Natural Resources Committee on April 29th, 2010

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

A witness was saying earlier that ecoenergy was really a valuable initiative. You seem to be quite convinced. Of course, you need incentives and programs. Even though it is very valuable, is it absolutely necessary for owners to have access to government programs?

[Hans Brouillette]

In Quebec, because of rent control, we can say that an owner's investments in renovations—and I am not talking about energy-saving renovations specifically but renovations in general—will be covered over 30 years in the form of rent increases. That is the only way owners can recoup that money, without grants.

In many cases, the useful life is over after 30 years. Obviously, that is not the case with wall insulation. The fact remains that the return on investment is so far in the future that it is difficult to see how the housing stock can be renovated without programs. Although extremely effective retrofits could be undertaken, they will most likely be disregarded. Owners will opt instead to do the bare minimum with the resources they have. Keep in mind that in Quebec, owners do not have hundreds of units. They are not companies but working or retired people. They have a small number of units and modest financial means.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Guimond. We're out of time.

We'll now go to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank our witnesses, and I apologize for not hearing your testimony, but I have some of your notes. I had to be in the House for something.

Mr. Busey, find the logic in this story for me, if you can.

The government creates a program. People like it. There are 50,000 applications per month at the high point. The government is able to leverage, in tough economic times, $10 for every $1. They put a buck in and ten bucks get put in by individuals. It reduces pollution and it saves Canadians about $330 million in energy bills. The government, in its celebration of such a successful program, cancels it. Any ideas?

[Sheldon E. Busey]

I sure do. It really becomes a numbing factor. I heard the comment about competency. We're losing the confidence of the consumer to the extent that they are beginning to ask the question, “Where do we go from here?”

I'm going to go back a bit, if I may, to 1989-90 in British Columbia. We launched the BC Hydro Power Smart program, which became a national program right across the country, across the nation, and across the world. It eventually was drawn back into the province of British Columbia. Then we had the EnerGuide for Houses program, which was a federal program for renovation and upgrading. Then we went on into the LiveSmart program and then ecoENERGY. It just goes on and on. All of a sudden these start to cease to operate, or seize up, or slow down. They're going to stop it for a while or do an assessment of what's going on in the program, as with the eco-program that we're involved in now.

As the spokesperson across western Canada, by media and through the radio, I'm really here representing the homeowner. To give you an example, they just reinstated the LiveSmart program in British Columbia, with no eco-program reinstatement at this point. In order to participate in the LiveSmart program in British Columbia, you have to go back and have an energy analysis, even if you've had one or two, and this may be the third or fourth energy analysis on the home. The homeowner is saying, “Wait a minute; what's going on? How come so many? It costs me $125 here and $150 there.”

I have homeowners calling me to tell me that they have over $1,000 invested in energy analysis. They ask, “For what? I haven't got that much money back. Nobody is telling me where I'm saving. Eighteen months is not really enough time to say if I'm going to get it back over the next one, two, five, 10, or 15 years.”

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You're speaking to an element of trust and confidence between the individual consumers, the homebuilders, and the government, a government that almost seems to have an attention deficit syndrome when it comes to continuing a program longer than an election cycle.

[Sheldon E. Busey]

Exactly.

In my opening comments I made reference to the renovation tax credit. The renovation tax credit was a real winner. I feel that the only failing of the renovation tax credit was in not putting the emphasis on increasing the efficiency of the home instead of landscaping or putting a new roof on. In the home shows throughout western Canada, I saw an Energy Star-rated asphalt duroid roof. Give me a break.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I don't think you do, but you could have sat on New Democrat benches, because we argued the same thing. We said that if you're going to insert this amount of government into the home building environment, certainly do it for longer-term benefit than a new marble counter top for somebody who was going to spend $5,000 on it anyway and didn't necessarily need the cash, as opposed to the $330 million that we're seeing saved by Canadians every year now, going out, because energy prices are only going to go one place.

The government said they needed to cancel the program to assess the program. I'm a bit confused by this methodology. I assume that the government could both run a program and assess it at the same time, because it does it every day. Do you find any logic in the argument that the only reason the program has been terminated is to permit assessment?

[Stephen Koch]

I can't get into the minds of the government--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's a scary place.

[Stephen Koch]

--but I can tell you the assessment of the program is ongoing. We hear from NRCan and the Office of Energy Efficiency people on an ongoing basis about the successes and positive influences it's had, not only on the people but on the economies it's impacting.

I can't find any reason why a cancellation of the program for assessment purposes, other than...I would look at the current process of using incentives for products that are standardized in the industry, such as furnaces at a 90% AFUE. We don't need to incent those anymore. We need to look at things that are important but are out of reach based on the cost of the product. That's where incentives play the best role.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The excuse--I'm going to use the term--from the government, saying the reason they put a notice on the website on a Friday afternoon and didn't tell anyone was because they had to assess the program, worried me. I thought, have they not been assessing it all along? Clearly, they have been.

One of the earlier witnesses talked about momentum and that when you get a new program into the public it takes a certain amount of education for people to get familiar with it, to trust it, to know how it will actually work for their home or their business. Then to cancel it, you stall the momentum, and there's a momentum gap between what people are experiencing and what they might be able to get at.

Your association also has connections to the United States. If you're familiar with this, how does Canada compare with the cancelled EnerGuide retrofit program and what is being proposed in the U.S.?

[Stephen Koch]

First, we are going in the opposite direction of the United States and other countries in the world.

In my comments I noted that this association was very disappointed in the way they did the announcement. There was no consultation with the organizations that are currently involved in the process. There was no consultation to look at what might come after this program. So when the cancellation came about, what happened, just as you said, put a stalling process into it. And because it wasn't clearly identified exactly what they meant, that caused even more confusion, not only with the federal program but with a lot of the provincial programs that are tied directly to the federal program.

We are going through a stall-start, stall-start process, which makes it much more difficult than if we had longevity so industry can know where it's going. All we're asking is to give us an understanding of where you're going so we can help you get there.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Koch, and thank you, Mr. Cullen.

We'll now go to Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to share my time with Mr. Hiebert.

I want to make a point first, and that is that Mr. Cullen has been misleading people--I don't know if it's deliberate or not--when he says this program is cancelled. Clearly we said we're going to assess the program. The reason a decision was made to stop taking applications is because it was anticipated that with the present applications the program would be fully subscribed.

I think we need to be clear about that. The program has been extremely successful, to the point that we anticipate the budget is going to be fully subscribed. That's why we ceased taking the applications.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Hiebert.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I understand we have a disagreement of terminology, but to suggest that I'm misleading people.... The Canadian people cannot access this program. To anybody in the public right now, listening, watching, the government should run another ad campaign letting them know they can't apply, because they're running one right now telling them they can.

To suggest that I'm misleading people as to whether the program exists...if you're not in as of a month ago, you can't get in. That's cancelled. I don't understand why you would suggest that I'm lying to people.

I think it's inappropriate language. That's my point of order, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Mr. Cullen, you've made your point very well, as has Mr. Anderson. We're now getting into debate and we're running out of time with respect to our witnesses.

Can we leave it at that now, Mr. Anderson?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I would expect that Mr. Hiebert will get the extra time that was just used up.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Absolutely. The clerk has made note of that. Thank you.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you.

And thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Busey, it's a pleasure to welcome you to Parliament Hill and to this committee.

I know you're very familiar with the program. We've talked about it on your radio program in the past. I was wondering if you could start by telling us a little about the benefits you've seen homeowners experience as a result of this program. Could you give us some examples of things they've done to their homes and what difference that's made to their energy bills?

[Sheldon E. Busey]

Certainly.

The upgrading program to homes today is really, in a lot of cases, cosmetic in a lot of areas that are energy conserving. But that's where the education comes in. And the education is, where should they start? Good, better, best, as I've always said. So what is the best approach for the biggest bang for the buck? Is it going to be in furnaces? Is it going to be in comfort, in windows and insulation? Is it going to be what they can afford?

The confusing aspect of the home is understanding how the home works, first of all. Is it giving them the comfort? Is it giving them the quality of air? Is it giving them the lesser degree of--using that term “mould” again--identification of mould on windowsills and in bedroom closets?

The consumer has to be educated. Those who have put in upgrades in furnaces and windows, yes, they see the benefits. They see the comfort; they feel the comfort. They haven't seen, really, the dollars and cents come back in the form of savings outside of the grant they're going to receive through the program. But where they have really come to me and questioned me is, where can we go next? Where can we continue? Where can we call the home a home? I quite often will say to the homeowner, you can recall back about 10 years ago when you'd buy a home and a home inspector was almost a shuddering point; you'd say, we don't want home inspectors, and the realtors would say, we don't want home inspectors. But now they're as common as the common cold.

I could see the day where with the renovation industry, the retrofit, the upgrades, the energy upgrades, when you buy a home the question is going to be asked: has this home ever been audited? Has it ever had an energy audit performed? Has it ever been part of the federal program or the provincial program? Are there benefits? What does it cost to operate this home? We have a home right now on the market ourselves, the family, and the interesting thing is I've never had anybody ask me, what does it cost to operate this home?

So those are really the concerns of the consumer, Mr. Hiebert.

They ask, where are the benefits coming from? They can see where they're getting the dollars back if they invest, but are they going to get it back in the form of dollars and cents or is it going to be in quality of life?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Do you see an increased value to homeowners who have used this kind of program to improve their home on the resale market?

[Sheldon E. Busey]

Absolutely. I can see it down the road, in a very short time, where the listing of a home is going to say, “Has been upgraded through the ecoENERGY retrofit program”, or whatever the provincial program may be, and rightfully so. It's a program that should be shown in such a way as to say, we're proud of what we've done to this home to upgrade.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

In your opening remarks, you mentioned that a buck in the pocket is not good enough. The Canadian government, with taxpayers' dollars, invested $745 million into this program to benefit about a half a million Canadians and their homes.

In your opinion, have those taxpayer dollars been well spent?

[Sheldon E. Busey]

I certainly feel they have, and that's why I made reference to the retrofit versus the renovation tax credit. In regard to the renovation tax credit, I really feel—and I'm not an advocate for where homeowners should spend their money—if it's going to come to education and how that home is going to be better performing for them, as far as energy conservation and the quality of air they live in day after day...if you can give them a credit, like a tax credit, let's put the money towards items that we know they're going to get a return on.