Natural Resources Committee on March 20th, 2018

[Aleksandra Pogoda]

Yes, of course. That opportunity exists with or without this kind of “wood first” bill that has the potential to be passed. The domestic industry is really looking for ways to integrate this idea of a circular economy, which above all takes into consideration recyclability, remanufacturing, and GHG reductions—the full analysis of the entire sweep. That's something this bill would have the potential to affect, in the sense that it has a discriminatory basis. Regardless, the entire domestic industry is going to continue to move forward on being innovative and being a Canadian pillar for international construction materials.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I forgot, Chair, that I'm actually sharing my time with my colleague, but I have just one really quick question to Mr. Marks.

You talked about the challenges that occur with modifications. Can you just help me understand? Is there a particular, greater challenge to modifications that exist now in existing structures? In existing structures now, the same modifications take place, and we know they're not made out of wood. Aren't those risks already present? Doesn't the suite of regulations and obligations around building codes and what people have to comply with already exist, and how would it differ from wood for a structure that, if safe when constructed and all the rest, would change?

[Scott Marks]

The potential and the concern exist today, the difference being that there are more materials used to protect the underlying wood products. For instance, there was a lot of discussion on whether a stairwell or an elevator shaft should be required to remain made out of concrete or whether those could safely be built out of wood products. They talk about double-layering gypsum board around it. The protection from fire is equal once you use double layers of gypsum board or whatever.

The difference right there is that with concrete you don't need that to protect it from combustibility. The difference is that if the gypsum board is breached, or modified, or vandalized, the wood could be exposed behind it or there might be a conduction of fire—something that conducts the heat into where the wood is and results in the wood behind it being on fire.

Again, from experience, I have been in a situation where we're ripping out a floor, looking for the fire, because we're seeing smoke and flames, only to find that the products that are actually burning are a significant distance away because of the conductivity of heat and how the fire occurred. Once you modify or remove the layer of protection from the wood, or breach it in some way, it no longer has the same safety protection.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Following on Ms. Ng's questioning to you, Mr. Marks, the IAFF has been very vocal about the lack of appropriate training in place or a knowledge base among firefighters in Canada around tall wood structures and the need to gain a greater knowledge of how to deal with those proposed structures and fires if this were something that would move forward.

How do you think that shift toward greater accessibility within new construction and visitability—the idea of zero barrier entry, wider hallways, zero barrier access—could help mitigate some of those issues from a firefighter perspective? Because there's been a lot of talk about re-entry from firefighters and the inadequate nature of the building code as it pertains today for firefighters going back in to fight a fire. Do you think that plays a role within this conversation, or do you think that there needs to be greater allowances made for accessibility and visitability in tall wood structures in order to level the playing field?

I want to get your thoughts on that.

[Scott Marks]

Well, our overriding concern with the National Building Code is the fact that fire safety is not an objective of the code. For instance, as we have proceeded over the last 10 to 15 years, we have been trying to get firefighter safety added as an objective of the code. The problem with the code as we see it right now is if there exists an issue that puts firefighters at risk and we believe an amendment to the code or a revision to the code would mitigate that risk, we can't link it to an objective. A revision or an amendment of the code has to be linked to one of those core objectives, so we end up being pooled in with general occupancy; and clearly we're not in the same situation as general occupancy.

To your point, access, wider hallways, all of those may mitigate the impact on firefighter safety. Personally I don't know enough about the research on that. I do know that, as I pointed out, the National Fire Protection Association in the U.S. has standards in place to deal with all the fire safety. In the U.S., NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has done a number of experiments on fighting fires in high-rise buildings and the requirements around that.

There are studies and documentation on it. I'm not familiar exactly as to how it would relate to this, but firefighting, in general, is still a very labour-intensive job. Going back to the building code, I think it's imperative that where we can show there's a risk to firefighters, we can at least make the request for a revision or an amendment and have that looked at under the risk assessment process.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're going to have to stop there. Thanks.

Mr. Schmale, I can give you about two minutes.

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

Okay, Thank you, Chair.

Just so you know, we agree with both of your testimonies. We'll be working with this committee to look for a way to amend the bill as a way to put every industry on a level playing field and not picking winners and losers in the marketplace. I'm just giving you notice, Richard.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You're speaking about ideology.

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

We'll see how that goes and we do take note of your comments, Mr. Marks, that when you do make changes to the initial building structure, and I'm assuming that will happen over time, it does create a problem, because if the fire does get inside, then it spreads. I do take note of that.

Since I do have a short time, maybe I can ask this to my friends from the steel industry. How else can the government help with the steel industry in terms of competitiveness in the marketplace, whether it be dealing with the tariffs south of the border or just in order to provide opportunities for your industry?

[Joseph Galimberti]

First, to the tariffs, I think the entire Government of Canada should be commended for the work that it did and I include the work of the steel caucus. David Sweet, from the Conservative Party, was part of a delegation that went down and met with congressional colleagues in June to talk about the underlying section 232 investigation of the tariffs. That really took a complete team effort, so I congratulate the Government of Canada writ large on that one.

As for things the Government of Canada can do, I continue to believe encouraging innovation and talking about the Canadian success story in steel is important. I mentioned our competitive advantage from a GHG perspective. We really do view that as a competitive advantage as you get into things like LED certifications and as you get into a low-carbon economy, I think we have a great story to tell.

Some of the things we're doing with lightweight, high-strength steel in fields like automotive.... We supply steel for the Tesla out of Hamilton. I think there are a number of things the government can do to encourage the continued application of technology and advancement of advanced manufacturing in Canada.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We'll have to stop there. Thank you all very much for joining us this morning. It has been very helpful evidence.

We're going to have to suspend now for one minute to get ready for the next witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Let's get going here.

We're going to start whether people are in their seats or not.

Mr. Dumoulin and Mr. Rizcallah, thank you for joining us today. You know the process. You'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation, which will be followed by a round of questions. Thank you for joining us today. The floor is yours.

[Michel Dumoulin, Acting Vice-President, Engineering, National Research Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello.

My name is Michel Dumoulin and I am the Acting Vice-President of the Engineering Division at the National Research Council of Canada.

I'm joined here today by Philip Rizcallah, who is the Director of Research and Development at NRC, within the engineering division.

We are very pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you today. We would like to start by highlighting the NRC's recent contributions to help the Government of Canada achieve its targets for Canada's national model codes, a low-carbon economy, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Initially, I would like to provide you with an idea of the scale and scope of the NRC. Our work covers a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines, the outcomes of which have changed the lives of Canadians and people around the globe.

We are a national organization with some 3,700 highly skilled and innovative researchers and staff located across the country. Our 14 research centres operate out of 22 locations spanning Canada's geography.

Each year, our organization works closely with industry, conducting research and development work with over 1,000 businesses. We provide technical advice to 11,000 small and medium-size companies, and we collaborate with tens of universities and colleges, research hospitals, federal departments, and international partners.

More specific for today, our organization is the coordinator and custodian of Canada's national model codes, including the model building code and model energy code. We provide administrative support to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes and perform research in support of the work of its technical committees.

We facilitate uptake in the marketplace of the model codes and new technologies that support the code. We also support development of standards, best practice guides, and tools for the construction industry, as well as pilot projects and techno-economic assessments. Speaking of codes, these evolve in response to advances in construction practices and product innovation.

In working with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, we are using an extensive consensus-based process that has involvement from all sectors of the construction community and the public over a five-year cycle. This approach provides a reasonable compromise among stability, flexibility, and economic considerations.

This collaborative engagement ensures that the best available knowledge drives meaningful change. As building codes evolve along with new technologies and materials, this knowledge provides a level playing field that gives construction professionals the confidence to innovate safely, reduces risks, and keeps compliance costs low. Building codes keep these costs even lower by establishing uniform, trusted regulations that keep pace with industry change.

One example of this meaningful change is the NRC's collaboration in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. This framework is Canada's vision for action to help meet its climate change objectives by reducing the carbon emitted by buildings' operations.

The NRC also works closely with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes and its technical committees to meet the timelines outlined in the pan-Canadian framework. Given the committee's interest, I should add that this process will include wooden structures. Standing committees on energy codes have been created and are undertaking thorough cost-benefit analyses. We are taking into consideration factors such as building types, geographic location, and availability of needed trades and technologies.

Research and validation are ongoing at NRC to support meeting the GHG targets while at the same time identifying costs and benefits. As we work in close collaboration and partnership with Natural Resources Canada, our goals are to make new buildings more energy efficient, to retrofit existing buildings, and to support building codes and energy-efficient housing in indigenous communities. The Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes' long-term energy policy was developed in response to the pan-Canadian framework, and the code targets were set to be as closely aligned with the framework as possible.

Relevant for our discussion today is NRC's role in ensuring that the technical and safety research requirements are undertaken and applied to building codes as regards commercial and residential wooden structures. As you know, there is increasing interest by industry in multi-storey wooden buildings. These buildings are often designed to reduce the total carbon footprint while providing added economic benefits for Canada's forest products industry.

In response to this trend, the NRC launched the mid-rise wood buildings research program in 2012. In collaboration with industry, government, and other research organizations, the NRC provided over 1,800 pages of technical information to the codes committees, which enabled changes to the National Building Code to permit wood buildings up to six storeys as an accepted and safe solution. Before the program's completion in 2016, there were over 250 wood buildings between four and six storeys built or under construction across Canada.

As you have heard from the testimony of others, advances in wood technologies, such as cross-laminated timber, have enabled wood buildings to reach even greater heights. One example is the 18-storey Brock Commons Tallwood House at the University of British Columbia. Working with the commission's technical committees, the NRC provides support to develop the unbiased knowledge needed to support changes to the building code. This reduces the time and effort required to design wooden buildings up to 12 storeys tall without compromising safety. Results are expected in time for the 2020 code revision.

The ongoing research at NRC is aimed at first validating the performance and then quantifying the risk of the effects of climate change and extreme events that could have impacts on the performance and durability of tall wood building envelope materials, components, and assemblies. This will permit validated design options for massive wood buildings, including Canadian timber products, in the numerous geographic and climate regions of Canada.

As the government strives to reduce the carbon footprint of government buildings, increasing attention is being given not only to the carbon emitted during operation by considering energy efficiency, but also the carbon used to create the building materials.

Also, we must be cognizant of the additional carbon that may be required to decommission the building when it reaches its end-of-life cycle. To reduce the total carbon footprint of a building over its life requires forethought, good design, and engineering, as well as diligent operation.

In addition to the consideration of long-term impacts, the creation of a low-carbon economy will immediately result in positive impacts in terms of wealth and job creation as we help industry innovate.

To close, it is the NRC's breadth of expertise, our unique scientific infrastructure, and our national scope, all combined, that enable us to convene players and technologies from across Canada and abroad, which should result in the highest chance of innovation success. This will make a difference to Canadians in the decades to come.

Thank you for your interest in the NRC, Mr. Chair. My colleague, Philip, and I will be happy to take questions at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Whalen.

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

Thank you both for coming today. It's nice to be able to get down to the brass tacks of what we're talking about.

Mr. Dumoulin, we've heard, in general terms, the concerns about fire safety risk. I would like you to talk a little more specifically about some of the research your organization has done to demonstrate how Canadians can be confident that mass timber or encapsulated mass timber buildings are just as safe, once constructed, as steel, and that they don't have risk associated with the drying out of the wood or the combustion of the wood. If you could provide some scientific evidence to back up that claim, I think it would be helpful for everyone.

[Michel Dumoulin]

As I mentioned in my opening statement, we are actually doing research and development and testing to support the committees. We work really closely with the technical committees of the commission on building and fire codes. The committees meet and, based on advice taken from broad public consultations, identify the risks we need to assess. We then design the research and development and testing methods that are needed.

A previous witness mentioned work going on at National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, in the States. We work very closely with NIST. We do some of the work here in Canada, and we also do some in the U.S.

We are fortunate to have here today Philip Rizcallah, who's actually our top expert in all these questions, so I'll ask Phil to complete.

[Philip Rizcallah, Director, Research and Development, Construction, National Research Council of Canada]

I will try not to get too technical with the response, but generally, when the National Research Council started the project about six years ago on mid-rise, there were a number of tests conducted. We looked at modelling. We looking at fire load in these buildings. We looked at fire spread with this type of construction and encapsulation. How do we protect these structures once they are built? We've continued with that now. That led to a six-storey transition in the building code. Now we're moving towards a 12-storey transition.

Right now, what we've been doing as late as last week is, we would build a room, a compartment, and we would introduce fire for about four hours, and we would see how the structure would react. It has been very favourable. The results have been that they basically self-extinguish.

For four hours the unit is burning. We take measurements. We take smoke. We take all kinds of data from this. We can translate that into technical provisions into our building codes. If the structure failed after one hour, we would say we need this much more protection. If it failed under three hours, we would need this much protection.

There's quite a bit of research. We're working with our United States counterparts as well and taking some of that data and incorporating into our research.

One of the biggest concerns that Scott, one of our colleagues here, mentioned was construction under fire, so we've also been looking at what we need to do to protect a site during construction, because that's the biggest risk. It's not generally when the building is built. Then, it's like any other building. It's protected. It has sprinklers, and everything is fine, but what do we do during construction to save that building from arson or any type of fire condition? We've introduced requirements into the fire code to mitigate that risk as well.

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

What about with multiple failures? When people look at disasters that happen in the airline industry, in nuclear safety, or in other efforts, it's not that one thing has gone wrong; it's that multiple things have failed in order for a disaster to occur. Maybe as many as seven things might go wrong.

What about in buildings where the sprinkler systems fail? An apartment on the sixth floor catches fire. They have computer servers in the apartment, they have plastic furniture against the wall, and the sprinklers fail. How do we know the spread is going to be just as safe in this type of building as compared to steel-frame construction?

[Philip Rizcallah]

That's a very good question. When the fire tests are conducted at NRC, for example, even though the building, when it's built six storeys and above, is required to have sprinkler systems, we don't conduct our test with sprinkler systems. We're already assuming there is no sprinkler protection in that building. We're testing it, and it's withstanding two, three, or four hours depending on what we're testing it for. It withstands that fire for that duration of time.

The sprinkler system is just an added benefit. It's an additional precautionary measure to keep the fire from starting. Let's assume the sprinkler fails, and the fire has started. We still have other measures in that building to protect us. There are multiple redundancies built into this system.

If I can go back to the six-storey building, the National Building Code used to allow four storeys. You can build a four-storey, stick-timber construction with no sprinklers, and it is no problem, you were fine. We went to six storeys. We went with mass timber. We went with sprinklers. We went with wider corridors, less flame fed. We built the Cadillac version for six storeys, which is actually safer than the four-storey building.

That's the premise we're taking with the 12-storey building. We built in multiple redundancies because we want it very safe. We don't want people getting injured or firefighters getting injured in the building. As it starts getting built and we have more data, we start ratcheting back, or we start adjusting those requirements as we go forward.

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

Something we've heard in the committee up to this point.... Maybe there are two things I'm hoping this bill can achieve. I'm not sure I agree with everything that has been proposed, but certainly around making sure current codes don't impede wood from being used in construction.... When I look at the limitations that are placed on wood, only up to six storeys, and maybe by 2020 only 12 storeys, there are impediments to the use of wood in construction, because those impediments don't exist for other materials.

I also look at the value of this carbon sequestration of using wood in the buildings, and then more forests grow, so there's an opportunity to sequester carbon that way. How far advanced is the thinking, and how close are we to having accurate codes that can say the carbon value of using this amount of wood if you use this type of wood? If the wood comes from this plant in British Columbia, here's how much carbon is being sequestered versus one from Newfoundland and Labrador. How would this allow us to make sure we're accurately measuring the benefit so we can compare it against other programs or other products so we're not unduly influencing the market, so that we're providing a true measure?

[Philip Rizcallah]

Unfortunately, with regard to carbon, when the technical committees develop their building codes, they are not looking at carbon reduction or carbon-neutral construction. They are looking primarily at safety. How can we build this building so it's safe? It's not one of the objectives of the committees when they are looking at that. It is an added benefit. Obviously, if you are going to use a certain product over another, you may get an added benefit from carbon reduction.

To get to the first part of your question, there were impediments in the code originally. You used to be limited to four storeys. Anything over four storeys, you had to go to steel, concrete, or another non-combustible material. The committees' whole objective is to make this material agnostic. We're not giving one group an advantage over another. We're allowing the builders, the designers, the owners, and the government to choose which material they want to use. We've gone to six storeys, and the hope is that we will go to 12 storeys, and the next transition will be that it's material agnostic. We don't care what you build it out of as long as it meets these performance requirements.

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

Mr. Dumoulin—I'm not sure if you went through this particular paragraph because you skipped forward, and thank you for that—in paragraph 18 of your written remarks, you talk about committees that support meeting the greenhouse gas targets and identifying costs and benefits.

Is there another committee? How far advanced is the thinking of that committee? What role can the federal government play to help encourage your committees to properly assess and quantify the carbon value of wood construction so we know we're not prejudicing the steel industry, we're providing real measures?