Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes and, believe me, I've tried to have that conversation. I was a part of a leadership race there a few years ago, and I toured the Abbotsford flooding and passed through Princeton. I was there during the forest fires as well.

I'm glad you brought up the Columbia River because, when I toured Abbotsford, I didn't know that it was an international issue. I think that explains the scope of the issues that we're facing in terms of a disaster, in terms of mitigation and remediation.

As the mayor of Princeton, have you heard any word saying that there are international obligations in terms of the conversations being had with the United States, in terms of flooding? I know it's not your area, but the Columbia River is the opening. Is there a commitment from the government to talk about international obligations in terms of flooding to areas such as Abbotsford?

[Spencer Coyne]

Not that I've heard. Speaking with the mayor of Abbotsford, who I believe is in Ottawa right now, they were very frustrated with the federal government and the fact that they weren't, at the time when we met last year, meeting with the rest of the international committee on their river system. I think that just shows the breakdown in the communication and the coordination between all levels of government right now.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The only reason I bring it up is that there may be an opportunity to talk about flood mitigation, if CUSMA is actually torn up and we start to talk about a bilateral agreement with the United States.

I'm just going to throw this out there: In terms of the nature-based solutions, I've heard conversations about how forestry management plans can help mitigate flood potential in terms of the erosion that comes after the Pineapple Express, but I haven't really seen that.

In terms of the jurisdiction, it seems to me that the jurisdiction around forestry management is more provincial. Is there any room for the federal government to step in and say that we need better forestry management that protects our citizens and residents from disasters?

[Spencer Coyne]

That's a hard question. I don't know. A lot of that has to do with the relations right now, especially in British Columbia....

Sorry, we're out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. St‑Pierre, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's worth pointing out that our government recently introduced the build communities strong fund. In budget 2025, about $51 billion was allocated for regional projects that would adapt to climate change.

I just wanted to mention that this is quite important to me because I hear about floods from residents in my riding. Unlike my colleague from British Columbia, I have a more urban riding. I have Rivière-des-Prairies and Anjou. Last summer, there was extensive flooding in Anjou. A lot of homeowners who normally rent out their basements were no longer insured or they decided that it was no longer relevant for them to rent out their basement units.

I mention this because it's also tied to the issue of affordability. Residents in my riding are having a hard time finding housing. What I'm hearing from residents is that the flooding situation is exacerbating the housing crisis. At least that's what I'm seeing on the ground. A lot of the blame is going toward local elected officials, so I'm seeing those impacts directly in my riding.

Ms. Myers, can you provide this committee with any reports that demonstrate the increase of housing costs linked to floods or anything around adaptation to climate change?

[Janice Myers]

We do not have anything that I'm aware of, but if we do, I'll make sure that we get it to the clerk for you. However, I'm not aware of anything off the top of my head.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I appreciate that you've been at CREA for two years, as well.

Can you speak to the impact on home prices, generally speaking, in terms of floods or adapting to climate change? What's been the impact across Canada?

[Janice Myers]

It's safe to say that consumer perception of risk is rising as flooding and wildfires are becoming more common and expanding their reach and intensity. Homeowners living in those high-risk areas are facing a steep devaluation of their properties, not just from the reputation risk and physical damages, but also from the lack of affordable or attainable home insurance.

We see insurers blacklisting entire postal codes and refusing to underwrite any new mortgages. This potentially freezes local markets, stripping Canadians of their home equity. Depending on the situation, yes, it devalues properties. It creates risk for longer-term sustainability of household finance, as people look to take their asset that they have invested in and find that, at the end of the day, it's not going to achieve their financial goals.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Are the increased catastrophes we're witnessing with adapting to climate change generally increasing insurance costs for some of your clients or some of the folks you work with? Can you speak to the rising cost of insurance and how that's affecting some of your clients?

[Janice Myers]

We're hearing that insurance quotes are getting astronomical. Depending on where you start, a 30% increase is significant. More concerning is that even in the areas where your property hasn't even specifically been affected, but it's in a fire zone, insurance rates have gone up significantly anyway.

It depends on what the risk is, but I'll say that it's significant. It's a cost that you do not want homeowners saying they can't afford because then they're at even higher risk.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Great, thank you.

Mayor Coyne, thanks for joining us today.

You mentioned that the costs to folks in your community were somewhere around, I believe, $13 million. Can you comment a little bit on who's paying for some of the costs around catastrophic events and some of the floods that you mentioned earlier?

[Spencer Coyne]

The initial cost, the $13 million, was a loss to the business community. That came out of their pockets. That came directly out of our economy.

The roughly $13 million in losses to the municipality was funded through DFA, insurance and taxation, so again, it's coming off the backs of the taxpayers.

Just to your point on the insurance, though, as an example, I have an email from somebody who said that their insurance used to be $3,500. This last year, it was $72,000.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their presence and testimony—very enriching.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order.

Can we just clarify that last number? Was it $72,000 or $7,200? There's a big difference, and I'd like the record to reflect what it was.

[Spencer Coyne]

It was $7,200. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. The witnesses are now excused.

Thank you.

I shall suspend the meeting for a few minutes while we change witness panels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

I call the meeting back to order.

The committee is resuming its study on protecting Canadian residents from extreme weather events.

This afternoon, we are meeting with the following witnesses.

From Investors for Paris Compliance, we have Ms. Kiera Taylor, a senior policy analyst.

We also have Alain Bourque, executive director of Ouranos.

Ms. Taylor, you have five minutes.

Thank you very much. Go ahead. The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Kiera Taylor, Senior Policy Analyst, Investors for Paris Compliance]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to speak.

My name is Kiera Taylor, and I work for Investors for Paris Compliance.

Relevant to the mandate of this committee, we recently released a report entitled “Climate Damages & Canada's Looming Home Insurance Crisis: Who Pays?” It is available in English and French. As we know, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe, causing tens of billions in property damage. Unfortunately, this trend will only get worse and those costs will mount.

That brings us to the central question before Parliament: Who pays for this damage?

Right now, the answer is Canadian households and taxpayers, hitting Canadians in the pocketbook twice over. As members of Parliament, you see the latter in the growing budgets for disaster management and relief, as well as in new calls for federal flood programs. Households are experiencing sharply rising insurance costs. Average home insurance premiums have risen by 45% in the past six years, with increases of 300% in some high-risk regions. At the same time, coverage is being reduced and deductibles raised. Ten per cent of households have no access to affordable flood insurance.

The reality is that the majority of costs due to extreme weather are uninsured. Thousands of households are already turning to crowdfunding to pay catastrophe bills, and just under half of high-risk Canadian household debt is concentrated in areas with high physical climate risk.

The federal government routinely steps in to assist provinces with disaster recovery. In 2021, Ottawa provided $5 billion for recovery costs in B.C., and disaster financial assistance arrangements have had to be restructured. Meanwhile, wildfire suppression costs are now regularly exceeding $1 billion per year. On top of this accelerating spending, the insurance industry is looking for further expenditures on adaptation and resilience.

To be clear, we support increased investments in resilience and adaptation, but the question that continues to be avoided is, who should pay for these expenditures?

The answer must be that we need cost recovery from those helping to cause the damage in the first place. Decades ago, we came to a similar conclusion on the issue of tobacco. Not only were individual Canadians being financially devastated by tobacco-related diseases but this was also a huge burden on our health care budgets. Court cases ensued to hold tobacco companies liable for these costs. Ultimately, provincial governments stepped in to formalize cost recovery. Governments concluded that when private actors profit while imposing massive public harm, cost recovery is appropriate. We reached the same conclusion recently with opioids.

Today, climate science is clear regarding what is causing increased extreme weather and property damage, and attribution science can apportion these costs to specific companies that are profiting while imposing public harm.

There are a few viable pathways for cost recovery already being used internationally.

First, insurers can exercise their subrogation rights—the standard legal right to recover losses from parties that cause harm. In California, insurers recovered $11 billion from the utility responsible for a major wildfire.

Second, governments can formalize cost recovery through legislation, as was done with tobacco. Both New York and Vermont have enacted climate-damage funding legislation requiring high-emitting companies to pay for disaster costs.

Third, litigation by individuals and governments is already under way. Homeowners in Washington state are currently suing emitters for increased home insurance costs. The legal feasibility is maturing, as 25 U.S. jurisdictions are pursuing cost-recovery actions and a German court has affirmed that corporate actors can be held liable for their emissions. The Canadian government needs to join other jurisdictions in getting ahead of the inevitable litigation that is coming. Federal cost recovery from major global polluters can be used to compensate victims, invest in adaptation and resilience, and stabilize the home insurance system so that it remains affordable for Canadians.

Tinkering around the margins of this issue is not going to solve the problem. It is projected that losses in Canada will reach $100 billion by 2050. This may break our insurance system, and homeowners and taxpayers do not have the capacity to shoulder the cost.

We keep hearing from politicians about building Canada strong. Cost recovery from polluters is a key way to do so.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bourque, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Alain Bourque, Executive Director, Ouranos]

Thank you for inviting me to be with you today on behalf of Ouranos.

Ouranos is a regional climatology and climate change adaptation applied research consortium. It's a non-profit organization funded by the federal government, the Government of Quebec, municipal partners, Hydro‑Québec, Ontario Power Generation, Manitoba Hydro, Rio Tinto and a number of partner universities.

For the past 25 years, we have advanced the science of climate change and adaptation, which is learning to live with climate change and with new-normal weather patterns.

I have five messages for you.

First, the science is clear: Climate change is generating significant increases in the frequency, intensity, duration and scale of weather events and several types of extreme weather events in all parts of Canada. This trend will continue until global net zero is achieved. What this means is that there are two ways to address the problem. First, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, learn to live with the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

Second, Canada is not prepared to deal with all of the climate change risks and repercussions, which are already very costly. You've probably already heard that insurable damages totalled $9.2 billion in 2024. That's about $270 per Canadian. In addition, the Canadian Climate Institute has already done a number of studies showing that GDP will be negatively affected in the coming years. Things are clearly getting worse. Several studies have shown that every dollar invested in proper adaptation mitigates impact and generates between $13 and $15 in benefits. In other words, investing in adaptation is a good idea.

Third, we must learn to better manage risks in the context of climate change. Dealing with extreme weather events is not just about getting better at managing disasters when they happen. It is about being proactive and taking preventive action through medium and long-term risk reduction and game-changing public policies. I got here a little early, so I heard people talk about things like land use planning to avoid building in risky areas, diversifying forest composition to reduce the risk of forest fires and building codes that take not just historical climate data into account, but also future climate projections. All of these things will help us deal with increased extreme weather events.

Fourth, adaptation and risk reduction are a shared responsibility. Everyone has a role to play: federal, provincial and municipal governments, the private sector, indigenous communities and, of course, individuals. However, individuals are not going to solve all the problems. Everyone has to work together. Climate change adaptation in any field can only happen when all stakeholders work together and share constructive leadership.

Fifth, the good news is that there's quite a bit of science available, but it is underutilized in making good decisions. There are a lot of tools out there, such as a building code that could be adapted and improved to deal with the extreme weather events we know are statistically likely to happen. We know these events are trending upward. In addition, people talked earlier about nature-based solutions, which are increasingly being implemented in Canada and may be helpful going forward. Canada also has a national adaptation strategy. It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for future work on adaptation. There are also organizations across Canada, including Ouranos in Quebec, that make connections between data collected at the national level, public policies developed at the provincial level and concrete applications, which are often done at the municipal level. These organizations can play a role in better risk reduction in any field.

Earlier, people were talking about the new Build Canada Homes program. Will adaptation and resilience be part of that? Ouranos has raised this issue. These investments can create opportunities to include adaptation, but they can also strike out if they don't include enough adaptation for what's to come.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Mr. Bourque.

Mr. Ross, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our second round of witnesses for joining us here today.

Mr. Bourque, your opening comments really reflected what this committee has been looking into for the last month or so. Previous environment committees have been looking into this as well.

Basically, we agree, but there are some factors that have been holding up some of the solutions you're suggesting. Some of them, of course, are monetary. The government does have a fiscal responsibility to taxpayers in terms of deficits and budgets and whatnot, but there are also some practical obstacles in front of us: mainly legislation and the regulations that flow from that.

We've tried to address this internally back in our region, but just to give you an example, we have fisheries legislation and regulations that actually prohibit any type of mitigation or remediation. What I'm getting at is that if we want to accomplish what the witnesses are talking about, we'd have to revamp a whole set of legislation and all the regulations beneath that, and we'd have to communicate that to the citizens of Canada. There are so many provisions already under our Canadian legislation that need not only our involvement but our inclusion in terms of land-based decisions, specifically for first nations.

I don't expect you to answer this, but based on your experience and your success in your region, where do you suggest that government start in terms of some of these remediation and mitigation policies?

[Alain Bourque]

I'll give a specific example that I have witnessed in Quebec, because we are mostly funded by the Quebec government. We work a lot with the Quebec municipalities and the Quebec government.

In 2017 and 2019, there were two major floods. Quebec was pretty much struck by those events, and we said that we needed to do something. Everyone was brought together in order to think about how we should modify existing regulations in order to integrate climate change into flood maps.

Just last June, the Quebec environment minister announced a new regulation that was, I'll say, co-constructed—maybe that's a bit pushed—with the municipal world to have a new regulation. We have developed it with the Quebec government, using the latest scientific data. We provided the data to produce new maps that include climate change, and the regulation was modified in order to introduce those new maps, with a new regulation saying that every 10 years those maps should be relooked at, because we are in a changing climate.

This is an example of where science, the technical aspects, the actors and the policies were brought together in order to learn the lessons of the floods of 2017 and 2019 and in order to adapt to climate change.

For my organization, this is our weekly work, but that's the type of collaborative work that we need. That's the type of connection from science to on-the-ground issues that we need to do more of.