THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Riverview.
Pine Shake Roofing
MRS. ONEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A number of residents in St. Albert have rotting, untreated pine shakes on their homes. In particular, a number of those residences are seniors condominium complexes. The number of homes affected in my constituency is considerable. Since pine shakes are in the building code, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Why was the government not demanding more research on the performance and durability of untreated pine shakes, and in particular, what degree of research is currently being done on the performance and durability of treated pine shakes?
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The questions a good one, and I know that the member has been working hard and diligently with concerned constituents with respect to the issue of pine shakes. [I don't think so! Ms. ONeill has been all too quick to follow the party line - stating repeatedly that the Government has no responsibility for the durability of materials it allows in to the Alberta Building Code, and for quite some time appears to have turned a deaf ear to complaints. It looks like she has been fed questions by the Minister of Labour (or his staff) to pose in the Legislature. Their aim would be to make the government look good by patting each other on the back. ] The initial 1988 listing of pine shakes and the subsequent updates through 92-93 indicated that the pine shake was accepted as one of 20 building roofing alternatives. Basically, the standata, the product listing sheet, says: may be used as a roof covering. This was subject to a great deal of research by the normal rigorous process that occurs through the National Building Code, which would include formerly the Canada Mortgage and Housing controls, late the Canadian Construction Materials Centre. This product, like any other product, would go through the same rigorous testing. [ It's too bad the Minister didn't read our 14 page summary of the problems we found in the testing procedure. The CMHC product approval was, in fact, based on some rooftops in Saskatchewan (not Alberta), white pine (not lodgepole or Jackpine), mounted on battens (not on solid sheathing). The 1988 Study on the Feasibility of Pine Shakes, and the subsequent 1990 Final Report both indicate that nowhere and at no time was the product ever tested in the manner in which it was installed on our Alberta rooftops.] Other research has been carried out on the product, and that has been done by the Alberta Research Council. I know that the minister responsible may want to add to that. It continues to be examined.
2:20
With respect to the members second question in her first question, Mr. Speaker, when she said: what is being done on treated pine shakes? They are examining treated pine shakes. As we speak, they are going through environmental testing as to the effectiveness of the product thats being used in the treatment process. [Both effectiveness and safety are at issue, or should be at issue here. Why did the government force the change to treated pine shakes without doing that "same rigourous testing"?]
THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister, a brief supplementary.
DR. TAYLOR: Yes, very brief, Mr. Speaker, just to provide you some background on where the Alberta Research Council was with this. In 1993 the head of the forest products division was retained by ED and T to serve as a member of the CSA standards technical committee. He was one of 22 on that committee. He was also one of 13 members on the northern pine shakes committee. ARC performed an evaluation on existing shake roofs for the subcommittee for recommendation for CSA standards.
I would make two points in regard to the ARC findings: one, ARC provided no warranty as to their durability, and in submitting the results ARC pointed out very clearly that in the installations they examined, almost all of the installations exceeded the 7 percent off-grade allowance of the CSA standard. I can explain that, but I can see you nodding to me.
I also have a letter dated November 16, 93, to the pine shakes manufacturers association which concludes on behalf of ARC, Mr. Speaker, that their work is as a testing organization only and ARC does not have the ability to issue tags or to act as a certification organization. [ See the Nov. 18 transcript (below) for clarification on this point. ] To conclude, Mr. Speaker, ARC did not endorse the use of pine shakes and did not back any manufacturers warranty.
Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, weve had two ministers talk for nearly five minutes now in response to your two questions. So, perhaps, one to wrap it up.
MRS. ONEILL: Well, Mr. Speaker, being a very important matter in my constituency, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he could tell me what measures he is taking to ensure that the applied spray treatment [ This would be the PQ 57 spray for untreated pine shakes . . . unless she meant to say the CCA treatment for the treated shakes which (we're told) is pressure treated ] is environmentally safe and an effective preservative on the existing pine shakes?
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, we are reacting, again, to the good concerns raised by a diligent and effective representative as well as the concerns that have been raised by other good members, the Member for Clover Bar- Fort Saskatchewan and of course the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The work thats being done with treated pine shakes [ wrong treatment - the TPS is treated with CCA; he missed the word "spray" treatment. ] is work in progress. It is in compliance now with the Building Code with respect to health and safety . As weve done with the entire pine shakes file, as any information becomes available, its immediately brought out and is available for discussion.
Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I would advise not only the members constituents but other members constituents that their first place to check is with the builder, with the warranties that are offered through the manufacturer, and indeed with the roofer. Any warranties, either implied or specific, are the responsibility of manufacturer, roofer, builder. [ This is a dead end street folks! We've been there and done that. The fact is, the manufacturers, roofers, and builders were only doing what the government allowed them to do! ] I know that were also working hard with consumer and corporate affairs to be able to ensure that accurate information is out there both on untreated and treated pine shakes. I would also refer members and concerned constituents, Mr. Speaker, to the Alberta government Labour web site.
THE SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, youre not responsible for the comprehensiveness of the responses to your questions, so proceed with your final supplemental.
MRS. ONEILL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because I did have an important second supplemental question. That is to the Provincial Treasurer. What are you planning to do to address the concerns of the large number of Albertans who have problems with untreated pine shakes?
MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite appropriately raising concerns brought to her by constituents, and I would say that the Minister of Labour has done a very effective job in terms of reaching out to these folks and seeing what might be done. [ Pat, pat, pat on the back. BIG PROBLEM: why has the Minister not responded to our fax of Oct. 22 (one month ago) and why aren't his staff returning our phone calls? ] Obviously its not a question of liability, and thats been made very clear. But I think that when you consider that the minister has co-ordinated the pine shakes stakeholder working groups, written correspondence has gone to the Insurance Bureau of Canada to make sure they are fully aware of the situation, making available the fact sheets -- three, I believe, related to this particular issue -- and arranging meetings with manufacturers and roofers, I think thats a constructive way to address the problem and see if theres some consensus on how it can be addressed, staying short of a liability question on the part of government. Of course, thats been quite clear. [ It's become clearer over time that the government of the day is primarily responsible for this whole issue. ]
I want to commend the member for raising these issues and the Minister of Labour and others for sitting down with the groups involved and seeing if there are some things that can be done to help with the problem.
THE SPEAKER: Just so that not too many members get too exercised, that time frame for those series of questions and answers equaled the amount of time that was spent on the third Official Opposition main questions and answers.
*************************************************************
Pine Shake Roofing
MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The trouble in the Department of Labour has spread. The untreated pine shake and this government have something in common: the government that authorized and promoted this product now is the same as this untreated pine shake because both are rotting from the inside and they split right down the middle when they are nailed. My first question is to the minister responsible for the Alberta Research Council. Why did he tell this Assembly yesterday, ARC does not have the ability to issue tags or to act as a certification organization, when we have this internal document from the Department of Labour which states, The Standards Council of Canada . . . will be accrediting Alberta Research Council . . . as a third party certification agency under the new industry standard for northern Alberta pine shakes? [ In fact, the ARC did serve as mill inspection/certification from about 1992 to 1994. ]
2:10
DR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must compliment the member on his creative introduction to the question, because its really quite humorous.
I will point out what I pointed out yesterday. The head of the department of forestry management at the Alberta Research Council was retained to serve as a member, only one member of 22, on the CSA technical committee. At the same time, he was one of 13 members on the subcommittee on northern pine shakes. I would just provide you with the names of those people on the committee. Just to give you a flavour of who is on those committees, we have industry representatives; for instance Mr. Klyne, from A1 Shakes. We have people from the Alberta forest service, we have people from Alberta Labour, we have people from Atlas forest products, and so on. So thats the nature of the CSA certification. [ FATAL ERROR! The National Building Code was built upon principles that included having consumers on such working groups. Why was there not any consumers on that CSA board? The board was top heavy with people who had a vested interest in making the pine shake industry profitable.]
I will point out once again, Mr. Speaker, that ARC examined existing roofs, shakes that were already on the roofs, and they very clearly indicated that they did not provide any warranty as to their durability. Moreover, they noted that many of the roofs, in fact the majority, were installed with an excess of 7 percent off-grade allowance. When CSA sets standards, they set an allowance of 7 percent that can be off-grade, and the majority of the roofs examined by ARC were greater than 7 percent. [ As indicated above, the ARC was responsible for ensuring the product leaving the mills for two years met the standard! ]
MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question is also to the minister responsible for the Alberta Research Council. Is the minister aware that the original test roof panels installed at the Alberta Research Council were found to have significant rot?
DR. TAYLOR: Exactly what I said, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Research Council examined these shakes, provided their report on these shakes, but did not provide warranty and did note the installation imperfections.
MR. MacDONALD: Mr. Speaker, my third question is to the Minister of Labour . Why did he assure his colleague from St. Albert yesterday regarding pine shakes that this subject had a great deal of research done by the normal rigorous process, but the deputy minister states in this internal memo we have that we have no research data to substantiate the support we have given to the . . . Pine Shakes in the standata? [ Good question! ]
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, its always intriguing to come into the House and listen to internal documents obtained by the Liberals, where in fact the Liberal Party has full access to over 1,300 pages of released information, of good, rigorous research and data. They can walk over to the Department of Labours library as any consumer can do and use it. He talks about the question of the regular process and how this went and the analogy of comparing it with the rot in the middle. I would only simply remind the hon. member that when this product was first approved, there was only one leader of this House that was in cabinet at that time, and its not on this side of the House.[ Too bad he didn't answer the question! ]
(End of Nov. 18 transcript)