Evidence of meeting #78 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was projects.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
It's not really in order to be doing that while we're questioning witnesses, and it's certainly not debatable in any sense because it's a notice of motion, so you've made your point. I thought you were going to be talking about energy retrofitting of government buildings.
There's still a bit of time left, Mathieu, if you'd like to finish your questions.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Seymour, what irritated you the most when you dealt with the government?
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Eastern Region, Ameresco Canada Inc.
I'm not sure if “irritating” is the word I'd go with.
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Eastern Region, Ameresco Canada Inc.
There's lots to be done, a lot of opportunity. Let's get going; it should be done faster. Again, put the right people in the right place with the right objectives. Give them a clear message. Recognize them and it will happen. I think that's a great message. I think a lot of employees within the federal government would appreciate it and would love to have that kind of opportunity before them.
The projects I was referring to—and there are many others like them, by the way—are great success stories. We probably don't celebrate them enough either, by the way.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Mr. Seymour, that's a positive note to end on.
We're going to go to the Conservatives, to Mr. Dan Albas.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank our witnesses here today for their expertise.
Based on what Mr. Seymour said, one of the challenges that we have to recognize is that when you have an inventory of buildings, some of them are very old. You have programs like the FBI, which has been steadily retrofitting these over a period of time. You'll start to see marginal returns, where it will be more and more difficult to be able to put the same amount of dollars to get the same amount of energy efficiencies, because you've already fixed all the low-hanging fruit. That being said, it's a program that I'm very supportive of and I hope it continues. In fact, I think taxpayers expect us to find reasonable savings where we can.
Mr. Carpenter, you mentioned a wider argument or discussion of energy efficiency. The federal government has a large number of buildings, both leased and owned, throughout this great country. In some cases, some regions rely more on carbon-based fuel or energy production, and some rely more on non-carbon-based energy production. Is that something that should be factored into it? Say you have one building on the west coast utilizing energy derived from hydroelectric generation and you have another building elsewhere in the country utilizing energy from coal-based production, if you have limited resources, is it not wise for us to consider where we can get the best bang for our buck, given limited resources? I'd like your thoughts on that.
12:30 p.m.
President, Enermodal Engineering
It's a very good question. It's a very politically charged question because you're dealing with different regions within the country.
My view is that when we look at issues of energy use and climate change and these sorts of things, they go beyond provincial and national boundaries. If I save electricity, even in a region where that electricity is produced by hydroelectric power, that power doesn't disappear; that power is still being produced. That power can be sent to another region that is using coal fire.
I think the net effect all the way down will be that you will save fossil fuel and carbon emissions from it. I think that's why, as Thomas said, we can probably use an energy-intensity target and not get too hung up about how electricity here is produced differently from somewhere else. If we look at the whole country, there's a net benefit regardless of the region.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Again, regionality should or maybe can play a role, but we should try to use broader targets for making these decisions, to keep the politics or the regionalization out of it. Is that what you're suggesting?
12:30 p.m.
President, Enermodal Engineering
That would be a very good way of saying it, yes.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Going back to your presentation, I was quite intrigued by your Enermodal head office. You mentioned that not only did it achieve the high degree of efficiency, I think it was triple LEED platinum, but also that the total construction costs were $250 per square foot. Is that correct?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
President, Enermodal Engineering
Yes, that's all-in—site development costs, architects' fees; everything.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Bearing in mind that your corporation helps credential these kinds of things, there were obviously some cost savings to that. Would someone looking to open up an office space equivalent to what a federal government office may use find the same cost for that kind of building?
One of the reasons I'm asking is that there are certain efficiencies when you do your own work in-house; you don't need to go outside of your expertise and hire consultants such as yours.
12:30 p.m.
President, Enermodal Engineering
Yes. Truth be told, yes, we did some of the engineering on it, but the engineering fees on the construction of a building are in the order of a few per cent.
12:30 p.m.
President, Enermodal Engineering
It's not significant. It's the construction that's the big cost.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
I'm recognizing that, but there are extra fees that would go into a build if someone else was to attempt this project, correct?
12:30 p.m.
President, Enermodal Engineering
Yes, there would be a little bit extra.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
As to your comments about ongoing maintenance, I certainly agree. What gets measured gets done, and you can't manage without having some sort of measurement. In the case of a federally owned building, are you proposing that someone hired at an extra cost continue to monitor this? Or do you think this is something that can be done with the management of the building through technology?
12:35 p.m.
President, Enermodal Engineering
You are already getting a lot of the data from utility bills. The gas company and the electricity company are already monitoring the building for you. We think there is value in putting additional meters in the building. When you have one electric meter on the building and then all of a sudden you see your electricity use go up, the question becomes, what changed? If you only have one meter, it's very difficult to do that. The good news is that the cost of electric meters is very low, because we produce hundreds of thousands of them. We recommend putting in additional meters. This way, you can sub-meter the chiller, the lights, and so on, so that when there is a change you can see what is happening.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
How would you imagine that working? Even if you have multiple sources, you may have a cell-effect, where someone who is in charge of energy management may not be getting the information out to the people using the energy. For example, in my home, my wife and I pay the bills, but my children don't always get a chance to see those bills. So when we keep clicking the lights off after them, a lot of it has to do with their not knowing about it. We may have the data, but is the data being spread amongst those who use the energy? How do we do that? Do you do it through existing spheres, or are you talking about hiring someone else to do the monitoring?
My second question is—
