Natural Resources committee  My opinion is that the safety of a building, whether it be from a fire point of view or a structural point of view, is a design issue, a performance issue. This is why codes are moving towards the performance-based approach. There's no doubt that the integrity of a mass timber structure in a fire is extremely high, much higher than it would be in a steel building should the steel be left exposed, for example, because mass timber protects itself by developing a charring layer.

Natural Resources committee  Again, it's a design issue more than a material issue. The need for compartmentalization of fire in a higher building is more critical, and that can be achieved with mass timber panels.

Natural Resources committee  This is an economic question. There are efficiencies that are achieved with certain spans, with certain products, and that's true of all products or materials. If you're asking about whether there's a limitation, an upper limit, on what you can do with wood, I would point out that we have built soccer stadiums in Quebec out of wood with spans of 225 feet.

Natural Resources committee  I think timber was probably popular in the construction of bridges, say a century ago, because it's a material that can be sourced essentially near the site. There's no need to truck materials in. That might have been the primary reason why it was used then. The way to protect it was really the use of chemicals.

Natural Resources committee  Again, it's about classifying different types of timber construction correctly. Light frame relies on finishes to maintain its structural integrity in a fire, whereas mass timber is inherently resistant to fire, especially if using mass timber panels. I would say that in light timber renovations, yes, that's absolutely true.

Natural Resources committee  It's quite natural for people to react to the idea of building timber high-rises in wood. It's quite natural to react this way, because wood is a combustible material. The distinction that we've been making as designers is that there's a difference between combustibility, or combustible construction, and fire-resistant construction.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. The construction industry is relatively slow to move. To have codes in place is key to confirming the research and development required to ensure that the use of the material is safe. I think we're making a lot of progress in that way. The other side of the equation, as Rick mentioned, is education.

Natural Resources committee  As I explained, five years ago we published the research report showing that we could build tall wood-framed buildings. At that time, there was a lot of criticism on the Internet. As might be expected, a lot of people reacted, saying that wood-framed high-rises were vulnerable to fire, termites, and so on.

Natural Resources committee  Timber is a lot lighter than concrete. That's a big advantage, from a design point of view.

Natural Resources committee  There's a reason I was asked to teach timber engineering in Haiti. This is a course that was added later on in the program, when it was offered for the second or third time. The reason is that a lot of the engineers had asked to learn about timber because they noticed that the houses in which people were not killed were the houses that were made with light frames.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, it's a pleasure for me to be here. My role is on the value-added or specifying side of the chain. I've been a practising engineer for 30 years and have been designing with wood since I moved to British Columbia 23 years ago. The amount of innovation and progress that has been made on the technical side of timber engineering and manufacturing in the last 23 years has been astounding.