FCM has certainly been involved with Infrastructure Canada in the development of the climate lens. For everyone's benefit, this would be federal infrastructure funding requiring funding recipients to conduct an assessment of either the emissions or the climate risk and vulnerability associated with the infrastructure.
There are a couple of points on this. It's really important to set the requirements or expectations from the federal government in a way that is realistic and in line with the capacity that municipal governments have to be able to comply with those criteria. It's not really in anyone's interest, other than the consultants', to have municipalities have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and many months of planning time to comply with a climate lens that's really over and above what is needed to assess climate risk and vulnerability assessments.
While we support those criteria, they need to be designed in a way that is commensurate with municipal capacity. Certainly around climate risk, I mentioned earlier in response to one of the other questions that we can't be building infrastructure, even if it's not disaster mitigation infrastructure, in the same way as we have. It needs to comply with higher codes and standards. The climate lens is one way to ensure that federal funding is going towards projects that have that consideration built in.