Thus far, Canadians have shown little appetite, whether at federal, provincial or municipal levels, to mandate costlier higher fire-resistance standards in home building and other construction
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
The recent devastating and immense wildfires in Southern California that destroyed tens of thousands of structures inspire much sympathy and sadness among observers. Soon, thoughts will turn to rebuilding the burned-out homes, businesses and public buildings. This brings up a pertinent question: will the new buildings be as vulnerable to wildfires as the old ones?
As in the similarly extensive blazes in Jasper, Slave Lake, and Fort McMurray in Alberta, and Lytton and West Kelowna in British Columbia, the conventional building materials have included lumber, plywood, oriented strand board, window frames and various plastics, all of which are flammable. Canada has billions of trees and a significant forestry industry, so naturally, wood products have served as building materials for centuries. Yet they have proved over and over to be deficient when it comes to fire resistance. It does not have to be this way –builders have alternatives.
Fire-resistant structural wooden beams and posts are available. Builders of so-called ‘mass timber’ (glued-laminated timber, cross-laminated timber and structural composite lumber, as the Canada Wood Council describes them) high-rise buildings are employing them, including in Canada, but they are not in widespread use.
Cost is likely a key consideration. On a building materials website, a standard four-foot-by-eight-foot panel of fire-resistant plywood was fifty-one percent more expensive than untreated spruce-pine-fir plywood. However, materials are just one factor in home construction costs.
A report from Headwaters Economics in 2022 determined, in summary, “In northern and southern California, building an Enhanced wildfire-resistant home increased construction costs by approximately CAD$4,032 over the baseline home. Constructing a home to optimum wildfire resistance increased overall costs by $26,208 in northern California and $39,024 in southern California” (figures converted from US dollars).
The materials used were standard non-combustible options, including cement, fibreglass, or metals. So far, these proposed materials and design changes are not mandatory in California, a wildfire-prone state.
Homeowners who decide to rebuild may not have much choice in the future, though, if they want to protect against fire hazards. Insurance companies are withdrawing coverage because the California Department of Insurance is not allowing the firms to price in full the increased fire risk in the premiums they charge.
Australia implemented stricter building codes for new homes after disastrous wildfires in 2022 destroyed many homes and farms, and millions of animals. State and territorial building ministers in 2024 agreed to higher climate resilience standards in new construction. The Australian Property Network declared that the new requirements should lower bushfire risks and mandate noncombustible materials. They also noted that lower insurance premiums could compensate substantially for higher construction costs.
Thus far, Canadians have shown little appetite, whether at federal, provincial or municipal levels, to mandate costlier higher fire-resistance standards in home building and other construction. The moral hazard of taxpayers potentially paying to rebuild destitute inferno victims’ homes is also an issue that cannot be overlooked – and is reason enough to proceed to tighten fire codes to lower the risk. Understandably, housing affordability is a pressing concern, and construction cost increases would exacerbate the problem.
However, the risk of total loss and fatalities from highly flammable structures vulnerable to wildfires cannot be ignored, and insurance premium increases already reflect this real problem.
Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
