Introduction

Climate change affects communities across Canada in many different ways. In recent years, extreme weather events such as wildfires, heat waves, heavy rain and hail have had a significant impact on Canadians’ quality of life and caused considerable material damage to private and public infrastructure.^[1] In light of this, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (the committee) agreed on 7 March 2023, to undertake a study on “focusing on how to create communities that are more resilient and sustainable in the face of climate change (infrastructure and housing), including the implementation of more resilient infrastructure and building products, and that the committee allocate a minimum of six meetings for this study ... ”

The committee devoted four meetings to this study from 4 May to 6 June 2023. It heard 26 witnesses and received three briefs. The following sections report on discussions held with various stakeholders on the impacts of climate change on the lives of Canadians and on infrastructure, the state of knowledge pertaining to climate change risks in Canada, and potential solutions to improve the resilience of Canadian communities.

Impacts of Climate Change

During this study, various witnesses from the municipal sector explained to the committee the impacts climate change is having on their infrastructure and on the lives of their residents. Matt Gemmel, Director, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), said that various extreme weather events, such as heat waves, flooding, hurricanes and wildfires, have “wreaked havoc” on homes, businesses and communities. Like other witnesses, he stressed that municipalities lack the financial resources to ensure the resilience of their infrastructure.^[2] He made the following observation:

... there's a mismatch between the impact of climate change on municipal infrastructure and the revenue tools that municipalities have to tackle the issue.

Mr. Gemmel noted that a 2020 study by FCM in partnership with the Insurance Bureau of Canada revealed that it will cost an estimated $5.3 billion per year to avoid the “worst impacts” of climate change at the municipal level.^[3]

Joanna Eyquem, Managing Director, Climate-Resilient Infrastructure, Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, stated that the impacts of climate change are not just financial, but health-related as well. She mentioned the 619 deaths that occurred during the “heat dome” in western Canada in 2021, as well as the mental health effects of climate change anxiety. Ms. Eyquem also pointed out that following catastrophic events such as flooding, the social fabric in affected communities weakens when homes are not rebuilt. In a similar vein, Michael Goetz, Mayor, City of Merritt, said that after the November 2021 atmospheric river storm in British Columbia, all of the city's low-income housing was washed away by flood water, and there has been no rental housing since.

Ryan Ness, Director, Adaptation, Canadian Climate Institute, also pointed out that the effects of climate change on infrastructure are going to have a major impact on lifestyles in certain regions, particularly in northern Canada as permafrost melts.

Water and Shipping Infrastructure

The study included much discussion on the state of water infrastructure and its resilience to the current and anticipated impacts of climate change. Sylvain Dupuis, Mayor of the City of Saint-Ours, said that existing infrastructure is not adapted to future challenges, and that adaptations are needed to minimize sewer backups and overflows that affect water quality. Like other witnesses, he also addressed the challenges shoreline erosion and shoulder washouts pose for the integrity of riverside infrastructure, including roadways.^[4] He emphasized that the federal government’s lack of communication about water levels in the Richelieu River is leading to accelerated shoreline erosion and difficulties for ferry operators crossing the river. Coree Tull, Co-Chair, BC Watershed Security Coalition, stated that British Columbia's watersheds are increasingly deteriorating, and that an estimated $3 billion investment will be required over the next decade to “strengthen natural infrastructure and enhance watershed security in B.C.”^[5]

Antonin Valiquette, Mayor of the Municipalité des Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine, said he was satisfied with the support provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to maintain small craft fishing harbours, but pointed out that additional funds would be needed very soon to ensure that they are able to cope with “new climate realities.” He also suggested that the Cap‑aux‑Meules commercial dock, which handles cargo, needs investment, as it is “aging and unsuitable for its current intensive use.”

Water Treatment

Mr. Gemmel stated that the most recent core public infrastructure survey revealed that 14% of wastewater treatment infrastructure is in poor or very poor condition.^[6] Andrée Bouchard, Mayor of Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu, noted that her city's biggest challenge is the housing shortage, but that one obstacle to densification is the city's aging water infrastructure, which does not allow for adequate drainage. Mr. Goetz suggested that due to the atmospheric river storm of November 2021, certain areas of the City of Merritt had to be evacuated because the city's water and wastewater treatment systems failed. He explained that they “were flooded due to the fact that these systems are gravity-fed and in the lowest area of the city.”

Sydney Clarysse, Project Lead, Energy and Facilities, Municipality of Norfolk County, said that in Norfolk County's climate change adaptation plan, 13 of the 18 climate risks listed in the vulnerability assessment were high or very high risk. Of that, eight involved wastewater infrastructure and water quality. Amy Martin, Mayor, Municipality of Norfolk County, explained that it will cost $390 million to upgrade the municipality's water infrastructure, a project she described as “essential,” to improve systems and preserve water quality as well as quantity. Regarding the challenges facing municipalities in terms of infrastructure financing, she made the following observation:

When municipalities can't afford to upgrade their infrastructure that simply keeps the taps on in 2023, I just don't know how we get creative and bold and how we make investments that can help us create sustainable communities for years to come. A lot of climate change initiatives are directly tied into the groundwater—the quality, the quantity and the infrastructure with which we pump that water.

Flood Protection Structures

Witnesses addressed the state of protective infrastructure, including dikes, that protect southern British Columbia from flooding.^[7] Lina Azeez, Director, Habitat Programs, Watershed Watch Salmon Society, suggested that a 2015 assessment by the British Columbia government concluded that 90% of dikes did not meet standards and were not well adapted for climate change. She added that floodgates and pump stations were also deficient and that all this makes the lower Fraser (from Hope to the Salish Sea) vulnerable to flooding. Ms. Azeez also maintained that many of the protective structures currently in place are “blocking side channels, tributaries and sloughs that should be salmon habitat” and hoped that salmon habitats would be given greater consideration in strategies to deal with flooding.

Spencer Coyne, Mayor, Town of Princeton, explained to the committee that in British Columbia, some municipalities have their own protective works, but many kilometres (km) are protected by orphaned dikes, meaning they are not maintained by a diking authority. The British Columbia government estimates that more than a hundred protective structures in the province are not actively maintained by a diking authority.^[8]

Mr. Goetz explained that flood protection infrastructure has not been upgraded in his city since the atmospheric river storm of November 2021, that some areas have no dikes, and that there is a risk of flooding in other low-lying areas protected by temporary dikes that were built by the military. Raising similar concerns, Mr. Coyne noted two-thirds of his community is still without potable water since the weather event. He said the most immediate infrastructure concern for his city is reinforcing the diking system, which requires $100 million to $500 million in upgrades. Both Mr. Goetz and Mr. Coyne emphasized the need to ensure that the diking system is adapted to climate change, and therefore to floods that may run higher in the future. Additionally, Chief Patrick Michell, retired chief, Kanaka Bar Indian Band said the following:

We warned people: Change the culvert sizes. Spend $60,000 today to save $6 million tomorrow. Do not go into our future in response mode. Change the conversation from cost to investment.

According to Mr. Ness, the cost of upgrading and maintaining dikes that are “allowed to degrade” represents only “a fraction of the cost of the damage” resulting from their failure. Ralf Nielsen, Director of Enterprise Sustainability, TransLink, made the following comment:

The importance of the Lower Mainland flood strategy across the entire system is that what we do in one part of that overall watershed for diking, improving or taking back orphan dikes or making them seismic-resilient is really important. It can't be just one body doing that, so I think the federal government has a role in that regard.

Ice Bridges

Mr. Dupuis explained that one consequence of climate change in the City of Saint-Ours is the ice bridge that has made it possible for cars to cross the Richelieu River during the winter since the 19th century has no longer been a viable transportation solution in recent years. During the rest of the year, there is a ferry service between Saint-Ours and Saint-Roch-de-Richelieu. Without the ice bridge, Mr. Dupuis argues that residents have to make a 30-km detour to get to the other side, and this affects regional economic development, access to services and the social fabric. He said that since 1982, the city has been proposing that a bridge be built at the national historic site Darvard Island. The city would also like to see the water dam built in the 1960s upgraded to accommodate road traffic.

Jonathan Chalifoux, Mayor of the Municipality of Saint-Antoine-sur-Richelieu, reported a comparable situation: since 2018, the municipality has only been able to offer a wintertime ice bridge on three occasions. During the rest of the year, cable ferry service is provided between the municipality and Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu. Mr. Chalifoux maintained that the ferry operator “has no interest in offering this service during the winter period.” He hoped that the municipalities would be consulted in the future on the operation of these ferries, and that the Canadian government would “give us a say in the renewal of permits and agreements for the river crossing [Richelieu].” As Saint-Ours is located about 10 km from Saint-Roch-de-Richelieu, Mr. Chalifoux indicated that a bridge between the two cities would be a good thing for his municipality, but it would not be a magic bullet.

Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells

In her testimony, Ms. Martin touched briefly on the issue of abandoned or inactive oil and gas wells. Ontario has an estimated 27,000 oil and gas wells, mostly on private land,^[9] and Norfolk County is home to 2,600 of them, according to Ms. Martin. She explained that these can pose health and safety risks in the event of a leak, and that the municipality's emergency management team is not equipped to deal with this type of situation. Calling this a “big issue,” she noted that, as far as she knew, federal involvement was currently limited, and that although the Ontario government had recently provided some funding, this is “not enough and […] not sustainable.”

Telecommunications Infrastructure

In his testimony, Patrick Bousez, Prefect, RCM of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, spoke of the ice storm that struck his regional county municipality (RCM) in April 2023 leaving major damage in its wake and, in his words, depriving 97% of residents of electricity for “long periods of time.” When RCM staff tried to reach residents and all the local actors who must be mobilized during this type of event, they realized that the telecommunications networks were partly or completely down. This lasted several hours, even several days in certain parts of the RCM, complicating delivery of services to the public for the RCM, but also essential services. Pointing out that extreme weather events are becoming more and more frequent, he stressed that during these emergency events, communication is “essential.” He therefore made the following appeal to the Government of Canada:

We need to ensure that we have a more robust system. Our cell phone networks, our emergency telecommunications towers and even the communication systems of our fire services must be more robust, but all cell phone networks across the country even more so.

Mr. Bousez suggested that some telecom towers could be equipped with a generator to supply the power needed to operate them in the event of a failure. According to Mr. Ness, the Canadian government has a role to play in regulating telecommunications systems to ensure that they are designed “to face the future climate.”

In its brief, TELUS Communications Inc. stated that no telecommunications facility is immune to extreme weather events , but that the most effective way to ensure connectivity during such events is to have “multiple networks” in place. As such, it recommended that the Government of Canada “support network builders so that they can prevent single points of failure.” TELUS Communications Inc. also recommended that a digital climate policy framework be adopted to “ensure that the connectivity and uptake of emissions reducing technologies is maximized.”

National Flood Insurance Program

In Budget 2023, the Government of Canada indicated that it intends to establish a low-cost flood insurance program “aimed at protecting households at high risk of flooding and without access to adequate insurance.”^[10] Craig Stewart, Vice‑President, Climate Change and Federal Issues, Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), explained that IBC welcomes this program, adding that it would be appropriate to eventually expand it to address other challenges, such as wildfires.

Meanwhile, Mr. Goetz noted that the “vast majority” of residents in zones 3 and 4 of the City of Merritt—both areas were flooded during the November 2021 atmospheric river storm— either had no overland water insurance or were “under-insured completely.” Like Mr. Stewart and Mr. Gemmel, he supported the implementation of the national program, as long as the insurance remained affordable and accessible.

Chris Rol, Manager and Senior Adviser, Climate Adaptation and Flood Policy, IBC, said she believes the Canadian government should emulate the U.S. government's program by ensuring that insurance premiums under the new program are calculated to reflect investments made by communities in infrastructure that reduces their risk of flooding.^[11]

Knowledge of Climate Change Risks

Municipal stakeholders explained to the committee that they have adaptation plans and knowledge of the risks associated with climate change in their area.^[12] Chief Michell noted that his community of Kanaka Bar had been aware of climate change since 1990, published a land use plan in 2015, a climate change assessment and transition plan in 2018, and a community resilience plan in 2021. He maintained that this planning has enabled the community to upgrade and adapt existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure that accounts for future climate challenges. To this end, Mr. Nielsen suggested that both Indigenous and Western knowledge must be considered to find “long-term adaptations and solutions that we may otherwise not see or discover on our own.” In a similar vein, Chief Michell called for Indigenous knowledge to be used as a reference and supplemented with accurate data, through a new network of weather observation stations, among other things.

Identifying Infrastructure at Risk

According to Mr. Ness, while many provincial, territorial and municipal authorities have conducted risk and vulnerability assessments on their territory to determine infrastructure priorities, many have not completed these assessments because they lack the capacity to do so. Will Balser, Coastal Adaptation Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre, suggested that an inventory of the most at-risk infrastructure or communities should be compiled, as, in his view, there is a “lack of information” about what is most vulnerable in Canada.

Mr. Gemmel noted that investment in local and regional climate data and risk and vulnerability assessments was identified as a priority for FCM when the Government of Canada developed Canada's National Adaptation Strategy.^[13] He reported that, as part of this strategy, the Government of Canada is planning to invest $530 million in FCM's Green Municipal Fund, a program whose funds will be used to support conducting these assessments, among other things.^[14] Mr. Gemmel also noted that asset management planning can be an effective way “to integrate climate considerations throughout a municipal government's operation.”

Carlo Dade, Director, Trade and Investment Centre, Canada West Foundation, said that Canada is one of the few G7 and G20 countries “not engaged in national infrastructure planning—long‑term, 10- to 30‑year ...” He explained that such planning involves decision-making based on criteria of national significance that are “rigorous criteria that apply across decades.” He also pointed out that it includes analysis of risk and risk mitigation measures. Mr. Dade invited the committee to draw up recommendations for a national infrastructure plan as part of this study and suggested that Infrastructure Australia^[15] might be a good model. In a similar vein, Ms. Rol made the following remark about infrastructure planning:

We need to plan with a view to the future, not just looking at past climate and past challenges on the weather side but also looking to the future and building almost a physical infrastructure life‑cycle assessment. What job are we asking that infrastructure to do over the next 20, 30 or 40 years? Make sure we're planning to build something that's fit for purpose.

Mr. Ness suggested that 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.”

Flood Mapping

According to Mr. Ness, the state of flood mapping in Canada is not ideal. He pointed out that the average age of mapping is over 20 years, and that it does not reflect the changing risk of flooding caused by climate change, since it reflects historical risk. He argued that “probably half of households that are at high risk of flooding in Canada are not on a flood map anywhere ...” Mr. Stewart agreed that maps illustrate the current risk, not the future risk of flooding, but argued that flood zone mapping has improved in Canada in recent years as a result of private sector innovation and investments by Natural Resources Canada.^[16] Mr. Stewart also stated that Canadians need to be better informed about the risk they face with their property, and recalled that the Government of Canada has committed to setting up a flood portal that will be available to Canadians.^[17]

Improving the Resilience of Canadian Communities

Canada's National Adaptation Strategy was published in November 2022.^[18] Mr. Gemmel stated that FCM supported the development of such a strategy, welcoming the move towards “a whole-of-Canada approach to climate resilience.” Mr. Stewart argued that it was essential that the strategy adopt “explicit near-term targets to reduce disaster risk and increase recovery,” and that these be measurable. He said that New Zealand's national adaptation plan was a model in this respect.^[19]

Mr. Gemmel maintained that all levels of government will need to further invest in adaptation, and he agreed that it is in everyone's interest to invest in preventing and mitigating disasters, “rather than pay for the cost of cleanup and recovery in the wake of” them. Mr. Gemmel claimed that every dollar invested in adaptation would save $13 to $15 in future costs.

Climate Governance

Some witnesses stressed that it’s important all levels of government work together to adapt to climate change.^[20] Mr. Gemmel acknowledged that sharing the costs of climate change in Canada is a challenge, pointing out that although municipalities own most public infrastructure in Canada (around 60%),^[21] they have limited financial capacity. Mr. Ness made the following remark on the Government of Canada’s role:

[T]he 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.

According to Ms. Eyquem, there is a lack of coordination between the federal departments responsible for climate adaptation. She suggested that a responsible authority similar to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the U.S. be set up in Canada to “oversee the whole of resilience across government.”^[22] Ms. Eyquem said she believes the National Adaptation Strategy is a good step forward, but that it's the strategy’s implementation on the ground that will count. In addition to governments, she added that the public and private sectors also have a role to play in adaptation. Ms. Tull and Neil Fletcher, Director of Conservation Stewardship, B.C. Wildlife Federation, BC Watershed Security Coalition, also spoke of partnerships with First Nations. Ms. Bouchard also pointed out that her city is working with both provincial and federal authorities, as well as the United States and more specifically the State of Vermont, to ensure vigilance in the international Lake Champlain–Richelieu River basin.

Ms. Eyquem maintained that the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) should be involved in adaptation efforts. She suggested that the CIB’s green infrastructure investment stream be expanded to include investments in nature-based infrastructure, as well as measures to enhance “flood, wildfire and heat resilience.”^[23] She added that “climate adaptation, mitigation and nature-positive solutions should all be dealt with in tandem.” Ms. Rol also suggested that the CIB allocate an additional $2 billion “for disaster mitigation” and find an additional $4 billion in “matching private capital.” Mr. Stewart added that the CIB is “a necessary vehicle to make sure that the private sector is also at the table.”

Infrastructure Program Structure

Mr. Gemmel stated that predictable federal transfer sources that go directly to municipalities without them having to fill out an application, such as the Canada Community-Building Fund, are an ”ideal” way to fund municipal infrastructure.^[24] Noting that transit agencies plan and build their infrastructure on a 50- to 70‑year life cycle, Nielsen said a permanent transit fund would be an “excellent means of delivering the support needed to enable transit agencies” to manage climate change risk.

Mr. Valiquette said that municipalities “need significant and predictable financial support and a flexible regulatory framework.” He stated that, to adapt their territory to the impacts of climate change, municipalities need access to funding that is predictable enough to carefully plan projects, but also flexible enough to allow them to quickly change their priorities in the wake of an extreme weather event, without having to “restart the lengthy acceptance processes.” Mr. Valiquette also called for better alignment of infrastructure programs between the Canadian and Quebec governments.

Mr. Coyne pointed out that the maximum federal contribution for eligible expenses incurred by municipalities under the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) administered by Infrastructure Canada is 40%, which he said does not reflect the reality of small municipalities “that are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades post-flood.”^[25] He recommended that the Government of Canada put in place a national flood strategy with funding based on risk and recovery costs, not on population. In a similar vein, Mr. Gemmel noted that one of FCM's recommendations for a national adaptation strategy was to prioritize investment in communities most at risk, which he said was justified both by a cost-benefit analysis and by a concern for fairness:

[I]t is often lower-income or marginalized or racialized communities that are at higher risk from climate change.

Mr. Balser also recognized the need to focus on risk, not population, and to prioritize communities that have already suffered from the impacts of climate change. Ms. Rol also said that the allocation of funds should prioritize protection of the 300,000 homes most at risk for flooding in Canada by 2028. Mr. Gemmel maintained that one of the obstacles for municipalities when seeking DMAF funding is the complexity of the application form and procedures. Specifically, Mr. Gemmel noted that the climate lens criteria the government applies to infrastructure funding applications burdens smaller and rural municipalities, often requiring months of planning and the spending of thousands of dollars on consultants just to fill out the application. Mr. Gemmel noted the criteria need to be “realistic and in line with the capacity that municipal governments have to be able to comply with those criteria” and not “over and above what is needed to assess climate risk and vulnerability assessments.”

Where the DMAF was concerned, Mr. Gemmel recommended that the Canadian government provide an additional $2 billion and invest $1 billion a year for the next 10 years. Ms. Rol also supports this recommendation.

On the subject of federal infrastructure programs, Mr. Bousez suggested that there may be a lack of awareness of the programs available to municipalities. He suggested that setting up a one-stop shop to inform municipal governments about available programs would simplify matters. Mr. Dupuis said that the issue for the city of Saint-Ours’ administration is not its ability to submit grant applications. In his view, a better balance should be struck in the amounts awarded between municipalities of different sizes in Canada. He believes that right now, it is a “game that favours the municipalities that submit their projects the fastest, rather than the ones that are the most ready.”

Ms. Martin called on the Government of Canada to provide more dedicated funding to local governments to adapt critical infrastructure. She argued that urban and rural municipalities the size of Norfolk County are “typically competing against the GTA—the greater Toronto area—for funding and resources.” She said that distribution must “be treated equally and given consideration of size” and not population.

Nature-Based Infrastructure

Mr. Balser explained that nature-based solutions, and therefore nature-based infrastructure, are focused on “implementing the existing defence capabilities and services provided by ecosystems and native species.” Ms. Azeez noted that nature-based infrastructure initiatives are currently supported by infrastructure investment programs such as the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) program administered by Public Safety Canada,^[26] and the DMAF, but that they should be “the norm” and not “the novelty.” Ms. Eyquem also stressed that nature-based solutions, which are “often less costly,” should be demarginalized or standardized, a point also raised by Ms. Tull and Mr. Balser.

Ms. Azeez explained that wetland restoration is one nature-based solution to flooding, and Ms. Eyquem pointed out that considering nature-based infrastructure does not necessarily happen on a specific initiative. Instead, it is part of a sustainable management approach. For example, she noted that “the sustainable management of riparian areas can really help us with flood risk upstream of a flooded community.”

Referring to the B.C. government's March 2023 investment ($100 million) in the Watershed Security Fund,^[27] Ms. Azeez hoped that the federal government would also provide funding to improve watershed health. In a similar vein, Ms. Tull commented as follows:

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.

Mr. Nielsen also stressed the need to better protect the country's natural heritage, which “oftentimes can not only be our best protection against severe events but can also sequester carbon, improve biodiversity and bring nature back” to cities and suburbs. To this end, Ms. Bouchard made the following recommendation to the Government of Canada:

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.

Building Resilience

Mr. Ness explained that codes and standards govern infrastructure construction in Canada.^[28] The Canadian Board for Harmonized Construction Codes develops the National Model Codes, including the National Building Code (NBC), which “sets out technical requirements for the design and construction of new buildings.”^[29] It also applies to the demolition, change of use and conversion of existing buildings. As Mr. Gemmel points out, the Government of Canada plays a limited role in enforcing the codes, since adoption and implementation are the responsibility of provincial and territorial authorities.^[30]

According to Mr. Ness, these codes and standards are an “essential” component of construction in any country that wants resilient infrastructure. He argued that to adapt quickly to the impacts of climate change, the process of updating codes will need to be accelerated, as he believes that the process is too long from research being done at the national level to implementation at the provincial and territorial level. According to Mr. Gemmel, everything that is built or rebuilt “needs to be built to a higher standard” that accounts for climate change.

Meanwhile, Kevin Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Home Builders' Association (CHBA), indicated that the CHBA is heavily engaged in the NBC process and pointed out that, while the NBC is based on historical data, the challenge now is to update it to account for the “climate of the future.” Mr. Lee also pointed out that modernizing the NBC is just one of many measures to protect housing from climate risks. He provided the following examples:

[W]ithout 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.

Mr. Lee also urged the committee to ensure “that regulation not be rushed without proper cross-disciplinary analysis,” and therefore to consider a house as a system. He gave the following example:

[A]dding more insulation in airtightness is good for extreme heat, but only if you have air conditioning. It helps your air conditioner be more efficient.

Compounding this challenge are those of the housing shortage, housing affordability and efforts to make housing more energy efficient. Mr. Lee suggested that affordability be added to the NBC's core objectives. Mr. Lee stressed that more research and development and innovation are required, particularly to reduce construction costs and make energy-efficient homes more affordable.

To this end, Wing‑On Li, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Horizons Group, explained that property developer Horizons Group strives to build energy-efficient homes in the town of Essex. He maintained that one of the challenges his group faces is the high price of its homes. Mr. Li suggested that every level of government could step in to make these homes more affordable, and welcomed the proposal announced in the 2023 federal budget to expand eligibility for the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit by including geothermal energy systems.^[31] However, he said that, in his view, the most important level of intervention is the municipal level, suggesting, for example, that net-zero homes be exempted “from development charges, which you have a lot of.”

Mr. Ness also pointed out that Canadians can make their homes more resilient, and that various levels of government offer programs to support them. This was echoed by Mr. Lee, who maintained that grants can help Canadians make their homes more energy efficient or prevent future losses if, for example, they put in a more hail-resistant roof.

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 (CBTU), acknowledged that the Government of Canada has made investments to support retrofits through grants under the Canada Greener Homes Initiative.^[32] He recommended that the Government of Canada increase grants both for home retrofits and for industrial and commercial facilities to become more energy efficient. According to Mr. Gordon, if we want to achieve net zero by 2050, we need “to have strong energy-efficient standards for all new buildings and update existing infrastructure.”^[33]

Workforce and Training

Rita Rahmati, Government Relations Manager, CBTU, pointed out that many skilled trade unions are currently experiencing labour availability challenges, citing as an example the Labourers' International Union of North America, which could use over 15,000 workers in Ontario alone to meet demand. Mr. Gordon praised the Union Training and Innovation Program administered by Employment and Social Development Canada, which supports apprenticeship training.^[34]

Mr. Gordon maintained that a process should be put in place to ensure that the skills of new Canadians practicing a regulated trade meet Canadian requirements. He suggested that the Government of Canada “work with” the Red Seal program and the organizations representing these trades to provide a “road map” for these new Canadians to practice their trade.

According to Mr. Gordon, the Red Seal program, a partnership between the provinces and territories to establish common standards for assessing tradespeople skills, is “best poised to serve mobility challenges for infrastructure development and maintenance here in Canada.”^[35] When a red seal is affixed to a provincial or territorial Certificate of Qualification, it indicates that “a tradesperson has demonstrated the knowledge required for the national standard in that trade.”^[36] Mr. Gordon said he would like to see the Red Seal team work with the federal government to establish a national public database of Red Seal certificates, a move he believes would promote labour mobility across the country. Ms. Rahmati added that measures to allow travel expense deductions would also help increase tradesperson mobility.

Ms. Rahmati addressed the issue of training, pointing out that in “transitioning to net zero,” it will be necessary to ensure that workers have the skills needed to, for example, construct buildings with “more energy-efficient standards.” In its brief, Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICan) states that Canada's colleges are “ideally positioned to train, upskill and reskill” the workforce to meet the needs of a green economy, and emphasized the importance of investing in training at the college level. CICan recommended that the Government of Canada do an inventory of the infrastructure used to teach strategic skills for the country's economy, to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to “meet the needs of key economic sectors going forward,” such as construction. CICan said it believes that the Government of Canada should enhance financial assistance for mid-career learners through a new program that could be called “Career Jump.”

Mr. Stewart also spoke of labour shortages when it comes to deploying assessors after extreme weather events, particularly those in eastern Canada.

Post-Disaster Reconstruction

In his testimony, Mr. Balser argued that the best way to adapt infrastructure to climate change is to avoid building in areas known to be at risk. He lamented that some of the funds allocated to this effort in Canada are used to “rebuild communities and infrastructures in areas that were just levelled by floods, erosions and storms.”

Ms. Azeez explained that under the DMAF, communities must rebuild to the same standards, and since communities rely on government financial assistance, they therefore find themselves encouraged to rebuild in high-risk areas. She said that this is “inherently counter to the concept of adaptation.” Mr. Goetz argued that the DMAF is designed so that funds are advanced to the provinces only when the total cost of disaster-related losses has been established, which means that funds may be received years later. On a related point, he said that in the aftermath of the flood events of 2021, the DMAF program was not available to his city, with the intake closed for a period of 13 months. He testified: “We had our DMAF request ready to go, but we had nowhere to send it. It was like sending it into the netherworld.” He recommended that the Government of Canada expedite the release of funds from this program to the provinces so that support for reconstruction projects arrives more quickly.

Mr. Goetz also stated that the DMAF excludes land acquisition as an eligible cost and said he would like to see the program include acquisition of land and buildings needed to build mitigation infrastructure. Mr. Coyne pointed out that Canada's National Adaptation Strategy does not include a “program to assist in the mass relocation of areas out of flood plains.” He pointed out that, although local governments can zone out new development in these areas, they have no means to relocate those already there, which is why he recommended that all levels of government work together to develop a program to fund this type of initiative.

Conclusion

During the Committee's study, stakeholders highlighted the impacts of climate change on Canada's infrastructure. In particular, they emphasized the need to improve the resilience of water and shipping infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure and private residences, and proposed various solutions to this end. Some also agreed that the Government of Canada needs to improve its knowledge of the infrastructure most at risk in Canada. To improve the resilience of Canadian communities, stakeholders suggested a concerted approach by all actors and levels of government.