Transport Committee on June 6th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order

Welcome to meeting No. 73 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 to discuss 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.

I wish to inform the committee members that the connections of all witnesses have been tested for sound quality for the benefit of our interpreters and have passed the sound test.

Colleagues, appearing before us today as witnesses, we have Mr. Ryan Ness, director for adaptation in the Canadian Climate Institute, appearing by video conference; Ralf Nielsen, from the Canadian Urban Transit Association, director of enterprise sustainability, appearing by video conference; and Wing-On Li, from Horizons Group, director and chief executive officer, also appearing by video conference.

Welcome.

We also have Patrick Bousez, Prefect of the MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges; Antonin Valiquette, Mayor of the Municipalité des Îles-de-la-Madeleine; and Andrée Bouchard, Mayor of the Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

Welcome, everyone.

We begin our opening remarks today with Mr. Ness, from the Canadian Climate Institute.

Mr. Ness, you have five minutes. The floor is yours.

[Ryan Ness, Director, Adaptation, Canadian Climate Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak today.

My name is Ryan Ness. I'm the director of adaptation at the Canadian Climate Institute, Canada's independent climate policy research organization. Our job is to generate research and advice for decision-makers to use in making informed policy decisions and to drive action that's proportional to Canada's climate change challenges.

We've examined the potential impacts and costs of climate change on Canada's infrastructure, as well as the benefits of infrastructure adaptation, as part of our “Costs of Climate Change” for Canada research series, the largest study to date of the potential economic implications of climate change for this country. Today I'll highlight some key findings and recommendations that are relevant to the work of this committee.

The first key finding is that the cost to Canada from climate change in damage and destruction to infrastructure, which is already vulnerable from decades of underinvestment, could be massive. Climate change-driven damage to roads and electricity systems from hotter summers alone could cost another $2.5 billion to $4 billion annually by 2050. As well, flood damage to homes and buildings could triple, from over $1 billion now to over $5 billion per year by 2050.

This damage costs everybody—not just those directly affected, but everyone—by disrupting economic growth. We estimate that by 2025, just the additional impacts of climate change since 2015 will cost the Canadian economy $25 billion in GDP and reduce average household incomes by $800.

The impacts of climate change on infrastructure will have major non-economic costs as well, fundamentally changing ways of life in some parts of Canada, such as in the north, where many communities are built on thawing permafrost and rely on increasingly unviable winter roads. These communities can become unlivable in just one or two decades.

The second key finding is that proactive investment in infrastructure adaptation is by far the most cost-effective way to protect the infrastructure services that people, businesses and the economy depend on.

When repaving roads, for example, using materials selected to withstand the climate two or three decades into the future can reduce climate change costs by over 90%. Protecting or moving neighbourhoods and buildings in high-risk areas could reduce the costs of coastal flooding by up to a billion dollars every year by the end of the century. We find that, as a whole, each dollar invested in adaptation can return $5 in avoided damage to directly affected households, businesses and governments, as well as an additional $10 in avoided disruption to the Canadian economy.

A third key finding is that a lack of information and guidance is holding back progress in Canada on infrastructure adaptation and resilience. For example, approximately half a million buildings at risk of flooding in Canada are not identified on any government-produced flood maps, and mapping of wildfire risks is virtually non-existent.

In the absence of this information, few infrastructure owners or investors are able to assess and manage existing climate risks, let alone future risks that would be associated with climate change. Many codes and standards that dictate how infrastructure in Canada is built still don't account for climate change, and others that are in the process of being updated are many years away from being implemented. Also, financial regulation is currently doing very little to ensure that infrastructure owners and investors are pricing climate risk into infrastructure investment decisions.

We have recommendations that emerge from these findings and are relevant to the work of this committee.

First, the Government of Canada should play a leadership role in ensuring that all government spending and regulatory decisions around infrastructure explicitly take into account climate risks and adaptation benefits.

Federal government actions, such as expanding financial support for municipal infrastructure adaptation under the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund and the green municipal fund, as well as research on codes and standards, are important, but they are not delivering results at the scale and pace that are required. The federal government should lead long-term, coordinated, accelerated approaches to make better use of the collective resources and powers of all orders of government to ensure that new infrastructure is built to be resilient and that existing infrastructure is made resilient.

Second, the Government of Canada should do more to lead and coordinate the development and publication of accurate information about climate-related infrastructure risks across the country. Investments to this end announced in the national infrastructure strategy and in budget 2023 around flood mapping are a positive step, but they provide only a small fraction of the funding that will be required to develop complete coast-to-coast-to-coast climate risk information and mapping.

Third and last, governments and regulators should be requiring climate change risks to be made transparent in infrastructure transactions, whether it be homeowners putting houses up for sale or municipalities issuing bonds. The Government of Canada and the regulatory bodies it oversees can again lead here by demonstrating for other governments and regulators how policy and tools can be developed to ensure owners, lenders, investors and other financial system actors are analyzing, disclosing and managing climate risks associated with infrastructure investment and driving capital towards less risky infrastructure decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ness.

Next we have Mr. Nielsen. Mr. Nielsen, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Ralf Nielsen, Director, Enterprise Sustainability, TransLink]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee.

I'm representing the Canadian Urban Transit Association, but my day job is the director of enterprise sustainability at TransLink, and I'm responsible for developing and for leading the climate action plan and strategy for our organization.

TransLink is North America's first multimodal transportation authority, as enacted by provincial legislation in 1998. We serve a region of 2.5 million people, which is going to grow to 3.5 million people by 2050. This region encompasses 21 municipalities, nine first nations, one treaty nation and one electoral district.

We're not just about transit. We own and operate six bridges in the region. We provide operations and maintenance funding for the major road network, and together with our regional partners, we invest in cycling and walking infrastructure.

Climate change is directly affecting our region. In 2021, as you know, our population was directly affected by significant events that have been directly linked to climate change. During the summer of that year, 619 people died across British Columbia during the successive heat waves and the heat dome. Then, later in October and November that year, the region was effectively cut off, physically and economically, from the rest of Canada due to the successive atmospheric rivers, the flooding and the bridge takeouts that ensued.

Climate change is also affecting TransLink and transit infrastructure. Our work on an adaptation strategy and plan told us that water—essentially flooding, intense rain and sea level rise—is going to affect infrastructure, while heat affects people.

We know that several of our bus depots, which we use to deploy our fleet in the region, are located on flood plains, some of which are very well protected, while others are not, and they will become essentially islands that are unable to deliver services during a critical flood event along the Fraser River.

We also know heat is affecting our staff. We've had to shorten some shifts, provide temporary cooling and extra PPE, and make accommodations for staff working in facilities that were designed 30 years ago without air conditioning. We also know that heat is going to affect our customers. Whether they take transit or walk or bike, it's really important that we keep them comfortable and safe by ensuring that they continue to choose TransLink and transit over taking the automobile.

Adaptation is key to managing the long-term risks to transit, whether physical or financial. Our government institutions, our financial institutions, our regional partners and the Government of Canada, all of which serve and fund transit in Canada, are expecting us to have mitigation and adaptation plans and to provide disclosure of those risks. We are grateful for federal investments via the zero emission transit fund that we use to address climate change mitigation through our fleet transitions, but our long-term success in climate change adaptation is dependent upon three things.

Number one is close collaboration in proactive planning and design among climate change adaptation specialists, engineers, architects, emergency management and preparedness experts, as well as in the building codes. As Mr. Ness mentioned, it is really important to plan and design to higher standards that are based on the future climate rather than on the historical norms.

Number two, we need consistent, reliable funding primarily for key things. The first of these is regional cross-infrastructure, cross-jurisdictional protection against severe events. For example, the Lower Mainland flood management strategy requires collaboration across the entire region.

The second key thing is a premium for designing and constructing new infrastructure that can adapt to the changing climate over the typical 50- to 70-year life cycle for which we design and build our infrastructure. I think a permanent transit fund would be an excellent means of delivering the support needed to enable transit agencies to manage these long-term risks.

Finally, programs that keep our customers safe and comfortable—active or passive cooling strategies or tree canopies—may continue to make transit, walking and cycling preferred over the automobile as reliable, convenient and frequent choices.

Next, we need to protect and enhance our natural assets, which oftentimes can not only be our best protection against severe events but can also sequester carbon, improve biodiversity and bring nature back into the suburban or urban landscapes.

We need to do this work in a couple of ways that are different from the past. One is equity. Our solutions have to be equitable and just and do no further disadvantage to equity-seeking groups, those with lower incomes. Can't the planting of trees go alongside zero emissions transit in these neighbourhoods?

Second, two-eyed seeing—acknowledging both indigenous and western knowledge systems—can help us find long-term adaptations and solutions that we may otherwise not see or discover on our own.

Finally, I'd like to thank the Canadian Urban Transit Association and B.C.'s Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for sharing knowledge with us and the other agencies. We hope TransLink's leadership in climate change adaptation will help other agencies across Canada.

I look forward to the discussion this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nielsen.

Next we have Mr. Li.

Mr. Li, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, sir.

[Wing-On Li, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Horizons Group]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Wing Li, CEO of Windsor-based property developer Horizons Group. We are an eco-friendly developer in the Windsor and Essex County market, building sustainable homes at attainable prices.

Today, Canada has about 40 million people living in 15 million homes. Our homes contribute 17% towards the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, the population will probably double if we continue to welcome overseas immigrants at current rates. To achieve the federal government's 2050 net-zero vision, we must keep the carbon footprint of future homes as low as possible while encouraging existing homeowners to slash their household energy consumption with retrofit improvements.

Over the past 20 years, attempts have been made to induce people to buy energy-efficient homes accredited by Energy Star, EnerGuide or R-2000. Unfortunately, there has been little success, mainly because the higher price tags deter both builders and buyers from making an environmentally sound decision.

To ensure we can weather the global warming challenge, governments at federal, provincial and municipal levels; developers; homeowners; and investors—all stakeholders—must come up with a viable business model that could help all stakeholders pay a fair share of financial contributions that would eventually benefit them in the long run. That is what we call a “win-win-win” strategy to face the climate change challenge.

Horizons Group has a corporate vision of producing energy-efficient homes like the net-zero homes Natural Resources Canada has been advocating. By definition, net-zero homes are 80% more energy-efficient than those built under current building codes. To be more specific, the most important feature is that these homes use renewable energy to cover all or most of what they consume. In other words, their utility bills are always kept low, at, say, $30 to $50 per month year-round.

Our group does not mind being a first mover. We always walk the talk. Last October, we announced we would market 52 net-zero homes in Colchester in the town of Essex, which MP Chris Lewis represents. These homes feature geothermal and solar energy generation systems on the property. We have ICF walls, an airtight envelope and a metal roof. Finally, we will install a level 2 EV charger in the garage to encourage residents to switch to electric vehicles. In sum, we are creating a subdivision that would not put a burden on the town's power infrastructure. As a matter of fact, the engineer at Hydro One was amazed by what we told her when she asked us about the power demand for the new subdivision. I said there was very little.

We are finalizing the building costs for each home. The extra costs for the eco-friendly features are almost 20% of the total construction budget. While realtors and buyers love our eco-homes and the long-term benefits, they don't like the higher prices paid up front. As a good corporate citizen, we don't mind lowering our profit margin for a lofty social cause. However, we cannot price the homes beyond affordability or the prospective buyer's purchasing power.

That is where governments at different tiers must step in to make net-zero homes a real option. They must offer incentives to the builders and homeowners. The federal government announced, in the last budget, an investment tax credit of up to 30% for geothermal initiatives taken by new home builders or owners. No details have been announced yet, but I think this is a giant step in the right direction.

At the provincial level, we recommend the government waive the land transfer tax for buyers of accredited net-zero homes. At the municipal level, a city or town can choose to waive the builder's development charges or permit application fees so that we can keep our home prices low. The best incentive is to give the owners a tax credit on the home's property tax.

These combined government efforts will be a critical success factor in determining the destiny of net-zero homes.

Another positive development in the financing of green infrastructure is the participation of institutional money in renewable energy assets, such as those in which we are investing in Colchester.

Private investors have approached us. They said they are willing to pay us a buyout allowance for the geothermal and solar energy systems assets in return for a 25-year “energy as a service” contract with the homeowners to recoup their investment and make a profit.

If the monthly energy service fees are lower than the otherwise normal utility bills, we believe owners would likely accept the offer. They will then enjoy unlimited renewable energy without worrying about escalating utility costs or maintenance expenses for the next 25 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Li, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, unfortunately. If you're close to finishing, then I'll let you finish, sir.

[Wing-On Li]

To recap, we are confident that net-zero homes are an attainable home product, with a slight premium, if the governments and the builders and homebuyers all work together.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Li, for your opening remarks.

Colleagues, the bells are ringing.

I'm looking around and would perhaps ask for unanimous consent to finish after we have the three remaining opening remarks. It would be about 15 minutes. Are we all in agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That's perfect. Thank you very much.

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

[Patrick Bousez, Prefect, MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I want to thank you for your invitation. I am pleased to be able to contribute to your committees efforts by sharing with you the experiences that the MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges has had with increasing climate phenomena.

Mr. Chair, you are very familiar with our region—I have the honour of knowing you—but I would first like to describe our region for committee members to provide them with some context for the rest of my remarks.

The MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges comprises 23 municipalities over 855 km2 and was home to 166,076 inhabitants in 2022. The region features a constantly growing population, a road network consisting of Autoroute 30, Autoroute 20 and Autoroute 40, the Trans-Canada Highway, in addition to major national railway lines of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, not to mention the 5 pipelines that cross the the region and represent other risk factors. Vaudreuil-Soulanges is both metropolitan and rural in character, with agricultural land representing 76% of the MRC's area.

Our municipalities are feeling the consequences of climate change and increasingly face intense weather phenomena like the ice storm this past April. Everyone remembers the 1998 ice storm, and the one we had in April was the second biggest ice storm in Quebec's history.

The MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges was the first region to be hit by freezing rain. Nearly 97% of our population was without electricity for long periods of time ranging up to 6 days. The municipalities faced numerous challenges given the extraordinary circumstances and extent of the damage. We are never ready enough to face the vicissitudes of nature. We can always do better.

The first thing we try to do when this kind of situation occurs is obviously to establish communication with all local actors to ensure that everything is in place to meet emergency needs and quickly reassure the public.

The reality is that, even though we live in the communications era, we soon realized that we couldn't communicate among ourselves, since the telecommunications network was partly or completely down for many hours, indeed days in some areas. Consequently, we elected members, particularly mayors and MPs, couldn't even contact each other or local stakeholders. At the very least, the situation was much more complicated than usual.

Furthermore, since most of the population uses cell phones rather than land lines, we had no easy way to obtain cell numbers. To reach the public, stakeholders had to go door to door, instead of making quick telephone contact, to ensure, for example, that people in vulnerable situations were safe. That operation required much more time. All that was available was social media, for those who still had a connection. It wasn't sufficient for us to be able to contact the entire population.

Here are a few facts, to give you an idea of the crisis by the numbers. Nearly 30 to 35 mm of freezing rain fell in 13 hours. More than 40 mm fell in some places, according to Simon Legault, a meteorologist at Environment Canada. In the MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges, 64,765 of 75,429 Hydro-Quebec clients lost power. Essential services such as gas stations had to close their doors and were unable to meet the public's needs. Consequently, there were lineups several kilometers long over many hours at the only two or three service stations that were open in the MRC to supply gasoline for cars and generators.

In many cases, generators were used to pump water out of the basements of people's houses and other buildings and to ensure that heating systems worked for vulnerable individuals, in addition to providing opportunities to recharge cell phones so people could stay in touch with their families and friends. In other cases, failing that, municipalities and local stakeholders directed citizens to whatever local resources were available. In addition, the Lévis 911 emergency centre had never received so many calls in such a short period of time for our region. In 2022, 3,074 calls were made to 911 to report fires in Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

Some 2,177 calls were made to 911 Fire in the 6 days from April 4 to 9 of this year, a figure that represented 71% of the total number of 911 Fire calls received in all of 2022.

It is important to understand that a call to 911 isn't just one single call because it results in many more calls that are simultaneously made over the network to respond to it. You must also understand that calls concerning operational fire services are made by radio, whereas those regarding administrative services are made over the telecommunications system.

Since the telecommunications system wasn't operating during the ice storm, all administrative services were transferred to the radio network, which caused a significant increase in traffic on radio frequencies. Even the Sûreté du Québec—yes, the Sûreté du Québec—lost cell service. So you can understand how disastrous the impact on the communications of those essential services was.

To sum up, all our civil services, infrastructure and essential services were tested during the ice storm. These observations and this experience prove that we will need more government assistance to adapt our infrastructure to these increasingly frequent climate variations. We will definitely need to review the resilience of our telecommunications network to ensure that we can cope with these large-scale weather phenomena with which we will clearly be increasingly faced.

I will conclude by noting the resilience of the municipalities and by inviting the committee to consider various potential solutions to improve our telecommunications, electrical transmission and municipal infrastructure systems. I also encourage the various local stakeholders to take action by adopting specific measures, such as better vegetation control near electric power lines and a plan B for the telecommunications network.

Thank you for listening, and I hope your committee can help find and implement specific solutions as soon as possible given the issues at stake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bousez.

We will continue with Mr. Valiquette.

Mr. Valiquette, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Antonin Valiquette, Mayor, Municipalité des Îles-de-la-Madeleine]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities as part of its study on adapting infrastructure to face climate change in Canada.

I'm glad to be speaking to you as mayor and president of the maritime community of the Magdalen Islands, which consists of the Municipalité de Grosse-Île and the Municipalité des Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Our archipelago is occupied by 13,000 permanent residents and visited annually by approximately 75,000 tourists, who stay there for an average of 11 days.

To simplify my presentation and to avoid confusion, I will use the term "municipalité des Îles" or simply "municipality". However, please understand that, every time I use the term, it will refer to all the people I represent and all the authorities conferred on me.

To provide some context, the Magdalen Islands archipelago lies in the centre of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, more than 100 km from the closest landfall. Consequently, as you will understand, we have a front row seat on the impact of climate change. The erosion of our coastlines is a well-known phenomenon. However, we have also had to combat a sinking coastline since the recent storms.

Until a decade ago, we experienced strong, and sometimes violent, wind and rain storms that attacked our coastlines and forced us to take proactive action to protect our environment. The proof of that is that we are one of the pioneer municipalities in Quebec that have collected scientific data, conducted cost-benefit analyses and created a specialized coastal erosion manager position.

Despite those storms, the last hurricane that Magdalen Islanders talked about was Hurricane Blanche, which hit in 1974. However, since the November 2018 storm, Hurricane Dorian in 2019 and Hurricane Fiona in 2022, we have entered a new era. We are now subjected to furious storms that attack with greater frequency and much greater force, the local effects of which are similar to those described by my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

As a result of these weather events, together with retreating winter ice cover, parts of our Islands have become vulnerable. We are therefore forced to take action to protect our infrastructure and to make tough choices regarding the management and development of our land.

The main infrastructure under the Canadian government's responsibility is the Magdalen Islands port infrastructure. The archipelago has eight small craft fishing harbours, which are the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and accommodate the 325 lobster boats and some 50 other inshore fishing craft. This industry represents an economic impact of nearly $250 million in our community.

We are satisfied with the role that Fisheries and Oceans Canada plays with regard to small craft fishing harbours. The department is proactive and, in planning for infrastructure upgrades, strives to allow for the impact that climate change will have over the next 40 or 50 years. Unfortunately, accelerated silting in certain harbours has strained the infrastructure upgrading budget.

Despite the effort and significant funding allocated for the maintenance and upgrading of fishing harbours, additional funding will clearly the needed soon if we want to step up efforts to cope with new climate realities.

A major intervention in a fishing harbour can also be an opportunity for us to work on the adjacent land and optimize protection for a broader territory. However, the discrepancy between funding available for harbour upgrading and funding from other sources that the municipality could use often results in considerable lost opportunities.

The archipelago also has a commercial harbour for which Transport Canada is responsible. It houses the terminal of the ferry linking us to Prince Edward Island, the cargo ship that supplies us with goods from Montreal, the oil tankers and barges that supply us with fuel and the aggregates used in various infrastructure works, the mid-shore fishing fleet and the increasing number of cruise ships that visit us.

So it's a vital link between our community and the rest of the world. In short, it's our highway to the Magdalen Islands.

Commercial dock no. 1, which is used to unload barges, is aging and unsuitable for its current intensive use. As a result of climate change, this infrastructure will have to be upgraded, and replacement infrastructure will have to be planned to offset an eventual service interruption at that dock.

You should know that all materials needed to combat climate change, such as armour stone, pebbles and aggregate material to restore beaches and shorelines transit by this dock.

The Cap-aux-Meules commercial dock is a vital piece of infrastructure but has been neglected in recent decades. The Prime Minister, in catch-up mode, fortunately came and announced new funding in 2022. We think we are on the right track, but we have unfortunately learned to moderate our enthusiasm when it comes to infrastructure managed by Transport Canada.

Since 2008, the municipality and governments of Quebec and Canada have invested many millions of dollars in coastline protection and shoreline stabilization, essentially following major weather events. This constitutes a major fiscal burden for a municipality of 13,000 inhabitants.

The municipality is currently developing a coastline erosion and submersion intervention framework that will help determine solutions that should be favoured and the costs associated with those actions.

The aim of the framework is for us to be able to take preventive action as soon as possible rather than react to weather events. Available studies show that, for every dollar invested in prevention, we can avoid paying an average of between $13 and $15 in damages, as Mr. Ness mentioned earlier.

Consequently, we feel it is important that the three levels of government work in complementary fashion to facilitate implementation of the intervention framework I just mentioned. In so doing, we will be able to optimize every dollar invested.

For all municipalities, including ours, to be able to take effective action to adapt their land to climate change, they must have predictability so they can clearly inform their populations, properly complete the stages preliminary to deployment on the ground and provide for management of the impacts of those often extensive and sizable works. They must have the flexibility to react and modify their priorities following a significant weather event that undermines an unexpected sector, without having to restart the lengthy acceptance processes or be bound by agreements previously signed based on different parameters.

When he appeared before your committee on May 4, Matt Gemmel, the representative of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, said that the FCM had estimated that the cost to replace or rehabilitate just municipal assets would be approximately $175 billion.

Since the sums involved are enormous, we think it is important to establish the best conditions for success.

In conclusion, our community and its institutions have long been proactive and resolutely decided to adapt to climate change and to protect the Magdalen Islands.

To do so, we will need significant and predictable financial support and a flexible regulatory framework. We are counting on the Canadian government's support in this matter.

In closing, we have seen that it is difficult over time to match Canadian government programs with those of the Quebec government. The results on the ground are delays or limitations in possible uses of normally available funding. We ask you to do all you can to keep that funding flowing. That will benefit local populations.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Valiquette.

To conclude, we will hear from Mrs. Bouchard.

Mrs. Bouchard, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Andrée Bouchard, Mayor, Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having me here on the day following World Environment Day to discuss adapting infrastructure to face climate change.

My name is Andrée Bouchard, and I am the mayor of the Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, the eleventh Quebec municipality to increase its population to 100,000 inhabitants in 2022, and a garrison town with more than 355 years of history, that is now facing infrastructure challenges. Among other challenges, we will have to separate 90 kilometers of combined infrastructure networks by 2028, a mission impossible.

In the spring of 2011, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, like many neighbouring cities on the Richelieu River and Lake Champlain, experienced the worst floods ever recorded, which definitely marked the city's inhabitants the municipal authorities that cooperated in managing the crisis.

Twelve years later, I want to express my gratitude once again for the support provided by the community of the provincial government, the federal government, the army and employees of the city's various departments, who worked non-stop to manage an extraordinary situation.

During the floods, more than 1,600 residences had to be evacuated, 2,500 houses were damaged, and many businesses and farms were hard hit. It was estimated that more than 100 bridges and roads across the entire region affected by the floods were damaged.

The Groupe d'étude international du lac Champlain et de la rivière Richelieu, which was formed to study the floods, has established that more than $188 million in damage was caused, nearly $150 million of it in Quebec, mostly in Montérégie.

Incidentally, I invite you to read the report of the Commission mixte internationale sur le bassin de la rivière Richelieu et du lac Champlain, which cites many recommendations that have not been implemented to date. I sent the link to that report to the clerk a few minutes ago.

Since then, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu has taken part in an increasing number of environment-related initiatives. It joined the Municipalités amies du climat and was certified a City Friend of the Monarchs. It has also implemented an ambitious conservation plan. Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is also a pioneer in the protection of natural environments, particularly as a result of a major $62 million acquisition strategy that has been in place for nearly 10 years.That acquisition strategy will be amended starting in 2024.

We have also established a climate plan to reduce greenhouse gases, or GHGs, including a component called the climate change adaptation plan. We have also adopted a tree policy, regulations on the use of pesticides for aesthetic purposes, a nourishing community development plan, which is being elaborated, and a responsible procurement policy.

Since 2010, we have maintained a partnership with the Cégep Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu to offer students free bus service. In addition, public transit is free of charge during key events and public holidays, and natural parks have been created to promote and provide access to nature.

In the next few years, it will be critically important for municipalities to obtain the federal government support necessary to fund the acquisition of the last remaining natural environments, the lungs of the highly urbanized living environments that we occupy.

In addition to elected representatives, we must make every effort to reduce GHGs, which are intimately related to the climate changes responsible for an excessive number of increasingly frequent natural disasters.

Levels of government, businesses, agencies and citizens, we must work together to do more for the environment. The real question we must ask ourselves is not whether another crisis will strike Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu or other riverside municipalities, but rather when. We must be ready to make our living environments more resilient to climate change.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mrs. Bouchard.

This is a message to all of our witnesses appearing online and in person. A vote has been called in the House of Commons, and we are required to attend. It shouldn't be more than 15 to 20 minutes, but we have to suspend the meeting in the meantime, so I ask for your patience.

We will suspend now.

You can shut your cameras and microphones off, witnesses, and we'll resume, probably, in about 15 to 20 minutes.

This meeting is now suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order. Thanks again, witnesses, for your patience.

We'll begin our line of questioning today with Dr. Lewis.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for coming here today and giving your very important testimony to this committee.

My first question is for Mr. Li.

Mr. Li, you spoke extensively about the project you're working on. I believe you said it was in Essex. I'm concerned about whether or not you see any tensions with respect to that project—the one you're building with the eco-friendly, environmental, sustainable homes—and the cost of building these homes. I know you are predicting long-term savings, but right now the market is such that people can't even afford to get into it because they don't have the tens of thousands of dollars handy in their bank accounts to make down payments.

You spoke about some really novel things that are being incorporated into your building structure, such as geothermal heating, electric charge plugs in the front of the house and the use of more renewable energy sources.

Is there any way to still encourage people to invest in these homes, knowing that there may be upfront costs but that they will save on the back end in terms of their electricity bills?

[Wing-On Li]

Thank you. I'm happy to answer this question.

Indeed, there's a big conflict between the price and the benefits that our eco-homes are bringing to the buyers. I believe that while these eco-features are costly, we have been able to do the project with an economy of scale so that when we talk to the geothermal guys or the solar panel vendors, we try to convince them that we are building not one house at a time but a whole subdivision so that we can get a bulk discount for all the infrastructure.

On the question about attainability, knowing that the prices are higher and that people may not be able to even put down the down payment, we have also included an additional dwelling unit in the design of the property. In Windsor and Essex, we have a very popular design type called the “raised ranch”. Basically, it's a bungalow with the basement not completely underground but halfway above grade, so we have designed an ADU, an additional dwelling unit. It's basically for rental purposes so that the owner, instead of having just one home for themselves, has an additional dwelling unit that can now be rented to people in the area or their family members so that the rental income can subsidize the mortgage payment every month.

In addition, the mortgage lenders will take into consideration the fact that they will have substantial savings on their hydro bills. Everything adds up to help them get a loan more easily than would be the case for the ordinary houses a lot of people are buying right now.

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

You've explained what your company's doing and the foresight you've put into making sure that people can afford their homes. What steps do you believe the government can focus on to make it easier for people to purchase these net-zero homes and perhaps even move to these areas? In terms of building more of these homes, building more of these resilient homes and paying the upfront costs, what do you believe the role of government is in doing this?

You've stated clearly how your company has dealt with this issue and thought about it, but is there anything governments can do?

[Wing-On Li]

I believe there's a lot the government could do to help.

As I said in my opening speech, there are several areas that each level of government can participate in, and I think the federal government has already taken a really good step by announcing in the current budget the initiative for the owners of geothermal exchanges for ducting, heat pumps and so on. I think the owners can get up to a 30% tax credit, so it's already a really good move.

At the provincial level, I think the easiest way is to widen the lens on surtax exemptions so that anybody who buys an eco-home with these kinds of eco-features can be entitled to an exemption from the land transfer tax, which saves them a couple of thousand dollars.

I think the most important part is at the municipal level. I really think we could be exempt from development charges, which you have a lot of. They should lower the cost to the barest minimum. I think they could also give people an extra incentive of enjoying a discount on their tax bill in the long run. Let's say they pay $3,000 annually, but if they buy an eco-home, they can get a 10% discount on their tax bill. I think this would be a very useful incentive.

I think then everybody would be paying their fair share. They're chipping in to help lower the upfront costs for the builders and at the same time convincing buyers that you can pay a little bit more now, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Li.

Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

Next we have Mr. Badawey. Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours for six minutes, please.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to concentrate on the how as opposed to the what, and I'm concentrating my questions to Mr. Ness.

Mr. Ness, I really appreciated your opening comments and in particular how strategically you were and are thinking.

I'm going to concentrate on your vision and how you envision a whole-of-government approach at and within the federal level of government, combining all the departments that are involved in a lot of the programs that would attach to climate resiliency infrastructure. It would include all levels of government as well, with municipal, regional, county, provincial or territorial levels working together toward integrating capital planning to ensure that strategic investments work first toward infrastructure resiliency.

There are two points I'd like you to comment on. One is planning and strengthening sustainable funding envelopes available from all levels of government to leverage and partner capital programs that are available at those levels of government. The second is to promote a disciplined approach to land use planning—you spoke a bit on that—with strategic capital investments as well as asset management plans that are sustainable well into the future through those very funding envelopes that I spoke about earlier.

Mr. Ness, can you comment on that, please?

[Ryan Ness]

Through you, Mr. Chair, certainly we've heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and many other individual municipalities across the country that part of what constrains their ability to build resilient infrastructure and make their existing infrastructure resilient is a lack of stable funding and a lack of mechanisms to generate that funding.

Certainly the scale of infrastructure adaptation that's going to be required in this country needs much more funding and needs many more financial resources than are available right now. That's going to require innovative solutions, both in terms of maximizing the utility of public finances as well as in potentially looking for more creative ways to bring in private financing as well.

To your second point, certainly municipal asset management and long-term capital planning have been highlighted by the municipal community in Canada as vital parts of planning, maintaining and operating infrastructure that is climate resilient. Land use planning to situate infrastructure and development in places that are appropriate both for the current and potential future climate, given how climate risks will change, is vital as well.

We have heard from stakeholders across the country, particularly in the municipal sector, that all of those are areas where they need supports, standardized approaches and capacity, especially at the small and medium-sized municipality level.