Transport Committee on May 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I now call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 71 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, the committee is meeting for its study on adapting infrastructure to face climate change.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before I begin, I would like to inform the members that all of the witnesses appearing before us have been tested for sound for the benefit of interpreters, and they have all passed the sound test.

Appearing before us today, we have, from the BC Watershed Security Coalition, Coree Tull, co-chair, by video conference; Zita Botelho, director, Watersheds BC, by video conference; and Neil Fletcher, director of conservation stewardship, B.C. Wildlife Federation, by video conference.

From Canada's Building Trades Unions, we have Michael Gordon, director, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, by video conference; and Rita Rahmati, government relations manager, by video conference.

We also have Kevin Lee, chief executive officer of the Canadian Home Builders' Association.

We are also welcoming Sylvain Dupuis, Mayor of the City of Saint-Ours.

From Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, we have Joanna Eyquem, managing director, climate-resilient infrastructure.

We will begin today with opening remarks, and we will start off with Coree Tull.

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

On a point of order, may I address one issue before we go into opening remarks, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You may do so.

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

Could I have the floor to address urgent committee business related to the study of McKinsey and the Canada Infrastructure Bank? As you're well aware, several members of the committee representing the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc jointly signed a letter asking that the Hon. Bill Morneau be scheduled to appear at the earliest opportunity.

I won't go into the contents of the letter, but we did have a motion and a subpoena for Mr. Morneau to appear and, at his appearance, he was not equipped with the proper headset in order to give testimony. We are requesting unanimous consent that he be brought back in the spirit of the original motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

Do we have the unanimous consent of the committee? I see no objection.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll begin today with Ms. Coree Tull.

Ms. Tull, the floor is yours, and you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Coree Tull, Co-Chair, BC Watershed Security Coalition]

Good morning. My name is Coree Tull, and I am the co-chair of the BC Watershed Security Coalition. We are a non-partisan coalition that represents 48 organizations and 255,000 British Columbians. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and to discuss this important topic.

I'm joining you today from the China Creek urban watershed, which is situated on the unceded traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Coast Salish people.

In every corner of our country, healthy watersheds are vital to human health, security, prosperity and reconciliation.

Accompanying me today are two esteemed members of our coalition's steering committee. We have Neil Fletcher, director of conservation stewardship at B.C. Wildlife Federation, who has led teams of over 100 in working towards restoring and protecting thousands of hectares of wetlands across B.C. We also have Zita Botelho, co-director of the healthy watersheds initiative and director of the indigenous watersheds initiative. Zita has been part of leading $42 million in investments supporting almost 100 projects in communities and first nations, addressing watershed security and capacity development. During the question and answer time, each of them can provide valuable insights on impacts and outcomes based on their work on natural infrastructure restoration and projects in B.C.

The topic of this study holds really great significance for our coalition. Healthy watersheds serve as natural defences against the climate crisis. Wetlands act as our natural sponges that purify water. Our stream banks filter polluted runoff and provide shelter for salmon. Mature forests retain water and then release it when we need it the most.

The rivers and lakes of British Columbia are essential to our local economies, forests, wildlife, food crops, cultural heritage and survival itself. Our watersheds are nature's infrastructure. However, due to the cumulative impacts of human activities and climate change, B.C.'s watersheds—and quite frankly, our watersheds across Canada—are increasingly degraded. This degradation has manifested as floods, droughts and fires in precedent-setting ways over the past several years, including just this month in British Columbia as the northern part of the province was on fire while the southern part was under water.

Healthy watersheds protect our environment and mitigate risks imposed by climate change on various economic sectors. Industries such as agriculture, tourism, breweries, pulp and paper, and even oil and gas depend on clean water. Investing in our watersheds and natural infrastructure reduces these risks. The costs associated with the climate crisis will continue to rise unless we take a different approach.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development highlights that natural infrastructure, such as forests and wetlands, can provide the same services at a lower cost compared to built infrastructure. These natural defences are not only cheaper to build but also more cost-effective to maintain. They ultimately appreciate with time. We've seen this first-hand in British Columbia through the wetlands workforce project and through the Healthy Watersheds Initiative.

The response and recovery efforts after the devastating atmospheric river flooding of 2021 cost both the federal and the provincial government billions of dollars. The Canadian Climate Institute reports that every dollar spent on adaptation measures can save $13 to $15, considering both direct and indirect economy-wide benefits. We witnessed the importance of natural infrastructure during those floods in 2021.

Through the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, a government-funded initiative during COVID, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, in collaboration with first nations and the Wildcoast Ecological Society, has been working to restore, stabilize and monitor the McKay Creek wetland in North Vancouver. Since at least 2015, following any big rain event that happened, the creek would overflow. Water would rise rapidly, and it would spill into neighbouring streets and businesses. Within one year of removing invasive grasses and recreating natural inflows and outflows from the creek that went back into the wetlands, we saw birds return, salmon return and water quality improve. During the atmospheric rivers in 2021, that restored wetland served as a critical outlet that absorbed much of the excess water that historically would have been spilling over into the streets. It then released it slowly into the nearby creeks once the weather had passed.

We need bold federal leadership and investments in natural infrastructure to address the climate crisis in B.C. and across Canada. The watershed sector in British Columbia is a major employer and economic driver, generating over 47,000 indirect and direct jobs and contributing $5 billion to GDP through activities like restoration, monitoring, technology, and urban and industrial management.

The recent report released by several freshwater and indigenous leaders across B.C. has identified the need for $3 billion over the next decade, with an annual requirement of $300 million, to reverse watershed degradation, strengthen natural infrastructure and enhance watershed security in B.C.

The recent investment by the B.C. government of $100 million in the B.C. watershed security fund, co-developed with the first nations water table, is an important start. The federal government needs to be at the table investing in order to meet the scale of the need and to have long-term impacts on the ground that support collaborative partnership for better decision-making, creating healthy, secure, resilient communities, while being ultimately a proven model that could be applied across the country.

Investing in natural infrastructure and watershed security will advance climate mitigation, adaptation, reconciliation, and sustainable economic development. Moreover, it will create vital employment opportunities and economic benefits.

I commend this committee for studying such a critical matter at this time. By prioritizing and making these investments, we can build resilience in our communities and proactively respond to disasters before they happen.

We look forward to continuing this conversation with you and answering any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Tull.

Next, from Canada's Building Trades Unions, we have Ms. Rahmati.

Ms. Rahmati, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Rita Rahmati, Government Relations Specialist, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on the study of adapting infrastructure to face climate change.

My name is Rita Rahmati, Canada's Building Trades Unions government relations manager. I'm joined here today by my colleague Mike Gordon, the director of training for UA Canada, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry.

CBTU represents 14 international construction unions, including the UA, and represents over 600,000 skilled trades workers from coast to coast to coast. The UA represents approximately 360,000 piping professionals across North America.

As witnesses before us have shared, Canada and the world are seeing the impacts of climate change, from flooding to wildfires. Our members have the knowledge, skills and abilities to build and rebuild Canada's infrastructure. While this committee will have heard from other witnesses on the concerning impacts that climate change has begun to have on communities and infrastructure, our remarks will focus on long-term solutions to address climate change and mitigate its impacts on infrastructure as well as the labour requirements to support adapting infrastructure.

[Michael Gordon, Director, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you for the opportunity to join you here today.

Buildings continue to be one of the largest burdens on our infrastructure through the use of natural resources and energy, while impacting our carbon footprint. We need to continue our efforts to adapt and update them to be more efficient.

While the government has made investments to support residential retrofits through small grants under the Canada greener homes initiative, we call on the government to increase grants for home retrofits to support deep energy retrofits, as well as supporting large-scale retrofits for industrial and commercial facilities to also be more energy-efficient. This could be accomplished by incentivizing the sustainable construction of new buildings and facilities to minimize Canada's greenhouse footprint.

All incentives, however, should recognize Canadian workers, who have undergone all processes to become certified here in Canada and to meet or exceed the requirements. Past incentives have inadvertently displaced these qualified tradespeople from participation in such incentives.

If we're going to achieve net zero by 2050, we need to have strong energy-efficient standards for all new buildings and update existing infrastructure. These incentives must be based on goals supported through sound design whose expectations can only be verified through commissioning as able to deliver on performance post-installation and/or post-construction. This ensures that private and public investments are sound and continue to deliver value for the life of the systems and the buildings that they serve.

[Rita Rahmati]

As we look to adapt infrastructure, we need to make sure we have the labour force available to undertake massive retrofits, the rebuilding of bridges, roads, homes, and beyond. Oftentimes when there is a natural disaster, construction workers will halt their regularly scheduled work to support the immediate needs of the community impacted, as was the case in B.C. in 2021 when there were massive flooding and mudslides. Workers were diverted to assist with shoring and highway reconstruction to reconnect communities and rail lines.

Right now, several of our skilled trades unions are facing labour availability challenges that may delay the start and completion of projects that will support adaptation and the rebuilding of infrastructure when weather-related incidents occur. For example, one of the largest building trades unions in the country, the Laborers', could use over 15,000 workers in Ontario alone to meet demand.

[Michael Gordon]

We need to continue programs, like the union training and innovation program, that support the training of new entrants into the skilled trades.

We also need to improve our immigration system to address when skilled tradespeople pursue an opportunity to practice their craft here in Canada. When potential new Canadians are considered for entry within regulated trades, we need to set up steps to ensure their abilities are in alignment with the local expectations. The government can work with Red Seal and our organizations to pre-assess potential new Canadians and provide them with a road map for their success that remains cognizant of their safety and the value for employers and clients.

The Red Seal program is best poised to serve mobility challenges for infrastructure development and maintenance here in Canada. It should be leveraged as a focal point to ensure the readiness of our workforce with these key areas for consideration in regard to expanded opportunity: number one, a public and searchable public database for Red Seal qualifications; number two, pan-Canadian mobility of safety certifications; number three, micro-credential prerequisites when they align with Red Seal trades.

[Rita Rahmati]

In addition to adapting our buildings, the Canadian government also needs to continue to address climate change long-term and reduce Canada's emissions. We need support for technologies, like carbon capture utilization and storage, that reduce emissions from traditional sources of energy, like fossil fuels. We also need support for alternative sources of energy, like small modular reactors and hydrogen.

Budget 2023's investment tax credits will support the transition and incentivize industry to adapt. Linking these tax credits to one of the strongest definitions of prevailing wage in Canadian history—to union compensation—supports good-paying jobs throughout this transition. We need to develop practical solutions that include labour, industry and communities.

On behalf of CBTU's 14 affiliated international unions, including the UA, thank you for this opportunity to present.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Rahmati and Mr. Gordon.

Next, from the Canadian Home Builders' Association, we have Mr. Lee.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Kevin Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Home Builders' Association]

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for this opportunity today.

CHBA is the voice of the residential construction industry in Canada, with more than 8,500 member companies from coast to coast. Our industry is responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs, $107 billion in wages and $211 billion in economic activity.

Our members are the builders, developers, renovators and all the associated trades and services that build and renovate Canada's homes and communities across the country. We share the concern and desire for more resilient homes and communities and have been actively engaged on this file for years.

With the climate change crisis upon us, we are also challenged with another crisis: housing affordability and the associated dramatic lack of housing stock in Canada. Coordinated government action is needed to address these simultaneously, to make sure that we cover climate change and housing affordability at the same time.

The Lytton fire, the Barrie tornado, flooding in many regions of Canada and the Calgary hailstorm have all been chilling reminders that homes and buildings face challenges with extreme weather events. When we see the damage from extreme weather events like these, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that building codes must be updated immediately. It is common that when a crisis occurs, the first thing that some people think of is that we need to regulate. While regulation can be part of the tool box, it needs to be thought through carefully, as there are other measures that should come first and that may better address the problem, and in a less costly fashion. Over-regulation can quickly drive up costs, when our housing crisis can't afford it.

Furthermore, many effective measures to protect homes against extreme climate events are not related to construction of individual housing units, but to things such as natural infrastructure upgrades, as we've heard, community emergency planning and yard maintenance and landscaping. Houses need to be resistant to the risks relevant to their particular location. We also have 16 million existing housing units in Canada that need to be considered.

What we need right now are the right, proven market-based solutions, and we need to ensure those are affordable. If not, we need to innovate to find cost-effective solutions. It is also critical that regulation not be rushed without proper cross-disciplinary analysis: We don't want to create risks through unintended consequences. This is doubly true when it comes to municipalities. We should not be implementing, with the best of intentions, a hodgepodge of bylaws on construction and renovation that can easily lead to unintended problems.

To find the right solutions, CHBA has been working with other organizations to produce guidance for Canadians on resilience with respect to their homes. We have helped to develop wildfire resistance guidelines. We've worked with CSA and other groups for flooding and wind resistance guidelines and are continually engaging in the building code process, where all the issues and the building science need to come together in a complete house-as-a-system approach.

Through these activities, we have learned that there are things that can be done now, but there is also much work that we still need to do. As industry and governments, we need to de-risk and address the gaps in current solutions, such as how to manage risks during the construction process and how to find solutions that are affordable for Canadians, remembering that codes and standards apply to affordable and social housing as well.

Most important, there's much that needs to be done at the infrastructure level first. We know how to make housing more resilient to extreme weather events, but if the infrastructure is not protecting the homes from the significant effects of those first, measures that can be applied to homes can be meaningless. For example, without forest management, protecting homes from wildfire might be futile. If there are no catch basins, flood protection such as using things like back-flow valves in basements will have limited effects.

Thinking beyond traditional core infrastructure such as roads, bridges, public transit and water systems, we also need to consider the electrical grid and energy system. Resilient and sustainable communities need to be powered by a resilient energy infrastructure. We also need to remove regulatory and technical barriers that currently hinder the installation of solar energy and solar storage solutions, for example, which will enable homes to operate independently.

We also need to consider communications infrastructure. This is important for aging in place and for working from home, which are growing trends in Canada that can contribute to sustainable communities.

We have two simultaneous crises: climate change and housing affordability. For housing, we can make a real difference if we take coordinated action with respect to both at the same time.

First, and most importantly, we need to adapt municipal infrastructure to protect our homes and communities from the significant effects of extreme climate events. We need to collect, analyze and make location-specific climate data available so that we can target resources towards communities facing the most urgent and critical risk. We also need to ensure that we bolster our construction for the right risks in the right places, and don't regulate, in a blanket form, in areas that don't warrant the added cost.

Second, with regional data and variances embedded in the national guidelines, we need to promote consistent application at the municipal level to streamline resiliency practices and reduce friction and confusion created by inconsistent local rules. This can be done by first focusing resources on voluntary programs. That will allow us to de-risk potential solutions, address gaps, increase industry capacity, and build awareness among homebuyers and homeowners. In this way, we can promote the implementation of cost-effective solutions at scale, and codes and standards can follow if and as appropriate.

Thanks a lot. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

The next witness to make his presentation will be Sylvain Dupuis.

Mr. Mayor, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Sylvain Dupuis, Mayor, City of Saint-Ours]

Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, thank you for having me.

Located in Montérégie, in the Pierre-De Saurel RCM and the federal riding of Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the city of Saint-Ours covers more than 58 square kilometres and has 1,782 residents.

Between 1844 and 1849, the construction of a dam and locks on the Richelieu River helped connect Montreal and New York. The Saint-Ours Canal completed the Richelieu seaway and Saint-Ours became a very important community for the federal government, which created the Saint-Ours Canal National Historic Site, under the responsibility of Parks Canada.

My remarks today will focus on three areas: investing in heat island reduction and water management; funding and supporting programs to protect riverbanks for individuals and businesses; and, above all, supporting the creation of a road link between Saint-Ours and Saint-Roch-de-Richelieu.

In some regions of Canada, temperature increases and changes in rainfall distribution are being predicted that could have an impact on the natural environment by increasing the intensity or frequency of certain phenomena, such as floods or landslides. The effects of climate change will also affect the built environment and communities.

Local and regional municipalities are aware of the challenge they are facing with respect to future climate change. This green transition requires the political, technical, financial and material support of provincial and federal governments.

Existing infrastructure is not adapted to climate change. Therefore, adaptations are necessary to minimize sewage backups, overflows, which affect water quality, and flooding. However, the costs of this new reality far exceed the planned budget.

Our first recommendation is to invest in green programs for municipalities and improve grant programs for asset maintenance, promote the management of municipal assets and support municipalities in dealing with climate change.

Over the years, the erosion of certain portions of river slopes has resulted in shoulder washouts. For example, the Quebec department of transport believes that these washouts threaten the integrity of the infrastructure, which can have an impact on user safety, ride comfort and travel fluidity.

Across the entire area of the banks of the Richelieu River, it is suspected that the main causes of shoreline erosion are the speed of the current, waves created by the wind and especially waves generated by ships, or ice movement.

In addition to harming the aquatic environment, the erosion of the banks of the Richelieu River threatens the integrity of routes 133 and 223. In some places, road washouts and sinkholes have already forced the Quebec department of transport to carry out emergency stabilization work. In Saint-Ours alone, in recent years, more than six landslides at various sites have been recorded, including one that has been affecting Route 133 since December 2021.

Experts have said that, in order to counter shoreline erosion, governments must help all the people living along the shore in their efforts to stabilize the banks and stop the harmful effects on flora and aquatic fauna, as well as major geomorphological changes in some waterways.

So our second recommendation is to establish an annual financial assistance fund for waterfront owners, individuals, but also businesses, in order to prevent disasters, to assist people living along the shore in the recovery of shorelines, and to improve water quality by stabilizing shorelines and slowing erosion caused by multiple factors.

Photographs from 1850 show that there have always been ice bridges connecting the two banks of the Richelieu River. Until recently, thanks to ice bridges, motorists did not have to use highways 20 and 30. The route was reduced to 1.2 kilometres, instead of the 35 kilometres to be travelled by Highway 30. Unfortunately, climate change has increased the number of frost and thaw cycles and the temperature of the water. For the last three or four years, ice bridges have not been an option, for obvious safety reasons. We are seeing that the river is no longer freezing. So we have to respond to this new reality.

Since 1982, the City of Saint-Ours has been proposing the construction of a bridge that would enable vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists to cross at Darvard Island, which comes under federal responsibility. This project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by motorists for the benefit of neighbouring municipalities in three RCMs. This bridge, which could be used by the local population—more than 15,000 people—would help limit travel and ease traffic.

The municipalities involved have been in favour of this project for a very long time, the two RCMs directly affected have also been in favour of it, and the members of the provincial government have the same opinion. As for the federal government, it has not expressed any opposition, nor has it given its support going forward.

We have a third recommendation. Since the Richelieu River is under federal jurisdiction and since the most strategic location for a bridge belongs to the Government of Canada, we recommend that the government support the cities in an opportunity and feasibility study.

In conclusion, municipalities want not only to adapt to climate change, but also to be part of the solution. To that end, they must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by doing things like improving public and active transit systems, promoting the use of electric cars and, above all, equipping themselves to minimize their environmental footprint.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

Next, we have Ms. Eyquem from Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation.

Ms. Eyquem, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Joanna Eyquem, Managing Director, Climate-Resilient Infrastructure, Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation]

Good afternoon.

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. This work is very important, so thank you for the work you do on this.

I'm going to cover three points. They largely draw on some of the actions in this report, which is the advice from the resilient natural and built infrastructure committee, which supported the national adaptation strategy and which I was lucky enough to sit on.

The development of Canada’s national adaptation strategy, and the allocation of additional funding to adaptation, is a very positive step forward. However, climate adaptation is often framed as an environmental issue. The department that is taking forward the national adaptation strategy is Environment and Climate Change Canada. In reality, the impacts of climate change are largely financial and health-related. For example, considering catastrophic insured losses, we have reached a situation where we have $2 billion in insured losses in a normal year, and that's just what's insured. What is not insured is estimated to be three to fours times that amount.

In terms of health, 619 people lost their lives in the western heat dome in 2021, lives that could have been saved through adaptation, not to mention the mental health and growing anxiety that people feel about climate change. As we speak, Nova Scotia is burning. Our health is literally on fire.

It is time that climate adaptation was seen for what it really is—our key financial and health challenge.

When we look at government departments mandated to deliver action on climate adaptation, the urgency to act is not apparent. In total, 15 departments have mandated actions, with no coordination or accountability in a centralized manner. It is notable that the Department of Finance does not have any explicit actions related to climate adaptation beyond financial disclosures.

What has resulted is a severe lack of investment in adaptation on the ground. The “National Risk Profile” report recently confirmed that Canada is not prepared for floods or wildfires to come, let alone extreme heat.

This adaptation funding gap was underlined in a recent op-ed in The Globe and Mail by Charles Brindamour, the CEO of Intact Financial Corporation, and Blair Feltmate of the Intact Centre. The United States is out-investing Canada in adaptation by some three to four times per capita. With a return on investment of three to eight dollars, just including avoided damages, the economic advantages to the U.S. are clear. The op-ed calls for an additional $10 billion to the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, and $1 billion to the greener homes initiative to help Canada catch up.

The good news is that we can achieve multiple objectives through adaptation, making life better and safer. The federal government has already established green infrastructure programs to accelerate emissions reduction, and we can use these same mechanisms to serve dual duty to adapt infrastructure. For example, regarding residential buildings, the greener homes initiative could readily be expanded to include resilience. Indeed, there are several win-win measures. For example, upgrading insulation, airtightness and glazing can really help with energy efficiency, but this also helps with extreme heat resilience.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank can play a similar role. It already has a green infrastructure program, which looks at investing in energy efficiency upgrades for public buildings. This program could also be expanded to include flood, wildfire and heat resilience measures, as well as investing in natural infrastructure. It just makes no sense to separate different shades of green. Climate adaptation, mitigation and nature-positive solutions should all be dealt with in tandem.

This brings me to my third point, which is mainstreaming natural infrastructure solutions in Canada.

How we define infrastructure in Canada has already changed, with leadership being shown by the federal government on both the national and international scale. The national adaptation strategy and the forthcoming national infrastructure assessment will both address natural infrastructure. Statistics Canada is also preparing national natural capital accounts, formally recognizing the financial value of services provided to people by nature.

The Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework further highlights the need to restore and enhance contributions delivered by natural infrastructure like flood protection, heat control, carbon storage, and much more. We now need to take natural infrastructure solutions from novel to normal.

Key actions to achieve this include reviewing every new infrastructure project through a climate and nature-positive lens; making natural infrastructure the default solution, including for adaptation, with hybrid or grey infrastructure solutions being used when required; funding mainstreaming of natural asset valuations and management by local governments in Canada according to the guidance of the report entitled “Getting Nature on the Balance Sheet”; and agreeing with the provinces on strategic actions through adaptation and infrastructure planning at the watershed scale and at the regional coastal scale.

Nature is our frontline ally to tackle climate change. A shift from grey to green will help make our dollars multi-task, achieving climate adaptation, climate mitigation and nature-positive solutions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Eyquem.

We will begin our line of questioning today with Mr. Lewis.

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

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What a great slate of witnesses this morning. Thanks to each and every one of you for your very in-depth testimony. This is refreshing. Thank you.

I will start with the CBTU. Of course, as I am the shadow minister for labour, you had my ear on very many fronts.

Mr. Gordon, you spoke about qualified incentives. Can you give a couple of examples of what these qualified incentives look like today and what they need to look like in the future to overcome these obstacles?

[Michael Gordon]

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to address you.

I will speak to past experience communicated to us directly through our membership. In the past, there have been.... Current incentives have a lot of potential, but there were issues with individuals and associations that became a prerequisite, if I could call it this. These associations acted as gatekeepers to access federal and provincial grant incentives for building retrofits. This became problematic in one context. Without taking a one-week course that was delivered for profit by these associations, five-year apprentice trades that include the scope of practice were actually excluded from being able to offer these very same incentives to their clients. This was a very big problem.

I think what we would like to see is future incentives that address retrofits being performed by qualified people. Another layer to that is that these systems that were performed were shown—in the news, in various reports and newspapers—to be faulty in many instances. This causes a lack of trust from the government to go down this road of retrofitting with these new technologies. You know, we only get one opportunity to do it right.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

What I heard you say is “remove the gatekeepers”. I have heard that before.

Ms. Rahmati, you spoke about natural disasters and having to pick up a workforce from Ontario, for example, and get them out to B.C. for wildfires or floods. Of course, my bill, Bill C-241, the mobility tax deduction, which has now passed the House of Commons and gone to the Senate, will help get people to these places.

Then there was talk about new training models, as well. I'm a big advocate that we need to start our training in the school systems in the early years, because the same children who play with Tonka trucks in a sandbox at three and four for some strange reason are told at five, six and seven that they need to be doctors, lawyers and—Lord forbid—politicians or they are nothing.

Are these new training models what you're talking about specifically? What, specifically, are you speaking to?

[Rita Rahmati]

First off, congratulations, Mr. Lewis, on your bill.

What I was referring to was a bit more interprovincial mobility—for example, if you're in northern B.C. having to go down to southern B.C. to help with a disaster. Things like your mobility tax deduction will assist with that.

Then, when it comes to training, what I was referring to in part of my remarks was making sure, as we're transitioning to net zero, that workers have the skills they need to be able to continue to do their work and build our buildings with more energy-efficient standards, for example, or move from traditional oil and gas jobs to the new industry.

I will pass it over to Mike, because Mike is a training director, to see if he has anything else to add to that, as well.