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.