:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, the committee is meeting to study adapting infrastructure to face climate change.
Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
[English]
I would now like to welcome our witnesses.
Appearing before us today, colleagues, from the City of Merritt, is Michael Goetz, mayor, appearing by video conference. From the Ecology Action Centre is Will Balser, coastal adaptation coordinator, appearing by video conference. We have, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Matt Gemmel, director, policy and research. Finally, from the Town of Princeton, Spencer Coyne, mayor, is joining us, once again by video conference.
I would like to inform our witnesses before we begin that we do have some work that we need to do as a committee prior to turning the floor over to you for your testimony. I ask for your patience in advance for that.
I will begin today by turning the floor over to Ms. O'Connell.
What we debated at the last meeting on Tuesday was the fact that the motion that was moved by the Conservatives really didn't encompass the ability for all parties to have their witnesses. In this amendment I've incorporated the Bloc's—Mr. Barsalou-Duval's—amendment, with the three names that were proposed. I incorporated Mr. Bachrach's amendment in part c), which stipulates the number of meetings. I left all of the Conservative witnesses, with the exception of the witnesses who have already agreed. It think it is heavy-handed to send a summons to a witness who has already agreed. We discussed all of that and we have just simply removed those names. I've incorporated all of the amendments by my colleagues, cleaned up the summons in the original Conservative motion to remove those who have already agreed to appear and left the timing exactly as the original motion proposed.
In addition to that, which was always what we were arguing for and why our colleagues here argued to send this to the subcommittee, all we wanted was to ensure that we had our witnesses as well. We've added the witnesses that the Liberals would like to be summoned, as well as strongly urging these additional witnesses, whom we had previously proposed. I think this is a very fair and reasonable path forward. It has encompassed everyone's requests. Instead of what I think happened at the last meeting, where we were just supposed to accept without having the ability on our side, or on all sides frankly, to contribute to what we felt was the functioning in how we were going to structure these meetings.
Again, this is a unanimous vote in terms of having the study. We had no issues with the witnesses who were coming, but what we wanted was clarity on the number of meetings and to ensure that our witnesses were also included so that there was proportionality—which is a standard practice on committees—and then that we incorporated the other parties' recommendations and amendments as well.
I hope this moves us forward so that we can get to the important study that we are here to study today.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just have a couple of things. I noted that everyone on the past list was included, which is good. We would welcome Mr. Brown and Ms. Raitt to provide their testimony to this committee as well, and part c) remains unchanged from Mr. Bachrach's amendment at the last meeting.
I believe I heard Ms. O'Connell's motion say May 11, and we don't have four meetings between now and May 11 so I'm unsure how that would work. Maybe I misheard that.
I am also told that there is a motion at finance that would see several sections of the BIA moved to this committee, which would take precedence over any other business. We had a motion that's been circulated as well that just gives some more flexibility. I note that Mr. Sabia indicated that he could not meet on May 9 or 11 in his response, so it seems to remove him from the study altogether if that May 11 date is fixed.
We would propose to actually give more flexibility to the witnesses, several of whom, after initially saying they would not come, said that they could not come on those dates. I would just simply propose that we go to a much broader date range to give the clerk and the chair the opportunity to schedule these witnesses. We would suggest that these meetings occur prior to June 8. However, in terms of May 11, at this time, having come to where we are now, that's one week from now and I think we would say that we've seen some movement in the witnesses and this motion will get us to where we want to go, but I think the May 11 date is much too soon.
In that same spirit of collegiality and co-operation, I hope we can come to a date that's more reasonable to schedule everyone who we have now in this motion.
Having conferred, we agree with the Liberal additions of Patrick Brown and Lisa Raitt. We would like Michael Sabia to remain in the motion. He's agreed to come, but there's no timing. If the timing changes.... You know, if he's already agreed to come, the summons will be redundant, but it will be there to ensure that he does appear.
Again, we talked about amending the date, which did not happen, because we ran out of time at the last meeting. We are trying to give the chair and the clerk maximum flexibility, recognizing that this is the study that we are prioritizing right now. If it helps to remove the date and just give the clerk and the chair discretion, we can talk about that, but it certainly can't be May 11. There's no time for that many meetings. While that date was part of an original motion that was tabled in April, we're now several days past that, so we need to be flexible. As I said, we also need to recognize the business that is coming down the road for this committee.
We think it's reasonable to keep Mr. Sabia in, add Mr. Brown, add Ms. Raitt and adjust the date. That's what we'd be prepared to support. I think we'll all get where we want to be if we do that.
Thank you.
The two changes I made were that I left the dates out because with Mr. Bachrach's previous amendment, which is also built in. It's a maximum of four meetings.
I recognize that, if the Conservatives or the movers had timing in their previous motion, once they moved it on the floor, it was untenable. That's fine, but now we have a structure and a format of a maximum of four meetings.
I did not include Mr. Sabia. Again, if that's a hill the Conservatives want to die on for a witness that has actually already agreed to appear and does not require a summons.... If they want to take that heavy-handed route, I think it's really unnecessary.
I'm not prepared to add Mr. Sabia. My colleagues think that, if we're going to go down this route, we should respect witnesses who have agreed to appear here. There shouldn't be any sort of shaming or embarrassment of a witness who has already agreed.
We've incorporated the timing flexibility and everybody's motions. I hope this will bring it to a close, so we can get to the important study before us.
:
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
I think there's some general agreement for this. The one thing I was asking Mr. Strahl off-line was.... I think there's a certain level of agreement that we want to do right by witnesses who have agreed to appear. However, there is a strong argument that's being put forward that, if they change their minds, we don't want to leave the clerk in a situation where she's unable to have them appear.
Is there some form of wording we can use that says, perhaps, that if those who have agreed to appear and are on the priority list later decide not to, they then can? Can we do this, so we would achieve what we would like to achieve as a committee, which is having them appear before the committee, but also do right by them because they have agreed to appear without a summons?
Does that make sense to everybody?
I do think that date gives flexibility, and I think this debate signals to witnesses that this committee takes this seriously and wouldn't hesitate to use this power again.
I would note that Mr. Sabia and Ms. Fukakusa gave the same response, as far as I know. Both have indicated they would speak, but certain dates next week do not work. If my understanding is correct and both have said, “Yes, we will appear, but, no, those dates don't work”, I would simply say that probably we should also remove Ms. Fukakusa. Could the clerk confirm, perhaps? I have a list here that says she did indicate she was willing to come but not on the dates that were proposed.
I just want to be consistent. If Mr. Sabia has said, “Yes, but not then” and Ms. Fukakusa has said, “Yes, but not then”, we left the dates open to the discretion of the table. I think we can certainly work with that.
:
It looks like we have general agreement here, so we'll move forward with a vote on the revised motion.
Does everybody have a copy? Does everybody fully understand? Is everybody in favour?
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you, everybody. We got to where we needed to get to.
Now we'll turn our attention over to the witnesses, who have been kind enough to give us their time today. We appreciate that, and we appreciate, once again, your patience.
We'll begin with opening remarks. For that, I will turn the floor over to Mayor Goetz.
Mayor Goetz, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to testify regarding your study on adapting infrastructure to face climate change in Canada.
I am pleased to address you from the city of Merritt and also from the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of Nlaka'pamux and Syilx people.
Today I speak to you from a community that, in 2021, experienced record heat domes, two wildfires at our gates and, last, major flooding from atmospheric rivers in the month of November. More than 400 properties were affected by flood water, and the entire town of 7,500 was evacuated at 3 a.m. due to the failure of our water and waste treatment systems. I have to say that the recovery of our community has been inspiring and steady, with roads, infrastructure and private residences being repaired back to livable conditions.
However, from a flood mitigation perspective, our flood mitigation infrastructure is in substantially the same position as it was on the morning of November 16, 2021. We acknowledge that we are open to future flood risk. Until that changes, the tension of our residents is palpable and, as of today, we are at a level one flood risk with rapidly melting snowcaps. We are testing temporary dikes and dikes that were built by the military almost two years ago.
I have some recommendations that I would like to put forward, if I may. The City of Merritt has completed its flood mitigation plan and will be applying for the DMAF, which stands for disaster mitigation and adaptation funding. However, the program specifically excludes land acquisition as an eligible cost. Specifically, the program should make eligible the acquisition of land and buildings necessary to build mitigation infrastructure on. Without this, we are working with the province to come up with funding models that would allow us to acquire the land separate from the DMAF. This takes time and leads to substantial uncertainty for communities. Further, the DMAF program was not open to intake until January 2023, so there was no clear avenue to apply for potential flood mitigation and infrastructure funding for over 13 months.
My recommendation is that the inclusion of land acquisition in the disaster mitigation and adaptation program be looked at.
Floods are measured by how often certain volumes of water are experienced over time such as one-in-10 years, one-in-50 years or one-in-200 years. The challenge that we have with this is that, moving forward, we acknowledge that climate change has necessitated the need to rethink old flood levels. In our community, there was three times more water in the 2021 flood than there had ever been in the Coldwater River in the previous 50 years. The climate change adjustment for flood levels completely varies between communities. There is no standardization of the plan.
My recommendation is to establish best practices for climate change adjustments to return period calculations to the Q200 level and that the federal government produce guidelines for stabilization or standardization of climate change adjustments as part of the return period calculations.
A vast majority of our residents in zones 3 and 4, the flood-affected areas, either did not have overland water insurance or, in some cases, were under-insured completely. Many were outright denied coverage for a myriad of reasons. Most lost everything, including their homes and their lifetimes of memories. My recommendation is that the federal government and this committee expedite the flood insurance program to improve available, affordable and reliable flood insurance.
The DFAA program makes available 15% of eligible-event DFAA costs. These are commonly referred to as build back better funds. However, the program is designed so that these funds are advanced to the province only after the total cost of the event is known and a report is sent to the province requesting the funds. This means that the funds may be advanced years after the event. If the goal is to build back better, funds need to be made available as recovery projects to build bridges, raise roads, etc., are being completed, not after.
My recommendation is that the build back better program be refined to allow immediate payment to the province so that funds can be used to support improved projects during the recovery phase.
Last, the City of Merritt evacuated 7,500 people on the evening of November 16, but we also had 1,000 citizens from the city of Lytton, which had been burnt out in the previous wildfire, so it was close to 8,500. It could have been limited to 400 to 500 people affected in zones 3 and 4, which, in fact, flooded, but zones 1 and 2 would not have been evacuated if it weren't for the vulnerability in the city's water and waste treatment systems, which were flooded due to the fact that these systems are gravity-fed and in the lowest area of the city.
My recommendation is that the federal government support funding programs designed to mitigate risks for critical infrastructure for communities at risk. A proactive plan, rather than a reactive plan, may have cut recovery costs by millions.
Had this been in place—and I will be very brief—to protect our fresh water and our sewer plant, we would have evacuated only two parts of the community. My home was flooded, and I sent my family to one of my relatives in zone 2. Unfortunately, in the evacuation, my granddaughter was killed on the highway. She died in an accident. My other granddaughter was severely injured. Had we had the ability to protect the sewer plant, things would have been different for us.
I hope this committee takes these things into consideration. I apologize for my emotions.
The Ecology Action Centre is an environmental-based charity here in Mi’kma’ki, the unceded and ancestral lands of the Mi'kmaq people, and grounded in over five decades of deep environmental change efforts. We work to equip human and ecological communities for resilience and to build a world where ecosystems and communities are restored and not just sustained.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to this standing committee. I understand you have undertaken a study to look at adapting infrastructure to face climate change, and I'm here to give you my perspective from Nova Scotia and to speak to you about my two main recommendations. They are to adequately encourage and address nature-based solutions in the national adaptation strategy and the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, and to increase adaptation spending across the board.
I want to begin by highlighting the simplest and most effective form of adapting development and infrastructure to our changing climate, which is to not build in known risk-prone areas in the first place.
Provincial development regulations, like the recently delayed—much to my dismay—Coastal Protection Act here in Nova Scotia are an excellent first step. It's the first legislation of its kind in the country, but it's most effective if implemented immediately, especially when we in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes are facing the highest relative sea level rise rates in the country. It's well over a metre by 2100.
The recent hurricane Fiona, which should not be out of memory for anyone, was estimated to be the most expensive storm in Atlantic Canadian history, costing over $800 million in covered insured damages alone. It was a stark signal to all Atlantic provinces that we are already living in a changing climate, and we are well past the point of stalling adaptation measures and short-term planning.
Every dollar spent invested in adaptation now will save at least $15 in future costs. Unfortunately, we're currently spending some of that money to help rebuild communities and infrastructures in areas that were just levelled by floods, erosions and storms, instead of recognizing the need to change our relationship to the land and adapt, again, to our changing climate as we speak.
I'm really pleased to see the language for adaptation and funding for adaptation infrastructure developing in Canada over the last few years through the national adaptation strategy and the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. However, I want to be very clear that the lack of inclusion and consideration of nature-based solutions is very disappointing.
Nature-based solutions can range from land conservation and urban tree planting to wetland and ecosystem restoration, and a multitude of options under the spectrum of living shorelines. All focus on implementing the existing defence capabilities and services provided by ecosystems and native species. Adaptation infrastructure that includes the planting of those native species, and the protection and restoration of local ecosystems and biodiversity, has been proven to be more cost-effective, both on the initial installment and on development costs, and much more effective in the long-term maintenance costs.
In short, adaptation—yes, absolutely. I love to hear it across the board, but I want to make sure that we're modernizing our adaptation measures beyond just throwing rocks into the ocean and crossing our fingers.
Please recommend updates to both the national adaptation strategy and the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, requiring and incentivizing the implementation of nature-based solutions in adaptation infrastructure. Also, at the end of the day, adequately fund adaptation measures.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
:
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Good day, everyone.
[English]
I'm very pleased to be here with you—in person, for a change, which is nice. I want to recognize that we're in the city of Ottawa and on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.
FCM is the national voice of local governments. We represent over 2,100 communities from coast to coast to coast. Climate adaptation is a critical priority for every single one of those communities, so I want to start by thanking the committee for making this topic a priority of your current study and inviting FCM to present to you today.
We all know that, in the past few years, Canadians have experienced record-breaking heat waves, flooding, hurricanes and wildfires that have wreaked havoc on homes, businesses and communities. We've already heard directly from a mayor about the very real and human impact that climate change is having today in Canada.
Canadians rely on municipal infrastructure every day, yet, according to Statistics Canada's core public infrastructure survey, 14% of municipal waste water and transportation infrastructure is currently in poor or very poor condition and requires immediate repair or replacement. FCM has estimated that the cost of replacing or rehabilitating just these assets alone is in the range of $175 billion. That figure doesn't factor in the chronic impact that climate change is having on existing municipal infrastructure, nor the infrastructure that we need to build to protect Canadians from disaster events like floods.
With municipalities collecting less than nine cents of every tax dollar paid by Canadians, there's a mismatch between the impact of climate change on municipal infrastructure and the revenue tools that municipalities have to tackle the issue. Climate change is just one reason why municipalities urgently need a new fiscal framework that better aligns revenue with population growth and the infrastructure and services that Canadian's expect in the 21st century.
FCM welcomed the national adaptation strategy that was released last fall. This new framework signalled meaningful progress toward a whole-of-Canada approach to climate resilience. FCM advanced four priorities in the lead-up to the national adaptation strategy. The first was to invest in climate data and local and regional risk and vulnerability assessments. The second was to integrate climate risks into public sector decision-making. The third was to build effective collaboration in climate governance. The fourth was to scale up investment in resilient public infrastructure and nature-based solutions. I'm pleased to say that the NAS makes important progress on the first three of these priorities. However, we are still a long way away from the level of investment that is needed to ensure climate-resilient public infrastructure.
The national adaptation strategy also included exciting new investment in FCM's green municipal fund to support community-based climate adaptation initiatives. Broadly, this programming will support the completion of local climate risk and vulnerability assessments and the integration of climate risk into municipal infrastructure and operations, all with an aim to help municipalities better understand, mitigate and respond to local climate risks. In concrete terms, we expect that the new program will support 1,400 community-based climate adaptation initiatives by 2031. Through this programming, our green municipal fund is also looking to help municipalities assess the potential for private sector participation in adaptation financing, which is a new area.
The national adaptation strategy did include an increase to the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, which was already mentioned today. That funding of $489 million was described in the strategy as a down payment on the larger-scale funding that the federal government acknowledged is required to truly meet the challenge posed by climate change.
In 2020 FCM partnered with the Insurance Bureau of Canada to put a number on the level of investment required to adequately protect communities. According to the report's findings, avoiding the worst impacts at the municipal level will cost an estimated $5.3 billion per year, or the equivalent of 0.26% of Canada's total GDP. To address this gap, FCM has been calling for an immediate top-up of $2 billion and a long-term investment of $1 billion annually for the next 10 years in the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund.
Municipalities were disappointed that climate adaptation was not a priority in budget 2023. We continue to call for increased funding through the disaster mitigation adaptation fund. Adapting to climate change is expensive, but the returns are impressive. Every dollar we invest can save as much as $13 to $15 in future costs. I think we can all agree that it is in our collective interest to invest up front to prevent and mitigate disasters rather than pay for the cost of cleanup and recovery in the wake of a disaster.
Thank you.
I'm proud to join you today from the ancestral and unceded traditional territory of the Similkameen people.
Let me start today by saying that we cannot have resilient or sustainable communities if we do not work together. The threat from climate events is real. In my community right now we have climate refugees in temporary housing.
Rural British Columbian communities like Princeton, Tulameen and Merritt are the very face of climate change in Canada. From unprecedented flooding to relentless fire seasons, the climate emergency is not a what-if. We are living it.
When I was asked to speak today, I was going to focus on the need for a national flood strategy. Communities like Princeton are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in mitigation work to adapt to the new climate reality. Canadian communities like ours need senior levels of government to be the largest partner at the table when we're talking about flood mitigation. Most of our rivers in B.C. are salmon-bearing or part of an international water agreement. We have miles upon miles—if not hundreds of thousands of miles—of dike works that protect communities and unincorporated communities that have orphaned dikes. Nobody's helping.
The NAS—the national adaptation strategy—points out roads, infrastructure and economy. Those depend on the very dike networks that protect these systems.
Forty per cent through DMAF does not reflect the reality of small communities that are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades post-flood. Local government is trying to do what it can, but we do not have the ability to fund this alone. We have the least access to funding.
I would therefore like to recommend that the federal government create a national flood mitigation strategy, with funding allocated according to risk and recovery, not population.
The NAS and all levels of government speak to resilient economies and healthy communities, but there is no program to assist in the mass relocation of areas out of flood plains. Local government can zone out new development, but we have no means to relocate areas of communities—especially housing.
For this reason, I would recommend that the Government of Canada, in partnership with the provinces and local governments, create a program to fund the relocation of areas out of flood-prone areas in a fair and equitable way. Communities are trying not only to recover but to do so in a responsible way that respects public safety and the physical and mental well-being of our residents, that is in balance with the environment and that incorporates indigenous traditional knowledge. These things are extremely costly and, in most cases, beyond our reach.
While some talk about bike lanes, communities like ours are talking about restoring riverbeds to their natural channels, which were lost over 100 years ago. If we are to live in balance with the ecosystem, doing that cannot be symbolic. It must be truthful.
Climate emergencies are real. The threat from heat domes, wildfires, droughts and atmospheric rivers are all connected. The changing climate and the way we respond to emergencies that follow climate events can no longer be looked at in isolation from each other. If we are to speak about adaptation and mitigation, then we need to talk about a national response program that incorporates the climate adaptation element to prevention, response and recovery. I'm asking the federal government to recognize the need to take a bigger role.
I know I have a few minutes left, so I'm just going to give a quick example.
Our community has been here for over 160 years. We're one of the oldest communities in British Columbia. We have six river crossings for our water system. Five of them were lost during the flood. We've had to replace those. We had to evacuate one-third of our population. I know we're not as big as some communities, but one-third of our population also represents one-third of our most vulnerable individuals. They were in our lower-income areas. Those are the oldest parts of our community. They're the parts that were built 160 years ago beside the river.
We need assistance and help. We don't have the means to do this alone. That's why I'm here today. This is why I agreed to come. We need to be heard. We need a true dialogue open between all of us.
As much as I would love to talk about adaptation, we need to talk about mitigation, because they go hand in hand.
Thank you.
Thank you to all of our witnesses. Unfortunately, I won't be able to ask everyone, so I'm going to focus mainly on the mayors from the Similkameen Valley and the Nicola Valley.
In the House of Commons, on November 30, 2021, I said this to the , and I'm just going partway through my comments. I said:
The mayors, Spencer Coyne from Princeton, B.C. as well as Linda Brown from Merritt, B.C. have both said to me that the bill required to fix what is necessary to get people back in their homes will be in the tens of millions of dollars and those communities do not have it. Under the DFA, the 80/20 sharing, where 20% is paid by municipalities, will be beyond their ability to pay.
Is the Prime Minister willing to help these communities? It will take years to restart, and I hope we will get a positive response.
I won't go into everything he said, but he did say:
Madam Speaker, I regret the partisan tone of the introduction to the member's question, but I recognize that he has been a solid voice for his community, which has been hit hard by these extreme weather events.
I highlight that I know we need to not only be there for people right now, as I told Mayor Brown of Merritt, who I spoke to a few weeks ago, that we would be there for her and her community, as we will for people right across British Columbia, but we need to do more in fighting climate into the future as well, on ensuring that we are cutting our oil and gas sector emissions, that we are moving forward on investing in clean, renewable energies and that we are building climate-resilient infrastructure. These are things that matter.
On the disaster response support, I have simply said that the federal government will be there. We will work hand in hand with British Columbia and we will support Canadians who need help.
My first question, Mr. Chair, is for Mayor Coyne, and then for Mayor Goetz. The has made a commitment in the House of Commons to work on the concerns that your community has raised on the DFA. Have your communities seen any change to the DFA that reflects the calls from your respective communities?
Mayor Coyne.
:
Thank you for the question.
Again, a simple answer for us is no as well. We are looking at the diking system, and the protection of our community is exactly as it was on November 16, 2021. When I say today's date is May 4, 2023, it's kind of shocking to know that we are still going into a second freshet with absolutely no dikes in certain areas. We are at a level one right now. We are ready to spring into action if we have to. There is most likely a possibility of flooding in some of the low-lying temporary dike areas.
The DMAF funding was closed for 13 months. We had our DMAF request ready to go, but we had nowhere to send it. It was like sending it into the netherworld.
No, there's been no change. Thank you for the question.
:
Thank you for the question.
I would be crazy not to say that we and Princeton should be first.
We still have close to 200 families who are out of their homes here. We have no diking. We have a bridge that is half-built and hangs there as a reminder every single day of what has happened in our community. We have people whose lives have been completely uprooted. We have ghost houses that are boarded up, and we have houses that need to come down. The list goes on and on. Basically, all of our low-cost housing was washed away, and our rental availability in Merritt is 0.00. You cannot rent here.
This, again, is going to start to affect our investment in our community. People will not want to invest in a community that is so highly damaged. I am hoping that the 's words will ring true and we will see some funding, because not only does it affect my community to live in; it affects my community to invest in. I don't want to lose investment dollars, because we all fight for the same thing, but I do agree that the damaged areas need to be repaired first. Then mitigate the other areas so this doesn't have to happen to another community.
Thank you.
:
If you have any further information or submissions on some of the areas of the building codes that you would like changed, we can look at how that could be incorporated.
I want to go over to Mr. Gemmel from FCM.
Your organization represents municipalities across the country. When we see major disasters like this one, are you engaged and are you getting recommendations from these municipalities as to how to improve infrastructure to be more resilient?
I know that there are different challenges regionally, as we've seen in British Columbia with the floods and heat domes and in Alberta with floods as well. Are you working with municipalities to compile what's needed to be brought forward to the green municipal fund so that provinces are also working as part of these solutions?
A lot of the work is the province's jurisdiction. If it's not a disaster identified by the province, in many cases, federal supports do not come in.
First of all, I'd like to point out that our study today is coming at a very noteworthy time for Quebec. As we speak, the banks of several rivers in Quebec are overflowing, especially the northern bank of the St. Lawrence River. Spring floods used to be seen as unusual, but have now become the norm. Each year, the question is not whether there will be a disaster, but where that disaster will strike.
I would like to express my strong solidarity with the people of Sainte‑Émélie‑de‑l'Énergie and Baie‑Saint‑Paul, as well as all other Quebeckers affected by the flooding.
In the past, there have been natural disasters in the Outaouais region, in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu, in Montérégie, and in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac. The situation only seems to be getting worse. It's sad, because I believe we had the ability to band together to prevent such catastrophes. We all know it, and we can no longer deny it: the cause of these natural disasters is climate change.
If Canada had been more proactive in fighting climate change, we would not collectively be experiencing all of this devastation. Unfortunately, Canada did not move in the right direction and is still highly dependent on oil. Today, there is a public awakening, and everyone is opening their eyes to see that Canada did not choose the right path. The whole planet also needs to take the right path.
I will start by putting a question to Mr. Gemmel, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
The federal government controls less than 3% of total infrastructure in the country. The vast majority of infrastructure is owned by either municipalities or provincial governments.
Given that, how can the federal government play a leadership role—despite owning just 2% to 3% of infrastructure?
:
Thank you for the question. It's an excellent question.
It really points to, as I was saying earlier, the need for all orders of government to work together. The federal government does have a role to play, but it's limited. Provincial governments have a very important role to play with legislation and with building codes, as was mentioned earlier. As you rightly noted, municipalities own the majority of public infrastructure in the country and have a critical role to play around land use planning. It needs to be all orders of government working together.
I think the federal government has shown leadership in the national adaptation strategy, and it is using that strategy to play a convening role and to lay out a road map with targets that all orders of government need to work towards. Having that framework in place is a start.
I think you're right that we're behind and we're playing catch-up, but having that strategy is a start. As has already been mentioned, funding from the federal government, which has the largest fiscal capacity, is critical as well.
Indeed, regarding the federal government's financial capacity, take the example of the last budget that it tabled. We and the Conservatives, among others, spoke out against the budget, especially because it ran a deficit. A graph in the budget showed that in the long term, the Canadian government would probably no longer be in debt around the year 2055. Meanwhile, municipalities in certain provinces, like Quebec, complain of lacking the financial means to respond to all sorts of needs: in particular in education and health, but also to adapt their own infrastructure.
Do you find that there is also a financial imbalance when we look at where the income is and where the needs are?
:
It's certainly a challenge from a municipal perspective. I'll give you an example that illustrates the current insufficient revenue tools that municipalities have.
In the last three years, coming out of the pandemic, municipal revenue—which is largely property tax—has been flat or, when accounting for inflation, has even been declining. Meanwhile, as we came out of lockdowns and out of the pandemic, provincial sales tax and income tax and federal sales tax and income tax have increased substantially.
Municipalities don't have sources of revenue that grow with the economy, and they don't have sources of revenue that grow with population. This is a challenge when we need to increase housing supply in the country to restore housing affordability. It's certainly a challenge when we look at an issue like climate change, given that municipalities own the majority of public infrastructure.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that this is one example of many that shines a light on the inadequacy of the current fiscal framework. The costs are massive. It's not going to be easy. There may be a role for private finance when it comes to investing in infrastructure, given the scale of the challenge, but it's going to require a long-term investment plan with some new creative ways of funding it.
:
Mr. Gemmel, I am going to ask you a hypothetical question relating to the study we are doing today—adapting infrastructure to face climate change.
If we asked the FCM to choose between, on the one hand, a newly created $500-million federal program for adapting infrastructure to climate change, and on the other hand, a $500-million increase in tax revenues to municipalities that could be used for the same purpose, which of the two would you say is preferable?
Is it better to give the money to those who have the needs and expertise, since it's their infrastructure, or is it better to set up new federal programs?
I am not suggesting that federal programs should never be created, but I would like to know your opinion on this topic.
Thank you to all our witnesses.
It's good to see you in person, Mr. Gemmel. I have some questions for you. I know that the FCM is very attuned to the needs of municipalities right across the country.
I think your remarks on climate adaptation and climate risk are very pertinent. It sometimes feels as though we're sleepwalking into something much bigger than we currently talk about. There's not only a massive existing infrastructure deficit faced by almost every community across the country. We also know that climate change is worsening and that the severity and frequency of extreme weather events are increasing. We saw the atmospheric rivers in British Columbia. This is getting worse and worse, yet we aren't investing nearly enough to even deal with what we're already seeing in terms of infrastructure deficit.
I'm reflecting on the comments from the two mayors we have with us. Your point about aligning funding with population growth struck me. I come from a community whose population hasn't changed since the 1990s. Many rural communities across Canada are losing population, yet these communities have very real infrastructure needs, many of them related to climate risk.
My question is this: If we move toward a funding system that puts more emphasis on population growth, do we not risk leaving behind rural communities that have very real needs in relation to climate risk?
Earlier, we were discussing municipalities' infrastructure needs. Obviously, it would be ideal if infrastructure were able to absorb the current consequences of climate change. However, sometimes we have no choice, such as when there is a natural disaster. Unfortunately, the army sometimes needs to intervene.
As was mentioned earlier, there are some financial shortcomings. For example, it came up that the money is in Ottawa more than it's in the municipalities or provinces. However, the federal government's practice is to bill for the army's services when it responds to a natural disaster. Do you think that this approach encourages the government to call on the army, or is it the other way around?
Imagine that I am a decision-maker. The dilemma is: The budget is tight, but there’s an emergency.
Perhaps you are more aware of the realities of municipalities and local governments in that respect.
:
Thank you for the question.
You mentioned earlier the flooding in Charlevoix and other regions of Quebec, and I wanted to acknowledge that. I heard the mayor of Baie-Saint-Paul on the radio this weekend, and it's really devastating what the community is experiencing. As you mentioned earlier, it's all too frequent now. It's not a matter of “if”, it's a matter of where and how bad it is.
In terms of military intervention, that's not something that FCM has a position on. We aren't, as an association, involved in the practical details of emergency management. Those decisions are left to individual municipalities, provincial governments and the federal government.
I've certainly appreciated the testimony that we've heard today, especially from fellow British Columbians who experienced the severe impacts of the atmospheric river events of November 2021.
Mayor Goetz, I'll start with you. It's kind of shocking to learn that 16 or 18 months later, Merritt is less protected, I would argue, than it was back in November. You say that it's still at the same state, but you've indicated that some of your diking infrastructure has not been able to be rebuilt.
When I was talking with my communities that were affected by that event, specifically the district of Hope, I was very frustrated that the senior levels of government would not allow them, when they were doing emergency work to repair something like a washed-out culvert or road or bridge, etc., to build back better, if I can put it that way. The funding and the approvals were only to replace what had previously been there.
Were there examples of that in Merritt, where at the time when you were doing the emergency work to replace the infrastructure that was destroyed or washed away, etc., you could have built it up to a higher standard but government regulations prevented you from doing that?
:
Maybe I'll ask the same question to Mayor Coyne, who I know was on the ground when the flood was happening.
I know that certainly in the Abbotsford area, Sumas Prairie, Chilliwack and Hope, when the emergency was upon us, quite frankly there was no time for heavy-handed government regulations. People did what was necessary to protect the community. We saw road builders and pipeline builders and everyone leap into action to do what it took. It was just accepted that this was the way it was, but once the bureaucracy got back up on its feet, it started to put in those roadblocks to doing what was necessary to protect those communities.
Mayor Coyne, have you seen that situation where there was an inability when the repairs were taking place to build up to the new flood levels, or build up to the new regulations, because the senior levels of government made it clear that they wouldn't fund anything more than building it back to the way it was?
:
Mike's telling me to go first.
The most immediate right now for us is probably our diking system. We are still exactly where we were before.
Like they have in Merritt, we have temporary works that were put on top of our system by the military. They still stand today. We have replaced our water lines and we've replaced sewer lines. We still have one sewer line that needs to be replaced, and we're working on a brand new water treatment system that we've had to remove from the flood plain.
The next big move is the diking system, and we need to make that so it's more climate.... The future atmospheric rivers are going to be worse than what we have experienced, so we need to be able to take that into consideration. We're no longer planning on a 200-year scale. We're planning on a 500-year scale, so I think that's the biggest thing.
:
We are in the same position as far as the diking goes.
The diking, as Mayor Coyne has said, needs to be a long-term, variable dike system that is able to cope with a possible Q200, and possibly higher. When we had our flood here, we saw 2.6 times more cubic metres of flow than we'd ever seen before. As a matter of fact, the flow was so high that it damaged the sending equipment—actually tore it away—so we lost track of how high the river actually was.
It's very important that long-term diking is done correctly and that it is also done with respect for the first nations community, because a lot of these sacred areas were damaged and have actually disappeared. In the long term, there has to be that as well. The—
:
Thank you very much for the question.
I certainly agree with that concern. That's been a concern of the federal government.
Maybe just as some background for all of your colleagues, when the the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund first came in, it had a $20-million minimum project threshold. Only very large structural mitigation projects were eligible. It excluded lots of smaller rural communities and even smaller projects that were still important in cities.
FCM advocated strongly to have that threshold reduced, and we were successful in having it reduced to $1 million as a total project cost, scoping in lots more projects. There are still barriers for rural municipalities, and a big part of that barrier is the complexity of the application form and the application process. Municipalities have to hire consultants just to apply for the funding.
Consistent with the conversation we've been having on allocating funding to where it's most needed and the risk—recognizing that the federal government needs information up front to be able to determine where that investment should be—we do need to look at streamlining that application process up front to reduce the barrier entry, especially for small rural communities.
:
Thank you. I love that word: non-partisan. I'll need more of that.
First of all, I want to say to Mayor Coyne it was well said with respect to the direction you're taking on behalf of your municipality and, of course, the mindset that we, as a federal government, have to respect in terms of your moving forward in the best interests of those you represent and with us being that resource you overwhelmingly need.
I want to ask questions and concentrate on affordability, emphasizing, Mr. Gemmel, your points earlier on a disciplined structure of, one, municipal official planning; two, secondary planning, adding the capacity with respect to the infrastructure that's needed to satisfy what the official plan identified; three, the asset management, ensuring that not only the life cycle but also the replacement of those assets are being looked after; and, finally, the capital budgets that attach to that becoming somewhat non-discretionary, allowing the asset management plans to actually drive the capital budgets so that there's very little debate needed at the council level because of the disciplined structure of the asset management planning.
However, there's affordability and alleviating the financial burdens on municipalities and therefore property taxpayers and water bills. Currently we have the Canada community-building fund. We have the green municipal fund. We have the disaster mitigation fund. We have the climate pricing. The Conservatives often talk about the carbon tax, and we refer to it as carbon pricing. A lot of that—10%, actually—goes to municipalities to deal with these very issues. Besides the amounts that go to individuals, 10% goes to municipalities, once again, to offset those property tax bills and those water bills.
First, how are these funds alleviating financial pressures on property taxpayers and water bills? Second, do you think we should consider expanding these funds—and the obvious answer is yes, but give me the how—to include CIPs, community improvement plans, and adaptation of infrastructure to face climate change challenges?
They complement each other. When you look at, in particular, community secondary planning that takes into consideration the pressures of climate change, they're all one and the same. However, can you comment on that as well as the need for upper levels of government, provincial and federal, to expand on those very programs that we're actually taking advantage of right now?