Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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?