Transport Committee on May 4th, 2023

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Chair, with that, I think the earlier conversation was that some witnesses were not available in a certain timeline. We've now replaced that with some flexibility.

As a committee, I don't think you need a subamendment. The clerk can just report back. We do this all the time at committee. The clerk can report back in terms of how meetings are shaping up and what witnesses have confirmed or not confirmed. Then the committee could decide to move forward at that time. I don't think you need a formal motion for the clerk to report back in terms of scheduling and regular committee scheduling of business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

We all have the revised version here. I'll turn it over to Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you.

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

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])

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.

[Michael Goetz, Mayor, City of Merritt]

Thank you very much.

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 Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mayor Goetz. No apologies are necessary.

We will now continue with Mr. Balser.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Will Balser, Coastal Adaptation Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre]

Thank you.

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Balser.

Next we have Mr. Gemmel.

Mr. Gemmel, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Matt Gemmel, Director, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day, everyone.

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gemmel.

Finally for today, we have Mayor Coyne.

Mayor Coyne, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Spencer Coyne, Mayor, Town of Princeton]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mayor Coyne.

We'll begin our line of questioning today with Mr. Albas.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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 Prime Minister, 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 Prime Minister 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.

[Spencer Coyne]

The simple answer is no.

The DFA program remains the same. It's not enough at this time. In small communities like ours our taxation has just reached $4 million. Our water system replacement, thanks to the province, is going to cost us over $4.5 million. We just do not have the means to keep up with this sort of funding level. It's quite overwhelming, to be honest.

I'll pass it over to Mike.

[Michael Goetz]

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.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

The past is prologue, and while this community is looking forward, we should recognize that when communities have been struck so hard, like the Merritts and Princetons, they are now so far behind that there is vulnerability right across many rural and first nations communities. These communities are starting from so far behind it's like starting a race with a ball and chain on you.

Mayor Goetz, you have mentioned that DMAF has taken so long for you to be able to even apply. What do you think should happen here? Do you believe the federal government should make communities that are so far behind, like Merritt, the very first to receive funding so that you can get back to a state where you can recover?

[Michael Goetz]

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 Prime Minister'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.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Coyne, you talked about the DMAF. What further things do you think need to happen?

Obviously, I'm sure you would say that Merritt should be included as a priority before money goes to other communities. Is that correct?

[Spencer Coyne]

That's definitely correct. Whenever I speak, I speak with both of our communities in mind. We're connected, and this was not an isolated event.

DMAF is not enough; 40% is not enough. Our rediking program—I don't know what Mike's is—is anywhere from $100 million to $500 million. We're trying to fast-track that so we can get it into this round. We just finished a $350,000 flood study. It's not enough. There is no buying of land. If we build back, we have to build back exactly as is, but we need to build back better and we need to be able to move people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mayor Coyne.

Next we will go with Mr. Chahal.

Mr. Chahal, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our guests today for providing testimony, your insights and personal stories and reflections.

Mayor Goetz, I'll start with you.

You talked about federal flood insurance. I know that insurance is a provincial responsibility. Have there been conversations, or do you have support from the provincial government on flood insurance in your community?

I'll start with that question.

[Michael Goetz]

I would have to say that, at this time, that is a conversation that has not happened. It is a conversation that probably will happen. The insurance that I am talking about is the fact that some people were under-insured, and some had no insurance at all. What I'm hoping for is an ability for some form of insurance to cover everyone, whether it's provincially funded or federally funded. That's a conversation we have not had yet, no.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

I think it's important, because it is provincial jurisdiction. I'm from Alberta, and our province doesn't like, generally, the federal government getting involved with some of the fights that they put up. I'm just wondering if that's the same, if your government is open to working on supporting folks in your community and across the province with federal intervention or—if I can say—interprovincial jurisdiction.

There are a number of challenges when it comes to land use or building codes to address many of the challenges you and Mayor Coyne have talked about. Has your municipality made changes to land use and asked for changes to building codes to ensure that your communities are better protected in the future?

[Michael Goetz]

That is something we will continue to work on. We have implemented a transitional housing situation right now, one of the first that's happened, probably, in the country. We brought in 31 trailers to house people who were in hotels as they work on their homes and return them to a livable situation. The transitional housing is a two-year program. At the end of the two-year program, they are able to buy it out. The whole idea is to help them repair their homes as they are in the trailers. Then they can move back into their homes. It's one of the first things that we've done.

Could I get you to ask me the other part? I'm sorry. I missed it.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Yes, it was changes to building codes that help prevent homes from being damaged and maybe enhancements of new homes that are being built. Did you make recommendations or ask the provincial government to amend building codes?

I live in hailstorm alley in Alberta. It would be nice to have more resilient roofing and changes to incentivize that. We've been trying to get the province to support that.

I'm asking you for your perspective.