Natural Resources Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Thomas Mueller]

Typically in British Columbia you can build up to six storeys now with the new building code in wood-frame construction. If the wood-frame construction is properly executed and well done, in buildings that are properly maintained they can last for a very long time. They can last for hundreds of years.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay. What is the federal government's involvement in the LEED program? And what do you think it ought to be?

[Thomas Mueller]

As I said, Public Works and Government Services Canada builds buildings of a certain size to a LEED gold standard. You have a community of several projects now that have been certified, and several are under development. We've been working with the Office of Energy Efficiency over a number of years now on joint initiatives to promote energy efficiency in buildings across Canada through the LEED program and other means as well. Most recently, we're looking at building labelling as an opportunity to increase energy efficiency in buildings.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

When you're retrofitting an existing building as opposed to building a new building, and having these green buildings to LEED standards, for example, used in it, how much more of a challenge is that?

[Thomas Mueller]

It is a bigger challenge. Often it's not as obvious. The Canada Green Building Council is launching a rating system for existing buildings by May, nationwide.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me ask, should there be some kind of incentive to make it happen more—

[Thomas Mueller]

Incentives would be welcome. For example, if a building owner retrofits a building quite significantly, at the end of the day, they have to pay the capital improvement tax. If there could be a break, for example, in the tax system for many developers, that would be quite welcome to them, in terms of their getting a break on green development for something they bear the costs of, but of which the beneficiaries are really the occupants and Canadians, through a better quality of life.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think I have a few more minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, you still have three minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

I'll turn to the FCM, and Mr. Horan-Lunney and Mr. Cowan.

As an organizer of the QUEST program, what's your view on the role the Government of Canada should take? And what are the two or three major challenges in this program, and generally speaking in relation to community-based energy systems?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Horan-Lunney, go ahead.

[Eamonn Horan-Lunney]

The role for the federal government right now is to encourage these programs. We have to get the knowledge out there; we have to make sure that people are aware of what's out there. We have to make sure that programs are available.

The GMF is an example of a program that the federal government supports, but the demand coming from across Canada for this program's limited resources is astronomical. Now we're not the only program out there that does support these types of programs through funding, but it just shows that when you put out a call for tender for projects, so many will come in.

Support the technology through the various funds that we mentioned, the Building Canada fund, or through the P3s or through the economic stimulus plan. There are a number of things going on right now such that, with gentle direction from the federal government, these new technologies could be encouraged and promoted, thereby creating a local market for them and helping these local little industries flourish—especially now when we're doing so much infrastructure retrofitting, or even new construction. By creating these local markets, it will just make these companies that much more sustainable and able to export their Canadian knowledge and technology across the world.

But it really comes down to having the will to make this happen, whether it be the federal government choosing to use these principles in its own future construction or retrofitting, or by it creating programs or policies to help consumers and Canadians in general to do it by their own personal choice.

You guys have incredible influence to make this happen, just by showing leadership, creating local demand, as well as by tax policies that encourage other people to do it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

We're seeing a lot of emphasis from the Government of Canada on carbon capture and sequestration as a key element of its plan for dealing with carbon and climate change.

I guess my question is about how much emphasis they have there versus the emphasis on renewables, like wind and solar, and green buildings, and community-based projects, as you've been talking about. Would you like to see a better balance there? What's your view on that? How should that change? What should the Government of Canada be doing, when you consider how much they're putting into CCS?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Mueller, go ahead.

[Thomas Mueller]

The best way to characterize this until now I think is that there's been too much emphasis on the supply side of the equation. It certainly plays its role in reducing carbon emissions, but there are also many demand-side solutions, as we call them, like energy efficiency and others, that can provide equal if not greater benefits and create more jobs than some of the other solutions. These just haven't received the attention they deserve. They represent a tremendous opportunity to reduce carbon and a host of other environmental impacts.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Your presentation notes that buildings account for about 40%, I think, of the greenhouse gases.

[Thomas Mueller]

NRCan says it's about 30%, and the Pembina Institute about 35%. If you include the embodied energy in building materials, like steel, concrete, or anything that uses fossil fuels, you get up to about 48%. That's the current estimate, so it's very high.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Regan. Your time is up.

We go now to the Bloc Québécois.

Madame Brunelle, for up to seven minutes.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen. It is a pleasure to meet with you here, in Ottawa, especially since the weather is a bit better today.

Mr. Mueller, I will start with you. I am very interested in what you said about the use of wood. The forest industry is in a deep crisis, worse than ever. My party proposed a solution during the Summit on the future of the forest industry that was held in Quebec two years ago. It was to request that government buildings be built with wood in order to increase the uses of this material. It would be a way to use that resource.

What do you think of using wood for buildings? How durable would it be? You mentioned it a while ago. What are the benefits of wood from the point of view of energy and of resource conservation?

[Thomas Mueller]

I think wood is an excellent building material. It has high durability, and if the buildings are properly maintained, I think it has a very long life.

When you look at the building code, you see that buildings—except for houses, which in Canada are all wood-framed as you know—are typically an assembly of different materials, from wood, to concrete, to steel. Designers typically try to make the best use of the materials that are available to them for a particular building.

Of course, they do have a choice, and I do see that in some public projects, where the building code allows, there could be a higher use of wood. So, for example, in Vancouver and Whistler, with the Olympic Games, you do actually see structural applications of wood. There's a greater tendency to showcase that province's resource as a wood-producing province. I think there's definitely an opportunity to use more wood in green buildings, with the added benefit that wood does sequester carbon. I think this effect is a definite benefit, whereas some other building materials have a higher durability, like concrete and steel, and of course there are carbon emissions. Then to balance it out, concrete buildings can definitely last longer than wood buildings.

It's just to say that, yes, wood could experience a wider use. I think it's not as widely used right now as it could be, particularly in the kind of institutional, commercial-type buildings, like arenas, recreation centres, or those types of buildings where it would be quite appropriate to use it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cowan, you'd like to add to that.

[Andrew Cowan, Senior Manager, Knowledge Management Unit, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

I'd just like to add to that in terms of remote communities and some of the challenges faced with resource exports right now around the forestry industry. There are other value-added uses of lumber in these communities that could relate to integrated energy systems. For example, wood waste can be used as a fuel source to generate heat and power. There are other options in terms of waste heat and co-locating various industries close to an old paper plant, for example, that's shut down. Especially with the pine beetle infestation, there's a need to do something with this lumber. There are examples out there of communities, such as Prince George and others in Quebec, that are taking advantage of this waste wood or the lumber that's just sitting there.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Are you referring to the use of biomass or something else?

[Andrew Cowan]

Biomass would be the technical term for waste lumber or waste from processing of lumber, yes.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Very well.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Mueller, you said that integrated systems are possible but that we have to measure their environmental benefits. However, you did refer to the Dockside Green project where units are already being sold. The project seems to be well advanced.

Have all the benefits being estimated?