Transport Committee on May 4th, 2023

[Spencer Coyne]

It has to be both. We have to get DMAF in right now, so we're looking at the short term, but we're also looking at how we adapt this over time so that the impact on our residents is fair, because to remove 200-plus people at one time is not acceptable.

[Michael Goetz]

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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Goetz. Unfortunately, there is no time left for that slot.

Next we have Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mayor Coyne, I've heard there is a community—Princeton, I believe—that still does not have potable water. Is that correct?

[Spencer Coyne]

That's us. Yes, we have to replace two of our wells. It's just bureaucracy, to be honest. I'll leave it at that, to be nice.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

How long has that been going on?

[Spencer Coyne]

Since the flood, so since November 2021, we have been without drinking water in about two-thirds of our community.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

This question is for Mr. Gemmel, through the chair.

I represent a rural community of Haldimand and Norfolk, and my community borders Lake Erie. Every year there are flooding issues from the freeze-and-thaw cycle, and that is a current and also ongoing issue. I am concerned that the federal programs are not sufficient to be accessed by the majority of small, rural and remote communities. It appears there is a lack of accessible funding for communities like mine in the disaster and resilience funding.

You spoke to the $1-million threshold. Can you please comment on what you're hearing from rural municipalities, including any suggestions of resolving such problems like those that exist in my community?

[Matt Gemmel]

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.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My next question is for Mr. Balser.

You spoke about not building in known risk areas, and what to do about residents who already exist in known risk areas. There is a lot of talk about resiliency needs around Canada, whether it's upgrading water treatment, new basic infrastructure or, in my community's case, dealing with abandoned and orphaned wells that are springing up.

What changes would you recommend to the government to ensure a better prioritization and a more equitable distribution of federal funding, regardless of the specific need and size of the municipality?

[Will Balser]

Again, I would point towards an inventory. We're really at a total lack, I think, at this point, as to exactly what infrastructure or what communities are at most risk of what particular impact of climate change. It's very hard to make those assessments. As you said, it's almost a burden on the municipality to prove how much they've been impacted or at how much risk they are from a particular effect of climate change, rather than the government being able to point to a decision matrix and an inventory that has already been sorted out.

That would be my absolute first and ground-level recommendation.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Are you advocating for a quasi...or something similar to a national infrastructure vision or plan for investments overall?

[Will Balser]

Yes, absolutely.

As you said, it's focusing on risk rather than on just population or on cost. We have to first address the communities that already have historically been facing the effects of climate change, and then move progressively through that decision matrix and risk level.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you so much.

I hope we will be developing some sort of national plan, and I hope this is a non-partisan initiative that we can work collaboratively on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

Next, and finally for today, we have Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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?

[Matt Gemmel]

I think, Mr. Badawey, what you are speaking to here is how we allocate the costs of climate change, which is admittedly a big challenge. There are historical decisions. One of the mayors mentioned that their settlement is 160 years old, predating any knowledge of climate change, and there have been decisions after decisions that have been made around how communities have developed. I think it's appropriate that the cost of protecting those communities—in some cases, relocating neighbourhoods—is a cost that the federal, provincial and municipal governments share in.

There's also a local financial liability that local taxpayers have around these, and it's incumbent on municipalities to manage and mitigate that risk. That, I think, gets to the role of insurance as well, and how that risk is priced and passed on to individual homeowners and business owners. This is the direction we should be moving in, but we need to make sure we're not leaving whole communities behind with unaffordable insurance. I think we need to move in that direction cautiously but steadily.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's a great point, by the way.

When you look at the operating side of the budget and financing the debt, which is often taken up by municipalities because of the capital you want to accelerate, do you find that expanding, once again, the Canada community-building fund—which used to be the gas tax fund—the green municipal fund and the disaster mitigation fund will alleviate and actually rid municipalities of the need to finance debt to their operating and, therefore, mitigate the financial burden on both the water bills and the property taxpayers?

[Matt Gemmel]

Yes, I think it's critical. The municipalities, as you know, are prevented by provincial legislation from running deficits, and they can borrow for capital but not for operating. There are real financial limits there. The Canada community-building fund is a very efficient, effective tool that transfers money directly to municipalities based on population, and it's predictable, so municipalities can plan for it—as I mentioned earlier—which is one of the chief benefits of that program. That is certainly a way that we can take some of that local financial risk and spread it out of individual communities.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It's sustainable. Therefore, a municipality can take that fund, which it knows is going to be coming year after year annually, and accelerate a lot of that infrastructure work to get it into the ground and alleviate the pressures on property taxpayers and water bills by taking the financing of that debt off the operating and allowing that fund to pay for that debenture.

[Matt Gemmel]

That's right.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

That concludes our witness testimony for today.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for joining us virtually or in person and for sharing their expertise and their testimony.

With that, the meeting is concluded.