Dear Premier Campbell:

I am writing on behalf of the BC Ready-Mixed Concrete Association (BCRMCA) and its 132 members across the province.  The concrete industry has 120 plants in BC, employs over 9,300 skilled workers and managers and generates an annual economic impact over $1.4 billion.  You may be interested to know that almost every BC community with a population of 5,000 or more has at least one ready-mixed concrete facility. 

We want to share our concerns regarding the Government of BC's “Wood First” policy as it relates to government funded building projects.  We have five compelling reasons why we recommend that the Government consider an alternative “BC First” policy to recognize the local availability of many excellent made-in-BC products, including both wood and concrete:  Marketplace Balance, the Value of Competition, Macroeconomic Considerations, Environmental Considerations, and Variable Cost Risks.

Forestry Industry Support

Given the distribution of our members across the province, we are well aware of the challenges facing the forestry industry and understand the BC Government's desire to provide support.

In fact, most of BC's forestry, pulp and paper companies, saw mills, truck loggers, etc. are customers of the concrete industry and their good financial health is as important to the BCRMCA as any other business association in the province.

As a result, we support many of the initiatives within the BC Government's “Wood First” policy, such as increasing exports to Asia, especially China, and deploying more advanced wood design and silviculture technologies.

Wood First and Public Buildings

However, the BCRMCA believes that one element of the “Wood First” policy interferes with the building product marketplace and simply “robs Peter to pay Paul”.  The requirement that all BC public buildings use wood as a preferred or primary building material will disrupt the construction industry, skew conventional practices, rebalance supplier relationships in favour of one sector and could have unintended consequences and thus may not create the desired results.

Marketplace Balance

The conventional balance between the use of wood, concrete, steel and other materials in the BC construction industry is the cumulative result of thousands of decisions made every day by architects, designers, builders, contractors, trades people, suppliers, bankers, accountants, lawyers, insurers, and inspectors and, ultimately, their customers. 


Best Product for the Job

Currently, the marketplace operates on the basis of the “best product for the job” and the construction industry is free to make its material choices based on need, availability, specifications, cost, ease of use, durability, environmental foot print, etc.

The BC construction marketplace operates relatively free of government interference with building codes based on science and engineering, investment and pricing based on economics, demand and supply balanced by competition, all surrounded by relatively fair taxation and regulation.

As a result, the BC construction marketplace is very efficient and effectively serves the needs of the province's home owners, small businesses, industries and governments.

The Value of Competition

Giving one product “the inside track” removes competition and the market balance generated by supply and demand.   A “Wood First” policy will take away the discipline of the marketplace and bind the hands of public decision makers in the future by making them captive of one supply line.

Variable Cost Risks

In addition, compared to wood and steel, concrete has a relatively stable price history.   Concrete is not exportable and made in the community where it is used, so its price is determined by local supply and demand only.  Wood and steel are exportable and subject to the vagaries of global markets.  Wood prices are now low, but only a few years ago were at record levels.  When wood prices peak again, a “Wood First” policy could force public funds to be spent on the most expensive building material available – not the most economical – shrinking the size of schools, hospitals, colleges and community centres.

In this case, mandating a single source of supply may have unintended consequences as market forces and opportunities change.

6 Storey Wood Frame Buildings

In fact, consistent with this free market approach, the BCRMCA accepts the BC Government's change in the building code to allow 6 storey wood frame structures.   Although this “opens the door” to a competing product in an area that had been exclusive to concrete and steel, this step is in effect a deregulation that will maintain the construction industry's freedom of choice and still allow its players to choose the “best product for the job”.

The 6 floor policy creates freedom in the marketplace.   The “Wood First” for public buildings takes away market freedom.  The BCRMCA asks for what benefit?  And at what cost?

Macroeconomic Considerations


The BCRMCA questions, from a macroeconomic perspective, if the “Wood First” policy will generate the province-wide economic impact that is assumed.  If a forestry industry's monopoly on public building projects would create more jobs than the concrete industry loses, and that building will cost more, it would appear that the forestry sector is a more inefficient operator and supplier.   And this government policy would in effect be penalizing a competitive industry to subsidy a non-competitive one.

Have any studies been done by the government on the macroeconomic impact of this policy?  Its impact on competitiveness?

Environmental Considerations

In addition, we are aware that some of the rationale for the “Wood First” policy is based on perceptions that wood is a much cleaner and “greener” building material than concrete.

This is not the case.  In fact, concrete is a perishable product usually made much closer to its point of use than lumber.  It is made entirely from local BC raw materials (sand, gravel and water).  Only concrete's glue (cement) is transported outside local communities, but most often from one of BC’s three cement plants.
Concrete building systems such as insulating concrete forms and tilt-up concrete incorporate insulation, high thermal mass and low air infiltration to create energy efficient wall systems that save energy over the life of a building. The result is significantly lower CO₂ emissions related to building occupancy when compared to wood and steel frame construction.


Finally, any comparison of energy use and GHG emissions between wood and concrete must take into account the longevity of the building materials.   Wood frame structures are considered to have a useful life of 50 years, whereas concrete buildings over 100.

BC First Policy

So for these marketplace, economic and environmental reasons, we recommend that the BC Government modify its “Wood First” policy to a “BC First” policy or “local products first” policy.

Such a policy would increase or maintain local economic development through the public sector's use of the best local product available for the job.  In some cases this will be wood, in some concrete and, in most cases - a mix of both like the conventional approach is now.

A BC Wood and Concrete Partnership

You have often mentioned the Vancouver Convention Centre and Richmond Speed Skating Oval in your speeches about “wood”.   Without a doubt, they are wonderful architectural examples of the beautiful and successful buildings that the public wants its government's to build.

And the concrete industry agrees.  Each of those buildings has won construction industry awards. In fact, the Oval just took top honours in the concrete industry’s awards.  Their foundations are concrete.  Their vertical supports are concrete and the floors are concrete.  One has a steel roof, the other wood.   And both are finished beautifully with wood throughout.  They are worthy award winners.  And every British Columbian, including those in the concrete industry, will be immensely proud when the world sees them during the Olympics.

Could there have been more wood used in these buildings?  Possibly, but at what cost?   And for what benefit?  Would they be “better” if they had more wood in them?

These buildings symbolize the conventional partnership that exists between wood, concrete, steel and glass.  They showcase a partnership that works well for BC.  A partnership that takes the best of all our local skills, expertise and products and melds them together to express our West Coast architectural vision – inspirational, stylish, green, economical and useful.  These buildings are truly unique made-in-BC solutions from bottom to top.  Flowing from a partnership that works well and we change at our peril.

We look forward to an opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to share our concerns, discuss your goals and seek common ground.

Sincerely,




Bruce Willmer
President, BCRMCA

cc:          Blair Lekstrom, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
Colin Hansen, Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier
Pat Bell, Minister of Forests and Range
Iain Black, Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development
Barry Penner, Minister of the Environment