Natural Resources Committee on March 1st, 2018

[Michael Giroux]

The other thing too is that, in an area where we may have limited percentages of wood that can go into the U.S., the solution in that case is to grow the American market. The more you grow the American market, the more you can bring all sorts of product into it. That's what it's about. That's why we work very closely with the American Wood Council and WoodWorks USA. It's to really grow that market. That concern really shouldn't be one.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay. Perhaps you could comment on how you feel. We've heard from representatives of the cement industry that they consider there are new ways of doing cement that would score very well in these greenhouse gas emission tests. I'm just wondering how you see wood competing against that. They make claims that perhaps wood is overrated in that regard. I'm wondering if you want to comment on that.

[Derek Nighbor]

You can get into the code specifics, but I think this is where the technical and science work must rule the day. The example that was mentioned by that sector at this committee was an apples and oranges comparison, comparing a newer concrete structure to a 1980s wood home. That's simply not the reality.

There's this discussion about hybrids and all materials fitting and making a way, but wood has made such progress lately. There's a $20-million anti-wood campaign started by one competing material sector out of the U.S. I think we need to step back from the emotion of a lot of that stuff. Let's focus on the science and the technical work. That's why the code process needs to be pure and it needs to be focused on the technical work and the science, and the government procurement strategies to follow.

We're very confident, and that's why we're happy to talk about life-cycle analysis. We're happy to talk about science-based testing for GHGs and all that good stuff, because we know most days of the week we're going to win. That's the confidence we have in our systems and products.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Do you have a quick question?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Do you think those life-cycle analyses and the tests needed are in place? Would that be a big thing?

[Michael Giroux]

Yes, there are tools in place. To that concrete versus wood thing, there are new standards in place at the ASTM level that force the comparison of similar buildings. The standards are in place. They're always being upgraded or updated, but they're in place and the tools are increasingly in place. We're not worried.

[Derek Nighbor]

There's a lot of experience to draw from in Europe on LCA, life-cycle assessment.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Tan, go ahead.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to share my time with my colleague, Nick Whalen. He may have one or two questions.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tan. Xiè xie.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I'm going to ask a couple of general questions of both of you.

The committee learned that buildings contribute 23% of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions. My understanding is that this number refers not only to the building material itself but also the human activities in the building and other items that are used in the buildings. We know that Canada's R and D in the area of wood products is driving innovation. For instance, it has enabled the creation of large and tall wood building structures. In our search for more and more applications for the wood products, we must not limit ourselves to the building construction materials. We must also consider the materials that are used inside the building. This includes furniture and other household items.

How can your council best support this kind of R and D of other items, not just building materials?

[Derek Nighbor]

A big need in our industry for the economics of it...you think of the lumber mills. They need to sell their chips and sawdust, whether it's pulp mills or other facilities that are going to turn those residuals into value-added products. We see significant opportunity on the innovation side related to the cellulose fibres and some of the innovative products those can get into. In some cases those will touch building materials. We're seeing other opportunities, as you mentioned, wood furniture, other value-added products.

The other opportunity we see in terms of GHG savings is that even just the prefabricated nature of the Structurlams can basically ensure that there are fewer trucks on site, less disruption in neighbourhoods, and faster construction. There is a huge amount of environmental benefit that comes with that as well.

[Michael Giroux]

There are a couple of impact levels that you're talking about. You're talking specifically about the operational level of these buildings, including what's in them. There is also the avoided carbon that's associated with the choice of materials. There are two parts, and when they're put together, you end up with a life-cycle analysis, a complete one that includes embodied and operational energy.

What's interesting right now is that you need a database of elements to support those types of decisions to move that forward. That database is called a life-cycle inventory. That is now under consideration at the National Research Council, and hopefully it is going to be properly funded. When you have that in place, you can make a decision relative to all those types of materials in the future. It's not just wood or steel.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Giroux, you mentioned in your statement the need for updating building codes to allow more access to wood and wood products. I agree with that, but quite often the public perception is, I would say, nine-tenths of the reality.

What do you think it will take to convince the Canadian stakeholders, for example, firefighters and other industries, or even the government, that engineered wood or mass timber buildings are just as safe as concrete or steel buildings?

[Michael Giroux]

There is nothing that beats demonstration. At the end of the day, for some of these buildings, for instance Brock Commons and more buildings in the future, the fact that we have government funding partners who are willing to step into that demonstration world is really important, because once we show that it can built, once we bring those firefighters and the public into those buildings, they see it very differently. That's the opportunity, and we've been very fortunate with funders like NRCan, like BCFII, like MNRF in Ontario in the future, like Quebec. It's happening, we're demonstrating it, and it's being seen. It's also important for abroad too. We demonstrate here, and it becomes safe for consideration abroad by Canada Wood and other groups.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tan, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming today. It's very informative.

At least from my perspective, I'm beyond the point of wondering whether or not we should support wood and other materials that reduce greenhouse gas consumption. I'm already there. Now I want to look a little more at the language.

Mr. Nighbor, you suggested that you don't want to get into amendments, but I need to. I'm looking at what I consider to be the spirit of the bill. I heard you say, Mr. Giroux, that the spirit of the bill is equal treatment for wood and not showing a preference. Can I get agreement from you guys that...

Okay, so when I look at what has been proposed to us, maybe I agree a little with Mr. Schmale on this that it goes a little bit beyond—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Just a little bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're not in camera here you know.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

The very first part of the proposed legislation focuses on the awarding of contracts.

I've heard a lot of people say that a great benefit to wood would be building codes and standards. Maybe RFQ requirement statements that are proposed by the ministry for a particular design or construction is a stage at which, if we demonstrated a requirement for wood and the means by which wood could be or should be required, it maybe would prevent a view that we're going to look at it at the contract award stage. That's when the lawyers in the room are thinking they might be able to make some money.

I know for wood guys for every problem the solution might be a hammer. I'm wondering what your thoughts are if instead of focusing on contract award we focused on the requirements. Would that meet your industry's needs? Would it be better balanced for equality? Do you think that would be within the spirit of the bill? Our changes need to be within the spirit of the bill.

[Derek Nighbor]

The short answer is yes.

[Michael Giroux]

Wood has to be considered early in the process, and must be shown to have been considered.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I have another very small question, if there's time.