Evidence of meeting #39 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vehicles.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Margaret Kenny  Director General , Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Shirley Jen  Senior Director, Real Property and Materiel Policy Division, Government Operations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Anne Auger  Director, Buildings Division, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
Berny Latreille  Director, Environmental Affairs, Department of the Environment
Elizabeth Hopkins  Director, Policy Development, Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

So if we were shipping paper from Brazil, wouldn't we factor that into our procurement process in terms of the carbon costs of the transportation?

4:55 p.m.

Director, Policy Development, Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Elizabeth Hopkins

I think it would be factored in, in terms of the cost of the product. So when the bids come in, you would find that because there would be a significant transportation cost, the bidder—

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

But I'm distinguishing between the cost of shipping and the carbon cost of transporting products over long distances. Is that taken into account in our procurement program?

4:55 p.m.

Director, Policy Development, Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Elizabeth Hopkins

No, it isn't.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Is that something that could be looked at as a factor? It seems to me that going long distances to transport products certainly does use carbon and is something we ought to be looking at.

4:55 p.m.

Director, Policy Development, Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Kramp, then Mr. Simard, two very short questions.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

I'd like to discuss with you a possible unintended consequence of the LEED program.

There have been a number of complaints that I and others have received. My understanding with the LEED program is that you have to be a certified contractor in order to be able to implement the LEED program. So obviously, to start with, there were no certified contractors; they had to learn to become certified. But it's also my understanding that this is relegated to just a very small...only your SNC-Lavalins, your ACONs, etc. In essence, this has excluded all of the other contractors in the country from building on a LEED program. Whether or not they can be certified or bonded for $25 million or $30 million, $40 million, $50 million doesn't matter. They need not apply.

Now, this is a problem if that is the application of LEED, and I'm hearing that directly from constituents and contractors and engineers and developers and builders. So if that is a problem, I would certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and perhaps see if we can have it resolved. I would certainly hope that all of the independent engineers, contractors who are capable and are able to get bonding, should not be excluded from the possibility of bidding on any of these jobs simply because they don't have that “designation”.

How do they get a designation if they don't have an opportunity to bid on it?

4:55 p.m.

Director General , Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Margaret Kenny

I'm not familiar with that being an issue per se in the construction, to actually certify the building. Obviously there was a need for people to have a certain accreditation to be able to do that, and certainly my understanding is that this has grown exponentially. But we're happy to pursue that issue with you further.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Mr. Simard.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We discussed earlier the fact that Manitoba has probably some of the lowest energy costs in Canada, and I would assume that Quebec would probably be close as well, with the hydro-electric potential there. Given that people can operate anywhere in this new world, is there any consideration given to maybe moving some of our federal public service to low-cost provinces? This is an unbiased remark, by the way. It would seem to me an interesting solution. Have you considered that at all?

Seriously, we should consider that. If provinces such as Manitoba, and Quebec as well, are really working not only on their costs but are very upfront or very avant-garde when it comes to their environmental policies, we should maybe consider les récompenser, si vous voulez.

No comment?

4:55 p.m.

Director General , Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Margaret Kenny

I certainly appreciate and applaud their environmental efforts, but I don't think that's a decision they're going to let me make.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Put that in the suggestion box.

Thank you very much for coming. We're not going to end our meeting, because we want to discuss future business, but we want to take a second to say thank you very much, and you can be on your way.

4:55 p.m.

Director General , Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Margaret Kenny

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

We're going to have to go in camera for future business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]