Government Operations Committee on March 1st, 2007

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

And that dollar amount is...?

[Deb Cross]

Well, the smallest one is $750 for a 20,000-square-foot building, and for an over-500,000-square-foot building it would be $2,000.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the guests today. A lot of the questions I had have been answered, but I'm just looking at a document I received when I was in Washington recently for a G-8 plus five conference on energy.

The approach being taken in Europe and in the United States is quite interesting as well, in looking at a sectoral approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and energy use—because of course when you're talking about GHGs and reductions and abatement, you need to look at energy.

There were numerous documents, but one of them that was interesting is on innovation and collaboration at the city level. It was in May of last year in Europe that more than 1,300 cities got together to set targets to retrofit buildings, look at transportation systems, and share and collaborate best practices with companies involved in this kind of process. I thought it was a smart way of going about it, because no one has the one answer for anything, and if they did, we wouldn't be here, I guess.

I would like to hear from both of you about your experience to date, as to whether you have worked outside of Canada, and if you have not, contractually speaking, then tell us some of the techniques you have employed and whether you have had the experience of seeing what's being done in the United States or in Europe, how it has helped you, and what things you have learned.

[Deb Cross]

I think probably my answer will be simpler because ours is a Canadian program. We have only delivered it in Canada, and the premise was based on the Canadian environment.

We have an affiliated or parent organization based in Washington, BOMA International, and there's great interest in the Go Green program, but we haven't actually delivered it in the U.S. or elsewhere.

[Thomas Mueller]

For my part, you can probably hear from my accent that I actually grew up in Germany, and I've spent quite a bit of time in both Europe and the United States.

There is the U.S. Green Building Council organization. We do quite a bit of work with them around LEED development and policy development and so on involving green buildings. Things in the United States with regard to green buildings are really accelerating at a rapid pace, both federally now, with the change in the Congress, in the Senate, but also—and this refers back to what you said about cities—there are I don't know how many cities that have signed on now to a climate change agenda in the States, and they are supported by the Clinton Foundation global initiative around climate change. There are 42 cities worldwide now that have signed on to it.

There is a lot of cooperation going on among cities. I haven't seen a similar collaboration in Canada. I know that FCM has Partners for Climate Protection, but it hasn't been as visible. We actually have it in our business plan this year that we want to get the 13 largest cities in Canada together around the issues of green buildings and climate change and around what you are referring to: information sharing and green buildings.

It extends not just to the kind of building but to where we also think about buildings in the community context. Really, what we need is to build cities that are more compact, of higher density, and that also have buildings that perform at a much higher level than they perform right now.

This is really in a nutshell our agenda. We want to start with the 13 largest cities—Toronto and Montreal and so on. Many of them already either have policies in place or are in the process of putting policies in place with regard to green buildings. Often they also commit to LEED.

So in terms of the States, I think we're lagging a little bit behind in this area, but then we are ahead in other areas. There's a lot of capacity, a lot of knowledge and innovation here in Canada when it comes to green buildings and sustainable community development, which we can really draw on. There's a real, I would say, economic cluster forming in Canada with that expertise.

As for the performance of buildings—and I haven't spent as much time in Europe as some other members of our council—we are part of the World Green Building Council as well. It is an international body that brings together councils from across the world. There are currently nine—actually ten members as of this week, including, just this week, the U.K. Green Building Council, which has joined. We have India, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, the United Emirates, Japan—these are some of the countries that have green building councils and green building rating systems, not necessarily LEED, but their own homemade green building rating systems—and we have Europe as well.

I can tell you that in the European context, what I saw the last time I was over there, last year, is that in terms of energy they are considerably ahead of North America. I have seen different houses. One house is called the passive house, of which they have now built about 6,000 in Austria and Germany. They use only 25% of the energy of our top-rated energy house in Canada. This is a commercialized technology. It is low technology that uses wood frame construction. These kinds of technologies are out there, and it is quite fascinating to see.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

There's a recent development. An architect in Winnipeg is behind the very well-known Mountain Equipment Co-op building here in Ottawa, and there's one in Winnipeg too. Now he's built an energy-neutral building and claims that it's going to generate energy. That's how far ahead people are going.

I have a question about propriety. If you're working with government, and they don't own the building, does that make it more complicated in terms of getting involved?

Perhaps I could hear from you, Ms. Cross. How does this work? Obviously you've been involved in that kind of situation. With whom do you deal, and how do you assess things? The lines of authority in the flow chart—

[Deb Cross]

Sure.

First and foremost, it should be clear that the building is certified, not the management company. Although the question might be that the management company is very involved in the measurement or the success of a building, that's the other value of the after-three-year recertification. If there's a change in ownership and management, then there's a requirement for that.

In the case of the government, obviously the buildings that we undertake in the first part of the program are buildings that are owned and managed by the Crown. As I indicated earlier, the process of completing the application and participating in the program requires the on-site personnel to complete the forms, do the measures, and so on. So it's sort of a collaborative process.

We have buildings that are owned by one organization and managed by another. If one of those decides to become Go Green certified, they're the one that will pay and apply. But it's ultimately the building management that will complete the information.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's helpful. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I wanted to throw in one thing. Have you seen any municipalities or jurisdictions that have imposed the kinds of building codes that would ensure this occurs in a certain area—say, a city planning department or anything of that nature? My sense is that if you have a city, they want the building, so they're not likely to turn down anybody who wants to build a new building. But perhaps they should start thinking of how they impose or push people into being more energy conscious, and so on.

I'm wondering whether you've run into that anywhere in Europe where—

[Thomas Mueller]

There's only one in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Where?

[Thomas Mueller]

It's the city of Vancouver.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

And it has...?

[Thomas Mueller]

Because of the Vancouver charter, they can adopt things in the building code that other municipalities can't. They are actually in the process of greening their code. Originally they wanted to make LEED mandatory, and we advised them against it because LEED is not a code. It's a rating system, not a regulation.

But what they are doing now is being very supportive of LEED, also for the private sector, and they're starting to bring the code in line with the LEED requirements in terms of water, energy, and so on. So at least it meets the baselines in the LEED rating system a bit better. So far, I understand this is the only jurisdiction in Canada to have undertaken this.

I note that the Province of Ontario has a new building code that's very forward looking in terms of energy. It's the first time that I've seen “environment” actually mentioned in a building code.

These are the only ones I'm aware of that have taken those steps. I think the B.C. premier said they would bring a green code in by 2010.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'll say it on the record: I prefer not to have a carbon tax; I'd prefer to let senior citizens have a decent price for energy.

But I want to talk a bit. I'm a little more familiar with Alberta's Built Green program for residential buildings. But I can see that there are a number of similarities with the LEED program.

From your understanding, is there a similar type of criteria in terms of getting a certain number of points for different things that a contractor puts into the particular construction of a complex?

[Thomas Mueller]

They have a similar structure in terms of the five areas you addressed. I would say that Built Green Alberta is structured a little bit differently and may be a more appropriate structure for the industry targets, which are homebuilders who have maybe less tolerance in terms of the cost because most of them are fairly small and they're very closely linked to the market. Built Green Alberta has a mandatory component around energy, and then they have a very long checklist, where builders have 300 or so options they can choose from. It's a long list of, let's say, using water efficient appliances or something like that, which they can choose from.

It's very prescriptive, and builders have a lot of choice in what they want to pursue, whereas LEED is more performance-based. LEED is more rigorous in terms of how it rates the system, but it really depends on the sector. Systems have to be appropriate to the building sector they're targeting.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Explain the difference to me. From what I understand about the Built Green Alberta program, contractors can get a certain number of points for every type of option they include, if they have renewable siding or siding that's going to last a lot longer, so they are not filling landfills, or if they have water- or energy-efficient appliances or better insulation, insulated block basements and those types of things. Once the project is done, you would then rate the building to see if it's energy efficient or not and if it's a pass or fail scenario.

[Thomas Mueller]

I'll explain the difference. In Built Green Alberta, the only thing that's verified is the energy performance of the building. It is linked to the EnerGuide 80 energy standard. That's a Canadian-made standard. That's the only one that's verified with what's called the blower door test; they test it on-site.

For all the other credits, builders just have to check them off and say they have done them. With LEED, it's different. With LEED, when you do a building--right now it applies to different, larger-scale buildings--they have to do an energy model, and for every point they want to get acknowledged, they have to submit documentation that this point has been achieved. There is a difference in the level of terms of verification.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

In terms of a larger building, there would be room in the budget for that type of scrutiny.

[Thomas Mueller]

Yes, for homebuilders who build five homes per year, you have to adjust it to the level they can afford and would be willing to do.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Right.

I've watched it, and it seems as if the market is going to respond favourably to the Built Green Alberta homes. Have you noticed a market reaction to the buildings that have certification in terms of the commercial buildings you're involved in?

[Thomas Mueller]

Yes, there is. We see that. Last September, we had a meeting with the largest commercial spec developers in Canada, Giffels, and the pension funds as well, such as Great-West Life Assurance. They have a lot of interest in having their office buildings LEED certified. There is a building in Toronto, the SAS building, that was partly owner-occupied and partly leased. Because it was LEED certified--and that was from them, not from us--it has rented faster and at a higher rate than similar buildings in that area.

This building has been the catalyst for the three largest office developments in Toronto now, the RBC tower, the Telus tower, and the Bay Adelaide Centre. They are private sector developments and they are all seeking LEED certification of LEED silver or better. This is about one million square feet of commercial spec development that is totally private sector, so they are starting to see the market opportunity. For them it's not so much the payback; for them it's return on investments, whether it can be leased faster, for higher rent, and whether the value of the building can be maintained.

Pension funds are looking for that. They want to make sure the buildings they invest in will not be obsolete in 10 or 15 years in terms of their performance.