differences are not at the technical level. I will give you an example. S16 is the steel standard, and everyone adopts the steel standard as is. No one touches a single article of the steel standard. They know that it has been coordinated with engineers, and they do not see how they would have that extra knowledge to say that the thickness for that particular flange of steel should be this and not that.
The fire issue is a big one, because different provinces have a different approach, but again, when the government mandates or proposes a change, there has to be science behind it. Senator, you talked about shrinkage and your own experience. I will give you another example that says, I have a four-storey building that has stucco in the front and it is cracking everywhere because of shrinkage. For that firefighter who said there is no problem with wood, we have a lot of other firefighters who say there is a problem with wood. To take the subjectivity out of that issue, we need science. We need to be able to conduct research to justify such a change. A process exists. We go through that process when we want to make a change. I can give you a list of all the things we are not happy with, and the things that we think are not friendly to steel, but you do not hear about us because we try to deal with it through that process, and I think it is a good process.
Each material responds differently to fire. If you go to Europe, fire is considered like a load. Europe has a more scientific approach. If a steel building goes through a fire, if it is a medium fire, it might deform a little, but it is still standing. It is reusable. The properties of steel after a fire go back to what they were before. You have to remember how steel was made.
Senator Mahovlich: Think about 9/11.
Ms. Boulanger: Yes, 9/11 is a great example of how a steel structure was able to redistribute loads. If you want me to address that issue, I can address it now.
The Chair: We will finish with Senator Plett's question, and then Senator Mahovlich can ask his question.
Ms. Boulanger: To finish, the steel structure may deform, but it recovers its material properties. That is one advantage. If the fire is huge, any material will have a hard time. We have to make sure we withstand the normal fires and do it well.
You talked about the fact that we are spending lots of money on conventions. We have the North American Steel Construction Conference. As an engineer, I am part of the committee. The major role of that committee, aside from the scientific environment, is to ensure that we are able to provide an environment for practitioners. We invite many people to come and give their experience about building with steel. The conference provides for a huge interchange. It is a great conference. Do we go out for beers every now and then? Yes. You do not go to engineering communities in Canada without drinking beer, so yes, that is part of it, but the focus is still on the exchange, on networking and on making sure that the industry is vibrant and moves forward. Yes, money is spent there, but I am part of a committee for that conference and I think is a worthwhile investment.
I know you have heard it before, but I come back to science as an important determinant.
Senator Plett: You specifically said something about research that I want to follow up on. You say we need to conduct research. I suggest we are, in fact, doing that in this committee. We are inviting experts like you to give us your opinion. You are giving us your expert opinion. I suggest that is research.
As a closing comment or question, where are more lives lost? Are they lost because of fire, because of smoke, or because of the furniture in the building rather than because of the building itself?
Ms. Boulanger: You need an expert to tell you that. We do not have that information.
The Chair: I bring to the attention of the witnesses that the mandate of the committee is to examine and promote the development and commercialization of value-added products in the construction industry.
Ms. Boulanger: Yes.
Senator Eaton: I want to add to the senator's remarks. I believe there is a market for both, and if we come up with a good mandate for wood, and promote value-added products in wood, I do not think that promotion takes jobs away from you. I do not like to disagree with you, Mr. Whalen, but that story about taking one job from the steel industry and putting it in the mill, I do not think that is a problem. There is lots of room for us, and there are all kinds of interesting things to do.
That said, I think you both have done a wonderful job in promoting steel. The wood industry should learn from you. Do you speak with one voice for the steel industry all across Canada? Are you the voice of the industry?
Ms. Boulanger: We speak for the steel construction industry. The mills are with us.
Senator Eaton: You speak with one focused voice across all provinces. Federally, you are one voice. That is interesting.
Did either one of you, when you were taking your schooling, take any kind of wood training when you were taking your structural training? Was there as much wood education as there was in steel, or was it generalized?
Ms. Boulanger: At the University of Alberta, I had quite a bit. I am from Quebec, and they never understood why I went to Alberta, but I had good reasons for going there. I went to Edmonton. The professor who taught me concrete was chair of the concrete code; the professor who taught me steel was chairman of the steel code; and the professor who taught me wood was chairman of the wood code. I had one course per material. I know that approach is not taken everywhere, and we are also fighting to have steel remain as a mandatory course. We have no trouble with the idea that they need to integrate wood design more at the university level. I think what is happening now is you see a lot of courses with both steel and wood because we have similarities.
Steel and wood are both skeletons whereas concrete is another type of structure, another type of material, and so we tend to share a course. The course might be two thirds on steel and one third on wood, but there is that presence of both materials.
Senator Eaton: We have heard from architects and engineers from the University of Alberta, University of British Columbia and the University of Quebec. They all say there is not enough emphasis in using wood and that your institute has been smart. You reiterated this point when talking about the Steel Structures Education Foundation where you spend $100,000 a year. Do you go from university to university and give supplementary courses or seminars? How does that education work?
Mr. Whalen: This education is through the support of the industry, not government. Through the support of the industry, the industry gives back through the foundation, through the development of textbooks and through the delivery of courses both at the university level but more so at the post-graduate level, that continuous education to ensure that the engineering and architecture community keeps up with the times, keeping innovation moving.
Senator Eaton: Do you go to the cities and target those graduate students, I mean in a good way, and offer these courses? How does the delivery of those courses work?
Ms. Boulanger: The $100,000 goes towards research. That component was meant for research projects. There are about six projects of $10,000 to $15,000 that we give to professors. That is more a people development. We often will give this funding to professors who unfortunately may not be able to access NSERC money right away. We will see if professors have something practical enough that we find an interest in, and that will help them to enter the industry.
In terms of courses at the university level, we have a good interaction with the researchers. Because they are researchers, they are also teachers. For instance, I give talks across Quebec to over 500 students in architecture and engineering, and I usually receive good feedback so I will continue. The idea is to help them out, not only to sell steel. The idea is to give them a practical side to using steel.
Senator Eaton: You promote up-to-date value-added ways of using steel in structures.
Ms. Boulanger: That is right. We have an upcoming educators' meeting — we hold it every two years — in which we bring engineering professors and architecture professors together for 48 hours. We believe that architects and engineers working better together with our material will be better for the future, and that architects and engineers who are more integrated in their approach will build better structures.
Whatever you decide to do for wood, we know that philosophy works. It is not easy, but I think an integrated approach must be part of the solution.
These educators come together to talk about teaching. They have a lot of opportunity to talk about research. We talk about teaching. We tell them what is new and try to bring together that steel culture, that steel community, so they feel they are not alone because often they are alone in these different parts of universities.
The money that we invest is linked to courses. It is for course development for practising engineers. Students sometimes participate in these courses, but they are meant more for practitioners. Then we have scholarships for architects and engineers in the process, to encourage graduate students to approach work in steel.
Mr. Whalen: To add to that answer, one can make any product work as long as one has the money. If governments decide to mandate the use of wood on a project, that decision will literally take away a job from one industry and move it to another.
Senator Eaton: We will have to disagree on that point.
Mr. Whalen: Right now, the industry decides what the most economic use is. Right now, to be blunt, in some applications, wood is not the preferred choice by designers because it is not cheap. Designers have to put enough fireproofing material around the wood or put in sprinklers, and that makes wood non-competitive. If there is enough money to solve those problems through research and development, that may not be the case in the future.
We have enough wood in Canada that one would think it would be the primary material of use, but it is not because, from a construction perspective, wood has a lot of limitations. If the committee's recommendation is that we need to solve some of those technical problems —and maybe it is — maybe we will not be sitting here discussing this issue in five or ten years. That is what you need to do. Our point is, do not go in and just legislate the use of wood.
Senator Eaton: You sound like a lobbyist now and not like an educator.
Senator Mahovlich: Do you want to answer my question now?
Ms. Boulanger: The situation with the World Trade Center is exceptional, and you will see the engineering community not agreeing that there is much we can learn from 9/11 to change codes because the loading conditions were exceptional. With 9/11, imagine Place Ville Marie with half its column standing on top of a battered base. Why it withstood 45 minutes or one hour and 40 minutes is a small miracle. That is one point. What helped the building in surviving that long was because there was no wind that day. Remember, there was little lateral support left. To resist wind, you need lateral support. Given that there was little continuity left, it collapsed. Can we learn much about the fire? In general, the community feels that there is not much we can learn about such a traumatic situation.
We think the building performed well. Get an engineering student to do the calculation of the building that was on top of the big gouge, the big hole that was made physically, never mind fire, just taking into account the physical material that was missing, and they will see that that building should not have been standing. You will notice that occupants were able to be evacuated underneath the two holes. For all of the people on top of the holes, whether the structure was steel, concrete, wood or whatever, there was no chance.
The biggest lesson learned was regress, because a lot of the people had to go to certain floors, then diagonally to another regress, then down, and zigzag their way down the building. The fortunate part is that they were able to leave the building. The unfortunate part is that the firefighters had problems with the communication devices and were not told to leave the area, so there was immense loss. I mean, I have chills. The situation was unfortunate, but as far as steel structures go in the community, it performed well.
Senator Mahovlich: It did not seem so to me. It looked like it turned to dust.
Ms. Boulanger: It did seem that way because it collapsed.
Senator Mahovlich: Back to wood, we visited the Quebec City building, and a lot of that wood in their beams was laminated, and they said laminating it takes away shrinkage. They treat that wood and it does not shrink. They claim it is stronger than steel, some of those beams. This is their argument. A seven-, eight- or nine-storey building will not collapse, even in a fire. Apparently fire only scalds the beams; it will not burn them.
Ms. Boulanger: You should ask engineers to give you an opinion on that information.
Senator Mahovlich: That is what we are here for. We are asking you now.
Ms. Boulanger: I am not a wood expert, but I can tell you that wood moves with time. There is no doubt about that. There will always be humidity. The humidity content makes a big difference. In British Columbia, unfortunately, there is always a certain amount of humidity and that humidity will affect the behaviour over time.
There are tricks to help with shrinkage. For instance, a lot of steel connectors are used for connecting in wood structures. Steel is present everywhere; in concrete, wood and glass structures. One trick is to ensure that the connectors are not the full depth because the longer they are, the more the wood shrinks and there will be more differences between the connectors. One trick is not to connect the full way because steel does not move and wood does.
I want to clarify that we know that we have to work with other materials. One thing I initiated with our magazine, Advantage Steel, is a series about using steel with other materials. The one I have here is steel and wood. We asked several people who are experts in B.C. to answer the question: To make a structure of steel and wood work, what do we have to do? I was told not to use too much technical information in this presentation so that is what I am trying to do. At the same time, there are ways of making steel and wood work together, but they need engineers with their knowledge and their experience.
Sometimes, engineers have to conduct tests. For example, the SkyDome in Toronto was the first time we used all these connections with hollow structural sections. There was nothing in codes anywhere. That structure would not have been built because someone thought that maybe, given some other experience, that it would work. Full elements were tested at the University of Toronto. Professor Jeffrey Packer is now one of the world leaders in Hollow Structural Sections, HSS. A lot of that expertise comes from the SkyDome experience and research money that has come from our industry, NSERC and the government to ensure it works so that we have a safe situation.
If it has not been done before, we cannot make too many assumptions about how it will work. I know there is experience and there is intuition, but we have to be able to back them up with expertise. It has to be part of a process, which is linked to the standards development process.
Senator Mahovlich: They have been using wood in Europe for years and years in their buildings. We must have learned something from the Europeans.
Mr. Whalen: We are using wood in Canada and your example of glue laminate is a good one. Yes, there are building materials that engineers and architects have available to them right now. You see many buildings and we see them. There are reasons for not using steel and using those products, and there are reasons for using other building materials. Some of those reasons, from a design perspective, are weight. Some of the reasons are, how big does this glue laminate need to be to span those distances. Maybe the height spaces are not available.
It is simple to say yes, we should use them when owners say they want the beauty of wood.
Senator Mahovlich: It is more beautiful.
Mr. Whalen: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Mahovlich: Did we learn anything from the Richmond Olympic Oval?
Ms. Boulanger: In what sense?
Senator Mahovlich: In the way the wooden roof was applied.
Mr. Whalen: Believe it or not, that roof is a steel roof, and it is a composite between steel truss and wood on the outside. That is what we are trying to stress here. Lightweight steel can do a number of different things and then they can marry that steel with other building materials to achieve the architectural look they want. In other areas, they can go straight wood or straight steel.
We do not suggest using only steel. I was at the Richmond oval and it is beautiful.
Senator Mahovlich: It is attractive. I think we should use more wood in our airports; we should have wooden roofs.
Ms. Boulanger: The Zurich airport is also a beautiful steel and wood structure. We are seeing more of that marriage. We cannot say anything against that combination. It is a nice result. Like I said, it is important to make sure we know how the materials work together because they have different behaviours with respect to temperature. One is organic and one is not. Over time, the differences are important.
We look for a technical answer but we realize the choice is not all technical. If someone tries to build a concrete commercial building in New York City, they have no chance. If they try to build a steel condominium there, they have no chance. Someone decided in the 1960s that commercial buildings will be steel and condos will be concrete. A culture becomes involved and there is a history. People become familiar with using one material. We have to work through those situations also, and work with architects and engineers to make sure they want to use the material and that they have the information. Choosing materials is all part of a big process.
Senator Duffy: I have a couple of quick points. Mr. Whalen, I do not think you have to worry; I do not think anyone believes there will be a legislated demand that wood become mandatory. I would relax on that one.
I want to pick up on what Senator Eaton said. When I read your magazine, I think of the experience in Prince Edward Island, which is a major centre of steel erection. People find that hard to believe. McDougall Steel Erectors has created an amazing industry spun out of the fabrication of the bridge and the technology that came to P.E.I. with the bridge construction, and is carrying on.
In P.E.I., they assemble steel bits for Brooklyn, New York. Believe it or not, they are trucking products all the way to Fort McMurray that have been assembled in P.E.I. It is an amazing success story and we are proud of that industry. We would not try to take that industry away.
Part of what we learned from your magazine and from your presentation today is something we refer to in the political business as lifetime learning. From what you tell us, your industry seems to be fully committed to this idea of constant renewal, upgrading, training and retraining. I applaud you for that commitment.
We have had people here from the forest council. They have produced DVDs and other things. I am not as familiar with their retraining process, but I applaud you and perhaps agree with your suggestion that a large part of steel's success has been the industry's commitment and understanding of the need for retraining and moving forward.
In your magazine there is a feature called, "Ask Dr. Sylvie." If we were to ask Dr. Sylvie, when you look at other industries, not only wood, how would you compare them? Do you notice a difference in the amount of time spent on education and retraining in your industry compared to others in Canada? Do you credit that effort as a major reason for steel's relative success?
Ms. Boulanger: We would like to have more success. There are sectors where we feel we could be better. We are always looking at improving. It is difficult to see exactly what other industries are doing. I know the concrete industry is not that different from us. We compete aggressively in sectors where both materials make economical sense.
We have a hard time competing in condominiums. Their 30-foot flat slab system is tough to compete with. When we come up with solutions, there must be other reasons for us to be doing well.
They have also done well in the education process, but their approach is still different and that is because their structure is different. You will meet with people from the cement association. Almost all cement is used for construction, whereas maybe 30 per cent of steel coming out of steel mills is used in construction. We have to take more responsibility for the work and we feel more inclined to provide this education process. I do not know the details of for other industries, but I know concrete is not that different.
Senator Duffy: Senator Ogilvie is a former university president who will have his chance in a minute. He is widely regarded as a leader, if you remember Acadia University and the laptops.
When you work with universities and the engineering schools about providing courses using steel in construction, do you bump into people from the forest and wood industry making the same kinds of presentations?
Ms. Boulanger: Yes, I do. I will give you an example from McGill University engineering. Colin Rogers conducts research in both steel and wood. When I go to Laval University, there is three times more wood being presented there than any other material. We know why that is happening, because of Forintek and Cecobois. I will put parentheses on Cecobois because the strategy that was developed for the use of wood in Quebec is aggressive. The industry receives $16 million in government funding — $9 million to marketing and the rest to research.
Would we be happy to be in that situation? The equivalent is zero for us. Yes, they have been successful, particularly at Laval University. I find it not quite fair.
I have no trouble at McGill where people from the wood industry come in and set a course that is shared. I would rather have a mandatory course where steel and wood are taught together than to have two courses, one on steel and one on wood, and neither one is mandatory.
We are open to working together. What we sometimes find difficult are technical comparisons for steel that we find inaccurate. For instance, in energy consumption, they showed a bar graph for CO2. I have never seen such a high value in my life for steel. I do not know how they arrived at the number. When I asked them, they said they wanted to compare apples to apples and looked at all materials without recycled content. Steel does not come without recycled content so they extrapolated. We do not like that approach. I do not think it is a good approach to put down other materials.
Senator Duffy: The reason I raised that question is that we had some impression here from witnesses we heard from last year that, in effect, the universities were not interested in wood and it was a rarely available kind of training for architects and so on. I am intrigued to hear that the picture is not as bleak as we were perhaps led to believe.
Ms. Boulanger: I am not saying it is even. However, we have a hard time, too. We try to ensure that steel is represented because concrete tends to win in some cases. Ecole de technologie supérieure, ETS, is the only university that does not have steel as a mandatory course, of all the universities. We are not happy with that situation.
We each have to fight and perhaps the fight can be combined. Universities should have at least one mandatory steel and wood course so that the students are exposed to both materials before they finish university. The structures section is incredibly difficult. It is shrinking, so there is an immense amount of pressure to put more credits in environment. They have to become involved in so many other courses. The fight is to have steel remain mandatory, and to have more space for concrete also because everyone wants more space in structures, but it is not happening.
Mr. Whalen: To put your question into context, the amount that the steel industry in Canada has to market and to educate is a fraction of what is spent in Quebec alone on the wood industry. It is not necessarily how much money is thrown at marketing and education; it is how well we deliver it — the efficiency and the people engaged in those activities.
In the steel industry, we have seen the dollar support for our group — because of the changing steel mills and the shape of the steel industry in Canada — change dramatically since the 1970s. However, we are still seeing successes because of the quality of the people engaged in the activity.
Senator Ogilvie: Thank you both for appearing. Ms. Boulanger, I have been tremendously impressed by your presentation and your knowledge of the area. I think most sectors would be wise to try to have you promoting their area.
To give a little background before I ask the specific question, I think you made a number of important points. One I want to come back to is the idea that challenging competition drives innovation, which is the basis of success in these kinds of materials.
In Canada, we have been good at highly innovative developments in construction materials, whether they are aggregate, steel, the kinds of composites that we see or the new materials that are arising. Your industry, during my lifetime, has gone through many cycles. Using innovation, it has emerged from adversity to become competitive in a lot of new areas that it had not been in before. I think for our country as a whole, clearly innovation and competition will be the basis on which we will ultimately succeed.
In that regard, as we look down the road, you have touched on a number of factors that influence the way in which one material or another will be successful in a given project or in an industry. You also touched on this issue in a slight way with regard to carbon footprint. You did not put it exactly like that, but you dealt with wood as being simply a storage of carbon dioxide.
Let me be more general. You referred to the issue in the context of what happens to wood ultimately in the end. That is absolutely correct. Wood is a storage of carbon; and ultimately it will return to carbon once it is released to the environment.
My comment is, however, that this issue is already coming into many product areas. Countries, jurisdictions or even individual industries are looking down the supply chain and identifying the carbon footprint of the materials that they put into their products. We know about wood. However, we also know that steel, while carbon is involved in the process, requires a tremendous amount of energy in the overall production of steel; its conversion and so on.
I do not know if there is an answer to my question, but is there currently any study that shows the comparison of a particular sized structure — we know it must be four storeys or under to make the comparison — of what the carbon footprint is of a substantially wood-structure building versus a substantially steel-structure building?
Ms. Boulanger: Several studies exist, but each industry is behind these studies. I have to be honest. I have a study, and it shows that for a particular context, the amount of area that is disturbed by cutting the trees compared to using six scrap cars to produce the same house puts steel ahead. However, I will not run with that because there are so many parameters right now that are sensitive scientifically. If we change one button here, the results are different.
I have another study in the Boston area comparing steel to a concrete building. We show that we are a little bit ahead, but there are so many parameters that can have an impact, plus or minus 25 per cent or 30 per cent.
At this stage, I find there is not that much difference an embodied energy among materials over a life cycle. This is what is important. You have to take into account the full life cycle assessment, and it must be done by a third party. That study does not exist.
Senator Ogilvie: I have a brief follow-up question. I am also a scientist and I appreciate what you said.
Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to have a reasonable comparison, based on the principal factors that one looked at under certain defined conditions. I am almost certain it will come.
Ms. Boulanger: Why put so much energy on materials when, during the life of a building, the energy used for materials represents about 5 per cent to 8 per cent of the energy used in the building? During the use of the building, energy is used for ventilation, the replacement of carpets, et cetera. The whole use of the building is 85 per cent-plus.
Yes, we have to improve there, but suppose we are able to improve 20 per cent. That improvement will affect 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the energy use for the life of the building.
Why do we not work harder on how material is being used during the use of the building? That is where people are putting their energy. Suppose we use a longer span and, because we have a longer span, it gives more flexibility in arranging a room. If they have more flexibility, they will not knock down walls every time they want to change something, or they are not demolishing the building because they cannot work with it anymore.
We will not say that we do not have high energy use. We do. People think transport is a big issue. Transport is not a big issue for us because the energy goes into producing the steel. We are efficient at transporting steel: We transport it by rail, and the raw materials are transported by barge. Extraction and transport represent 5 per cent to 8 per cent of the carbon emissions per tonne of steel.
Since 1990 in Canada, we have been improving gas emission intensity by 24 per cent per tonne. However, because we keep producing more steel, that number becomes a net of about 16 per cent. Our goal was 1 per cent a year. Now, it is becoming more difficult to improve the process because we have cut the fat in areas that could be cut. We now have to think of a new process, and that will not happen overnight.
Every material is trying to improve. We know energy use is a big deal. However, at the same time, we have to focus on how the material is used during the life of the building. The concrete industry talks about thermal mass. It is important. They can do it with a deck and can add concrete on top of it. However, if they put carpet on and if they protect it with a false ceiling, they cannot use the thermal mass. It is more important to see how efficiently the wall structures perform.
Yes, the future is life cycle assessment. Yes, we will have values coming up, but we need to have good life cycle inventories, LCI. We are have having a hard time with steel mills in getting those values out, and I am not proud of it. However, they know it must be part of the process. I am part of a North American task group with the American Iron and Steel Institute, AISI. We want to bring the mills on board to be part of international efforts to develop that LCI.
A life cycle assessment cannot be done without an LCI. The Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services, CIRAIG, at École Polytechnique is a good centre. To me, that reference is important because they will be responsible for developing that life cycle inventory, LCI, for all materials in Canada.
We know our values are not up to date. When they are used in Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings and other programs, we do not always come out well. Part of that is our fault. We are not giving them the right numbers. We are working hard on the numbers. We are trying. I think that effort has to be recognized. We are trying to improve the recycled content because there is no doubt that is a good thing. One thing people underestimate is reuse.
Many Expo '67 pavilions were reused. I am looking at the age group of the committee, but I think I am okay here. If you went to Expo `67, you might remember the Russian Pavilion. It was completely disassembled and it is now in Moscow. There are countless examples. In the Maritimes, how many little buildings were able to be bolted and unbolted again? They are even built with that concept in mind.
Sustainability is an important topic for me. Yes, it is part of the future, and it has to be part of the future. However, as a scientist, you will recognize there are flaws at this stage.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Thank you for your presentation. You answered many of the questions I had in mind, but I would like to come back to the safety aspect in your presentation. In the last paragraph, you reiterate a warning with regard to technical changes in favour of wood or whatever other material. You say that changes to the Code should always be justified by technical studies. I share your view in that regard.
In the previous paragraph, you talk about the difference between the earthquake in Chile and that which occurred in Haiti. In the weeks that followed the earthquake in Haiti, more time was spent in Haiti because there was more damage there and there were greater human losses.
Could you tell us if the Hotel Montana, where several well known Quebecers perished, was built of steel, concrete or wood. Maybe it was made of steel but was not in compliance with North American standards. Do you know if the Parliament Building and the Montana Hotel had a steel, concrete or wooden structure?
Ms. Boulanger: The majority of the structures were made of concrete and wood. In that environment, there are virtually no steel buildings. The damage was therefore related to concrete and wooden structures.
I was a member of the structural engineers' committee of Montreal and we belong to a network along with the Americans. In the United States, several Quebecers belong to a research network and Quebec engineers are well liked by the Haitians because of the language aspect. I have met several of them who have gone over there. The work that had to be done was very sad. They had to begin by determining if the structures were still usable. There really are not very many that are usable.
There are two aspects to an earthquake: the intensity and the frequency. The frequency is important. It is like a swing. If you are always pushing when it is going up, that is going to increase the damage incurred.
In the situation in Haiti, the engineers stated that in many instances there was no reinforcement. We could summarize the situation by saying that there were Code violations, which was not the case in Chile.
Senator Rivard: I would like to ask a final question concerning your industry. I had the opportunity to meet representatives of a Quebec company that you most certainly are aware of. Its name is Supermétal, and it is a big exporter.
Given the strength of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the American dollar, given the economic crisis we have been experiencing for the last two years and given the Buy American clause, could you tell us what the loss has been, percentage-wise, as far as exporters' sales figures are concerned?
Have you an idea of the amount of money that has been lost because of those three factors: the economic crisis, the strength of the dollar and the Buy American clause?
Ms. Boulanger: Those three factors contributed to a loss. When you go to the United States, you see that the steel industry and the entire construction industry as a matter of fact, the whole economy, are struggling. At the end of 2008, American steel mills were running at 40 per cent of their capacity whereas earlier in the year 2008, when the economic boom was still on, they were running at 95 per cent of their capacity. Today, they are climbing back up and are closing in on 65 per cent.
No matter how you look at the situation, it is 40 per cent less. The fact that nothing under the recovery plan is accessible to us is hurting our industry, but what is worse is that it creates uncertainty. It is therefore the famous Buy American clause that is creating uncertainty.
An owner, a general contractor or a manufacturer who cannot count on money related to the recovery plan is faced with uncertainty.
Based on the numbers, he or she knows that the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar also has an impact, but I would say that in Quebec, in any event, we tie that in with the depressed American market. Some players exported all the time and no longer do. For them, it will therefore not be 100 per cent, but it will be at least 50 per cent. They return to the Quebec market and they must recreate a Quebec market.
On average, because of the economic situation, the level is 30 to 40 per cent below what it was; and this is based on data made available at the end of last year. We are not really able to quantify the Buy American clause.
We have always said that Quebecers and Maritimers always did well on the American market because of weakness of the American dollar. At the end of the 1990s and at the beginning of this century, the dollar was always valued at around 90 cents. When we reach a value of 75 cents, we will no longer be so fortunate and it will be over because in the meantime they will have modernized their facilities and created networks. At 75 or 80 cents, the margin shrinks each time; at 85, 90 and 95 cents, we are still there.
We therefore are part of the manufacturing capacity of the United States and we are appreciated; we have created value-added in the industry. We are hoping that this capability will return, but I am not convinced. We have made several improvements and the margin is today very small.
In the future, we may have to turn to the production of hybrid products to be exported, since no one seems to be working hand in hand with anyone else. That might be an avenue and it might be the way to communicate. In the construction industry, there is an enormous potential for improvement, just by communicating more effectively.
For example, in one case, I was the person in the middle who had to tell one of the players that, in the case of a bridge, if you change the thickness from 8 to 10 millimetres, it makes the mills' work easier because there was virtually no thickness there, that the quantity would have been too small and that it could have created additional delays.
This is what we are experiencing at present. You are however right in saying that this is not solely attributable to the Buy American clause, but the situation is not easy.
Senator Rivard: Thank you for your answers and I wish the best of luck to the steel industry.
[English]
Mr. Whalen: I think the wood and steel industries have both learned this lesson from hard knocks. If we rely on one market outside of Canada, we put ourselves at risk of problems down the line. In our case, the majority of the steel industry's exports were to the United States. The economic situation in the U.S. resulted in the "Buy American" provisions. There are about ten other bills stacked up in Congress currently with similar wording.
Any good business realizes that they must have more than one major client. They have to diversify. The lesson learned from some of our mutual problems in dealing with the U.S. is that we need to look beyond the U.S. for potential export markets. We need to look at South America and opportunities in Asia as sources of sales for our products.
The Chair: Senator Plett has asked to pose a few other questions on the second round.
Senator Plett: I will be easy this time. I wish to follow up on the answer you gave Senator Mahovlich regarding the World Trade Center. I do not want to debate, but I read that the World Trade Center was designed to withstand a Boeing 707 airplane flying into it. When the World Trade Center was built, airplanes possibly carried half the fuel they do now. I understand that, had the largest airplane of the time hit the towers, the towers would have withstood the impact but they did not because the fuel created tremendous heat.
First, is there any truth to that information? Second, what was the makeup of the World Trade Center's outside walls in concrete versus steel?
Ms. Boulanger: You are correct on the first question. Buildings were designed that way in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, the SkyDome was designed so that a small airplane could make a hole, and the structure would have what we call redundancy. It could redistribute load to the supports without failing.
That is also how they designed the World Trade Center. The plane that flew into that building is comparable to an instantaneous earthquake load. Let me explain. A plane hitting the building creates a sheer force at the bottom — it shakes it.
Some planes today have wings wider than the building. Therefore, we have no chance. To resist such a strike, you have to create a military bunker. That is what is needed to resist the strike, and it is not realistic. We need a safer environment to ensure that planes do not have the opportunity. Otherwise, we will pay an extreme cost to resist such loads and we will have ugly buildings capable of resisting.
We performed an analysis and the results were exponential. The load from these big planes simply cannot be resisted by big buildings. The planes are too big; they slice through like butter.
The way the World Trade Center was built is unique. It was like a tube structure. We call it a moment frame. It created a belt around the building that resists the lateral load. In the middle was the staircase in a concrete core. However, the concrete core was not meant to resist that much lateral load. The tube structure was meant to resist the lateral load. The concrete in the middle transferred vertically, and was there to accommodate some of the load and the numerous elevator shafts. The structure of the floor system — the trusses — is like a zigzag. It was questioned whether certain kinds of attachments could have been better, and they probably could have. However, would it have made a difference with a plane crashing into the building? No.
A lot of buildings in New York are still made with the moment frame. You can see them on the outside of the buildings when you go to New York City. We can make moment frames perform better, but that system is still a good one.
Mr. Whalen: The strike on the World Trade Center was from the biggest plane.
Senator Plett: Are you saying it was not the heat, but the force of the airplane flying into the World Trade Center that caused the collapse? Why then did it take time for the building to collapse? Why would it not have been collapsed immediately if the collapse was due to the force of the airplane flying into it?
Ms. Boulanger: That is the beauty of steel. It redistributed the load; it deformed before failing. You may see steel as a stiff material, but one of its best attributes is ductility; it starts to stretch and stretch when it takes on extra load before it fails.
In that case, the load was trying to redistribute from the missing columns along the structure still standing and that is why it was able to withhold. If the fire had not occurred — many of us agree — the building probably would have lasted a little longer, but it was coming down. Statically, what made the building fail was not enough building left for it to stand; it was not the fire. The fire may have impacted the amount of time, but it lasted sufficiently long to evacuate the building in the end.
One lesson learned is to ensure we have a better way to bring people down one hundred floors to the streets. The lesson is not to build in concrete or wood because it will resist more. You agree this structure is not the kind of structure in which wood could work. It is not a question of different materials.
We have lost market share in certain areas where they have started building using concrete because they think it might resist local impact loads better. That thinking is questionable, but it is happening and we have to fight it.
Senator Plett: What is the difference between exports versus imports in the steel industry in Canada?
Ms. Boulanger: We have different numbers for steel fabrication and for the steel product. We have not revised our numbers yet. The industry is going through such tough times that we do not have current numbers. In the steel fabrication industry, we used to fabricate the structure and export about 30 per cent to 35 per cent of the structures to the U.S.
In the steel industry, I have those numbers. I believe it is about the same ratio but I want to give you the actual values. The steel industry produced 15 million metric tonnes in 2008. This level of production is sustained by Canadian steel industry employment of approximately 30,000 direct jobs and over 120,000 indirect jobs across all provinces in Canada. Steel industry jobs are highly skilled, with an average wage of $65,000. In the distribution between local and national economies, we contribute roughly $14 billion in output but an additional $7 billion in exports. About one third went to the U.S. before the "Buy American" policy. It is incredible how "Buy American" is creating inefficiencies.
Senator Duffy: Since we have been on the question of buildings in New York and airplanes, in 1945, a U.S. army B- 25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building. I do not know how many people have not read that far yet in the Google note, but the building survived and is being used to this day. It is clear that the steel in the structure did not buckle under that crash. Of course, the airplane was a lot smaller.
Ms. Boulanger: That building was built in 11 months. We would have a hard time matching that today. It is interesting. I have a book on it.
Senator Mahovlich: I visited China last month and saw that a lot of structure is going up in Shanghai. Do we conduct any business with China? Do we export a lot of our finished products in steel to that country?
Ms. Boulanger: The short answer is, no. Two larger fabricators are trying to develop that market. It has to be developed in collaboration with local fabricators because there is a whole culture to respect. It is difficult to simply come in with a product. They have to network with the local people.
Mr. Whalen: To add to that answer, I was involved with the Canadian Welding Bureau prior to coming to the institute. Steel production in North America is 20 million tonnes, and in China it is 600 million tonnes.
Senator Mahovlich: Is the quality there?
Mr. Whalen: Not necessarily, no. One of the risks in our industry, which you will probably see in other industries as well, is that China and Asia are giving Canada a good run for their money. Typically, emerging countries used to attack us on labour rates only and their related salaries and benefits. Today, China is hitting Canada and all of North America on two or three different levels, including low wages and use of technology. I have experienced in the past while working in China that they have state-of-the-art equipment and large plants. In general, their product is good.
We need to look at not only the steel industry but also at other North American industries because they will have to deal with this competition. As well, we can argue the impact of the dollar and where it is pegged. It will be a challenge all the way round.
The Chair: The witnesses have given us a lot of information. I re-emphasize that the committee is in search of stakeholders at all levels of the construction industry to find better ways to increase Canadian value-added products and new technologies within our industry. Mr. Whalen and Ms. Boulanger, you have raised other questions that we should ask. Will you permit us to send you a letter with additional questions on changes to the building code, the approach and the process to the building code and your life cycle assessment of products to be used in the construction industry?
On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your information and look forward to additional information on subject matters that you have presented to us or that you have shared an opinion with us.
(The committee adjourned.)