Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 18, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 6:02 p.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate (Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol).
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators and guests, we will not bring today's federal budget announcement into the questions and discussion today. Our witnesses likely have not yet been briefed on areas of the budget that may pertain to their work. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to make reference or ask such questions. We must constrain ourselves, in that respect.
Senator Spivak: It would be valuable to know what is in the budget as it pertains to their area of expertise.
The Chairman: Do not be surprised if our witnesses say to us, in answer to a question, that they do not know yet. I am certain that they will be as forthcoming as possible on all subjects.
Our witnesses this evening are Mr. A.C. Taylor and Mr. Jim Comtois from Natural Resources Canada and Ms Karen Anderson and Mr. Berny Latreille from Environment Canada.
Mr. Comtois, please proceed.
Mr. Jim Comtois, Chief, Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Branch, Natural Resources Canada: Honourable senators, I was invited to give you an overview on how the Government of Canada is putting its own house in order with respect to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. As the Chief of the Federal House in Order initiative, FHIO, at Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, I will give you as much as I can in terms of where we have been and where we are today.
First, the Federal House in Order initiative, FHIO, is co-led by two departments, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. It was officially launched on June 6, 2001, on Clean-air Day. We held the official launch event at the government conference centre. About 400 people attended locally from the various departments and agencies that this concerns.
The FHIO sets a greenhouse gas emissions target for the government's own emissions. The target set by the FHIO is that the government's emissions be 31 per cent below its 1990 levels by the year 2010. If that sounds like a fairly stiff target, you will understand better how it fits into the Kyoto target of 6 per cent for Canada, as we move forward today.
The Federal House In Order initiative sets a federal government target. Clearly, that target needs to be implemented by departments. In arriving at that target, first, we went through a fairly extensive exercise of determining our baseline emissions, where they were coming from and how we could go about achieving that level of emissions reduction. We went about an extensive emissions data collection exercise whereby we ranked the emissions from all departments on which we had information. We found that 11 of all the departments — and there are over 150 — account for 95 per cent of all federal government emissions.
It became clear that we had to set boundaries on how much we were prepared to do in terms of collecting data, reporting on it and keeping costs under control. The decision was made that the federal government's 31 per cent target would be divided among the 11 departments. Those 11 departments are called ``designated departments'' because they have been designated with a share of the 31 per cent target. Each one has a share that is proportional to the opportunities that exist for reducing emissions and to the size of that department — some departments have efficient operations while others have older operations.
All that data was taken into account to determine the cost-effective opportunities. The target was allocated in that way through a lengthy, consultative process.
Emissions resulting from national safety and security operations were an issue that we had to contend with during the two years of interdepartmental consultations. We were trying to come to grips with the target and how to go about sharing it and its costs. We determined that there was no international consensus on how to deal with national safety and security emissions, such as military activities, peacekeeping missions abroad and search and rescue operations. It was difficult to get a grip on how to quantify those emissions and, more important, how to put a plan in place to reduce them because they involved activities over which we did not have much control. We cannot predict when a ship may sink or when a war may erupt; or the equipment, the material and the costs that such events may entail. We cannot put caps on those activities. It made perfect sense to exclude those emissions from the target. We looked at the emissions we could control, that we could plan measures around, which mainly involved emission that resulted from consuming fuel in the buildings and in the fleets.
The emissions baseline for the Federal House In Order target is looking at those emissions that come from the buildings and fleets primarily, as well as some emissions associated with agricultural activities. We call them non- energy related emissions, because emissions are measured in CO2 equivalents. When you burn fuel, you get carbon dioxide but you also get other chemicals. In non-energy, you have methane, nitrous oxide and other chemicals that have global warming potential that are a multiple of CO2. As a result, we have a universal measure that we use, which is called CO2 equivalent; and that is how we measure the emissions. The baseline is expressed in those terms.
The annual progress against the target under the Federal House In Order Initiative is publicly reported in each department's sustainable development strategy, and also through Canada's Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR). That is a public registry where organizations voluntarily report on their greenhouse gas emissions, and the activities that they are involved in to reduce those emissions. The federal government is one of the signatories to that.
We have been publishing reports for a number of years, I think since 1995, but now that report has become the official Government of Canada Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Report. It has been adopted by the Federal House In Order Initiative as the official report to the public.
We have reported progress in the most recent report in October 2002, for the year 2000-2001. That is the most current year for which we have up-to-date data on which we can report. Our progress against a 31 per cent target has been 21 per cent as of the year 2000. We have another 10 per cent to go by the year 2010. That is encouraging because it means we are on track for reducing emissions about 1 per cent per year.
Slide number 4 shows a graph of our plan for achieving those emission reductions. It quantifies our target as well as our baseline. If you look at the figure of 3,102 kilotons of CO2 equivalent, that is the size of the emissions that the federal government had in its baseline as of 1998. To determine what our 1990 emissions were, we did a back-casting exercise based on information that we had about how much the government had downsized and how much energy efficiency work had been undertaken in the previous eight years. We came up with a 1990 baseline so that we could have a common Kyoto reference year. Our emissions for that year are 3,847 kilotons.
When we went back in 1999 to collect data, and again in 2000, we came up with the year 2000 figure of 3,031 kilotons. That represents a total reduction in emissions from 1990 of 21 per cent.
What you have on this graph are three lines that project into the future. Lines A, B and C are real emissions reductions. The level of effort we are facing to achieve the target in 2010 is the difference between point A and C on the graph. What the line from 3,102 to A represents is, if we did nothing from 1998 onward — we just continued operating as we are now, business as usual, factoring in growth of government — our emissions levels by 2010 would be 3,181 kilotons. Since our target for the year 2010 is 31 per cent below what it is in 1990, we should be at 2,671 kilotons. Therefore, we have to reduce not only from where we are starting, but to offset for growth. The total level of effort that we have estimated here is a sum total of 510 kilotons to achieve the 2010 target.
When we went back and looked at all the opportunities — the condition of our buildings, the age, the energy consumption of those buildings, the building profile and the same thing for vehicles — we found opportunities to reduce energy consumption and emissions that come directly from fuel consumption. We found opportunities totalling 275 kilotons existed by carrying out energy efficiency and fuel-switching measures in our real property assets, as well as our vehicles.
A further reduction of 235 kilotons was possible in the federal government's inventory through switching to green power. Green power is electricity generated from emerging renewable resources such as wind power, which is the most common. There has been a lot of money set aside in previous budgets to try to develop the green power industry in Canada. The federal government also has money set aside under the Federal House in Order Initiative to invest in green power. We want to displace the portion of our electricity purchases that come from what we call dirty sources; electricity that is produced from coal-fired plants or fuel oil.
When we quantify emissions reductions associated with making that switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity, we have an extra reduction potential of 235 kilotons, for a total of 510. That is where the overall 31 per cent reduction is expected to come from.
I should point out the opportunities that we looked at under the 275 kilotons. One of the guiding principles we had to abide by in setting our target and costing it out was that we had to achieve those reductions with no new money for capital investments. Departments had to undertake measures using existing budgets. The only thing we could get was additional program funding to facilitate implementation of measures in the various departments. We could assist them with the planning, and implement a data-collection, monitoring, tracking and reporting process for accountability purposes.
That is the main guiding principle that the Federal House in Order Initiative operates under; and we did that to show leadership to the rest of the economy. Anyone can achieve any target if there are unlimited dollars; but it is challenging if you have to do it with existing funds. This initiative is a leadership measure for the Government of Canada; and we are trying to do it in that way to show leadership.
Slide number 5 is a brief summary of what was contained in the climate change plan released on November 21. There are some new elements that fall under the Federal House in Order Initiative listed there that committed the government to do things in its buildings, over and above what the initiative currently targeted.
One of those things is addressing new buildings. The government plans on replacing old buildings and also expanding, moving out of leased space into owned space. There are new construction plans happening every year, and there are a number of those new buildings under construction now or in the planning stages in the National Capital Region. The government has committed in the climate change plan to build all of its new facilities to exceed the model national energy code for buildings by at least 25 per cent.
The model national energy code for buildings is essentially the building code, and that usually sets a minimum standard. We have a program within Natural Resources Canada called CBIT, Commercial Building Incentive Program, where they have been working with the private sector to try to achieve this in private sector buildings. There is a whole host of projects where we have undertaken to achieve this type of target. As a matter of fact, it has been exceeded on numerous occasions. We found that building a structure that is 25 per cent better than the code — we have some examples up to 72 per cent better than the code — usually can be achieved with no additional cost. What they do is look at the requirements of the building and, using a computer model to generate a building that consumes a certain amount of energy, they compare it to a building that just meets the code.
After the building is built, they assess energy consumption and compare it. We find out how much better it is than the code and look at the cost differential. In most cases, that difference is no more than 5 per cent higher. It is a cost- effective thing to do. There is a long track record of proven success stories in that area, and there is no reason the federal government cannot do the same thing.
In the climate change plan, there is a requirement for all new buildings in Canada to target that same 25 per cent better than the code. To show leadership, it only made sense for the federal government to do the same thing. That is why this is one of the new elements under the Federal House in Order Initiative.
Similarly, with housing there is an R2000 standard, which is the most economically efficient house standard in Canada. There is a requirement in there for all new houses in Canada to be built according to the R2000 standard by about 2008 or 2010. The federal government is committing to do the same thing with its new housing. A number of departments have plans to build new houses. There have been a number of reports in the paper over the past few years about the condition of military housing. Clearly, the Department of National Defence is on a replacement cycle and it will be necessary for them to start looking at better standards in order to show some leadership with housing. Similarly, there is a great deal of housing in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The Federal House in Order Initiative will work with those departments to find ways to ensure that the capital dollars they spend on new housing will be focused on R2000 housing. Another commitment under the Federal House in Order Initiative in the climate change plan is that, for leadership reasons, the government is committing that all its new products and equipment purchases will be Energy Star-compliant. Energy Star is a label program that has been borrowed from the United States. It identifies the most energy-efficient equipment including photocopiers, printers, faxes, computers and other equipment used in offices on a day-to-day basis, which are running all the time. There are features built into Energy Star components that can save a lot of energy on a day-to-day basis, which really adds up on an annual basis. The Government of Canada currently has a number of standing offers with suppliers to lease and procure this equipment. What we will do is go back and look at those agreements and contracts and ensure that there are clauses to ensure that whatever we purchase and lease is Energy Star compliant. That should go a long way towards reducing our annual energy bill.
There is a commitment for an increased proportion of lower-emitting vehicles in the federal fleet. Mr. Taylor will speak to this later when he speaks about leadership vehicles, but the federal government has an on-road fleet of more than 20,000 vehicles: pick-up trucks, SUVs in Parks Canada sites, on-road vehicles that you see here on the Hill, military vehicles and RCMP vehicles. There is no reason we cannot look at how we procure all of these vehicles. Are we making the best use of them? Are we using alternative fuels, where possible? Ethanol is a fuel recognized as being lower in greenhouse gas emissions, in particular E85. There is a commitment in the climate change plan to ethanol and the government needs to do its part to ensure that, wherever possible, it is purchasing alternative fuel vehicles as well.
Support for emerging technologies, such as fuel cells and hydrogen, is another area in which the government has made a commitment in the climate change plan. The commitment is to be a first-time purchaser of this technology. It is clearly leading-edge technology that is not commercially viable yet, but to become so, somebody needs to take a lead. One of the roles of the federal government is to invest in this technology, similar to what it has done with green power. Green power is something you have to pay a premium to get now. The market is being stimulated gradually by investments from the federal government. Provincial governments are also getting on board. We hope that, by the Kyoto commitment year of 2010, the cost of green power will be almost the same as conventional power and there will not need to be additional monies invested for every household to purchase green power.
It is a leadership measure, which is largely why green power is part of the Federal House in Order Initiative.
On the next slide, there are supporting programs identified. They are the programs I mentioned earlier, where the Federal House in Order Initiative provides program funding to facilitate the implementation of measures in buildings and fleets by all departments that need to take action.
Under the buildings heading, the first item listed is a Web site we developed. Anybody can access this information and get quick access to contacts and to the basic information about the program, so they can get going whenever they are ready. They can also find out whom to deal with if they need assistance in putting a plan together. There are programs within the federal government that have been around for some time. They have been identified as programs that support the Federal House in Order target. Through the Federal House in Order Initiative, we have secured additional funding to help provide these programs with more funds, so they can target a wider audience and hopefully implement more measures per year than they have in the past.
You may have heard some of the programs in the buildings section. The Federal Buildings Initiative is a ten-year- old program within Natural Resources Canada, which mainly provides access to outside funding, specifically private sector funding through energy services companies. They will sign a contract with the department that owns buildings and the terms of the contract would require this company to implement energy retrofit measures: putting in new ventilation, replacing large fan motors with variable speed drives, and using new lighting technology and other equipment that consumes less energy. The savings resulting from that new equipment are used to finance the investment. A department does not need to have any capital dollars to implement energy retrofit projects. They can finance them through the savings, using energy service companies and private sector financing.
The Federal Industrial Boiler Program exists within NRCan. The program primarily targets large heating equipment. They do condition assessments and feasibility studies to try to reduce noxious emissions and increase the energy efficiency of that type of equipment. This type of equipment typically requires a lot of money to replace and to do annual inspections on, so they provide that expertise within the federal government.
Earlier, I mentioned the CBIP program, which is the Commercial Building Incentive Program. This is another program to which we refer departments, to find ways of bidding their new buildings according to the most energy- efficient standards the industry can provide.
EnerGuide for Houses is another program. You may have heard of EnerGuide for Houses inspections, a program within NRCan that allows anybody who owns a house to hire a company to inspect their house to find out where there are energy savings opportunities. The cost is subsidized through this program by up to about 50 per cent in some regions, I believe. It would cost you $300, but through this program it would only cost you $150. The savings make up for the cost of investing in it. This is one of the programs that have been targeted under the climate change plan to assist Canadians to address energy efficiency improvements in existing houses.
R2000 is a program, as I mentioned earlier, for new housing. I also mentioned Energy Star procurement. These are all programs that currently exist. If you wanted to undertake measures with regard to procurement, new construction or existing buildings, there are ways of doing it cost-effectively, accessing financing and learning from people's previous successes so you can get it done quickly and efficiently.
On the transportation front, there are programs such as the Federal Vehicles Initiative that looks at departmental needs to create a fleet management plan, to pool their vehicles and to do vehicle maintenance. The Initiative attempts to ensure that we have the most efficient condition of the vehicles and we are getting the maximum utilization out of the vehicles, rather than having a vehicle around for five years and putting only 10,000 miles on it. Putting it in a pool allows us to maximize its use and get the most value out of it.
Mr. Taylor will speak to leadership vehicles a bit later. Leadership Vehicles is a new initiative under the Federal House in Order Initiative to find ways of showing leadership through the kinds of vehicles that we use and the fuel that we put in those vehicles. It should be done in a way that is visible to the general public. Making it known that we are actually using these vehicles is one way of getting people to replicate that in various levels of government and in the private sector.
I am sure that you have heard ethanol being discussed. Hopefully, ethanol will be the future fuel for cars in Canada. There is potential for ethanol production in Canada. However, an infrastructure needs to be put in place to provide ethanol to those parts of Canada where it will be used. The biggest challenge with 85 is having the infrastructure in place so that people have a reason to purchase an 85 vehicle.
The Ready Program is dealing with emerging renewable energy systems. The federal government is one potential user. Emerging renewable energy systems include ground source heat pumps and technology for heating your house and water with small-scale hydro — micro-hydro in particular.
We have an on-site generation program that was put in place through the Federal House in Order Initiative. That is on-site generation of electricity. That program is targeting primarily remote communities that are currently not connected to a grid and rely heavily on diesel fuel.
Northern communities have this problem. They are the most cost-effective areas to place a small wind generator so that the electricity needs can be met through on-site production.
Electricity can be generated without having to build a dam such as James Bay. You can do it on any small river now and generate enough electricity to run a small plant or village.
Outside emissions is also addressed by the Federal House in Order Initiative. Outside emissions are emissions for which the federal government is not directly accountable. We call them outside because they fall outside the baseline. If we own a building and we have equipment in there that burns fuel, those emissions belong to us, to the federal government. If we are leasing a building that is owned by the private sector, those emissions belong to the landlord.
If we have employees that drive or take a bus to work, the government is not responsible for those emissions because people chose how they wish to get to work. However, we still feel a responsibility to help people address those emissions.
We are piloting something in the government that is already in practice in many private sector organizations. We have had difficulty doing ``EcoPass'' in the federal government for a number of years. EcoPass is a way of purchasing a bus pass through payroll deduction. Doing that in the federal government has been a challenge, given Treasury Board of Canada regulations and the restrictions of payroll system. A significant amount of work went into trying to set up this system.
Through the Federal House in Order Initiative, we met with Treasury Board on a number of occasions. They came on board and allowed us to start a pilot project. It went into effect last fall. We will have the results of that pilot next fall, and we hope to roll it out to all federal departments.
There are four departments currently participating in the National Capital Region. We selected that pilot size to keep costs down and yet be able to draw conclusions about the feasibility of doing it wherever a transit system is in place.
The take-up on that project is looking good from the little feedback received thus far. Hopefully, by the end of year we will see that more people are taking transit than before. We want to see that we are not simply getting people who are switching from buying a bus pass in person to buying it through payroll deduction. That would not be a net increase in ridership.
This approach makes bus passes easier to obtain. There is also a cost savings. By purchasing the EcoPass, you purchase a one-year pass for the cost of 11 months. Most people are reporting that they like it because of the convenience.
The next slide addresses leadership challenge. In my view, it is the most important component of the Federal House in Order Initiative. I mentioned earlier that there are about 150 different federal departments, agents and Crown corporations. All those federal entities should be doing their share. They should be joining in and doing something to address their emissions.
I mentioned earlier that only 11 departments were designated to share in the federal target. These departments represent 95 per cent of the emissions. It would not be cost effective to ask all federal departments and agencies to track and report emissions. That work would be fairly significant and costly. Those departments are encouraged to do it voluntarily.
The leadership challenge in place is to provide tools, advice, information and assistance to help those departments put custom-tailored plans in place that are geared to their own operations; that suit their budgets and the nature of their operation whether they are operating out of leased space or federally owned space. There are things that every department could do. Ann awareness program to have people turn off their lights and computers would go a long way at the end of the day.
This applies to Crown corporations as well. A number of Crown corporations in Canada want to show leadership on this file. It is in their best interest to save money as well.
The leadership challenge is part of the Federal House in Order Initiative to show federal leadership. We do not want to merely report that we met 31 per cent reduction. We want to be able to say by 2010 that everyone did their share. The leadership challenge encourages all non-designated departments agencies and Crown. The opportunities are the same as in designated departments — buildings, vehicles, procurement, renewable energy, employee awareness and outside emissions. The same opportunities exist in corporations like Canada Post or Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. These are non-designated departments. A number of these organizations want to do things, and we can show them how to do it quickly at the lowest cost.
As I mentioned, all federal entities are invited to participate. We will recognize those who participate, in the annual report. Hopefully, we will have a growing list each year of the departments participating.
Mr. A.C. Taylor, Director, Transportation and Energy Use, Natural Resources Canada: Buildings are the biggest source of emissions for the federal government. Of the 3,000 kilotons of emissions, over 80 per cent are from buildings. Our fleet emissions are not significant in those terms. They are about 200 kilotons, which is only 6 per cent.
Vehicles are a more important part of this initiative than their numbers suggest, for a couple of reasons. First, the federal government is large, and the fleet is the largest fleet in Canada. It is a very visible fleet. As the first bullet on the slide shows, there are over 20,000 vehicles on the road carrying the Canada word mark. That is a bit like travelling billboards. We hear about it when one of our vehicles is doing something that is not energy efficient or safe.
Given that the thrust of this initiative is not just to save greenhouse gas emission but to show leadership, then making use of the vehicles to show that leadership is attractive. A number of ministers have been committed to this. A number of your colleagues have been committed to doing things with vehicle fleets. The Alternative Fuels Act was unique in that it found its roots in your chamber.
The Chairman: It is not unique; perhaps unusual, but not unique.
Mr. Taylor: I am sure it is not unique, but unique in my time, senator.
Indeed, Minister Anderson was a strong proponent of doing things with the federal fleet. For that reason, our two departments manage the Leadership Vehicles Initiative jointly and closely. We have worked closely on what we are doing and, perhaps together, we can field issues you wish to raise on this.
The Prime Minister has endorsed this part of plan. You may recall November 22, the day after the climate change plan was released. Mr. Comtois mentioned that one of the elements in the plan was a proposal to have more low- emitting vehicles in the federal fleet. At 10 o'clock the next morning, at the Sunoco station on Carling, the Prime Minister announced that, indeed, we would take action. There were three elements to his announcement.
The first was that we were going to start buying our vehicles differently. We were going to consider explicitly their greenhouse gas emissions as one of the mandatory criteria in deciding what vehicles any department would buy. Second, we were going to use E10, which is a 10-per-cent gasoline-ethanol blend, wherever it is available. Since it is quite well available in Ottawa, vehicles in this town should be using E10 as of November 22. Third, in terms of alternative fuel vehicles, that is, vehicles that do not burn gasoline or diesel but burn one of the other alternative fuels, the Prime Minister's announcement figured that source of energy was a growing and important source for the federal government because in almost every case, these alternative fuels have much-reduced emissions from gasoline and diesel.
With that challenge in front of us, the task force that runs the federal vehicle initiative has gone into high gear. We are doing a number of things to try to change and improve the way vehicles are operated, used and maintained in the federal fleet. The third bullet here, the Leadership Vehicle Initiative, is focusing on the vehicles we buy with the hope that in the next few years, as we turn our fleet over — we normally turn it over in four to five years — all the vehicles in our fleet will be energy efficient. First, we are in the process of changing the vehicle acquisition process. The acquisition of the new model year vehicles, that is, the 2004 vehicles, which begins this spring, will be sensitive to the new criteria. These will be efficient vehicles. Second, there will be much stronger encouragement of alternative fuel, alternative energy and hybrid vehicles than we had even under the Alternative Fuels Act. Third, there will be a way to make the leadership vehicles more visible. We want to showcase those that use alternative fuels, are hybrids or somehow use new technology or special-efficiency technology because they are the vehicles of the future.
As a result of the initiative we are putting together here in response to the Prime Minister's charge, we feel we are targeting an impact of a ton of greenhouse gas emissions reduced per vehicle. When you look at our 20,000 vehicles, that is 20 kilotons, which is 10 per cent of the current 200 kilotons. It is a significant impact, and we think we can get it; and that is what we are going after.
The last element of this Leadership Vehicle Initiative is a bit like the leadership challenge already mentioned. It is a national challenge reaching out to other government fleets, particularly provincial and municipal, and to commercial fleets. We want to make it clear that we have taken action, it has had a major impact, and there are things we learned that could help them. Indeed, we are offering to work together in a number of ways with other fleets to ensure that, in total, our impact in Canada on the way vehicles are operated is much larger.
Mr. Comtois: That is all we have for you on the House in Order Initiative. If you have questions, we will be glad to answer them.
Senator Spivak: I would like to get a handle on the baseline. Before I do that, the Alternative Fuels Act was about seven years ago. That was a mandatory piece of legislation. How many vehicles out of the 20,000 were switched to alternative fuels under that legislation?
Mr. Taylor: I might say that you are right. It is a mandated program, and the President of the Treasury Board is charged with tracking compliance with the program and reporting every year. Every year that the president has reported, he or she has found the government in compliance with the program. The results, however, in terms of the expectations of those who framed the legislation, have been disappointing. Roughly 600 vehicles now run on alternative fuels.
Senator Spivak: After seven years of legislation?
The Chairman: I just want to point that you said you turned the fleet over every four years.
Senator Spivak: They did not buy alternative fuels.
I want to get at the baseline. You said that 11 departments account for 95 per cent of GHG emissions that you have chosen to count. I wish to get into what you have not counted. How much of that is due to downsizing? Information I have here based on 1991 — I do not know if it is accurate — says that downsizing accounts for a 16-per-cent decrease, and that leased operations could account for as much as another 15 per cent. Is that in total? Is that of the 11 departments?
The Chairman: That is 31 per cent.
Senator Spivak: Right. I would like to know. It is important. Your figures sound great, but what is it a percentage of?
Mr. Comtois: The biggest challenge we faced in putting this initiative in place was a lack of reliable data. The same problem existed when we went across the country and consulted with all the provincial governments. The national implementation process requires all levels of government to lead by example. We happen to be ahead of the pack, and we had more money and started sooner to get our own house in order. Provincial governments are doing the same thing. They are at various stages of progress. They had that same problem of no data.
We had to back-cast the data. The baseline we are working with, our 1990 baseline, is 3,847 kilotons. That is the emissions from the 11 designated departments. When we back-cast, we looked at the growth. We looked at before departments were even amalgamated. Public Works is now larger than it was in 1990 and encompasses what were five major departments back then, so we look at Public Works now, and Natural Resources is another department that amalgamated and absorbed many departments.
Senator Spivak: I understand the process you have gone through. That is not what I am asking. You have excluded certain operations from your calculation of a baseline. You excluded rented facilities and Crown corporations. I want to know what percentage of exclusion is involved. It could be 95 per cent, but 95 per cent of what? How much have you excluded that you are not counting? You are not counting employees who drive their vehicles to work. That is a huge exclusion. What percentage of your 11 departments are you not counting? You are not counting rented space. What percentage is that of the space you have? You are not counting Crown corporations. What percentage is that?
Mr. Comtois: I do not have a figure on those.
Senator Spivak: Perhaps we could get a handle on that.
Senator Eyton: Could I have a supplemental? What makes up the 21-per-cent reduction? It came in ahead of the fact; it came early. Where does it come from? In other words, do you get a freebie? Europe got a freebie because it closed many obsolete plants. Where do we get that 21-per-cent reduction?
Mr. Comtois: That is part of the same earlier question. In 1998, we did a data collection exercise where we found out what our emissions were in 1998. Those emissions proved to be 19 per cent lower than the 1990 emissions. In other words, our 1998 emissions were 19 per cent lower than our 1990 emissions. Two thirds of that 19-per-cent reduction came from downsizing. One third was through energy efficiency measures. The additional 2 per cent in the following two years, 1999 and 2000, we reduced by a further 2 per cent. The total now is two thirds of 19 per cent, which is 12.5 per cent, from downsizing, and 6.5 per cent to 7 per cent from energy efficiency.
Senator Spivak: What percentage of the facilities that the government operates is rented? What percentage is rented that you are not counting?
Mr. Comtois: That is the part of the question for which I did not have an answer for you earlier.
Senator Spivak: We do not really know what that 95 per cent represents at the moment. It would be helpful to know that.
Mr. Comtois: That information is available. I just do not happen to have it with me.
The Chairman: Could you get it to our clerk, please?
Mr. Comtois: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Now we get to the government vehicles. You are only talking about 600, and that has to do with the purchasing. However, why would you not address, for example, commuting and business travel, travel by airplane? It would be a huge reduction if you were to curtail some of that travel.
Mr. Comtois: We try to address that. The reason we do not provide direct funding for that is because those emissions are not part of the federal baseline. We do not own those emissions.
Senator Spivak: That is just a construct.
Mr. Comtois: We cannot replace a boiler in a leased building.
Senator Spivak: No, but you can limit the amount of travel that federal employees take. They can do video- conferencing. There are many ways to curtail travel. If you want to reduce the emissions, you could limit each employee to one trip per year. That would reduce a lot, much more than reconstructing a building.
I have other questions, but I do want to know why you are not addressing those.
Mr. Comtois: We do address those. We do it as a voluntary measure. Because we do not own those emissions, we provide all employees and managers with best practices, so that we can advise them.
Senator Spivak: Why is that voluntary? If you make it voluntary it might take another 30 years. If you calculate from the vehicle thing, which was under a law, that is only 600 out of 20,000; figure it out.
Mr. Comtois: All measures are voluntary. We do not prescribe which measures departments will implement. What we were able to do to arrive at the target was to quantify the opportunities in areas we knew we could measure where we have an energy bill coming in. There is no data right now with regard to emissions associated with travel.
Senator Spivak: I understand that this is a matter of government policy. You are not responsible exactly for that. You are responsible for carrying it out.
There are many things in the government civil service that are mandatory. You would think on a matter like this they would make these things mandatory. I am wondering what the rationale is. I know you say, ``We do not own them.'' That is just fiction; it is just a construct. In many ways you do circumscribe the manner in which federal employees work and operate in the government.
Mr. Berny Latreille, Director, Environmental Affairs, Environment Canada: I have additional information on what we are doing to get at some of those emissions. You are quite right; they are quite large, even though we are not directly accountable for them. The outside emissions component of that, which Mr. Comtois mentioned earlier, is part of the leadership challenge program. Some things we are doing in individual departments. Some of the tools that we are building to help departments better manage this include providing better options for people to commute in more sustainable ways. We ensure buildings have shower facilities or good bicycle storage, which are simple things that will allow people to make better choices.
An example in our own department in the last year is that we made some of our large conferences carbon-neutral. That means that we calculated the carbon emissions related to getting people to those events. One was the Health and Environment Ministers of the Americas. Another was the G8 Environment Ministers meeting in Banff. Another was the Conference of the Parties meeting, as well as the Canadian delegation to Johannesburg. We purchased carbon credits to offset all the carbon emissions related to getting federal servants there.
Again, we do not get credit for those emissions reductions against our target, but it is one of those things we do to provide leadership. We have quite a few initiatives like that, that we are piloting and trying to develop tools around to help departments get at some of those other emission reductions, even though they will not get credit for those in the balance sheet of GHG.
Senator Milne: Perhaps I should start with the fact that none of these, except of course for the cars, were mandatory, were mandated by law, and it did not happen. Perhaps your voluntary approach will be a little more effective, but I doubt it very much. Let us start with what kind of cooperation you are getting with Public Works Canada, as that is the department responsible for procurement.
Mr. Comtois: Are you asking on the subject of procurement in general?
Senator Milne: I am asking about living up to these standards that you have set here in one of these little slides.
Mr. Comtois: Public Works is cooperating quite well. They have recently changed their policy on new buildings. They have voluntarily done so. All of their new buildings will be constructed 25 per cent better than model national energy code.
Senator Milne: Are they buying only Energy Star-compliant things?
Mr. Comtois: Public Works is actively involved in the development of a procurement strategy for the federal government to incorporate Energy Star requirements in all standing offers. It does not happen overnight, but it is something that they have indicated they are committed to doing. One of the things associated with these new measures is that we have not really costed out what it will cost to implement this across the board. In the climate change plan that came out in November, there are no funds associated with implementation of these measures yet, because we have not even had an opportunity to look at what it would cost to build all of our new buildings. Would it cost more or not? What would it cost to buy only leadership vehicles in the future? That is something we hope to come to grips with over the next year with various departments. Public Works Canada is a very active player in the House in Order Committee. They are the second largest department. They are the largest real estate owner, next to DND, of course, but in general, commercial space and common space. They are working closely with us to do that. They have a significant target themselves. One of the things Public Works has that is different from the other departments, which makes it particularly challenging for them, is they are zero-based in the financing structure. They do not reap the benefits of savings from implementing energy efficiency measures. That all has to be returned to the central revenue, whereas with other departments, if they have a budget and they implement energy efficiency measures, those savings come back and they can reinvest them in operations.
The financial structure of various departments comes into play when you look at feasibilities of implementing measures, which is one of the challenges that Public Works Canada faces, beside the fact they are a service department and are at the whim of the tenant. If the tenant chooses not to operate the building in an energy-efficient way, Public Works Canada can do little. They are not legally in a position to impose operating practices on the tenants.
Senator Milne: Neither are you.
Mr. Comtois: That is right.
Mr. Latreille: Public Works is leading an interdepartmental effort to develop a whole new suite of standards and policies around sustainable buildings. They are leading the charge to identify what are the standards that we will insist go into our lease criteria when we are leasing new buildings. That starts with where you locate a building to try to reduce the emissions related to employee commuting, —
Senator Milne: It does not bode well for the north.
Mr. Latreille: — indeed, as well as full cradle-to-grave environmentally friendly standards related to the construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and disposal of buildings. That is new. They are leading that charge, rather than waiting for departments ask for those sorts of standards. They want to deliver that by default in new buildings for the government.
Senator Milne: Are they looking at that actively when they renew leases, then, in existing buildings? Perhaps, say they will renew the lease — and they want to renew the lease — if an energy efficient system is put in to heat and air- condition this building? Are they looking at heat exchange units, et cetera?
Mr. Latreille: It is a little complicated. If it is a short-term lease, any of those costs are passed on to the taxpayer. In the longer-term leases, it is easier to insist on more where you know there is a good solid business case to that as well. That is work they are actively pursuing now.
Senator Milne: The charts show that since 1991 we have inadvertently been able to reduce our emissions through downsizing. If I read this last budget correctly, downsizing will not continue to occur. Have you built into this the assumption that the federal public service will increase in size?
Mr. Comtois: Absolutely, growth was taken into account. When I talked about this particular slide regarding the growth curves, we estimate that from 1998 to 2010, approximately 80 kilotons will be associated with growth. That is how much we have to offset. Not only must we reduce emissions from 1998, our baseline year —
Senator Milne: That is the 3,102 up to 3,181.
Mr. Comtois: That is right. That is where the increase lies. That is the expected growth, which is approximately —
Senator Milne: This is drawn up pre-budget?
Mr. Comtois: Yes.
Senator Milne: It could be a greater reduction you have to make.
Mr. Comtois: It could, and we revise this every year to readjust our growth forecast. At the present time, there is a 2.5 per cent estimated growth rate, which is information that is hard to come by — accurate information. It is certainly recognized as an important criterion.
Senator Milne: What are the 11 departments that account for 95 per cent of all emissions?
Mr. Comtois: Would you like me to list them for you? National Defence is the largest emitter. I put that in as supplementary information. That is correct.
Senator Milne: Thank you; I can read it. Have you any indication that there will be more ethanol production and that it will be available in more areas? It is available out West and in the Ottawa area, but it is not available in the Toronto area, where I live. Many federal departments operate in that area.
Mr. Taylor: Sunoco in Toronto now has ethanol in all its stations.
Senator Milne: I have some problems with Sunoco and its ownership.
Mr. Taylor: Ethanol has gathered most of its market reach through what you might call ``independents.'' The majors, with the exception of Sunoco, are yet to embrace it enthusiastically.
Senator Milne: It is interesting that Petro-Canada has not.
Senator Spivak: If you were to buy 20,000 vehicles of hybrid, which is far more effective, you would probably get a better price; would you not? If you ordered that, you could probably get a price that would be in line with other cars, if you had global purchasing, which I do not think you have at the moment. Would that not make sense?
Mr. Taylor: You are right, and it is part of our strategy.
Senator Spivak: Hybrid vehicles are better than ethanol in terms of emissions.
Mr. Taylor: It is slightly better than ethanol made from corn, which is what the ethanol we sell in Ontario is made from. The idea of making a significant market order for hybrid vehicles is probably not feasible today. There are not enough manufacturers producing them, but almost all the majors have announced hybrid vehicles by 2004 and, certainly, by 2006.
Senator Spivak: The California market will demand that.
Mr. Taylor: I think you are right. Both the zero emissions vehicle legislation and the greenhouse gas reduction targets that California is talking about will likely be met in large measure by hybrid or fuel-cell vehicles.
Senator Spivak: Hybrid is probably faster.
Senator Milne: I was going to go on with the point about houses that are built to R2000. I have to admit I have many problems with airtight buildings. Many health problems are associated with such buildings. If you have houses that the military, for example, are living in, that are all R2000 and more or less airtight, will you have more asthma in children in those places and increased health costs? Is there enough air exchange?
Mr. Comtois: They have a heat recovery ventilator as part of the design, and that is where one gets the air exchange.
Senator Milne: They have a heat exchange unit.
Mr. Comtois: It is an air exchange unit, actually, for bringing fresh air in. They have better indoor air quality performance, even though they are airtight, because of the way the ventilation is designed into the heating system.
Senator Christensen: With respect to looking at cutting back on emissions, have you done any cost-benefit analysis on the work done on emissions reductions since 1992 to date? Is it costing more to do this, or, in the long term, will it cost less?
Mr. Comtois: It is costing less because the projects that are responsible for the emission reductions to date are energy retrofit projects. As a matter of fact, they were probably more cost-effective than they will be in the future. There is an expression that has been worn out in my three years with the house in order initiative, you might have heard, the low hanging fruit syndrome. All the low-cost opportunities are the ones that get chosen first and implemented first. The big energy retrofit projects of the 1990s are probably a thing of the past. More, now, we are looking at new technology and new operating practices and the margins will probably decrease in the future. That is a good thing because it means we have more sustainable buildings to start with.
When we have old buildings that are leaking air, that have inefficient heating systems and cooling systems, where the cooling system is fighting the heating system, the two can be reduced. We are getting better at understanding what the buildings are doing by having energy management control systems built into the buildings so we can monitor the efficiencies of both the heating and cooling systems together so we are ventilating at the same time as heating.
The Federal Buildings Initiative I mentioned earlier is 10 years old. That program is primarily responsible for the large energy retrofit projects that have taken place since 1992. The average cost-effectiveness of those is a 20-per-cent reduction. The payback period is seven years or less. That is considered cost-effective for a large project.
Most of the highest return measures in those projects are lighting retrofits. Typically a lighting retrofit will finance the rest of the project. That will pay back within a year, whereas an overall project that pays back in seven years you have measures that take 15 years on their own to pay back. Because the lighting pays back so quickly when you lump all the measures together, the overall project pays back within a reasonable time frame.
To give you an idea, right now the cumulative savings from energy retrofit projects in the federal government amount to a total in private sector investment of $200 million, which has been put into these energy savings projects, financed through the savings, and we are saving about $27 million per year in energy costs. That is the result of the work that has been done to date. It is cost-effective.
Mr. Latreille: In our own operations in Environment Canada, we have a large laboratory facility in Burlington, which was one of the first projects under this federal buildings initiative program. Since then, they have done more work within the envelope of that project and it pays itself off in about three months. We will be saving about $1 million a year in energy costs that go right back into providing science out of that facility. That is a real world example of the kinds of efficiencies that are possible in some of the things we have been doing.
As Mr. Comtois says, much of that low-hanging fruit has already been harvested so future ones will not likely be as large as that one, but it is a real world example.
The Chairman: Unlike Public Works Canada, that laboratory gets to keep that $1 million and spend it, right?
Mr. Latreille: That is right.
Senator Christensen: In the 1980s, the Department of Energy and Mines developed the R2000 program and, in fact, had a five-year monitoring program on those houses that were built under that program. That monitoring program was not completed and R2000 was turned over to the Canadian Home Builders' Association. Who is dealing with that standard now, updating it and looking at the HRVs and all the problems that were a part of those first houses that were built?
Mr. Comtois: I am not 100-per-cent sure but I believe it is Natural Resources Canada through the Office of Energy Efficiency. There is the Housing, Buildings and Regulation Division that runs the R2000 program, and I believe they also look after the maintenance of the standards.
Senator Christensen: Are they now putting that into commercial? I know the first commercial R2000 building was built in Whitehorse, Yukon, with an extensive monitoring system that was closed down within a year of it being built — not the house, but the monitoring system. Is that in fact being incorporated into commercial buildings now?
Mr. Comtois: I believe multi-unit residential buildings are part of the R2000 program. Commercial buildings for offices would be the C2000 program. It is an offshoot of the R2000 but is specifically intended for commercial purposes. Yes, it is something that currently is being promoted, again, through Natural Resources Canada.
Senator Eyton: I just want to ensure that I understand your submission perfectly. You were talking about the federal house and the jurisdictions, vehicles and operations that are within your control and management. Every once in a while your presentation veered off about setting examples and setting standards, so that you do step outside of your pure defined jurisdiction. The numbers you gave us in here, do they relate entirely to the federal jurisdiction? I am talking about numbers both past, present and future, that is, the targets you are only talking about. Are they the items that are within your control?
Mr. Comtois: Yes. By ``within our control,'' we mean emissions that we are accountable for, which we directly produce through assets that we own.
Senator Eyton: You talked about some of the outside followers that may look and see what you are doing and try to emulate those measures so you would get a larger effect than you are talking about here in your numbers.
Mr. Comtois: We would like to see the measures that we implement replicated in other sectors and other levels of government, which is why we consult with them and share our best practices with them. We try to learn from them. As a matter of fact, they are learning more from us because we happen to be ahead of the pack.
Senator Eyton: You talked about CO2 equivalents, which concerned me a little because Kyoto is about CO2 and not about CO2 equivalents.
Mr. Comtois: It is both. There are conversion factors in here to give global warming potential of the various gases. There are six greenhouse gases. I cannot name them all, but methane and nitrous oxide are two.
Senator Eyton: You are talking only about Kyoto and meeting the standards there. These are all sorts of pollutants to our air, water and soil, but you are not trying to measure that and they are not part of your CO2 equivalents.
Mr. Comtois: We measure refrigerants in our chillers, which have a global warming potential that is equivalent. For instance, nitrous oxide is a product of combustion of boilers.
Senator Eyton: Does what you are talking about here relate directly to Kyoto?
Mr. Comtois: We are not talking about other air pollutants.
Senator Eyton: What do you mean by ``green power''? Everybody loves to talk about wind. There is some limit to what wind can do. It may do a small percentage, which is a modest contribution for a variety of reasons. What are we really talking about?
Mr. Comtois: The term ``green power'' has been largely debated within the federal government. We no longer use that term.
Senator Eyton: You did tonight.
Mr. Comtois: We no longer use that term because it is misunderstood. In the context of house in order, we mean it does not produce carbon dioxide. It is not a carbon-based source. You could argue that hydroelectricity is green power, or that nuclear electricity is green power. It may be green in a different way, but it is not considered green power for the purposes of the Green Power Program. That is why we have changed the name. We now call it the Emerging Renewable Electricity Program.
Senator Eyton: Tell me what you are talking about. It has to be more than wind.
Mr. Comtois: It is more than wind. The process of photovoltaics is another example. That is solar energy used to generate electric power. It is a new technology, which requires significant investment to become accepted in the marketplace. Biomass production is another one. There are energy efficient ways of producing electricity through consumption of biomass. There is small-scale hydroelectricity, as opposed to building a big dam, and flooding acres and hectares, and generating methane gas through the process. It is possible to generate electric power now on a smaller scale using small amounts, I believe 100 megawatts or less.
Senator Eyton: You have now defined green power, and I heard you say that you would favour the federal government obtaining green power over other forms of power.
Mr. Comtois: Approximately 20 per cent of the electricity that the federal government currently purchases comes from coal-fired generation. We are trying to displace that with power generated through green sources — emerging renewable sources. There is a premium to that now. You currently have to pay between two and three cents a kilowatt more per unit than you would to purchase conventional electricity. We have $30 million allocated to the house in order initiative to pay for that premium. We negotiate a supply agreement with a utility like Enmax or EPCORP in Alberta, Maritime Electric in Prince Edward Island, or SaskPower in Saskatchewan to purchase green power, but we are primarily trying to stimulate the market. In 1997, we piloted a purchase agreement of green power in the city of Calgary, Alberta, and found that there was an 11-fold increase. In other words, there is now 11 times as much green power being sold to residential users in Calgary as we were buying under that agreement, all because we started that pilot and made it available. We stimulated the market and people are voluntarily paying a premium to buy green power. They want to see that market grow.
Senator Spivak: What is cogeneration?
Mr. Comtois: Cogeneration is where you produce heat and generate electricity in the process for your own use. You could have a cogeneration plant where you produce electricity from steam generation. When burning natural gas, fired cogeneration is the most cost-effective. You are generating heat from that for your facilities and, at the same time, the steam is used to power a turbine and you can generate electricity. We are looking at ways of doing that as well within various sites in the federal government. I know that Public Works Canada was looking at one here. I believe the Cliff Street plant was being looked at. I do not how that stands now, but it is a substantial investment.
Senator Eyton: The federal government in Ottawa deals with either Quebec Hydro or Ontario Hydro. Neither is noted for green power, within your definition. Ontario is coming up to about 50 per cent nuclear power, about 25 per cent hydro, and the rest coal, natural gas and other things. In Quebec, there is an immense surplus of hydro power.
Are you talking about swap contracts where it comes through the grid?
Mr. Comtois: Yes.
Senator Eyton: You are saying ``buy it'' but I am not sure where the buyer comes from.
Mr. Comtois: It is not interconnected now. You cannot buy electricity for Ottawa that comes from Alberta. You have to buy it within Ontario. It is not deregulated to that state yet. Various provinces are deregulated. We were in Ontario and now we are not.
Senator Eyton: There is a grid, but I am not sure what the connections are to Alberta.
Senator Milne: Eastern United States, Quebec and Ontario are all part of that grid.
Mr. Comtois: It is not a seamless grid like TransCanada Pipelines is with gas. It is much more complicated.
Senator Eyton: It could probably be done but it would be costly.
Mr. Comtois: The Green Power Plan is targeting to have agreements in all provinces and territories by 2010. The challenge is largely deregulation.
Senator Eyton: You are dealing with the large utilities that provide the power?
Mr. Comtois: And the provincial governments. They play a key role in the whole process because of deregulation and the degree of control they have over the utilities in some provinces.
Senator Eyton: You talked about fuel cells. There are two or three companies in Canada that are leaders in fuel cell technology. Are you dealing with them? How do you invest in fuel cell technology?
Mr. Comtois: I wish I could give you the answer to that. That is brand new. That was in the November climate change plan. The government, through that climate change plan, has committed to be a first-time purchaser through demonstration projects. Through the projects, the government will try to demonstrate the technology in various applications, to find out whether it is feasible and cost-effective and what challenges are associated with its implementation in order that we can come up with a plan for rolling it out across the country and bringing the cost down. Technology needs to be tested in practice to find out how to make it commercially viable. That is one of the roles the federal government believes it should be playing. At this time, it is something we are doing only on a small scale through demonstration projects.
Senator Eyton: There are billions of dollars being spent on that technology by private companies.
Mr. Comtois: There are research and development investments, but in terms of applications through demonstration projects I am not aware of any that the federal government currently has. It is brand new and we hope to secure some funding to start doing more of it so that we can showcase this technology.
Senator Eyton: How significant are all these efforts fitted into the Kyoto targets? If you got to 21 per cent so readily when your target was 31 per cent, why not make it 50 per cent so that you can help everyone else? What share of the overall Kyoto targets for Canada are you occupying?
Mr. Comtois: Those are good questions and I am glad you asked them.
The federal government's emissions represent about 0.5 per cent of Canada's overall emissions. Even if we reduce all of our emissions, we will not make a dent in Canada's Kyoto target. That is why I mentioned earlier that the leadership challenge is the more important part of house in order, as far as I am concerned, because we are showing that even though we have already reduced by 19 per cent, we can do more. We will do as much as we feasibly can without spending more money than we otherwise would. That is where the leadership element comes into play, along with everyone doing their share.
As far as helping out the rest of Canada, we are doing it through leadership by investing in and stimulating certain markets. Ethanol and green power are the two markets we are trying to stimulate the most. We are also taking a leadership role with regard to new construction through the Commercial Building Incentive Program. A lot of money is currently being spent in the private sector through incentives to help private sector companies build brand new buildings, and many are already built.
The University of Ottawa has the most energy-efficient building right now through CBIP. It is 72 per cent below the model national energy code. That is the showcase of the program right now. It is here in Ottawa, should you want to see it. It is the new curved building on Nicholas Street.
That is how we are helping the private sector to do it. The emissions of the federal government are really insignificant compared with large industrial emitters in Canada, and with all homeowners. We have programs to help them find ways to reduce their emissions, which is why there is something in the climate change plan to enable every Canadian to do their share by reducing by 1 ton per person, and it can easily be done. We have looked at many ways. We have even done employee awareness programs within our own division to look at what each person can do. We found that we could easily do 5 tons per person on average in our own homes.
I had to replace the furnace in my house. I had a 40-year-old home with a 20-year-old furnace that was 60-per-cent efficient. I replaced it with a mid-efficiency furnace and I am already way past my 1-ton goal. It can easily be done; it is just a matter of knowing the impacts of the decisions you can make.
That is one thing we are trying to do. We are promoting a newsletter through the Web site to try to share these kinds of best practices and case studies.
The Chairman: We are looking at exactly that question and we are looking for the list. Would you undertake to send us whatever list arrives at an easy 5 tons per person? We would be grateful if you would let our clerk know what measures you found that are practicable on a personal basis.
Mr. Comtois: It is something we piloted within our office. We hired a consultant to measure the impact of a number of different activities.
The Chairman: We want to spread around the efficiencies that everyone tells us about as we talk to them and we would be grateful if you would contribute to the pot.
Senator Eyton: I will conclude with an observation. I am not sure it would be a good thing politically to order all your vehicles as hybrid vehicles today, because the two sources are Toyota and Honda. There are some large employers in Ontario — and that represents 101 members in the government — so that would not be a good thing. About one in four jobs in Ontario depend on the car business. It is a national system. It is hard to say that we will have a new Canadian standard that will be separate and distinct, because the industry is integrated in North America. I was trying to curb Senator Spivak because there are a lot of families that depend on the automobile industry.
Senator Spivak: There are new emission standards coming for all cars in a year or two, so they will be competitive. You can buy the ones that are made in Canada.
The Chairman: We have to follow the lead of a wag who sent me a note that said, I had a Kyoto once, but it rusted out. We will embark on the second round in a moment, but I have a couple of questions.
I accept the fact that Kyoto is a baby step in terms of where we have to go, and that Canada's commitment is a baby step. I also accept the fact that the Government of Canada's examples are baby steps in terms of solving the problem; and that arguments to the contrary are straw men set up by opponents to say that it will not make a difference. That is true, but no one ever said that it would. That is not the point. I think it is important, and we have already agreed that it is important, that the Government of Canada should set a good example. If the Government of Canada is saying, please try to do this, and we do not show that we have done it — or help show them how to do it — that is not good business.
Let us assume that I operate a nickel-plating factory. Am I going to be able to use the same measurement of reduction that you have used in the charts you have given us tonight? Am I going to be able to back-project and say, I think this is what my reductions were in 1990? Am I going to be able to count, in reaching my goal, the reduction, whatever it might be that has occurred for whatever reason between what I think I was doing in 1990 and what I am doing now? I am concerned that if we run out on the street and say the government has reduced its emission by 21 per cent, we must be able to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. If I went to the heavy industrial sector and said the federal government has already reduced its emissions by 21 per cent below 1990 levels, is that a fair thing to say to them? Are the criteria by which we are going to measure that the same? Are we setting a good example?
Mr. Comtois: That is an excellent question. There was a group called the analysis and modelling group that was part of the climate change process, which looked at issues like that. How do you account for greenhouse gas emissions from various fuels?
The Chairman: How do we be sure that we do not penalize good management — people who had good practices before we said they should?
Mr. Comtois: There are a number of different initiatives, but this is really outside my area. The Federal House in Order Initiative looks at the federal government's own operations. However, I am aware of other programs or initiatives within the government. The Baseline Protection Initiative is one where the federal government is trying to come up with a way of doing that, giving organizations in the private sector protection. If they can report emissions for 1990, they can get credit for the reductions that they have made since. It is actually part of an official registry. There is also something called the Greenhouse Gas Verification Centre, which works hand in hand with that. Its aim is to ensure that there is a fair playing field for everybody. As a result, what you are saying is true — we can compare apples to apples to ensure that the federal government's level of effort is equivalent to the private sector's level of effort. That is a huge undertaking that involves negotiations at all levels of government and in all sectors. That is not resolved.
The Chairman: If it gets resolved, will all of those things qualify according to the criteria set out in the agreement of which Kyoto is a small part? Will we qualify?
Mr. Comtois: I believe the federal government's progress against that will qualify. We have tried to use the most current GICA accounting protocols that are in existence in Canada and internationally, both through the Voluntary Challenge Registry and an international body that occupies itself with this. We have gone to them. We always go to them, for instance, with how to account for ethanol, how to account for co-generation.
It is not something that is resolved internationally yet. There is no universal standard that we can follow. We have come up with our own; and since we have it well documented, we know what process we followed. Therefore, we can easily convert to whatever else is adopted. We can convert our oranges into apples and have a common basis to go with.
We cannot wait until there is a universal standard to take action. It is better to take action now and keep track of how we are accounting for our reductions. We need to know how we did it and, if necessary, modify it. That is another way of showing leadership. Create a way. Beat your own path and be open to changes later.
The Chairman: Before I proceed, I have been asked if you will accept some written questions from us later that you could respond to in writing after this meeting is over?
Mr. Comtois: By all means.
The Chairman: I have one final question out of curiosity. You said that the Department of National Defence made the largest part of the contribution from the 11 government functions that are designated within your plan. They are not going to make tanks into things that smell nice — they have to do whatever it takes to make their equipment perform properly. Therefore, how did they manage that? First, what proportion of your overall goal, roughly, was ascribed to the Department of National Defence?
Mr. Comtois: 47 per cent.
The Chairman: Very nearly half. Are they onside in terms of being able to keep pace with the emissions reductions?
Mr. Comtois: Yes they are. Absolutely.
The Chairman: Mainly buildings, I presume.
Mr. Comtois: Yes. DND is the largest user of the federal building initiative. Just about every military base has undergone significant energy retrofit projects, and they continue to make maximum use of that program.
The Chairman: Do those criteria apply in retrofits as well as in new construction?
Mr. Comtois: There are no energy reductions from new construction. It is not part of the baseline right now. With new construction we revise the baseline. We say, Department A, out of your inventory of buildings, what are your total emissions? If they demolish an old building and put up a new one, if the net result is less than it was, that is the contribution of the new building. Right now, the target is based on our existing stock of buildings. What can we do to our existing stock to reduce our levels now? We know any new building we construct is going to be more efficient than the old one.
The Chairman: When you build a new building, you are seeking 25 per cent better than code. Is there a similar measurement when we retrofit, or is that not possible?
Mr. Comtois: We do not have a target when we retrofit. We have an energy services company look at all the opportunities and the cost, as well as the number of years required to pay back the investment. Typically, we get a 20- per-cent reduction in the energy bill from that facility.
We recently had such a project with the RCMP, as a matter of fact. The energy savings of that project were 30 per cent.
The potential is equivalent to that for new buildings. However, it is a matter of putting the project together properly and looking at all the opportunities and someone that has the experience.
It is a holistic system. You do not go in and do only the lights. You do the building closure, the heating system and cooling testimony and the operation. You can get maximum potential if it is integrated.
Senator Milne: I wish to go back to the topic of DND as they are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide equivalents.
I understand why you do not count emissions from military vehicles. There are many cars running around military bases. Are these included?
Mr. Comtois: The on-road vehicles, as well as some off-road vehicles owned by the Department of National Defence are a part of the baseline. The department has a large number of vehicles that are part of the baseline, and they are working to replace them.
The Chairman: Is there such a thing as an efficient jeep?
Mr. Taylor: We are not talking the Chrysler version.
The Chairman: In terms of the standard work horse vehicle of the type that we all know that the military uses, is anybody making a usable military jeep or 5-ton cab over to haul ammunition and pull a piece of artillery? Is there such a thing?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, as with the commercial fleet, the new models of those special vehicles are invariably more efficient than the old ones. The trouble is the lack of turn over of equipment. If we could appropriate more money for DND, they might turn those over faster.
The Chairman: I remind you of those things you have undertaken to send to us through the Clerk. You can expect a question or two in writing, and we would be grateful for the replies in writing.
The committee adjourned.