Government Operations Committee on March 5th, 2013

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Just before we go to the other witnesses, if they want to speak to this, I just want to pick up on your earlier point about the difficulty of retrofitting and the costs that go along with that. You specifically mentioned that there has to be a payback so that it makes good financial sense because, ultimately, it is shareholders' or business owners' money and equity at stake. I think that's something we always need to keep in perspective, because when we're retrofitting our own buildings we should think like a taxpayer.

I agree with that and I would ask the other witnesses to comment on it.

[Benjamin Shinewald]

I don't have anything to add to Mr. Eickmeier's comments. Our organization in general focuses on existing construction or existing buildings, so there is value for sure in designing buildings that are newly built to cutting edge standards. But I always say that it's a little bit like buying an energy efficient car but driving with a heavy foot. At the end of the day, you have to operate that building in a manner that's going to leverage and recoup the savings that have been designed there. That's why we think that the challenge can be addressed through the operations and management side, as much as through anything else.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Okay.

[Wayne Rogers]

If I could add to that, one of the points regarding building codes is that they are really safety codes. The energy efficiency standards are separate from that. One needs to think about how low one can go and what lighting values are acceptable, by reviewing the standards and establishing those on an area-by-area basis, and then identifying what energy consumption one would expect to have for both electrical and mechanical systems. Those are standards that are established quite independently of the building codes used for the guidelines for a building.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'll just interrupt you there, because in British Columbia there has been a fair bit of change. I used to be on development services side, being the co-chair of a committee there when I was a councillor. What I heard time and time again was that building codes were becoming greener. You mentioned that 25% of energy is in the lighting—well, the majority is in the heating and the different systems. So I would just challenge the point that building codes do not, frankly, have a big issue when it comes to energy consumption.

That being said, Mr. Chair, is my time almost up?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We're being a little generous because it ran a bit over the last time. If you had one more quick question, Dan, I'll—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

In that case, Mr. Chair, I'm not going to be able to phrase it quickly enough. I'll just wait for the next round.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We appreciate that, Dan. Thank you.

We'll move along then, for the NDP, Mr. Mathieu Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thanks to the witnesses for being here. It's a pleasure to hear from you. You've made very interesting contributions.

You may be aware that in the context of the free trade agreement with Europe that Canada is presently negotiating, access to the market for public infrastructure projects will be opening up—more than likely, at all levels of government.

I guess what I would like to have is your opinion of the competitiveness of Canadian industry in green projects, and what your feelings are about it potentially having to compete with international firms that may have access to the public sector now.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Is your question directed to anyone in particular?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

No, it's general discussion for anyone who would like to pick it up.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Would anyone like to go?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Love, would you like to begin on that?

[Peter Love]

Starting from my experience in the residential sector—albeit I know you're mainly focusing on federal buildings—Canada has among the world's leading building scientists. The R-2000 program developed here in Canada was, and still is, among the best in the world in terms of a voluntary program.

Coming back to the comment on codes, they tend to get picked up by the provinces. It's more at the provincial level. So in the province of Ontario, they did pick up...and have actually used the R-2000 standard as this definition of a code-built house now in 2012, as has Nova Scotia and some parts of B.C. The two go together, very much hand in hand.

Canada had the U.S. Green Building Council meeting and trade show last year in Toronto for the first time, with about 20,000 people attending. Canada really put on an extremely good show. There is very good Canadian technology, and we do not have to take second seat to anyone, I don't think.

I just want to make another comment, if I can, coming back to a point that Wayne made about lighting. Lighting is very cost-effective. The paybacks are very short. If you're just doing a lighting project, it could be done quite cost-effectively internally.

But lighting is only one part. As I think you mentioned, the bigger part of the energy equation—and it is more difficult—is the mechanical systems, the envelope, the shell, the other pieces of it. So what we'd look to do is more of a complete energy performance contract of the whole system, where we would be looking at major energy savings in both electricity and fuel for the entire building, and that typically requires—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for that. That's a little bit of an aside to my question. I don't know if there's anybody else who would like to comment.

[John Smiciklas]

This comes from some experience I've had working with Canada's largest architectural firm. They operate on a global basis. Having audited their projects on a global basis, I would point out that in the United Kingdom, the government there is mandating for new construction a certain level of building certification and a certain level of energy performance.

In terms of Canada's industry itself, again, I agree it's completely world class. But in Europe, what you tend to have is a government mandating a certain level of minimum performance that generates an industry.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

And this, in your opinion, is a good thing? A model to be....

[John Smiciklas]

Again, I don't know the cost benefits, etc. I'm just saying that's the current situation. I'll leave it up to the committee to decide the benefits of that.

[Ryan Eickmeier]

One of the good things about the commercial real estate industry is that over the past five years we have survived remarkably well in the global recession, outperforming many countries, including the U.S. and Europe, and our counterparts in Australia.

It is safe to say that we do lag behind many countries, especially in Europe, in energy efficiency. But the good thing about our rapid recovery is that our capital is being deployed in Europe, in Australia, and in the United States, and with that comes back lessons that they're learning from these designers.

There's what we consider to be a cyclical exchange of information between the leading thinkers across the country and Canadian developers and owners of buildings. So that is being brought back to Canada, and you see new design standards and innovative building techniques as a result. Quite frankly, we think it's great.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Right, thank you.

If I have time for a quick question, it will be for Mr. Rogers.

You mentioned that one thing that's essential with lighting is having an evaluation framework, a monitoring framework, in place. Are you aware of any efforts by the federal government to do so with regard to its own buildings?

[Wayne Rogers]

I'm not familiar with internal projects. I know that the ones that have been offered through [Technical difficulty--Editor] have simply been incentives, not in terms of money but just incentives for ideas to pursue hiring consultants to do an evaluation and then proceed with whatever budget money they happen to have to do projects.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

There doesn't appear to be a coherent strategy in place at the federal level.

[Wayne Rogers]

No, I would certainly say there is nothing that I'm aware of other than contracts issued to consulting engineers to evaluate a facility or a number of facilities.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You're out of time, Mathieu. Thank you very much.

Next, for the Conservatives, we have Ron Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I believe this committee is embarking on a great initiative, looking at finding ways to operate our buildings more efficiently, both economically and environmentally, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We have some leading technology throughout the different modes of construction across the country, whether it's wind, solar, or geothermal. As the second largest country, we're very diverse as far as building regions are concerned.

Mr. Rogers, I was born and raised in Edmonton, so I'm well aware of Edmonton winters. Ms. Duncan comes from there as well.

I guess the early harvest or low-hanging fruit initiatives, you're saying, would simply involve changing the lighting systems. What's your approach from an industry perspective? As an association, do you work with the federal government and make a proposal? Where are you in terms of making the federal government aware of your product and services?