Transport Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Carlo Dade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the honourable member from Essex for the question.

In terms of 10 to 30 years—taking the bits in order—what the best practice shows internationally is that these are our competitors, this is what everyone has and this is the range used for Infrastructure Australia, the U.K. infrastructure commission, Malaysia, New Zealand, etc. This is the range that works for transportation infrastructure.

We're talking about the assets and systems that move goods, people and factors of production in and out of the country. We haven't looked beyond this. We've kept our focus on the infrastructure that earns two-thirds of our living in this country—transportation infrastructure—but this benefits municipalities. If we had long-term planning for this type of infrastructure, municipalities could adjust investment attraction based on the infrastructure that will be coming online. It needs to meet the growth in demand. The growth in production can be tailored and factored into this.

One of the other elements of the plan—

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Answer very quickly, please, Mr. Dade.

[Carlo Dade]

Okay.

Infrastructure Australia provides assistance to municipalities so they are able to participate in national planning. This is something the Canada Infrastructure Bank was originally, potentially, envisioned to do, but it's half of the bank's mandate. It hasn't been fulfilled or picked up.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Dade. I appreciate that.

I don't have a question for you, Mr. Stewart, but I want to say thank you very much for recognizing the firefighters. I was a firefighter myself for seven and a half years. It means a lot that you would recognize them.

I have about a minute and 40 seconds left.

To you, Madam Mayor Martin, your area is very similar to Essex. It's incredibly similar to Essex. When we talk about food production, we're the greenhouse capital of Canada. We talk about flooding, and we have the flooding issues. We talk about you being a county. We're Essex County. Wineries.... By the way, ours are better than yours. Ironically, both MPs' last names are Lewis.

My question for you is with regard specifically to flooding.

By the way, as well, just next door to me, in Chatham-Kent—Leamington.... That explosion is, obviously.... Wheatley is where that gas was from. It very much hits home. I almost feel as though I'm home today when listening to you, Madam Mayor.

Do you work closely with your conservation authority? Obviously, we have the Essex Region Conservation Authority. I understand it to be true that you have a conservation authority. What can the federal government do to work with those conservation authorities closer? I realize they're legislated provincially, but I think we may be walking past an opportunity. Do you have any thoughts?

[Amy Martin]

Yes, Long Point Region Conservation Authority is excellent, as we heard from one of the other speakers, with data, with presenting us with information, with presenting the community with warnings about high-water risk, high-flood risk, high winds. There's a lot of ongoing communication that happens between the conservation authority and the municipalities.

If I can plug the opportunity, it's resources. We know that the water's coming. We know that the wind is coming. We know that we're going to see power outages. We don't have the resources in place to protect the water treatment plant when the power goes out or to build up some enforcements to protect our community, our roads and our small businesses from the flooding. We certainly don't have the money for the shoreline erosion.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mayor Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Next we have Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to concentrate on the business of government in a whole-of-government approach, recognizing, of course, that this is a fluid conversation.

I guess I'm going to direct most of my attention to the mayor with respect to the how and the what. We all understand what the what is. It's pretty consistent today, but how does the federal government be a better partner with our local communities and stakeholders to create that resiliency that we're speaking about through leveraging financing that mitigates the financial burden on property taxpayers?

I recognize that in your budget, for example, this year alone, there is an 11.5% increase in your water and waste-water budget and a 9.6% operating increase in your levy, blended at an 8% increase. You're looking at about $837 million or $838 million between now and 2032. It's quite heavy, so I get it. However, how do we mitigate that in terms of taking that burden off the property taxpayers and, of course, the water bills, in particular, to partner under a disciplined approach that has been established in Ontario? I see that your disciplined PSAB, as well as finance asset management plans, are very noticeable.

We have shoreline protection, asset management, adaptability, natural infrastructure, maintenance investments, etc., from the one side. From the other side, we have carbon pricing—what they call the carbon tax—revenues coming in to you at 10% of the overall that's being collected throughout the country. There are the Canada community-building fund, which is the former gas tax fund; the NTCF; the green building fund; the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence announcement that was made this year at $420 million, partly for our shoreline protection and, of course, resilience; and additional funding envelopes.

I have two questions, and this is the how to the what. Would it be advantageous to consolidate or repurpose some of these funding envelope programs under one program—such as the ICIP program, which I'm sure you're very aware of—that concentrates on climate resiliency to satisfy the capacity that you speak about, or would it be advantageous to, under the existing programs, focus on climate resilience as a scoring matrix priority when applications are being submitted? That is question one. When I get my second question out, the rest of the time is yours.

How do you envision a whole-of-government approach at the federal level and including all levels of government, integrating, as you mentioned, capital planning to ensure strategic investments—as were mentioned at the end of table, worst first—toward infrastructure resiliency? Every investment affects each department due to financial pressures on both resiliency and growth-related costs. Housing is affected by infrastructure, by finance, by heritage—the whole of government, all levels of government. An example of this is what you work with then. You have different departments: planning, operations, HR, emergency, and so on and so forth. With that, how do we, at this level, create that resiliency, create that partnership, create that flow, that fluidity, within our government but also including all levels of government?

The floor is yours.

[Amy Martin]

I'm going to go really high level, and then I might pass it over to Sydney. You're more in her wheelhouse.

With regard to your first question—how does the federal government help—again, it's funding, and I know that we've beaten that to death. It's maybe taking a look at a comprehensive insurance plan and taking an active approach on that instead of leaving it with the provincial level. Insurance is so high on a good day, let alone with all of these climate factors that we're seeing, so assistance through insurance....

Then, with regard to your second question, the high-level answer is that it's a multijurisdictional approach. If we're only helping Norfolk County and Haldimand County or Essex county don't opt in, what are we going to do? It's a multijurisdictional approach.

All of those funding sources are in Sydney's wheelhouse, so I will preserve my time and pass it over.

Thank you very much.

[Sydney Clarysse, Project Lead, Energy and Facilities, Municipality of Norfolk County]

Thank you very much for the questions.

With regard to the Norfolk County climate change adaptation plan, 13 of the 18 climate risks that were identified through the vulnerability assessment were very high or high risk. Of that, eight of the 13 involved were water, waste-water infrastructure and water quality, which you know has a trickle-down effect on several facets of the community.

In terms of funding, a lot of the funding that we're seeing today is looking for shovel-ready projects, but when you want to even upgrade your water and waste-water infrastructure, or be resilient and adapt that infrastructure to face climate change, the issue is that it's not always shovel-ready. When you're a small municipality, it's hard to justify continued spending on in-depth studies. I would say that's definitely a big question.

[Amy Martin]

One plan, one funding stream.... Can you comment on consolidating funding streams?

[Sydney Clarysse]

To be honest, I don't have a preferred option for that, just from my personal opinion.

I have applied to the GICB funding program for facilities, and that was basically based on a dollar amount per greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Obviously, that's more mitigation, so potentially the climate risk index....

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Perhaps I can just throw this out there, Mr. Chair, because I know I'm at the limit.

Working with the FCM, one of the things that we're trying to do as well is to consolidate lots of the opinions in terms of the funding packages and the envelopes, whether it be a building fund or whether it be a green fund. It's a fluid conversation and, with that, comes the priorities.

All of you have made great points, and I want to thank you for that.

[Amy Martin]

If I may, FCM typically opens up loan funding envelopes, and our debt limits are extremely high. In the next 25 years we'll be over the 25% provincial allocation. In the next four years, we will be at our 15% internal debt limit, so the loans aren't always applicable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

Thank you, Mayor Martin.

We will move on to our next line of questioning, and we'll give the floor over to Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'm just going to make a statement of fact and ask if Mayor Martin agrees with this. It's just touching back on the orphan wells.

I'm sure you're aware, Mayor Martin, that Alberta was given $220 million last year for abandoned wells reclamation. Many environmentalists would ask the question, and the question was asked today, about oil companies being responsible for the externalities and paying the costs of the externalities that they cause. That is also associated with capping the wells. They often cite Alberta and Saskatchewan, but Norfolk County and Ontario, in general, are very different.

This is with respect to the orphan well situation. Our oil and gas industry existed over 100 years ago. It is not a recent industry. That industry was developing, and it existed long before the oil extraction industry of the west, so many of these wells are now on private lands. Those homeowners were never part of the industry, yet they are left with the costs of orphaned, not abandoned, wells.

Would you agree with that statement?

[Amy Martin]

Thank you for the question.

I would agree with that statement.

When I answered earlier about payment and dissolved companies and so on, I was referencing the private specific wells, not giving consideration to a broader industry at large.

You raise an excellent point. We see many farms that have used these wells to heat their homes and to work on various initiatives across the farm, and now these private landowners have these wells. I think we're looking at two separate types or categories of wells, but my previous answer was not to the larger, broader industry. It was to the specific individuals who played a role in capping or not capping before moving on.

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

My next question is for Mr. Dade. Canada doesn't have a national trade infrastructure plan, and you talked about this. Is Canada an outlier in this situation by not having a national infrastructure plan in place, in comparison to other nations?

[Carlo Dade]

That's correct. The European Union auditors did a study to benchmark the performance of transportation infrastructure planning in the EU. There were two Canadian academics who took part in the study. Of the countries they surveyed, Canada was the only one that didn't have permanent, long-term national infrastructure planning, and we did stand out like a sore thumb.

When Prime Minister Harper went to the G20 in Melbourne, the Australians had Infrastructure Australia and infrastructure planning on the table, and we learned that then. As everyone went around the table, it dawned on the then prime minister that Canada stood out.

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

I'd like to hear from Mr. Stewart and Ms. Rol a little bit more. You spoke about the interconnectivity of government funding from infrastructure funding and private funding and how important the private initiatives are.

I would like to hear more about what role you think they play in future mitigation and adaptation initiatives with respect to planning into the future so that we're not just dealing with situations and catastrophes as they happen.

[Craig Stewart]

I'm going to focus on the national flood insurance program as a unifier. What insurance does is it prices risk. Right now, our system is that we have 10% of the population exposed to high flood risk, and they rely on government bailouts, which is essentially free insurance. The incentives are all wrong.

Once that national flood insurance program is set up, it's being designed so that it can be expanded to other perils, if needed, from wildfires to earthquakes. Once that's set up, then you can put the incentive system in place by saying that, if communities invest in infrastructure that reduces the risk, their constituents will pay less in terms of premiums. If homeowners take measures to protect themselves, you can also build those incentives in, such as we do with house fire right now when you're interviewed on your insurance policy as to whether you have a fire extinguisher or you live near a fire station.

It's about setting the whole framework from where we are now, which is basically perverse incentives, to a system of positive feedback and beneficial incentives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Chahal.

Mr. Chahal, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.

I represent northeast Calgary, Calgary Skyview. The city of Calgary has experienced some real major climate events, for example, the 2013 floods. We've seen two hailstorms. The last one in 2020 did up to $1.5 billion of damage in my northeast Calgary communities. There was flooding on Deerfoot Trail, on our roadways and in homes. There were 35,000 homes damaged and 35,000 vehicles.

I'll start with the Insurance Bureau.

I'm a former city councillor. We had asked the Conservative provincial government for support for our communities. In 2013, we saw a response. We saw support for the floods. We saw no support when our council recently asked the provincial government for support, exactly to the points you have made today on supporting communities by being able to bring resilient roofing forward so people can build back better and build more resilient homes and communities to reduce those insurance premiums. There was no support; nobody showed up. There were different approaches to different storms.

We have other issues as well when it comes to a broken insurance system. I wish there was an insurance company here to answer some of these questions.

We had a high volume of claims. We had an ill-prepared insurance industry to deal with those claims, particularly in newcomer communities.

Has the insurance industry learned from that past example, and have they improved their practices to ensure that folks who face these challenges are better served in language, potentially, and that there are on-the-ground supports to help them get through that process?

[Craig Stewart]

It's a very important question. Frankly, it's a difficult one to answer. I'd say we're still learning as an industry.

With regard to that event that you referenced, the $1.5 billion in losses, there were 100,000 claims that resulted, far more claims than came from Fort McMurray. There were 100,000 claims from a 20-minute event. We were overwhelmed. We simply don't have the appraisers. We don't keep that many people on standby to be able to deal with an event of that magnitude, and it's continued.

Postpandemic, the private sector across the board has been dealing with labour issues. How do we get staff and retain staff? It's frankly still an issue that we grapple with, especially when events happen in eastern Canada. Most of our adjusters are out in western Canada, because that's where the bulk of the events are. We've run into it. We do run into it. We run into it with the tornadoes that happened in Ottawa. We're still running into it in events across the country.

We're trying to do better. We're absolutely trying to do better. It's on our radar. CEOs talked about it at our last board meeting. We need to do better, but the scale of these events is a challenge for everyone.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask you a few more questions, and I'm going to ask you one about your recommendation.

Before I go there, do you think the insurance system in Alberta is broken? Do you believe that discriminatory geographic practices are occurring? I'll give you an example. For a resident of mine, a constituent of mine, who lives in my constituency in northeast Calgary...and I've run examples of this myself. I picked two postal codes. Northeast Calgary was $2,218 and southwest Calgary was $1,500, for the same coverage on a vehicle. How does that happen?

In my community, working-class newcomer communities are paying their bills, just getting by and working multiple jobs, but they are getting hosed when it comes to insurance. How does that happen? I say “discriminatory geographic practices”, but through the underwriting practices, I would say, are there discriminatory practices for newcomers in this country when it comes to underwriting?

[Craig Stewart]

I don't believe there are any discriminatory practices when it comes to underwriting. Essentially what happens is that underwriters will take a look at risk, and geographic factors do play in. It happens on property, and it happens on auto as well.

Unfortunately, we're facing an absolute epidemic of auto theft in this country, and Alberta is the biggest part of the problem. We're working with the RCMP and Canada Border Services to try to address this. The losses have escalated so rapidly that we're just trying to figure out how to come to grips with it, and that's part of the problem.