Joining us for this hour are two witnesses. Both are present in the room. We have Ms. Carol Phillips, architect partner with Moriyama Teshima Architects; and Mr. David Moses, principal engineer with Moses Structural Engineers Inc. They will each have five minutes.

We'll begin with you, Ms. Phillips, for five minutes, please.

12:05 p.m.

Carol Phillips Architect, Partner, Moriyama Teshima Architects

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable committee members, thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Carol Phillips. I'm a partner at Moriyama Teshima Architects. Our work centres on designs that celebrate community identity, embrace sustainability and create pride in our built environment.

For the past seven years of my 30-year career, I have been embedded in realizing large-scale projects that prioritize mass timber construction and net-zero carbon emissions and leverage the potential of prefabricated building components.

These include a 10-storey college at Toronto's waterfront and a commercial headquarters building on a ravine, and these have led to an 11-storey rental housing project proposed on top of an abandoned federal post office and modular elementary school projects, among others.

Of these many advanced technologies, I would like to particularly focus on mass timber and how it can play a role as Canada addresses its housing shortage while also supporting our environmental, economic and social goals.

Mass timber is an engineered wood product that offers a structural alternative to, and can work in concert with, concrete and steel. It is manufactured by laminating standard lumber pieces into massive beams, columns and floor and wall panels.

First emerging in Europe in the 1990s, the technology has been in use there pervasively for 25 years. It is durable, lightweight and, crucially, it stores carbon rather than emitting it, making it an effective way to reduce the environmental footprint of new buildings.

Canada already has a growing capacity to produce mass timber using locally sourced wood from provinces like British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario, positioning us to be a global leader as demand grows and embodied carbon reduction in our materials is required.

This industry is uniquely suited to Canada, which is 40% forests, and where 90% of our forests are on Crown lands, managed and regulated provincially and by territorial governments. These forests, as the fires demonstrate, need management while industry needs supply. There is an opportunity, then, for a mutually sustainable human-nature relationship.

In mass timber buildings, architects and engineers work collaboratively with builders and manufacturers, leveraging the potential of digital technologies for direct communication between design and fabrication software to produce building components that literally click together.

Mass timber is factory produced and accurate within a millimetre of tolerance. Its lightness makes it an ideal candidate to intensify by adding to existing buildings, and for quality control, its kit-of-parts approach allows for rapid deployment and risk reduction. It's a natural for the six- to 18-storey residential building scale, which is the missing part of many urban centres and one that suits many growing communities. It's beautiful and renewable, and, just as our trees are not the same across Canada, timber construction allows for the possibility of a regional expression in our diverse nation.

To unlock mass timber's full potential, we need to address some things.

One is procurement practices in public buildings. The design, bid and build approach doesn't support the flexibility needed for mass timber projects. Embracing collaborative methods, such as construction management, streamlines project delivery.

The second is inter-ministerial coordination. Greater collaboration across federal, provincial and even municipal levels could drive timber adoption. A national, multi-level task force could align policies and lead to the necessary standardization that is required to truly scale the industry.

Next is building codes. Shifting from prescriptive to performance-based building codes would allow mass timber to be used more freely.

The final thing is incentives. To innovate is to do something that you or others have not done before. Governmentally shared incentives, such as tax credits, paid premiums for prototypical projects or grants, could accelerate industry innovation by funding manufacturing or growing professional skills.

Mass timber construction is also about fostering a safer, more inclusive and resilient construction industry. Prefabrication leads to safer work environments; opens more accessible job opportunities, including for women; and creates pathways for engagement with indigenous communities and sustainable forestry and manufacturing. It is faster and quieter, which means it has less impact on communities while addressing the housing shortage.

Finally, mass timber's benefits resonate with a broad spectrum of priorities, providing a pathway to meet climate and environmental goals while supporting Canadian-made industrial solutions that strengthen our economy. It is aligned with job creation, worker safety and social equity, and it is a Canadian solution that is rooted in leadership, notably in Quebec and from coast to coast.

Thank you.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Phillips.

Mr. Moses, you have five minutes.

12:10 p.m.

David Moses Principal Engineer, Moses Structural Engineers Incorporated

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

I'm David Moses, principal and founder of Moses Structural Engineers in Toronto.

As structural engineers, our role is to support architects and builders during design and construction. Our company's focus has been to bring new products and technologies into the market that can provide alternatives to traditional methods of construction in many types of buildings, including single-family homes, apartments and condominiums.

Over the years, we have had the privilege of working with government and industry partners to develop guidelines and training programs for architects, builders and even other engineers. We have a demonstrated commitment to the next generation of designers and builders with our cross-Canada student design competition called TimberFever that we've run for 10 years now, which is aimed at breaking down barriers between the design consultants and the people who build our buildings.

I have two points to make today. My first is that it does take a long time in our industry to make changes, especially when it comes to new technologies and getting them into the market. Testing and approvals are required to limit the risk to public safety and also to limit the potential for liability for damages if the technology does not work. Building codes and testing approvals provide us with the reassurance we need, since buildings must work the first time they are built.

As a regulated profession, engineers have a duty to hold public welfare paramount, so we prefer known and approved products and systems; however, the building standards do allow engineers to design novel systems, provided that we can demonstrate that they perform safely and meet the foundations of the building code. To echo my friend Ms. Phillips, mass timber is a very good example to prove that point, although there are others.

I worked on the first cross-laminated mass timber building in Canada, which was built for the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver. This was before there were any Canadian manufacturers of the product, so the product came from Europe. We worked closely with European engineers, reviewing their methods of analysis and reviewing the research that they had done for many years, but the regulatory approvals in Canada didn't come until 2020, 10 years after that first building was completed. Regulatory changes are slow and incremental.

In 2012, a joint Canada-U.S. standard was released for CLT, cross-laminated timber. In 2013, a Canadian design guide was created. In 2016, a CSA standard was released. Finally, in 2020, 10 years later, the national building code adopted the changes that included cross-laminated timber.

Ten years seems to be the cycle that we are seeing. However, even though that code may take a while, many buildings were built in that period thanks to the government investments in commercial and academic research in that time as well as the efforts of many companies like our own who were willing to put their time and money into research and development. Once the building code does change, of course, the doors open for many others to adopt these new ideas with less cost and less risk.

My second point is that strategic investments by government do work. For example, easy access to research and development funding for manufacturers and consultants does have a direct impact on getting the products to market before the codes change. Demonstration projects do make a difference when the funding comes in a timely manner, because those demonstration projects become inspiration for others, and they become a living example that other people can visit, touch and see for themselves.

In addition, interim government policies between code cycles can also speed the adoption of new ideas and new technologies into the market much faster than the codes can.

I believe we can also improve speed by starting to pay the engineers who are members of these standards committees who volunteer their time on a part-time basis to get them to focus on the matter at hand and bring these changes much faster.

Another area that we could consider as well would be to fund design assist activities where suppliers can get their products in front of the decision-makers early on in the design process.

Finally, although not in my direct area of concern but a broader concern that we heard here just a few minutes ago is for modular building construction where perhaps we could consider creating a government pool of funding that would guarantee cash flow for modular factories during the construction cycle to help ride the ebbs and flows within their industry and not lose the precious investments in those facilities.

I'll leave it there and I look forward to your questions.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Moses.

We'll begin with Mr. Aitchison for six minutes.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you to both witnesses.

I was going to say, very quickly, Ms. Phillips, that I'm familiar with some of your projects and they're beautiful. It's a treat to meet somebody who's designed something like that.

I'm sorry, Mr. Moses. I'm not familiar with your projects, but I'm sure they're beautiful as well.

I want to focus on the challenges that we face approving new technologies. You've both spoken about this. I'm a big fan of mass timber. In my previous life, I spent a lot of time with the forestry industry that supports this kind of mass timber stuff. I love it; I think it's great.

Kevin Lee was here speaking very specifically about housing and the challenges related to the Canadian Construction Materials Centre and how slow it is to approve new technologies.

I'll ask you both if you can briefly speak to this.

What specific reforms do you think could be introduced to the Canadian Construction Materials Centre to reduce the time and cost required for new technologies to be recognized as acceptable code solutions while maintaining safety and quality standards?

I'll start with you, Ms. Phillips, if you could give me your top two things that you'd change.

12:15 p.m.

Architect, Partner, Moriyama Teshima Architects

Carol Phillips

I mentioned in my opening statement that in the building code, one thing that could be focused on is performance-based codes rather than prescriptive codes.

For instance, at a certain scale of building, you fall into either combustible or non-combustible construction, which immediately kind of precludes you from considering mass timber. You have to climb a bit of a hill to actually prove that you are as good if not safer than concrete, whereas, if you were able to just demonstrate from the beginning the safety criteria, the fire resistance, the durability and the concerns of the building code, which is the concern that's at the heart—the performance criteria—then that actually shifts the conversation. It does not actually delay the process in having to prove something that you are not, but rather prove what you are.

I think that is actually a fundamental shift in how we evaluate buildings.