Transport Committee on May 30th, 2023

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you very much to the witnesses for their testimony. It's very interesting.

The first question is for Mr. Gordon.

Talking again about the regulations and affordability, I'm from the Vancouver area. The regulations add about $600,000 to the cost of the average house in Vancouver, which is a lot.

You mentioned the housing envelope and how we're becoming more and more efficient, but that's forcing people to go into forced air climate and into air conditioning. For most of our history in the Lower Mainland, most houses haven't had air conditioning, but now we're being forced into that. You've touched on this quite a bit. Also, it's interesting, because forced air takes energy, so you're using more energy. It seems to be kind of.... We're trying to reduce consumption, yet we don't seem to be working in tandem, one hand with the other.

I want to ask you to further elaborate on this and on the cost benefit to what is being done, and elaborate heavily on the cost, because people are finding it very challenging in many parts, especially our urban centres like the Lower Mainland, Toronto and other places, to be able to afford housing.

Are we really hurting ourselves by what we're doing? When is it enough?

[Kevin Lee]

You definitely need to be careful not to go too far. When it comes to increasing what we would call your cooling loads—we're going to get into building science, now—overall, in terms of energy efficiency with these high-performance homes, you tend to lower your heating load, which is the main energy consumer over the course of the year. Yes, in some cases that results in needing cooling when you wouldn't have required it otherwise. Overall, your energy savings are better, but you are creating a cooling load that you might not have needed before. However, with extreme climate events coming, you may be glad you have air conditioning systems anyway. It's a tricky balance.

That said, the bigger question is, how fast do you go to these next levels? If you're in B.C., you already have your step code. We already know that the highest level of that code goes well past net zero and is maybe too far, and the cost effectiveness is not there yet. We are building net-zero homes for those who can afford them and want to invest that way, but it is not a cost-effective solution yet, which is why we keep harping on the need for more innovation and more R and D. We need to bring down the cost of building that level so that it makes complete cost-effective sense and becomes affordable for everybody to be able to invest that way.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I didn't mean to address that question to you, Mr. Lee. The next one will be to Mr. Gordon.

In one of the communities I represent, Pitt Meadows, in the Lower Mainland, we have a very important project for an underpass for the main artery going to the city where the CP Rail was going. It was intended to be under construction, but it looks like it's going to be pulled because of the cost escalation from about $63 million to now $200 million. Most of that is not in the actual construction; it's more in regulation, the ever-changing regulations and management. We're seeing how these really have an impact.

I'm thinking about you, Mr. Gordon, and the trades, if we don't have this as jobs. What are your thoughts about this?

[Michael Gordon]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

I do agree with the partial answers from Mr. Lee, just for clarity there, in answering the previous question.

I will respond as follows. There are a few things to unpack in your question.

Number one, when we're talking deregulation, we know that a lot of things get thrown under that umbrella. When we look at deregulation, we have to be very careful because we don't know what the problem is with removing stop signs until the stop signs are removed. They're there for a reason. I would caution against the removal of regulations, but everything that is there for the purpose could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis when you're looking at a situation, as you've mentioned.

That's not my expertise—we're looking at what the total encompassing thing is for that situation—but I can say that deregulation is a short-sighted solution in most instances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.

Next, we have Mr. Badawey.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I want to do here is essentially concentrate on the business of government. How can the federal government be a better partner with our local communities, as well as stakeholders, to create resiliency through leveraging, financing and partnering with different levels of government and the private sector, which mitigate the financial burden on property taxpayers? For example, the tax rate, Mr. Mayor, is in fact impacted by operational budgets that finance capital debt, which I'm sure you deal with every spring. How do we mitigate the impact of water bills on property taxpayers?

Some examples when it comes to shoreline protection are asset management and asset adaptability, as well as natural infrastructure, maintenance and investment, etc. We have many mechanisms in place. Joanna touched on a few of them. Carbon pricing is one of them, with 10% of our carbon pricing going to municipalities. The other 90% goes back to residents.

We look at the Canada community-building fund, as you alluded to earlier, that goes through FCM. There's the NTCF, the green-building fund, and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence announcement of $420 million that can and probably will be—once the strategy is put in place—attached to shoreline protection, based on shoreline erosion. There are additional funding envelopes that all departments have available for you.

Would it be advantageous to consolidate these funding programs under one program that concentrates on climate resiliency, or do we focus on climate resiliency under the existing programs, as a priority under the matrix when those programs are being applied for?

Mr. Mayor, I'm going to start off with you.

[Sylvain Dupuis]

My first idea is quite clear. When it comes to big funding programs, they tend to have a specific focus, so the danger is that certain projects get overlooked. My preference would be to segment the programs a bit more and, above all, give everyone a chance. Sometimes just splitting a fund into two streams—one for large municipalities with more than 25,000 residents and one for smaller municipalities with fewer than 25,000 residents, say—allows smaller municipalities to participate.

In your question, you mentioned shoreline funding. Currently, the federal and provincial governments make the rules, but it's important to realize that the impact on residents is awful. Even before the property owner can begin to address their part of the shoreline, they're on the hook for $50,000 just to have a study done and the options laid out. Then they find out that, in order to comply with all the rules in place, it's going to cost them $500,000 to repair about 150 feet of shoreline. It's ridiculous. No one can afford that.

We've had some great initiatives in our region, particularly when it comes to speed limits on the water. Just that was a good step. Personally, I would take shoreline protection even further and create a new criminal offence around wakes and waves.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I feel for you. I had your job for 14 years. I know what it feels like every year when you're going into your budget cycle. You're dealing with your capital budget, but of course there's the impact of the capital budget, especially when you're debenturing, on your operational budget. You're trying to accelerate those priorities and it's hard.

Again, the question is—and I'm glad you answered it the way you did—how can we be that partner through these programs we're offering you to help mitigate the impact, ultimately, on the property taxpayer and on their water bills? We're trying to do that through the programs, but I think we can do it better in the future, especially as it relates to newer programs that attach themselves, for example, to community improvement plans, asset management and things of that nature.

My next question is for Mr. Lee.

You mentioned earlier the whole-of-government approach, working in silos and government departments working more closely together. I want to get a bit more granular on that. How do you envision a whole-of-government approach to ensure that strategic investments towards infrastructure resiliency are in fact being made?

[Kevin Lee]

You really need to set your priorities, and then make sure everybody's rolling in the same direction.

I'll use an example. One of our challenges right now is that we don't have enough housing in Canada. It's part of what's driving up house prices, good old supply and demand. We're saying, okay, the government has set a priority to try to build 3.5 million additional houses over the next decade. That is excellent. The question is, are we doing everything to actually head in that direction? The fact of the matter is that we have all kinds of things that are working against that right now. The cost of construction is going up a lot. We talked today about all the things that might go into codes. Interest rates have headed the wrong way. We have stress tests. There are all these things that are preventing people from getting into home ownership, and all these factors together are driving up prices.

There's more of a need to work at one thing—all these things together at the same time—to meet that objective. You're going to have your silos, and you're going to have the different departments, but everybody needs to be working together under that one objective.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Is the time up for me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It is, Mr. Badawey. I know. It goes quickly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee and Mr. Badawey.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. You have two and a half minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, my questions are for Mr. Dupuis. I apologize to the other witnesses. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to ask them anything. I have a whole lot of questions, so I don't want to miss this opportunity.

Mr. Dupuis, I haven't talked to you about the fact that your municipality, Saint‑Ours, is on the river. We talked about how people have to cross the river to get from one side to the other, but there's also the matter of erosion. You mentioned it earlier. Discussing erosion is helpful because it goes hand in hand with flooding. In Quebec, the Richelieu river is known for having significant spring runoff. As you said, it can cause landslides near roadways. It can affect people's homes. A few years ago, we saw homes that were basically carried away by the river not far from you, in Saint‑Roch‑de‑Richelieu. That stuck in people's minds.

When water levels are very high in the spring, the federal government is in charge of managing those levels and the dams. It also manages navigation, deciding when the season starts.

I'd like to know how that impacts your municipality and how federal agencies communicate with you to make sure their decisions regarding traffic clearance or water level management aren't made at the expense of your citizens.

[Sylvain Dupuis]

That's a good question.

Although we have a good relationship with Parks Canada, which manages the locks in Saint‑Ours, two years ago, we got together with five other municipalities and sent the agency a letter asking it to delay opening the locks. Our request was rejected. Someone somewhere, in Dorval or Ottawa, decided to open them anyways. It was an absurd decision. Six municipalities were united in saying that, because the water level was so high, the opening of the locks needed to be delayed to reduce the wave impact on the shore. When the water level is too high, it affects parts of the shore that aren't usually under water. That's when you see landslides happening and residents being impacted.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I assume Ottawa has a hand in managing water levels when flooding is a concern. Is Ottawa in contact with the towns to let them know how those decisions are being made?

[Sylvain Dupuis]

There's absolutely no communication. We usually find out in a news release put out that day. Since you brought up water levels, I should point out that, oftentimes, ferry operators don't even know when the floodgates are being opened in the summer to let the water in. They have to adjust the docks and all the marine infrastructure. It's 2023, and I think it's possible to have much better communication.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Dupuis.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next, we have Ms. Zarrillo.

Ms. Zarrillo, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much.

I want to go back to our Building Trades Unions witnesses today. I want to ask about knowledge on the ground. There's been a lot of discussion about partners and how we need more of them here in this work.

This is for either Ms. Rahmati or Mr. Gordon. Was your organization consulted as part of Canada's national adaptation strategy?

[Rita Rahmati]

I'm not aware of Canada's Building Trades Unions being directly consulted, but I would think that some of our affiliates and local councils may have been consulted.

[Michael Gordon]

I am not aware of any such consultation, either, but we do speak with the federal government on several related initiatives. It might be indirectly that we're receiving an opportunity to speak to this.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay. That's great.

If some formal consultation has happened and we could get that information to the committee, that would be amazing. Thanks so much.

One of the things I learn when I'm on construction sites and I'm speaking with workers is that they often have solutions that are simple and effective, but they don't make their way up to government and they sometimes don't make their way into strategies and programs. My question to both of you is, what else would your workers want this committee to know in regard to being part of the solution to greener infrastructure, including housing?

[Michael Gordon]

This is a great opportunity to speak to that.

I would say specifically that, first and foremost, they're not excluded. I alluded to this in the previous conversation. Past initiatives have excluded qualified people. The number one priority here should be that the people doing the work are qualified to do it. It provides that extended value. Homeowners expect that when they have this building, whether it's efficient or not, it's going to work.

To the point you brought up earlier about the home working as a system, this is inherently within our training across the board so that we are very familiar with how everything interacts, how all components interact, and we are able to collectively deliver on value—and on health, to speak on that.

It was also mentioned, to go to the deregulation aspect that was brought up, that B.C. went through an issue of deregulation. Putting all things under one umbrella I don't think would be appropriate, but this comes as part and parcel of making sure they are included. We are 20 years past the time and now B.C. is recovering from that original incentive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.

Next, we have Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To go back to my friends at CBTU—and I'm not sure if this is for Ms. Rahmati or Mr. Gordon—one of you mentioned a national database. Can you expand on that? That sounds very interesting.

[Michael Gordon]

Yes. To access tradespeople, right now in various provinces there are provincial databases, but through Red Seal, multiple jurisdictions across Canada have the same trades that have adopted Red Seal status, which means that if I'm a plumber in one province, I can work in any province. Utilizing a Red Seal database—whether you're a contractor, a homeowner or a builder—where you're able to verify somebody's credentials, would be essential to providing exceptional value to Red Seal, to be able to have that as a point of contact.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Is it something that you think the federal government should take on or is that something that industry would take on? What's the idea behind that? It's a great idea. I'm just curious.