Human Resources Committee on Oct. 24th, 2024

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I've run out of time already. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You went a bit over. I'm generous today.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Smith, first of all, thank you for being with us. It's interesting to see that there is a centre for building studies and that it's a non-profit organization.

On your website, you say that our apartment buildings—you are talking about the United States and Canada, I imagine—are inefficient when it comes to cost, energy and layout.

Can you tell us more about this finding? What are the potential solutions?

[Stephen Smith]

How do I expand on this? What I've said is to look more toward other countries outside of North America. The United States, which is traditionally what Canadian codes have looked to, has not historically been that concerned about energy efficiency. There are far better models in other places. In fact, there are many features of the buildings that are not even specifically about energy efficiency but raise the amount of space that needs to be heated and cooled or reduce the efficiency of the building envelope.

Once you reach a certain level of efficiency, you need to do things that increase the costs, but if you're starting from a fairly inefficient baseline—a building that has two stairways where only one is necessary or a building that has an older type of elevator where a new one is possible—you can find things that are both cost saving and energy reducing, and these things are not in tension. If you're starting from a low baseline, as the United States certainly is and I believe Canada is as well, you can find things that meet both objectives. I'm sorry to repeat the same thing over and over, but I think it's really important to look outside of these two countries to find these models.

Hopefully I answered your question. I apologize if I repeated myself or if it was a little too general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Berube. How can the federal government modernize or even keep current with the emerging technologies and assist in getting affordable, accessible, climate-resilient housing built?

[Andy Berube]

How can you help? As far as the requirements to be more sustainable are concerned, I can't remember the question that came up, but the more you drive the requirements of things that are not critical, the more it drives up the cost of construction. Even the term “affordable housing” has nothing to do with somebody finding a secret spot to buy a cheaper piece of two-by-four.

Driving the numbers up just by wanting to be more sustainable...we need to be. Private industry is bringing in technology to improve the current state, but if you get to the point that everything is so restricted and driven toward improving.... You can always improve, but is the cost associated with that improvement necessary? Is it broken? If it's not, you really have to question why you're adding costs to it.

I hope I answered your question.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Does your technology and your solution assist with getting accessible, climate-resilient and affordable...? Does your solution help in some of that antiquated thinking and some of those antiquated...?

[Andy Berube]

As far as accessible, that's a design thing. As a construction industry or modular off-site industry, making something accessible is just a matter of design. Everybody can do that. That's just following code to whatever the requirements are for accessibility.

For the sustainability part, at our factory, for sure, it's how we reduce the cost and reduce the waste.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm interested in the waste.

How does it reduce waste? What are your experiences on waste reduction?

[Andy Berube]

For example, what we're looking at within our specific factory is the time it takes us to do one beam today, which is eight hours. What we're looking to improve is creating the same steel beam in 30 minutes.

The reduction of time and what we have to do with welding or securing that piece is the difference. We're going from eight hours to 30 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

We'll conclude with Mrs. Falk and Mr. Van Bynen. It will take us a little over, but we have an hour for committee business.

Mrs. Falk, go ahead for five minutes.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to both the witnesses for being here today.

During this study, we have heard that most building code changes drive up the price of homebuilding and that those added costs can make it difficult for home builders to innovate or to consider using new technologies.

Mr. Smith, I'll start with you.

You had mentioned that the government could harmonize standards within code. I'm just wondering if you have any other suggestions for what the government could do to ensure that affordability and cost-effectiveness are factored into building codes.

Is there anything else, other than harmonization?

[Stephen Smith]

I think something that I would like to see more of in the U.S. and Canada is research by the government into the costs and benefits of various changes. I've found that the level of study that goes into some changes—having done some of it myself—really leaves a lot to be desired. I can't speak so specifically to the Canadian context. However, in the U.S. context, the way that these codes are written, it's often a bunch of unpaid volunteers in a room puzzling things out together.

If you're trying to evaluate the costs and the benefits, it doesn't do a great job of doing that in a very precise way. If you don't understand the costs and you don't understand the benefits, it's hard to balance them very well.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Excuse me. When you say “volunteers”, what types of backgrounds do these people have? Are they experienced in that field, or are they academics?

[Stephen Smith]

They're certainly experienced in the field. Not very many are academics. I think bringing in academics to the conversation would be a lot better.

They're experienced in the field. Some of them have vested interests. They might work for a material manufacturer. Others work for the fire service or they're a building official—something like that. A bunch of people in a room talking, like we are, does not get you to a high level of precision. At some point you need to devote resources to it and understand exactly what you're dealing with: What are the costs? What are the benefits?

I find that's often lacking in the United States. I would imagine that's in Canada as well, but I don't know it specifically enough to say.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Berube, thank you for being here.

I just have a question around government input costs. We heard at our last meeting that these input costs, like the carbon tax, have impacted the feasibility of some construction projects that would be considered or may not be considered, given the carbon tax.

Would you agree with that?

[Andy Berube]

Yes, I think any change that's going to drive the numbers up just fundamentally makes a difference in construction. Whether it's a sustainable change, like wanting to go passive, title 24, triple net, whatever the policy, if it creates a scenario..... We can build it. It's not a question of whether the construction industry can build it. The construction industry can build it, but it's just driving the numbers up.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Is it fair to say that any increase in taxes would affect the feasibility?

[Andy Berube]

Of course. Absolutely.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madame Chabot asked about the materials you use. You're using steel. Has the carbon tax affected your ability to get the recycled steel? We know there's less being manufactured. It's very expensive, given this carbon tax that's been imposed on industry.

Is that affecting your ability to get things built or your ability to get product? From what I understand, you're using recycled steel. Is that correct?

[Andy Berube]

It depends on what we're building. It really does. Again, it just comes down to this: If there are regulations being imposed, it typically will drive numbers up, so you really have to look at—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Since the carbon tax was implemented—and was forced in some provinces—in this country, have you noticed a difference in...?

[Andy Berube]

I can't speak to that specifically for our facility. If it relates to the steel carbon tax, if we're not building in a particular province, yes, it will.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I know in talking to the steel manufacturers in Saskatchewan at the Evraz plant, they have a huge issue with this. They see the carbon tax as a detriment to their livelihoods and to their ability to produce steel. I would just make the assumption that it would affect anybody who needs that product. Is that right?