THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 1, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8 a.m. to study the effects of transitioning to a low carbon economy.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
[Translation]
My name is Rosa Galvez, I represent Quebec, and I am the chair of this committee. I invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis from the Laurentides region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston, Ontario.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce Maxime Fortin, clerk of the committee, and Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc, the analysts of the committee.
[Translation]
In March 2016, the committee began its study on the transition to a low carbon economy. The committee is interested in five sectors that, together, account for more than 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions: electricity, transportation, oil and gas, emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries, and buildings.
[English]
Today we welcome, from Ecovert Sustainability Consultants, Mr. Jim Lord, Founding Principal. Thank you for being here. I invite you to proceed with your opening statement, after which we will have questions.
Jim Lord, Founding Principal, Ecovert Sustainability Consultants: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to meet you all.
I’m one of the two founders of Ecovert Sustainability Consultants. We started in 2007 with just two of us, and now we are 22 strong in three offices. Our main activities are green building certification, building commissioning and energy audits. Our clients are all over the map, from the public sector and private sector. We’ve worked on hospitals, prisons, banks and interior offices. It’s a wide variety, encompassing about 150 million square feet. Through that process, we’ve seen a lot of different stakeholders and what has motivated them to decarbonize and green their facilities.
I will start with some good news. When we started in 2007, we were going out and knocking on people’s doors and saying, “Hey, you need to look at the way you build your building differently.” People were like, “Meh. Not really. Let’s do a feasibility study.” For one of our clients, we did a feasibility study, and they’re weren’t sure. Then six months later, I got a call from them and they’re like, “We’re on board. We want to do this. Can we do rainwater harvesting? Can we do all these things?” I asked them, “What changed? In six months, you go from ’not interested’ to being ready to do this.” They had been at a couple of dinner parties with their competitors, and their competitors were saying, “We’re on board. We’re doing all these interesting things. We’re committed to the environment.” They realized that society as a whole was moving in that direction, so they couldn’t be left behind.
It’s interesting when you look at the motivators of people and moving them toward the low-carbon economy. We talk about incentives and all sorts of different things. There are a whole bunch of different motivators for organizations to move forward.
That said, I had a call last week from an Ottawa builder who said, “We have the federal government as a tenant in our building, and they want us to do this green stuff. We don’t understand what this green stuff is.” So we have people who have moved a long way, and then we have a whole bunch of people who are still back where other people were 10 or 15 years ago. There’s a lot of work to be done, and there are a lot of opportunities to green both new and existing buildings.
I know one of the things you wanted to talk about was what we are doing and seeing. We’re seeing a real emphasis on energy in new construction. That’s motivated by people wanting to get LEED certification, which we do a lot of. It’s motivated by new building codes that have been enacted that are much stronger.
The question you probably have is: What are you doing? What’s the magic bullet around that? The stuff that’s less sexy is also the stuff that is most important. No one gets really excited about building envelopes, but if you build a tight building, you don’t need as much HVAC equipment, as big a boiler or a lot of this other equipment. The emphasis now should be around things like building envelope, certainly for new construction. We’re seeing that in the new codes coming out in Vancouver and with the City of Toronto’s new codes. There’s now this emphasis on how you build a building envelope and not just the overall energy performance of the building. There are multiple benefits of that. When you have a good envelope and there are eventual power failures or disasters, the building is able to maintain its temperature for a much longer time. There are many additional benefits to things like building envelope.
For existing buildings, I know you had the Canada Green Building Council in last year to talk to you about some of their programs. They have an updated program that we’ll be sure to send you a link to. Their research has said that retrocommissioning on existing buildings is so important. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with retrocommissioning or the commissioning process. I see from your reactions you’ve been through a lot of talks on that. That’s excellent. Generally speaking, you’ll get a 15 to 20 per cent energy reduction in the building by retrocommissioning, which is really just going in and rewriting the operation sequence for the building. There’s no capital investment, and suddenly, you’re receiving these energy savings. Things like that are high priority for the client I’m going to see later today, who doesn’t know what this “green thing” is. It’s a no-brainer to do an energy audit and some retrocommissioning on your building — suddenly, the energy efficiency of your building will increase — so anything that can be done to increase the number of buildings that are doing that. In their program, they talk about deep retrofits of existing buildings. If we’re going to reduce the carbon from buildings, since most of the buildings are already here, there’s really no choice but coming up with solutions for those buildings.
We’ve seen the uptake in the last few years on things like LED lighting, and those have been tremendous. I was involved on my condo board in 2006. We did the largest indoor LED lighting retrofit in North America, which was, I think, a thousand bulbs or something like that. Now buildings are doing 100,000 fixtures in a retrofit, so we’ve seen, in a short period of time, technologies like LED becoming prevalent throughout the industry. As we work with clients building new buildings, nobody is putting in traditional lighting systems; they’re all using LED. It’s important to look at things like that. I always look up at the lights. For instance, there’s an LED equivalent of this that would use 5 per cent of the energy that’s being used in this room right now. We’re seeing stadiums switching to LED. You can have a bright place with LED, with very little energy being used. One of the things you might consider is having a look at this building and seeing what innovative things you can have.
One of the challenges we have with private sector clients is that they want to see that business case and know where it has been installed. If we don’t install it in the room where we’re talking about decarbonization, it’s really difficult for us to have private sector guys go, “Well, if they didn’t think it was worthwhile doing, maybe it’s not worthwhile for us.” Looking at things that you have control over and making those as demonstrations would be something I recommend.
I’m happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll move to questions.
Senator Wetston: Where’s your office?
Mr. Lord: Our main office is in Toronto. We have another office in Waterloo and we have a small office in Ottawa as well.
Senator Wetston: Let me just begin with a little bit of a preamble.
This committee has heard a lot of evidence over the last year, and I think we’re quite well informed as to issues that need to be addressed with respect to greenhouse gas reduction. In the context of buildings, we have been informed that buildings are significant contributors to carbon, one of the main contributors to carbon. I think that’s correct, chair? We’ve heard a lot of information here on building codes and municipal, provincial and federal responsibilities. Everybody has responsibility.
My question to you is: What do you attribute in the building environment — because you talk about building envelopes — as the major factors or matters that contribute to carbon production, which needs to be addressed, obviously, in order to achieve the goals of the Paris Accord or other goals associated with that? Any thoughts about that?
Mr. Lord: The major contributor is going to be the heating and cooling of the building, particularly because the electricity for lighting is generally clean in many parts of Canada. If you’re looking at carbon, you’re really looking at your gas boilers and, to reduce that, you need more insulation, lower heat loads and those sorts of things.
Senator Wetston: I think we understand that as well, and I guess my question to you would be: How do you view the fact that, in our economy and in our country, we still have a great deal of the usage of gas for not only heating but generation, although less so in some jurisdictions? What is your alternative? What will work? What would be cost effective? What can we do in the next number of years to reduce the reliance on gas heating, for example, and the unfortunate issues that we always talk about in the North, which really needs to be addressed, with respect to diesel? What are your thoughts about that? What do you view as the best alternatives, is my question to you.
Mr. Lord: There’s certainly no magic bullet, but there are a whole bunch of innovative solutions out there.
One of the solutions is called solar wall. I don’t know if you’ve heard about that product. It’s been used in the North to heat buildings. It’s basically a way of gaining heat from the sun on the outside of the building, so you preheat the air before it goes into the building. Excellent solution.
There’s a solution called earth tubes, which the Earth Rangers Centre for Sustainable Technology has just north of Toronto, where they have a concrete — traditionally, we would bring the air into a building from the roof, and in the summer the roof is technically usually black, so the air we’re bringing in is 10 degrees hotter than ambient temperature, and then we cool it down. Not the smartest thing in the world. What they did is they put a concrete sewer pipe, basically, 100 feet out from the side of the building to a little shed and brought the air in through there. Going through that sewer pipe, it basically increased or tempered the air, and then they had heat exchangers taking the heat from the air that was leaving the building and preheating it as well. So on a day when it was 0 outside, the air, by the time it went through that air tube system as well as the heat exchanger, was plus 18 degrees. Suddenly you didn’t need to heat the building. In that case, there was no crazy, expensive, complicated technology being used. It was a very passive system.
So we need to think differently about things. I think the challenge is we’ve been building buildings the same way for the last 150 years. We’re taking an industry and saying, “We want you to totally change the way you make buildings in a 10- or 15-year period.” People have a hard time getting over that leap. We need to have abilities or guarantees or something to help those early adopters to be able to say that it’s going to work and, if it doesn’t work, we have some sort of mechanism that will help you to fix it, some sort of insurance or guarantee that it will actually work. People are in the business of building buildings; they’re not in the business of R&D. It’s a matter of how we bridge that gap so these new innovative technologies can be there.
The other one I should have mentioned is geothermal, of course, which is another way to switch from natural gas to slightly higher electricity.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I would like to continue in the same vein. I am the president of the Association des citoyens consommateurs du Canada. It does not exist yet, but it will tomorrow, because there is much to be done if I understood you correctly. I am a citizen and a taxpayer. I will be paying anyway. Among the solutions you have just mentioned, where do the priorities lie? How can we include the perspective of cost-effectiveness, not only for organizations that already exist and have interests to defend, but also for citizens who, in any case, will have to pay? Do we fund geothermal energy for already existing buildings in all Canadian cities? Should funds be provided to businesses, or to citizens?
[English]
Mr. Lord: Excellent question; interesting answer. If we paid the true cost of energy, you wouldn’t have to subsidize anything, but we will never pay the true cost of energy because there is no political appetite for us to actually pay what it costs. That leaves you to subsidizing or supporting of things.
An example would be the solar fit program in Ontario. The government sort of mandated higher rates and then, as production increased and as cost of production went down, they get to the point where you can put solar on and it has its own business case without any support from the government. I think that sort of model with a bit of upfront assistance helps. But, as you say, it ends up the taxpayer is going to be paying.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Let me give you another example. Should the federal, provincial and municipal governments fund social housing under Canada’s National Housing Strategy? If so, how? For example, in the Plateau-Mont-Royal, in Montreal, should we finance the construction of new social housing units equipped with solar walls, exterior tubes and air exchangers, or would it be better to give funding to current landlords to help them renovate their duplexes and triplexes?
[English]
Mr. Lord: I would say that since we’re moving very quickly to reduce our carbon, we have to do many things. It’s not just one or the other. Certainly where the government is paying the utilities — because the payback, really, is around the utilities — then they should be doing it as a matter of normal business course because they’re going to see those benefits through reduced operating costs. At the same time, we need to be encouraging it in the private sector.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Lord, thank you for being with us this morning.
Let me make an hypothesis and see if you agree. My experience has been that from a commercial building sense, not with the consumer, the individual, is that retrofit and all this efficiency stuff is being done by these companies where it makes sense to get done. There is a process of education, lack of education, but the big property owners have experts in this matter and they have no shortage of money. Yes, some property owners have a shortage, but the large majority are pension funds or public companies, and they will do what is financially right, and they’re doing it today. Slight delay of education. Do you agree with what I’ve just said?
Mr. Lord: 100 per cent. The top tier property owners in Canada are very attuned to energy and they’re doing the retrofits that make sense. They’re looking at programs that are available.
Senator Massicotte: And 80 per cent of buildings, from my understanding, are owned by pension funds, public companies or governments. There’s no shortage of money there. There are small property owners, but that’s a minor factor relative to the big picture. Is that accurate also?
Mr. Lord: In the commercial sector, the majority of the buildings are owned by what we call A class or B class landlords. There are a large number that are C class buildings, and those are the buildings that have very low efficiencies.
Senator Massicotte: There aren’t a lot of those, roughly speaking. But the issue — and I think you made reference to it — is that the problem we have in the market economy is there’s an inherent cost of using hydrocarbons that is not priced into the formula. That’s the only reason we talk about subsidies and, in an indirect way, we don’t have full pricing on the cost to our society of burning hydrocarbons. Do you agree with what I said also?
Mr. Lord: I do.
Senator Massicotte: Let me jump to residential, which is a factor. We had people in from the government and so on. A new building code is coming out that will be much more efficient. However, no matter what the new building code is, 20 or 30 years from now, 80 per cent of the existing stock will already be built, so we’re stuck with buildings built based on the old code.
You talked about external walls, basically a major retrofit. There is up and coming technology relative to slabs and so on. Have you done any work on that? We have some numbers saying how much does it cost to retrofit a home that’s 50 years old or something? Do you have any sense of the numbers or cost? What technology would permit that in a most efficient manner?
Mr. Lord: I don’t have any expertise in single-family homes so it’s difficult for me to comment.
Senator Massicotte: What about multi-family homes?
Mr. Lord: That would be like a condominium or an apartment building. Certainly I’m not an expert in that either.
Senator Massicotte: That’s a challenge. That’s a tough one. You can throw on the HVAC system, but the tough one is to make the envelope more efficient.
Mr. Lord: Exactly.
Senator Richards: This is an observation about the idea of the design of buildings, changing codes, the envelopes and so on. That’s a massive undertaking across a country like Canada. I don’t know if it will really work. My observation, however, is something that has never been spoken about in this committee — and for a good reason, because it would be impossible to convince people. Every time I was in a geodesic dome, a small wood stove heated the whole place. The area was massive. It was as massive as any two-storey house. I have a friend who built four of them based on the model of the igloo that the Inuits were smart enough to build over the last 3,000 years. Is there any person in the government who looks at a design like that — that is, these radical, new approaches to design — and thinks that maybe this is a good idea?
Mr. Lord: I’m not familiar with the different government departments. I’m sure there are some departments that would be doing that, but I’m personally not aware of that.
The Chair: Before turning to Senator Patterson, you said there are some motivators to encourage owners of big buildings to do the retrofitting. Have you done the work on the economic motivators? How do they recuperate the money they invest?
Mr. Lord: Before any of these pension funds or large real estate companies do a retrofit, they do a cost-benefit and payback analysis. LED lights is a simple one that’s taken over the world. The reason everyone is putting LED lights in is because there are paybacks that are one, one and a half years, sometimes six months. They do look at the paybacks. These companies all have to make a profit, so they’re looking at the economic motivators.
The Chair: You mentioned a series of innovations in order to reduce and keep the energy or circulate it better. Do you think you can send the committee a list of these, like the wall and air tubes?
Mr. Lord: Yes. I’ll send you a note referencing the different technologies that I’ve mentioned today with links to additional information on them.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Senator Massicotte: I want to clarify this because we have had different witnesses. The chair asked the question regarding the economics of it. Some people allege that these large owners should be doing a lot more based on pure economics. In other words, they’re not counting it right or they want to avoid spending money even if it’s economically feasible for them to do so. However, my knowledge on the commercial factor, the large owners, is that they know how to count very well and they will get it done if makes sense to get it done. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Lord: I would agree with that. The big challenge we find is there are two types of owners, particularly in the new construction. There are owners who will build the building and own it for the next 20 years. They’re very concerned about energy efficiency, so they will put a few extra dollars up front and it will pay amazing dividends over the years. Then there are other major projects where they will build it and then pass it over to someone else. That’s the example of a condominium. I put an extra $100,000 in the boiler, but I’m not going to get that money back.
There have been various programs. Toronto had something called the Toronto atmospheric fund, which has recently been renamed. They would actually lend money to the developer to increase the energy efficiency of the building in exchange for an ongoing payment from the condo owners once they moved in. We’ve seen cases where somebody builds a condo and two years later they’re doing an energy retrofit. That’s a waste of materials, time and energy for so many people and so much more expensive than if they had just gone for that amazing system at the beginning and figured out a way to pass that money on to people.
Senator Massicotte: To clarify, you’re right. There’s a failure regarding the condo developer because he’s not going to be there. He’s reselling it constantly. But the government is proposing, in the next couple of years, an energy report card, as some states are doing currently. In some American states, if you buy a building, you know exactly it’s ready. Once that gets out there, that will correct that problem. It will correct a lot of problems because you’ll have trouble selling your home if it’s inefficient relatively speaking.
Senator Patterson: You were ahead of me in asking for the information about the alternative technology, Madam Chair.
You said the solar wall had been tested in the North. What did you mean by “North?”
Mr. Lord: I believe the example they had provided us was the Yukon. I’ll make sure to send that information to you, though.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. There is a Tesla wall, which is a battery wall. That’s a different concept; is that correct?
Mr. Lord: Yes. That’s an energy storage device.
Senator Mockler: To follow up on Senator Patterson’s question, there’s a Tesla grid that’s being tested in Atlantic Canada, in New Brunswick, with Energy New Brunswick. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Lord: I am not familiar with that.
Senator Mockler: Next, I want to talk to you about low-income households across Canada. With the experience you have now, what federal policy options are the most appropriate to address the challenges that these households face in improving the way they use energy across Canada?
Mr. Lord: My area of expertise doesn’t include single-family homes, so I would be reticent to comment on that.
Senator Mockler: I’ll go, then, to my last question. The Agriculture and Forestry Committee did study a few years ago, and the subject matter was about building codes in both residential and commercial buildings. If you look across Canada, the first building that has a six-storey construction is in Quebec City. Are you familiar with the building codes that are being discussed as we’re talking today regarding changing those codes? It is not an easy matter because each and every material producer has their own lobbying groups. What would you recommend to this committee on how to address building codes?
Mr. Lord: Excellent question. What has worked well is when they’re addressed at a municipal level, which has been quite interesting. The codes in the cities of Toronto and Vancouver, which are aggressive and sort of piggyback on the provincial building codes, seem to be quite successful. Developers seem to be willing to buy into them. We don’t see a lot of objection. They go to city council for voting on those codes and there isn’t much opposition. We have a code in Toronto and the newest version, which starts in May, will be significantly higher than other codes of the province.
Senator Mockler: Do you support carbon pricing?
Mr. Lord: It’s not my area of expertise. I will defer on that question.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My next question for you is this. Do you consider the next City of Toronto code to be the example that municipalities should follow? Furthermore, do you believe that we should carefully study it for its innovative elements that could lower carbon emissions?
[English]
Mr. Lord: Definitely. The Toronto codes and Vancouver codes are good examples, and they have long-term outlooks for them. They are clear as to how the code will change over the next five years so, as a developer, you can see this is where we’re going. If I am going to build this building in 2021, this is what the code will be, and it will be stricter than this year, of course, but it’s all laid out there. I think it’s a great example for other municipalities and even the provincial or federal government to use.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: In Toronto’s code or elsewhere in the regulations, is it mentioned that the City of Toronto will not rent spaces to businesses not certified under the most recent standards?
[English]
Mr. Lord: That is an excellent question. I do not believe so, but I haven’t been involved in this policy.
The Chair: We are running short of time.
Senator Wetston: I have a quick question. You talked about this technology. I know you’re going to send this information on earth tubes and solar walls, and I realize you don’t focus on residential but rather on commercial, but how will this technology be used in a city like Toronto with 2.5 million to 3 million people and the density? Is it possible?
Mr. Lord: It is. We have to be innovative, but think of a cul-de-sac. Why can we not put geothermal in the centre of that cul-de-sac and have all the houses use that geothermal? It is city-owned land. We have control. It’s simple solutions like that. And tonnes of people have come up with tones of innovative ideas like that. I’m not an expert in that area, but that is out-of-the-box thinking that makes a lot of sense.
Senator Wetston: Will you send us your out-of-the-box thinking?
Mr. Lord: Will do.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, I will thank you very much for coming here.
Mr. Lord: Thank you for having me.
The Chair: It was an interesting conversation.
Mr. Lord: Good luck on your decisions.
The Chair: For the second portion of this meeting, we have three witnesses.
We have Ms. Pamela Hine, President, Yukon Housing Corporation. We also have, appearing by video conference from Yellowknife, Tom R. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, and later, if everything works out, we will have, from the Nunavut Housing Corporation in Iqaluit, Stephen Hooey, Chief Operating Officer, accompanied by Gary Wong, Director of Infrastructure.
We will start with Mr. Williams. Then we will see if we can connect with Iqaluit, followed by Ms. Hine. Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Williams. Do you hear us?
Tom R. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, Government of the Northwest Territories: Yes, I do.
The Chair: Can you start with your opening statement, please?
Mr. Williams: Senators, thank you for this opportunity to talk to you about housing in the Northwest Territories and, more specifically, considerations for transitioning the territory to a low carbon economy.
First, I would like to provide you some context on our territory. We have 33 communities spread out over a vast area of 1.3 million square kilometres, which is about 14 per cent of the total area of Canada. Our population is approximately 44,000 persons, more than half of which are Indigenous. There are eleven official languages in the N.W.T. This information is found on the slides two and three, going through the context. Nearly half of our communities are isolated from the south and other northern communities and are only accessible by winter road, air or barge.
In the N.W.T., we have complex and varied Indigenous governance structures, from regional self-governments, like the Tlicho, to community-based Indigenous self-governments, like the Sahtu Dene Metis government of Déline. There are already many settled agreements between Indigenous governments, the federal government and the government of the Northwest Territories, and there are more that are under negotiation. Many, if not all, of the Indigenous governments may seek to draw down jurisdiction in the area of housing. For the time being, the Northwest Territories has a main mandate to provide opportunities for suitable, adequate and affordable housing to all residents of the Northwest Territories.
One way we measure progress in our housing efforts for our residents is in the level of core need. Core need means that a household is living in a dwelling that is substandard or overcrowded or pays excessive shelter costs and has low to moderate income. Our statistics bureau conducts a comprehensive community survey every five years, meaning that we get a steady flow of information from the survey and can calculate core need.
The latest survey, conducted in 2014, showed us that the N.W.T. has 2,919 households in core need, or 19.8 per cent of all N.W.T. households. This is the second-highest level in Canada, second only to Nunavut. In comparison, national core need is 12.5 per cent.
The level of core need in the N.W.T. has remained relatively unchanged since 2000, when it was 20.3 per cent. This is despite steady and significant investment by the government of the N.W.T. and, periodically, large capital investment in partnership with the federal government. This speaks very much to the condition of the housing stock that was mostly built 30 to 40 years ago with less rigorous building standards and that was not necessarily designed for longevity under harsh Arctic climates.
Core need is directly correlated with income and the state of the economy. Downturns in the economy increase core need, especially in the resource sector, which comprises a significant portion of the N.W.T.’s GDP. Improvement in core need is also dependent on better educational outcomes, labour market development, economic development and improved infrastructure.
Despite the territorial rate remaining relatively unchanged, the N.W.T. Housing Corporation made gains in bringing down the urgent core need levels in rural and remote communities from 42 per cent in 2009 to 32 per cent in 2014. It is still a very high level, but improvements in these smaller communities, which are largely experiencing housing problems related to substandard conditions, are partially attributable to partnerships with the federal government.
Nearly one out of five households — 2,400 units in the Northwest Territories — live in deep-subsidized, rent-geared-to-income public housing. The majority of the residents have very low income. In a jurisdiction that has several times the national average in rates of addictions, infectious disease, low educational attainment and suicide, among other social ills, our government understands that there are no social challenges that can be worked on without stable, safe, secure and quality housing. This is why the Government of the Northwest Territories spends eight times more per capita on housing than the national average.
Here are some of our building challenges. I noted previously the vast geographic expanse of the N.W.T. Our communities are spread out across a huge area. This has a direct effect on our costs of materials due to freight and labour. Many communities are inaccessible by road. Others need to be resupplied through barge or temporary winter roads. The timing of seasonal transportation methods always needs to be incorporated in any project plan, as logistical windows can be very short.
Often, contractors are challenged with lack of capacity and the unavailability of skilled trades. To meet the challenges of harsh Arctic climates, buildings are often designed and constructed to higher building standards to ensure that their buildings are appropriate and safe for Northern conditions.
Extreme weather itself places limitations on work sites and work schedules. Additionally, more and more, the N.W.T. Housing Corporation has had to consider the effects of climate change on construction, ensuring that buildings are not built on known vulnerable permafrost areas, conducting geotechnical surveys where warranted and incorporating foundations like space frames that are more suited to permafrost situations.
Here is a little bit about the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the role we play. As for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, I’d like to give you some background on our role. As the lead agency of the Government of the Northwest Territories responsible for housing, we operate and intervene across all aspects of the housing continuum to ensure a sufficient supply of adequate, affordable and suitable housing for N.W.T. residents.
Our operations encompass activities to address homelessness, support transitional housing, operate subsidized rental housing, provide rent-to-own opportunities, ensure appropriate levels of market rental housing — especially in rural and remote communities — and support home ownership. The work is done in partnership with the federal government, Indigenous and community governments, non-government organizations, private industry and local housing organizations. We own and operate more than 2,600 housing units, which comprises approximately one in six units in the Northwest Territories.
Like all jurisdictions, we have taken steps to maximize energy efficiency. Several years ago, we incorporated a EnerGuide 80 standard for the construction of our new homes and renovations. Our 2017-18 capital plan includes energy efficiency components and energy upgrades of approximately $3.9 million and $2.4 million respectively. We are supporting several unilateral organizations with a $750,000 allocation for priority energy efficiency investments.
Slide 7 looks at social housing transformation. Energy efficiency and reducing our utility consumption is one of our keys for ensuring the sustainability and longevity of the housing portfolio, especially social housing. Much of the social housing stock was built between the 1970s and 2000 for single detached dwellings. In recent times, nearly all the new social housing replacement is in multi-family configuration. This has resulted in gains in economies of scale through common mechanical systems and energy efficiency through the incorporation of technologies such as solar panels and biomass. Now, nearly 70 per cent of the units in the public housing program are in a multi-family building.
We have also invested in larger solar and biomass alternative-energy projects that support targeted populations, including seniors. Our biomass systems are designed to allow connection to other adjacent buildings to meet potential future need.
We’re also investing $200,000 in support of LED lighting initiatives in our public housing units. In the past, electricity for social housing tenants was heavily subsidized. In recent years, we have taken a phased approach to allow for greater responsibility of utility consumption by tenants by phasing out these subsidies.
The N.W.T. Housing Corporation also monitors energy consumption at a unit level, which helps us identify buildings that may require energy retrofits. The ability to report on a per unit basis also gives us an idea on looking at solutions of incorporating new and alternative energy solutions.
Slide 8 is support to homeowners. We have implemented a new aging-in-place home repair program for seniors that has energy efficiency components. Our objectives are not only to support elders, to make their homes more energy efficient and durable, but also to lower their cost of living and support them to remain in their homes in the communities where they can be near their families, friends and, most important, resources.
We also have a major repair program for homeowners that can be accessed to repair and improve building envelopes of residents’ houses.
Slide 9 is energy partnerships. In partnership with the federal government, we designed and built a high-energy-efficient duplex where we incorporated several different energy-efficient technologies we wanted to test. We also installed a real-time monitoring system that can tell us at any point in time what the current energy consumption was in that building. This building is located in our community of Inuvik.
Slide 10: We have introduced new programs to support the housing aspirations of Indigenous and community governments. This new program is called the Community Housing Support Initiative. This program provides to these agencies flexible assistance that may include a contribution, a grant, material packages or logistical and project support toward the development of a project of the community’s own design. Energy efficiency is one of the priority considerations in this program.
Through our work with the Northern non-profit, the Arctic Energy Alliance, whose mission is to reduce the environmental impact of utility consumption, we have learned valuable information from energy audits and energy building planned assessments on the types of energy retrofits that provide the most positive results in the North.
Slide 11 is about the net-zero energy-ready code. My understanding is that our country is moving toward a proposed net-zero energy-ready code. I do not only think this is worthwhile but that it is necessary. In the North, we can be a predictor for the rest of Canada and even the world on signalling environmental change due to global warming. It is important that these initiatives be adopted and that they work.
Having said that, many residents of the North are vulnerable populations with an array of social issues, including addictions, mental health, low educational attainment, limited job opportunities and a high cost of living. Any code designed in the South for southern jurisdictions needs to reflect the realities of Northern people and provide for appropriate accommodation and support. We need to understand the cost implications of these changes, and then we need to determine how to mitigate those cost impacts. The inability to do so might negatively impact social programming delivery in the North.
Moving on to slide 12, recommendations, the federal government was our partner decades ago in the construction of social housing units in the Northwest Territories, which continues to be a valuable resource to the N.W.T. residents in achieving their aspirations, whether that involves going back to school, participating in the labour force, caring for an elder or children, or working through challenges such as addictions and mental health. As we transition to a low-carbon economy, that partnership needs to be renewed, especially in the context of our Northern rural and remote Indigenous communities.
Canada’s Northern jurisdictions have the most to gain and lose in relation to the pace of progress toward a low-carbon economy. The effects of climate change are most dramatically witnessed in our rural and remote communities, including stark warming trends, the inconsistency of permafrost and soil, and shoreline erosion. It is in the North’s best interests that the rest of Canada adopt and meet ambitious goals for low emissions in energy consumption.
The North must do its share as well. In the N.W.T., we have done much already, as per the examples I previously provided. However, it must be recognized that even small changes to policies such as energy codes have disproportionate cost implications to the N.W.T. and other Northern territories.
In addition to environmental goals, N.W.T. recognizes the long-term O&M advantages of housing that have low-energy utility consumption. The challenge for the N.W.T. is expected, including extensive upfront costs to meet the proposed net-zero standards. Changes will be needed to address the significant building issues in the N.W.T. that I noted before. There is also the strain on the physical capacity of the Government of the Northwest Territories, which is already spending more than 8 per cent of its budget on housing compared to the 1 per cent for southern jurisdictions.
Rural and remote Indigenous communities will face insurmountable challenges in transitioning to a low carbon economy without strategic and meaningful partnerships with the federal government. The Government of the Northwest Territories recommends that partnership opportunities be developed that will support this transition for these vulnerable communities. Additionally, the Government of the Northwest Territories recommends that the federal government partner in research toward determining the true cost of adopting a net-zero energy code in the N.W.T. We cannot be put into a position of adopting standards that may siphon off resources critically required for social programming and the health and wellness of Northwest Territories residents.
That concludes my presentation. I want to thank the committee for providing me with this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.
We’ll go to Pamela Hine next. Please go ahead.
Pamela Hine, President, Yukon Housing Corporation: Good morning, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Yukon Housing Corporation and to provide some insights into housing in the Yukon.
We have made great strides in our jurisdiction. Our contributions are helping to support Canada’s overall emission reduction goals and, most important, improving our housing both in its comfort and its efficiency. That said, we still have a long way to go.
As I am sure the committee is aware, our changing climate can be most profoundly felt in Canada’s North. This has a significant impact not only to Yukon’s buildings but also to our roads, power lines, water supplies and other critical infrastructure.
Permafrost and challenging building conditions affect our construction approaches. Most of our electricity is generated with renewable hydro, but about 5 per cent is still generated with diesel, most of which is associated with a small number of our off-grid diesel-generated-powered communities, including highway and mining camps.
Housing shortages exist in the Yukon and in the North more broadly. Our housing stock is aging significantly, using too much energy, is costly to maintain and some can be unhealthy to live in. By our rough estimates, over 3,000 housing units out of about 15,000 across the Yukon are in need of major repair or replacement.
Within the Yukon Housing Corporation’s own housing stock, we also have significantly aging units. About 65 per cent of our units are over 30 years old. We’ve been focusing on modernizing our stock and improving energy efficiency, but really, we’ve just begun. Investments in improving energy efficiency always need to be balanced with the need for safe and adequate housing for Yukoners as a primary requirement.
As of 2015, the second most significant source of greenhouse emissions across Yukon was the heating of buildings, accounting for 18 per cent of the territorial emissions. Reducing emissions in Yukon’s residential sector offers significant opportunities to contribute to national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also improving the resilience and longevity of our housing stock.
For a number of years now, the Yukon has been a national leader in building new energy-efficient homes. Yukon Housing first adopted construction practises from a few of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation projects that were part of the EQuilibrium project that began in 2006. We designated two of our own near net-zero energy houses in Watson Lake. Since 2007, Yukon Housing has committed to only building to the higher, super-insulated or, as we call it, Super GreenHome standard.
Yukon Housing has built almost 300 super-insulated housing units since 2007. These include anything from single family detached up to 30-plus unit multi-residential buildings. Because these super-insulated units are typically heated with electric baseboards and individually ventilated, the capital cost savings, compared to oil- or propane-fired heating and central ventilation, almost pay for the energy efficiency upgrades. These buildings are easier to maintain, are more comfortable and quiet to live in and can have much better overall air quality that older construction methods. They also have fewer moisture problems and fewer mechanical failures, as long as they’re maintained correctly.
Since 2008, Yukon Housing Corporation has worked closely with the City of Whitehorse to develop energy efficiency standards for new housing, referred to as the Whitehorse Green Building Standards. We also train and certify third-party ventilation inspectors and EnerGuide energy evaluators in order to ensure that heat recovery ventilation systems are installed correctly and that the performance energy targets are being met.
The City of Whitehorse has required mandatory EnerGuide testing and labelling on all new housing since 2012. Yukon Housing Corporation even created its own energy performance labels in addition to the EnerGuide labels, which has proven to be an excellent energy efficiency motivator and education tool.
Approximately 75 per cent of all new home construction in the City of Whitehorse new exceeds the new National Building Code 2010 heating load targets by at least 50 per cent.
Additionally, the Yukon government’s suite of energy efficiency programs, including a $10,000 rebate for new homes built to this standard and commitment to promoting energy-efficient new builds, are one of the most significant drivers.
Our energy efficiency initiatives have saved over 20 gigawatt hours of energy, which is equivalent to 4.6 per cent of Yukon’s total electrical generation in 2016. The energy saved through our programs is enough to power over 1,700 nonelectrically heated homes for one year. Participants in our energy efficiency programming have also saved over $7.8 million in energy costs and prevented over 33,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from being emitted.
Since 2008, Yukon Housing Corporation has sponsored and delivered numerous contractor breakfast seminars on sustainable housing, building science, codes and standards and energy-related topics. On average, we’ve had over 50 attendees per seminar.
Northern housing research capacity is an issue. Yukon Housing Corporation has a close working relationship with the Cold Climate Housing Research Centre in Fairbanks, Alaska. They have up to 30 researchers working there to solve northern housing technical issues. Yukon Housing Corporation has one.
Yukon Housing Corporation is working with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, NRCan and consultants on the cost-optimal solutions for energy retrofitting of existing homes in Yukon. Much of the basic computer modelling has been done, but much more of this type of work is needed.
So we’ve been able to work on the new builds. It’s now the existing units that we really need to do more work on.
The Yukon government is also working to improve the overall energy efficiency of public buildings by developing a new Best Building Practices Manual for Yukon government buildings, which will prescribe design standards and modelling that will exceed the national energy building code by 25 to 50 per cent.
I’d also like to take a moment to emphasize the importance of our First Nations partners. Eleven out of 14 of our First Nations in the Yukon are self-governing, and all maintain their own building and housing infrastructure. This context is very important to keep in mind as Yukon First Nations have raised concerns with federal approaches to Indigenous housing issues that seem to not capture or adequately represent their reality. We hope to see this addressed in the work on the Indigenous housing strategy and that we start to look for solutions that go beyond the narrow definition of on- and off-reserve.
It’s also important to keep in mind that our work on designing housing and buildings that reduce greenhouse gas emissions need to be balanced with integrated designs that are both culturally and socially appropriate.
Yukon Housing Corporation continues to lead our work in partnership with our First Nations, whether they’re self-governing or non-self-governing, where we can. This includes building and supporting on-the-ground capacity and helping them to leverage financial resources.
The Yukon Housing Corporation welcomed the announcement of the National Housing Strategy on November 22, 2017. Ultimately, we’re looking forward to working in partnership with Canada to improve our housing outcomes. As we do this work together, it is important to remember the uniqueness of the North, our higher building and transportation costs, challenges of local capacity and the necessity for flexibility. What works in large southern jurisdictions does not translate well in our remote and northern communities.
The National Housing Strategy refers to goals of reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions both in new builds and in the renewal and repair of existing units.
Our work in the Yukon has identified the importance of thinking about the house as a system, with principles of building science basics and construction details. Keeping it simple is a key component. In our smaller, isolated communities, there may not be the technical support available, so we need houses and buildings that are simple and easy to maintain while also being energy efficient.
Our government has committed to continue to make significant improvements to our existing building infrastructure. We are currently engaged in discussions with the Government of Canada about the Low Carbon Economy Fund, and we are looking forward to using this fund as a means of addressing some of our longer-term issues around aging housing stock, improving energy efficiency in both residential and public buildings and ultimately reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I know that my time today is short, so I’d like to conclude my remarks by emphasizing the importance of the work that’s been done in the Yukon on housing and the work that remains on our path ahead. Northern research, northern technology and northern innovation that builds on our strong foundation from our work in the past is the key to improving our future outcomes.
Far more work and resources must be applied to the building science research, education and training of professionals, trades, homeowners and building stakeholders in the Yukon and across the North.
Technologies in other industries like IT, communications, automotive and even space have exploded in the last decades, yet there’s very little application of this higher technology and research being applied to housing, particularly Northern housing. New technologies are needed to improve costs, ventilation equipment, building enclosures, building intelligence and more.
Again, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I’m happy to take any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hine.
We will try to connect with Mr. Hooey in Iqaluit.
Stephen Hooey, Chief Operating Officer, Nunavut Housing Corporation: I can receive your signal.
The Chair: Can you please go ahead and give your statement?
Mr. Hooey: Good morning, Madam Chair, senators and officials. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. With me is Mr. Gary Wong, Nunavut Housing Corporation’s Director of Infrastructure.
I would like to add some context to the housing situation in the territory before discussing the low-carbon economy and opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the territory.
Nunavut Housing Corporation owns or manages approximately 70 per cent of all residential buildings in the territory and is responsible for managing approximately 5,500 public housing units and 1,500 staff housing units for government employees. Nunavut is comprised of 25 isolated communities with a total population of approximately 38,000 people. All 25 communities are remote and isolated with only air and sea access, making logistics complex. We are spread out over three time zones.
The cost of housing is higher than in the South and paralleled only by other communities that face similar logistical challenges as Nunavut’s isolated communities. Approximately 80 per cent of our social housing tenants have income below $25,000 and approximately 55 per cent of the territory’s residents live in social housing. The territory has high rates of overcrowding that are above those of other jurisdictions in Canada.
Settlement towns in Nunavut date back to the 1950s and were firmly established by the 1970s. Housing constructed in the North has typically exceeded minimum requirements for insulation and energy efficiency due to the harsh nature of the climate. However, due to the shortage of residential units in Nunavut, much of the early constructed housing is still in use and is in varying and often poor states of repair. The shortage of public housing units has resulted in approximately 45 per cent of our public housing units being overcrowded.
Housing constructed more recently has had additional focus on insulation and energy efficiency. As a result of increased airtight construction combined with overcrowding and lack of sufficiently robust ventilation, many homes have become susceptible to mould growth and poor air quality. Increasing insulation is not a simple solution to reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It also requires significant attention to ventilation to ensure a healthy living environment is maintained.
Nunavut heats and powers its homes almost exclusively through diesel power, directly or indirectly. All electrical production in the territory comes from diesel power generators run by the territorial power corporation, Qulliq Energy Corporation. Diesel-generated electricity powers lights, appliances, pumps and fans used for furnaces and boilers in our homes. Homes in the territory are heated by diesel fuel oil burned in forced air or hydronic radiator heating systems.
The main factors considered in designing homes in Nunavut include reliability, maintainability and efficiency. The Nunavut Housing Corporation stresses state of the industry over state of the art. We need appropriate, reliable and functional designs with components that are simple to maintain, operate and replace.
Given this context, what are the options for transitioning to a low-carbon economy in the residential building sector in Nunavut? The Nunavut Housing Corporation is implementing or planning to accelerate, through territorial funding in various federal funding streams, projects aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through retrofitting of homes with improved insulation and ventilation systems, installing LED lighting, replacing old, inefficient appliances with energy-efficient appliances, replacing outdated hot water heaters or hot water systems, and replacing outdated boilers and furnaces. These initiatives will help in lowering carbon emissions as well as improving air quality and livability of our units.
As spending dedicated to housing in the territory is very high, NHC has a keen interest to ensure that our units are efficient. For the relatively small number of private homeowners in the territory, NHC offers financial assistance in the form of a forgivable loan to support retrofits aimed at improving energy efficiency.
In terms of assessing potential for alternative energy, Nunavut Housing Corporation is installing eight photovoltaic solar panels for a 2,200-kilowatt capacity on a new local housing association office and warehouse complex. This will allow us to better understand the potential of solar power for residential units and housing organization complexes.
NHC is engaged with many partners to promote research and development of housing solutions specific to the Arctic. This includes working with Polar Knowledge Canada, who have established a state-of-the-art research centre in Cambridge Bay; our territorial colleagues; federal and independent agencies, including NRCan, NRC, CMHC, INAC and the Arctic Energy Alliance; as well as housing providers and researchers in Alaska and other jurisdictions. The focus of research is on building science to improve energy efficiencies, as well as to assess risks associated with climate change to identify appropriate mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Lastly, within the Government of the Nunavut itself, we are coordinating with our governmental departments to ensure that we’re best able to respond to challenges of decreasing Nunavut’s carbon footprint.
Thank you for your attention, senators and Madam Chair. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from the committee.
The Chair: Thank you to the three witnesses. We will start with a series of questions.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. This has been an excellent reminder to all of us around the committee that there are definitely differences between living in Halifax, where I live, and living in the North. Senator Patterson does a great job of reminding us frequently about these things around the table. That’s very helpful to us.
You spoke about the challenges and, of course, the climate is a huge one. There’s also the cost of materials, getting materials to the North, the maintenance of buildings, the spread-out population in the North.
One of you — I think it was you, Ms. Hine — said what works well in one area doesn’t necessarily transition well when we’re talking about the North. One of you said that even a small tweak or small change that a government makes will be magnified in the North. When this committee is bringing forward recommendations about housing related specifically to energy, how do we ensure that the recommendations that we make reflect the challenges of the North? What would you like to see in a report that we would make?
Ms. Hine: I wish there were a simple answer to that. As I mentioned in my speaking notes, Alaska has a lot of research on northern housing, and we’re really excited to see the federal government talking about getting back into research, because there was a significant void over the years.
I think it’s really important to make sure that when you’re looking at technologies, especially technologies that will impact the North, that the North is involved in setting the research agenda, taking a look at the opportunity to have feedback and also having the information. We’re doing a lot of work in the North. We’re doing our own monitoring. We’re seeing what’s working. Bringing the North into those and being part of the solution is what I think really needs to be done. I’ll stop there and let my colleagues respond as well.
The Chair: We can’t hear Mr. Williams.
Mr. Hooey, would you like to respond?
Mr. Hooey: With respect to upgrading codes and transition of that into certain things in Nunavut, I think some key elements were hit by Ms. Hine. I would say we have a very diesel-dependent infrastructure here, so any of those codes that impact the type of systems we’re going to use and the expectations with respect to how those will be rolled out here need significant time in order for us to prepare. Some caution in terms of the speed of implementation is necessary for us to be able to properly adopt new technology. Identifying the risks associated with implementing new technology, especially when we’re talking about installations in remote areas, and Nunavut is entirely remote, can have impacts, so I would recommend that caveat be included in recommendations of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. Because you just mentioned the issue with diesel, we have received other witnesses — for example, the people from the propane, gas, natural gas — and they mentioned they are ready to send natural gas and propane to the North. However, there was this obstacle of the subsidies that the government allows for diesel. Are you in favour of replacing diesel with natural gas, which is actually still a fossil fuel but more efficient?
Mr. Williams: Here in the Northwest Territories, we do export natural gas products to our Northern communities. But in our situation, we have an untapped resource of natural gas in the Beaufort Delta that’s been sitting there for ages that we’d like to utilize better to gasify our communities. Certainly it’s a cleaner product than diesel. Having that untapped resource sitting there in our backyard, it makes sense to utilize it and incorporate it into our heating system delivery.
Mr. Hooey: I’m not qualified to speak on behalf of Qulliq Energy, which I think would be the experts to better inform you of the possibility. For conversion or use in residential housing, I would be cautious with respect to trying to convert to propane or natural gas at this point. That’s for a couple of reasons. One is that we would be introducing a new system that has to be maintained, including new infrastructure has to be used for delivery of those products. It would behoove us to look at that very carefully before anything was pursued.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Williams, you spoke about the social housing transformation and that you moved from single-family to multi-family, and that it was much more cost efficient in terms of energy. In terms of the mindset of the population moving from single-dwelling homes to multiple dwellings, was it a challenge to talk people into that? There’s definitely a difference in having your own backyard versus being on the second or third floor of a building.
Mr. Williams: Yes, there have been some challenges trying to convince the residents to move into a multi-unit as opposed to a single detached. But when we’re looking at the cost, it all comes down to cost of delivery of our programs.
I’ll give an example. We recently built five seniors’ complexes. There have been some challenges getting seniors into those seniors’ complexes. They’re nine-plexes. However, we’re making it attractive by using traditional technology, TK knowledge, making sure we have a sewing room available for the residents and having outdoor fire pits where they can smoke or cook food on the fire using traditional methods. We try to incorporate that into our designs. It seems to be working, but initially, it was a challenge to get people moving from a single detached house into a multiplex unit.
Senator Richards: I’ve been a proponent of geodesic domes for the North and in Canada since I was a kid. The reason for that is because of how the Indigenous people in the North were able to live in igloos and have a source of heat that is uncompromisingly small compared to what they were able to do with it. I never saw one geodesic dome in all your slides. In making this transition to low carbon, would you consider geodesic domes in any of this? Not only are they solar friendly, but they’re quite easy to maintain and adaptable. Any of the witnesses can answer.
The Chair: Who wants to answer the question?
Mr. Williams: I will start. Using traditional knowledge in our designs is something we’re really moving toward, especially where the funding is moving more to the Indigenous populations through INAC funding. Right now, we have a partnership with Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. We are incorporating traditional designs into our delivery. It has a ways to go yet, but we have to relish the idea. Like you said, Indigenous populations lived in these types of housing for years, and we’re willing to look at how we incorporate these designs to make it work for everybody.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for the presentations. This question may seem to be off topic a little bit, but I’ve just been touring remote Nunavut communities talking about Bill C-45, the new cannabis legislation. I think it was Mr. Williams who mentioned the challenges of mould and overcrowded housing. We have those challenges in Nunavut. I wonder if your corporations or your governments have considered the implications of allowing the growing of plants, up to four plants of any size, in homes, and the implications of that on water, moisture and mould, electricity consumption and perhaps fire hazards. I know N.W.T. has rolled out some legislation quite recently on cannabis. Is this issue of plants, mould, power consumption and fire hazard on the radars of Yukon, N.W.T. or Nunavut Housing Corporation?
The Chair: It’s a little bit off topic, but I think it’s important. Because you are there and we are all curious, could you please respond?
Ms. Hine: In the Yukon, we’ve taken an approach on housing that is very inclusive. We brought together all our housing partners — 80-plus organizations — back in 2013-14. We created what we call a housing action plan. Even though it was rolled out in 2015, an inter-agency committee of over 20-some different organizations meets every month to talk about housing-related issues.
The situation the senator raised is one that has come up through those conversations, not only from the Yukon Housing Corporation but the landlord association as well. I know that the Yukon is looking at the legislation and the impact on landlords of the ability to grow plants. It’s on the radar screen. I’m not sure what’s going to come out of that, but it definitely is a concern that has been expressed not only by the Yukon Housing Corporation but by landlords in the Yukon, as well.
Mr. Williams: Certainly, the cannabis legislation is coming. We have to react to it. We want to be prepared. How do we deal with it in our public housing and our social housing system? It’s new and we’re looking at how to deal with it. We’re introducing user-pay electricity, so on increased electrical consumption, it may not be in the best interests of tenants to use extra electricity to grow their plants. It is certainly a concern. It is on our radar and we’re working through it, and we’re looking forward to how other jurisdictions will deal with it.
Senator Mockler: In the budget that was tabled a couple of days ago, it says that you will have $400 million over 10 years to support an Inuit-led housing plan to Inuit regions of Nunavik and in other communities. Have you been consulted and have you given your opinions on what you’re looking at, going forward?
Mr. Hooey: With respect to the $400 million, it’s my understanding there won’t be a territorial portion of that strategy. From Nunavut itself, we have got a commitment of $240 million through the National Housing Strategy, which is a separate pot of money through that strategy. I’m honestly not qualified to really reference that $400 million.
Mr. Williams: In the Northwest Territories, we feel there has been inadequate consultation on this whole Indigenous housing piece. Over the last two years, we have been trying to get information on how it’s going to roll out. I know with the Inuit housing, we have the Inuvialuit Settlement Region where the Inuvialuit are getting a portion of this $400 million. They already received $15 million over the last two years, and we were able to be creative and work in partnership with the Inuvialuit on our housing delivery and meeting the needs. We recently met with the Inuvialuit a couple of days ago, prior to the announcement. They are very excited. Part of their self-government plan is to take over drawdown jurisdiction in the future. The lack of consultation has been discouraging.
Right now, I think the easiest rollout was with the Inuit groups, but how do we deal with our Dene groups here in the Northwest Territories and Metis groups, flowing money directly to AFN to deal with 600 bands across Canada? We have a fair number here in the Northwest Territories. We also have the Metis. We have no detail whatsoever on how that rollout will happen. We’re hoping to get more detail and work with our federal partners at INAC to get a better understanding, because it will be a game changer on our delivery.
Ms. Hine: I will speak on the Indigenous housing strategy versus the Inuit housing strategy.
As I mentioned in my comments, we have 14 First Nations in the Yukon and eleven are self-governing. We look at our First Nations partners as governments. We have embraced the commitment to nation-to-nation negotiations. We do not look at our partners as on- or off-reserve. We come up against barriers when there are federal programs that have been developed based on the narrow definition of on-reserve or off-reserve.
I have communities that are in crisis in housing. I receive money through the northern housing program, where we get $2.4 million a year, and I’m unable to partner because in the federal government they are determined to be on-reserve versus off-reserve. We want to be working because, in the way we do our business, they’re Yukoners first. How are we able to work on that? It also goes to the point when you look more broadly at how urban, rural and Northern housing providers will be impacted by any type of an Indigenous housing strategy or strategies.
When you think about the needs in our Indigenous communities, they are great as far as not only those on the wait list but the actual conditions of the housing units. If we are to work in partnership to meet our targets, we need to be able to work in partnership. We need to be working together and finding the solutions.
We’re working with our First Nations within Yukon whether they’re self-governing or not, and doing a charrette on a design to try to find an ultimate design for a Northern house that will meet their cultural needs but also the energy efficiency need, and not just going and every time building new infrastructure that they’re not sure how to keep and maintain. We’re having meetings this month and looking at not only coming up with a design, but hopefully, in the second phase, actually building the prototypes.
Again, it’s partnerships, and we need to do that. These strategies, which are welcome, need to take that into consideration. I agree with my colleagues. I don’t think the consultation has been there. The commitment of going forward needs to be done in partnership with all levels of government, and all levels of the housing providers and building science and technology need to work together to come up with a solution.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My questions follow up on what you just said. From an outsider’s perspective, there is a belief that the federal government controls all the data on the Northwest Territories. After all, they are called “federal territories” in government jargon for a reason.
Many Canadians listen to us, and would like to better understand the situation. Some are under the impression that the federal government does not necessarily control the operations on the ground, but does control everything else, whether through legislation or funding. Currently, we are in a situation where governments compete for funding from the federal government for housing programs, and so on. Let us be clear. I am not saying that this is the case for you. From an outsider’s perspective, there is competition between the First Nations’ governments, which are self-governing.
Ms. Hine, you said that you regard them as governments, but not as on- or off-reserve. There is already an adjustment problem here in a context where we want to establish partnerships. Is this the reality, or simply an incorrect outsider’s perspective?
[English]
Ms. Hine: It is complicated when you think of the territories and the role of a territory versus the role of a province, and even when you think about the similarities and differences amongst the three territories, and then you throw in self-governing First Nations. It is very complicated.
I don’t think we’re in competition for programming. I think what we need to do is to be able to work at the programs that exist and figure out how to best utilize those and have the flexibility and opportunities to do so. We work closely with my colleagues from the territories, so we are working very closely in that aspect, but we have to recognize the differences that we do go forward with.
I can only speak from the Yukon perspective. When funding is coming out and it’s not clear where self-governing First Nations will fit or non-self-governing First Nations, they will look to the Yukon government for their share of the funding as well as help. I don’t see that we’re competing. I think it becomes the clarity and the recognition we’re seeking as our levels of government and the constitutional documents that are there to create the self-governing First Nations as they exist, the same as the territories. I hope I answered your question.
Mr. Williams: From the Northwest Territories’ perspective, I agree that we’re not in competition with our Indigenous governments. This is an opportunity to work in partnership with them along with the federal government. But we have to set the table on how we do that, and I don’t think that has been fully fleshed out regarding how the partnership will happen. We have a good history in the Northwest Territories partnering with our Indigenous governments. Now that there is a new equation having the money flow directly to the Indigenous governments for providing housing in the North to the residents, I think it’s a huge opportunity to work together in partnership.
We have two areas that are unsettled claims ,but the goal of the Indigenous people is to be self-governing First Nations and to provide that service to their residents. They have all negotiated or are in the process of negotiating draw down of jurisdiction for housing. This is our opportunity to work with First Nations, build the capacity and have them ready to take this on when they draw down the jurisdiction on housing.
Mr. Hooey: Perhaps I will clarify in terms of how Nunavut is different in terms of governance from the other territories. We don’t have any First Nations here. On a governance level, we have a land claim that covers the entire territory. With respect to that land claim, we deal with one jurisdiction, being basically Inuit NTI, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. To this point, we haven’t been directly engaged, as far as I’m aware, and I'm at the operations level, with respect to Indigenous affairs and those programs which are specific to First Nations funding.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Ms. Hine, you have alluded to the fact that Alaska has many research centres.
My question is for the three of you. I understand that you do not want to speak on behalf of your governments, but I would like you to tell me how your various governments see the location of these research centres, from the point of view of housing and building construction in your territories. In other words, some countries have decided to move their Far North research facilities, to the North. In this sense, do you believe that the committee should study this issue? Because it would also involve infrastructure costs. Should the committee consider the following: Would a strategy to locate research in the Far North, in collaboration with the territorial governments, of course, be a way to stop research on the North from being done in the south?
[English]
Ms. Hine: It’s very important to have northern research done in the North. I think that’s where you’re going to find the true and tried conclusions that we’re looking for. We do have some infrastructure. We have Yukon College in Whitehorse, and it has a cold climate innovation facility. They are starting to do research and bringing people in. I think it becomes the depth of the research. I was pleased to see Budget 2017 talk about more money being brought in on research, which is really important. Again, however, it becomes ensuring that research agenda is driven by the North.
As I said when I talked about our relationship with Alaska, they have a whole library of research. If there are things we can learn and get from them by a simple MOU or some type of agreement to be able to share that, then we may want to share that and test a bit versus going back and doing research from ground zero when it already exists. That’s where the importance lies.
Yes, we do need to drive the northern research agenda, and that is one of the recommendations for the committee to consider. Again, that research has to be done in the North. I’m not sure how you’ll be able to test northern research if you are doing it in a southern jurisdiction. Part of that is building that capacity. We are already doing pieces of that. We’re doing our own assessments on energy efficiencies and we’re doing the piecemeal approach, but I think it’s how you get that northern research council back up again to make the informed decisions that we need to make as we move forward.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to ask about the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change which the three territories signed on to in 2016. The looming carbon tax will be put in place this year, 2018, under the framework, though I understand the territories were told at the time that their unique situation would be considered in implementation of what they call carbon pricing.
Yukon is blessed with 90 per cent hydro production and N.W.T. 75 per cent hydro production, but Nunavut is 100 per cent diesel, heating and electricity. I was pleased to hear that Yukon is discussing with Canada using the low-carbon economy fund.
My question is to the Nunavut Housing Corporation. In Nunavut, you are heavily subsidizing heating and electricity costs in your 5,500 units with your low-income tenants. You say you are installing solar panels in one community’s housing association office and warehouse. First, have you calculated what the carbon tax of $10 per tonne will cost the Nunavut Housing Corporation for heat and electricity heavily subsidized in those 5,500 units in one year? Second, since it doesn’t seem like there will be any significant alternative energy options available to tenants if the carbon tax is implemented in 2018, would you recommend that the Nunavut Housing Corporation and social housing be exempted from a carbon tax until energy alternatives are developed?
Mr. Hooey: I do not have the calculation for what these expenditures would be to meet that carbon tax for the Nunavut Housing Corporation. However, they would be substantial. We do not have any alternatives at this point, and the implementation for alternative energy at this point is limited. If the committee was making a recommendation that Nunavut and the Nunavut Housing Corporation would be exempt from additional carbon tax, which at this point we would have to obtain funding for — we have limited internal funding in terms of rent collection and so on, so we would have to obtain that from either the territorial or federal government to pay that carbon tax — I think that would be a suitable response to delay or to exempt it at this time.
Senator Mockler: Senator Patterson touched a bit on my next question. I've heard from the witnesses that there are not many alternatives up North. I will ask the question and you can answer, and then I will have a sub question, if time permits.
We’re bound to say that electricity can be produced through non-emitting generation and be used for heat and mechanical movement to displace fossil fuels. With the mandate of our committee, do you support this view, and how should the federal government encourage electrification in the building sector, both commercial and residential, in your territories?
The Chair: Are you directing the question to the people in Nunavut?
Senator Mockler: To the three.
The Chair: My understanding is that in Yukon and Northwest Territories, there are other alternatives. In Nunavut, there are less alternatives.
Senator Mockler: Less alternatives.
The Chair: Maybe Mr. Hooey can respond first?
Mr. Hooey: Yes, since the production of electricity is 100 per cent on diesel at this time, electrification and the conversion of diesel into electricity and then into heating of housing isn’t particularly efficient. I don’t think there is any significant opportunity that we can use, certainly in the housing sector, with electrification to improve efficiencies that are here right now. There may be opportunities to increase the efficiency with respect to power generation through QEC and their plans. I would think that’s the best alternative in terms of electricity in Nunavut. I hope that answers your question to a certain extent.
Senator Mockler: I want to come back to consultation. I heard generally from the three of you that there has been inadequate consultation. What would you recommend to the government to assist you with our mandate to non-emissions versus what you are doing now by way of consultation? Where is the lack of consultation? Can you give us some examples? I believe that the people to determine the future going forward is certainly you, not Atlantic Canada, central Canada or Western Canada.
The Chair: I think that the two people who talked about lack of consultation were Ms. Hine and Mr. Williams.
Ms. Hine: I think the reference about lack of consultation was regarding the Indigenous housing strategies, so just to be clear, that was where my context was. The recommendation is to fulfill the commitment of nation-to-nation negotiation. From a government perspective, it’s to have the conversation, which becomes very complex when you look at the governance structure. The Assembly of First Nations does not speak on behalf of specific self-governing First Nations, so you need to be able to go to where the individuals are and have those conversations.
Mr. Williams: I think my colleague from the Yukon spoke to this quite well. In our case, we feel that the consultation was inadequate because it wasn’t inclusive. It didn’t include all the parties. It was kind of like a bilateral consultation, especially in terms of Inuit housing. As the primary housing provider in the Northwest Territories, we were left in the lurch, in the dark on how this will roll out. What are the parameters on the spend of the share of the 400 million for the Inuvialuit?
With the whole Indigenous housing piece, we have been trying for the last year and a half to work with CMHC, working with INAC officials, to get a better understanding of how the rollout will happen in providing funding directly to the Indigenous governments. We still haven’t got the detail, and it’s a game changer on our delivery. I think to improve it, we need to have all the players at the table discussing. I say it’s a huge opportunity for partnership and, in order for partners to partner, you have to be at the table. That’s my comment.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Williams, during your presentation, you spoke about your relationship with First Nations, but also about the Metis presence in the Northwest Territories. Can you tell me if there are Metis communities that are recognized as communities, and that potentially may gain access to funding from the federal government because they are legally recognized as Metis communities?
[English]
Mr. Williams: We’re in the process of negotiating a land claim with the Metis nation of the Northwest Territories, so it’s currently in negotiations. We have no designated Metis communities in the Northwest Territories at this time. We have some mixed communities under the Sahtu and Gwich’in land claim agreements where it was a combined Metis and Dene claim, but our first Metis claim is currently under negotiation.
The Chair: In the name of all the members of this committee, I would like to thank you very much for your statements and your insightful answers to our questions. Thanks very much to all of you.
(The committee adjourned.)