THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 27, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne, senator from Quebec and deputy chair of this committee.
[English]
I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in the meeting: Senator Cormier, New Brunswick; Senator Busson, British Columbia; Senator Dawson, Quebec; Senator Klyne, Saskatchewan; Senator Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Forest, Quebec; Senator Quinn, New Brunswick; Senator Simons, Alberta; and Senator Sorensen, Alberta.
[Translation]
We’re meeting to continue our study of the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
[English]
For our first panel this evening, we are pleased to welcome, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Matt Gemmel, Director, Policy and Research. We will begin with Mr. Gemmel’s opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You have 10 minutes.
Matt Gemmel, Director, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, honourable senators. It is a pleasure to be with you.
Let me start by saying that I’m joining you from FCM’s head offices in the city of Ottawa, and I want to acknowledge that our office is on the unceded and unsurrendered land of the Algonquin Anishinaabe peoples.
I’m pleased to be speaking with you on behalf of our president, Mayor Joanne Vanderheyden, as well as the FCM’s CEO Carole Saab, who were both unable to attend this evening. I’m also speaking to you on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ 2,000 member municipalities, which represents just over 90% of the Canadian population.
I’ll begin my formal remarks and look forward to the question and answer period, where I’m sure we can get to more of these topics. I’m looking forward to hearing more of your questions.
Despite everything that’s going on in the world at the moment, the climate crisis really remains the central challenge of our time. That’s certainly true from the municipal perspective in Canada. FCM commends and very much welcomes this committee’s commitments to better understanding the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure writ large, and in particular on the transportation and communications sectors.
As the honourable senators know, increasing our resilience to climate change is not an optional luxury; it is an urgent need. Nowhere is that need more evident than in our cities, towns and villages.
[Translation]
Municipalities are local governments. They know the devastating effects of the climate crisis because they’re on the front lines and dealing with its impacts on a daily basis. Honourable senators, you may recall the fire that destroyed most of the town of Lytton, British Columbia, last summer.
[English]
While Lytton might be the most memorable recent example, let’s keep in mind that many of the local emergency operation centres across B.C. were open more than 200 days last year because of the combination of extreme heat, wildfire, floods and landslides that swallowed streets, damaged highways and severed rail corridors linking the Pacific ports to the Prairies and the rest of Canada. As you know, similar challenges have been faced by all regions of our country in recent years, from flooding in Ottawa-Gatineau and Montreal to coastal storm surges and hurricanes in Atlantic Canada to permafrost melt threatening roads and airstrips in Canada’s North. The list goes on and on.
We know that Canadians are feeling the brunt of the climate crisis now, and they expect their governments to be working together towards solutions. On that point, I want to highlight the important collaboration that FCM has had with the Senate municipal working group spearheaded by Senator Paula Simons. I see a number of former municipal elected officials on today’s call, which is great. It is clear that the Senate understands the critical role that the municipal order of government plays within the Canadian federation, and we look forward to continued engagement with the working group to explore new and improved mechanisms for intergovernmental cooperation.
Just as municipalities are on the front lines of the impacts of climate change, they’re also at the forefront of practical, cost-effective solutions to reduce the risks posed by climate. Municipal governments are taking the lead to assess and respond to local and regional climate risks. I’ll give you a few examples.
The city of Kenora, a small city in northwestern Ontario, recently completed a climate change adaptation and resilience study and developed a climate change risk assessment framework that will help guide future decisions about where and how they build and maintain their infrastructure. The city of Edmonton is taking a city-wide approach to climate change adaptation through its climate resiliency and adaptation strategy. The city of Montreal is developing its first water square, which has received a lot of public attention. It is a public square that doubles as a flood mitigation measure by slowing water runoff while also providing a welcoming public amenity.
Municipalities are driving forward plans, policies and projects that are creating resilient communities across Canada, and with very good reason. As you’re aware, the Council of Canadian Academies 2019 report on Canada’s top climate risks placed risk to physical infrastructure as the top of their list of 12 priority areas for Canada. As the owners of 60% of Canada’s public infrastructure, municipalities are directly concerned with assessing and mitigating the risks posed to our public infrastructure.
What’s clear is that an effective response to these risks can only be mounted through increased coordination and collaboration between orders of government. That’s why FCM welcomes federal leadership on adaptation through the development of the National Adaptation Strategy. We know and acknowledge that the development and implementation of this strategy will be complex and challenging because the solutions for each community will depend on regional and local factors that are unique to those regions. That is where FCM and its members can play an important and critical role within the strategy and addressing risks to critical infrastructure in Canada. We’ve been pleased to contribute directly to the development of the National Adaptation Strategy through the different working tables, as well as a member of the Climate Proof Canada coalition, and we look forward to continuing this partnership with the federal government and Parliament in the year ahead. In that spirit and in the interest of the time that we have today, I want to focus on four specific recommendations FCM has for the National Adaptation Strategy.
The first is that communities need reliable data to decide where to build vital infrastructure and how to protect communities. We need to continue to invest in climate data and local and regional climate risk and vulnerability assessments. This means funding to update regional climate modelling and hazard maps and funding local risk assessments that take into account equity considerations and Indigenous knowledge. FCM hopes the NAS will provide a coordinating framework to assess local and regional risks in a systemic way across the country, as well as include new investments in local and regional risk assessment, giving local leaders the information they need to protect Canadians.
The second recommendation is around integrating risks into public-sector decision making. One of the most promising pathways to climate adaptation that FCM has seen at the local level is where municipalities are building climate considerations directly into their planning, design, budgeting and procurement processes. It is not a separate siloed climate strategy that one person or a group of people in the municipality is responsible for; it’s integrated right into the business processes across all departments in a larger municipality or across all staff in a smaller municipality.
FCM currently delivers a successful program funded by Infrastructure Canada called the Municipal Asset Management Program that is helping municipalities to begin to integrate climate risks into asset management planning. We’ve developed a comprehensive proposal to scale up and expand that program to support municipalities of all sizes to integrate climate change in a bigger way into municipal asset management planning.
The third recommendation is that we need to strengthen natural infrastructure and invest in nature-based solutions. By helping municipalities and other local organizations purchase forests, wetlands or green spaces to create new parks and expand protected areas, we can simultaneously improve local conservation, increase access to nature and shield against different climate hazards.
I want to note that the $780 million announced in the recent federal budget is another important step in this direction. Certainly, we see good recognition from the federal government in the role that natural infrastructure can play.
The fourth and final recommendation is that we need to urgently scale up investment in public infrastructure. Municipalities are working hard to build more resilient communities, as I mentioned, and one of the important funding tools that municipalities have relied on is the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, DMAF, that Infrastructure Canada delivers. It’s a newer program designed and delivered in recent years. It has been vastly oversubscribed. There was some additional funding committed, not in this past budget but Budget 2021, but it was really nowhere near the level of funding that’s needed to protect Canadians from climate change. That’s why FCM has been calling on the federal government to rapidly scale up this program, as well as to establish a long-term funding commitment through this program or another that would give municipalities, provinces and the private sector predictability that there will be federal funding over the long term that they can plan around. We believe there is tremendous potential for the National Adaptation Strategy process to identify the long-term need for that investment and complement the strategy with an investment plan.
Now, I realize that adapting to climate change is only part of the scope of your study and that you’re also, quite rightly, looking at how to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation and communications sectors, and I would be happy to speak more about FCM’s views on that during the Q&A.
I’ll leave you with one thought, which is that taking action to ensure our communities remain resilient in the face of the ongoing climate disasters will require close collaboration between all levels of government. FCM and municipalities around the country are extremely proud of our record of strong and long-term partnerships with the federal government that directly improve the quality of life for millions of Canadians. Our Green Municipal Fund is one example, and it has been delivering results for 20 years since it was created by the federal government. Thanks to that partnership, municipalities have brought more than 1,300 sustainable development projects at the local level to life, leading to cleaner drinking water, expanded recycling systems, more green and active transportation options and more resilient communities.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Gemmel, you will have to wrap up. You’re a bit over 10 minutes, and we have a lot of questions.
Mr. Gemmel: I’m happy to wrap up by noting that the Green Municipal Fund is exactly the kind of partnership that we think we could build upon and replicate.
Thank you once again for inviting FCM to the study, and I look forward to the questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gemmel. As I noted, we will now move to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I’m a little jealous, because many of the committee members have had much longer municipal careers than me; I have no municipal experience.
Mr. Gemmel, one thing is clear, particularly in Quebec: Municipalities are creatures of the provinces. If funding targets are set to meet your four priorities, how can we work with you, or how can we ensure that the money will go where the federal government wants to invest it? I will use Quebec as an example, because I’ve seen conflict in the relationship between municipalities for a long time, and every time Quebec tells us, “They’re creatures of the province and you need to go through us.”
I’m asking because you’ve studied this issue at the federation and because we’re going to be making recommendations on how to support Canadian infrastructure to address climate change: Can you tell us how to bypass the provincial hurdle?
[English]
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you, Senator Dawson.
This is certainly an issue that we hear from members in Quebec about how federal funding will flow to them, either directly or through the province.
We have some models that seem to be working quite well to deliver federal infrastructure funding to municipalities in Quebec. One example was for a long time called the Gas Tax Fund; it’s now been renamed the Canada Community-Building Fund. As you may be aware, that money flows through a Quebec agency, SOFIL. By all accounts, it seems to be meeting municipal priorities quite well. It’s allocated to municipalities based on their population. That’s a model that seems to be working and could perhaps be replicated in other areas.
With other programs that the federal government delivers for infrastructure, for instance, through the Investing in Canada infrastructure plan, the money flows through the province. That’s the same in all provinces, not just Quebec. We have seen that it has taken a number of years for infrastructure dollars to flow there.
The federation’s point of view is that we should be looking more toward models like the Gas Tax Fund or Canada Community-Building Fund because it has been proven to allocate money more quickly and directly. One thing that’s clear is that we don’t have time to waste to figure out jurisdictional disagreements around funding. The need is huge. We’ve estimated that we need at least a $5 billion-a-year investment in municipal infrastructure to address climate change, and we know we need to be acting now. Collectively, at all orders of government, we have to ensure that we’re not letting disagreements about jurisdiction get in the way of making sure the money goes where it needs to go to benefit and protect Canadians.
Senator Dawson: You will be following our debates, obviously, and I would ask you, if you can, to make recommendations along the process about how we should address this issue. We will have to make a decision, because time will be of the essence as far as climate change is concerned. I guess it’s not a question but more of a comment: Please, follow us and make recommendations so we can diminish the time it takes to get these decisions made.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Gemmel.
Because we’re the Transport and Communications Committee and we’re focused on transportation as our primary lens for this, I wanted to talk to you about the intersection of transportation infrastructure and municipal infrastructure. In addition to thousands of kilometres of municipal roadways, cities are also host to transportation nodes, freight trains and passenger trains that run through their city borders in port communities to ports that are part of the municipal infrastructure. Could you could talk a little bit about what the relations are between municipalities and the necessity to make sure that those major forms of infrastructure, which are not directly in your purview but that have a direct impact on the lives and safety of members of your communities, are being properly maintained and kept properly resilient?
Mr. Gemmel: That’s an excellent question. Thanks, Senator Simons.
The most important thing to keep in mind here in terms of the municipal role, from my perspective, is that municipalities, of all sizes but especially the bigger cities in the metro regions, have undertaken and continue to undertake climate vulnerability assessments and hazard studies for their region. They’re not only looking at municipal infrastructure. There is a role for them to look at municipal infrastructure through asset management planning, but these vulnerability risk assessments look at the community as a whole and at risks to critical infrastructure, privately owned, publicly owned, risks to neighbourhoods, to businesses, using the best climate data available. I should note the federal government has taken some really important steps in recent years to improve the quality of climate data that is available that feeds into these studies. But that local or regional assessment really provides the best blueprint for where to prioritize action and where to make investments. That prioritization is really important, as funds are limited and we can’t take action everywhere at once.
I will give you one example. You were getting at it around that interconnectedness. Even if the municipalities don’t own the rail infrastructure or the port infrastructure, there are actions that need to be taken collectively to protect infrastructure, potentially through investing in new infrastructure. It could be a new dike to protect from flooding or a new disaster mitigation infrastructure. But municipalities are also involved in or own directly water control infrastructure. Even if it’s not about new investments, it’s about the maintenance and the renewal to make sure they can withstand what they are intended to withstand or upgraded to withstand the new realities. There is infrastructure that municipalities directly own and operate that has impacts on the rest of the transportation. I think that’s important to note as well.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Now we have an ex-mayor, Senator Sorensen.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. Of course, based upon my history, I am a huge fan of FCM. I really appreciate all the work that this organization does for all the municipalities across Canada. Certainly, my own municipality has benefited greatly over the years with infrastructure and even something like assisting the town, and many others, I am sure, with asset management. That is such a big piece of municipalities’ requirements right now, to understand their infrastructure so fully.
Senator Simons made such a good point. We’re the Transportation and Communications Committee, and maybe that’s where we should be focused, but I am going to divert off from that a little bit. I was interested in the four bullet points you made of the priorities right now in terms of FCM and the federal government and municipalities. I was particularly interested in number three, which is strengthening the natural infrastructure. That is such a great comment and not something I had really heard before.
I’m curious, through any of the funding models, either through FCM or the federal government, is it being recognized that the operation and maintenance of natural infrastructure are such huge costs? I’ll use an example of our applying at one point to the province for grant funding for our urban forest. We saw it absolutely as an asset, but because it wasn’t bricks and mortar, it wasn’t considered eligible for any grant funding along those lines. Since that time, which was several years ago now, has it moved forward? Are there possible funding models for natural infrastructure? Is any thought given to the cost of operating it? Keeping an urban forest alive is incredibly difficult, and living in a national park, it is probably less difficult here than in many other places. I’ll leave it at that.
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you very much, Senator Sorensen, former mayor Sorensen, for the excellent question. It is good to have former elected municipal officials on the call because, clearly, they can really understand the details here.
That issue around natural assets being eligible for federal funding or being considered fixed tangible assets has been a real issue in the past. We are seeing progress there. The federal government, certainly to its credit, is now funding natural infrastructure in a way that it didn’t used to, and that’s terrific. There are still some limitations. It’s something we are all learning about together. I hear from colleagues who work on municipal climate policy internationally that Canada is really being seen as a leader in the world on this. That is great to hear. We’re a little bit ahead of the curve, but we’re learning about it.
There are three things that we are still figuring out. One is your excellent point about the ongoing operating costs. That isn’t something that the federal government currently funds. A lot of good research has recently been done on upfront investment in natural assets. One instance is protecting and preserving a wetland, maybe enhancing that wetland, to be able to store more water so when you have a heavy rainfall event, you don’t have as much runoff. That upfront investment might cost less than upgrading all your pipes or other structural investments, but you still need to manage that wetland as an active piece of infrastructure. The training, the specialized skills around that, having the staff who are out doing that, those are ongoing costs. That is something that would be borne directly by municipalities.
Another thing that still has some limits is land acquisition costs. You could perhaps get funding for tree planting, for instance, but purchasing an area of land to protect it in perpetuity isn’t eligible under all of the federal programs. Under some new programs it is, which is great.
The third issue is around accounting rules. The Public Sector Accounting Board is making some important moves, which FCM is supporting, to provide guidance to the accounting industry on how to account for natural assets. Otherwise, you can’t really budget for it and make investments and recognize the value that you’re getting for it if you don’t have that guidance. That’s an important shift as well.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you so much. I have no further questions.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I understand that there are investment issues, data issues and jurisdictional issues if we want municipalities to be able to adapt to climate change. I’m particularly interested in small rural areas and small municipalities. Mine, for example, where I live, is more or less responsible for the local harbour. I know that the federation provides training and resources to help build resilience. My question is, can you tell us if municipalities, especially those in smaller areas, have reliable climate data to draw on? Do they have the skills to address climate change? Efficiency is needed in this area right now. What is your federation’s role? Do you work with associations like the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick? How do you ensure that the training you provide is effective and reaches these small municipalities? How does the federal government contribute to this chain, which plays an important role in ensuring that municipalities are well equipped?
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Cormier.
[English]
Even though you’re not a former mayor, I’m still happy to receive the question. It’s an excellent question.
I mentioned FCM has 2,000 municipal members. We really do represent municipalities of all sizes in all provinces and territories and regions. We do work directly with small rural municipalities through our programs.
On your question about data, it’s certainly improving. I mentioned the federal government has taken steps to provide more data. There is an excellent initiative called the Canadian Centre for Climate Services that is part of Environment and Climate Change Canada. Its whole mission is to make climate data more accessible, so in a plain-language way, geographically using mapping data, so that if you are a manager of roads in a local municipality, you don’t need a degree in meteorology to understand the data. I think that’s still a work-in-progress, but there has been a big improvement there in the amount of data that’s available and how it’s being presented.
A lot of the work is the training and education for municipal officials on what to do with that data, how does it impact their decisions on how big the culverts should be, or all of the decisions they need to make, and that’s work that we do through some of our programs. I mentioned our Municipal Asset Management Program. We have another program that is about to wrap up that was federally funded called Municipalities for Climate Innovation. Those programs did provide training resources, educational resources and workshops for municipalities.
Because many smaller municipalities have one or two or three employees, it’s important also to work on a regional basis and to provide training that’s on a regional basis. We do work with regional partners to deliver training at a regional level — sometimes even at a provincial level in the smaller provinces — to make sure that it’s reaching the right people, and that there’s expertise. Because it’s not realistic to expect a very small municipality of a few hundred people, one staff person, to become an expert on climate impact, they need to be able to tap into those resources at the regional level as well.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: You will understand that this topic is of particular concern to me. When it comes to climate change and weather events, municipalities are always the first responders. It’s always up to the municipal councils to address erosion or flooding. In addition, municipalities own 60% of all public infrastructure in Canada.
In Quebec, municipalities have a legitimate connection to the federal government and municipalities are not recognized anywhere in Confederation.
Mr. Gemmel, on the one hand, there are some really good programs and apparently they have improved. In the past, they used to take a program like the infrastructure program or the green fund and determine the program’s general guidelines in a fairly authoritarian way, without really consulting the municipalities. Has that changed? Municipalities still pay the lion’s share of the costs when they participate in these programs.
My second question is, when they look at the programs — you used the green fund as an example — they are one-off programs. One of the greatest initiatives was the old gasoline excise tax. By the way, and our colleague Senator Dawson will love this, that program was initiated by Paul Martin and it provided significant predictability for municipalities. Because the funding was prorated, municipalities were able to budget for the costs, but there were restrictions and the government wanted action.
My final point is about infrastructure. Seventy per cent of municipal revenue comes from property taxes, which means real estate. As Canadians, when we have property, we pay 100% of the property value of the tax, but the government doesn’t do that.
First, governments should face up to their responsibility as corporate citizens and pay their taxes in full. Second, in smaller municipalities, the federal government has, for instance, let small fishing harbours deteriorate and has generally not maintained them. It hasn’t been concerned about that. It causes problems for municipalities in terms of erosion or when storms come in. The federal government should have two responsibilities: First, it should pay for the full value of those capital assets and second, it should maintain those assets. That’s a lot to absorb, but I only have so much speaking time. I’m sorry.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Forest, you said it all. Mr. Gemmel, if you wish to answer the question, are you going to lecture the federal government?
[English]
Mr. Gemmel: I will try my best. Thank you, Senator Forest, not just a former mayor but former president of a municipal association. I hope to go to Rimouski this summer actually, to Les Jardins de Métis. Hopefully, I’ll get there.
On the first question about how municipalities are involved and consulted in federal infrastructure program design, this is a central preoccupation for FCM, and I will say, clearly, we need to improve how we do this. I think this is maybe a topic we can take up with the municipal working group as well. We have programs, like the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and the green stream that you mentioned as part of that. It’s nearly $30 billion over 10 years, so a big program. More than half the money will go to municipalities, given our share of the infrastructure assets, and the terms and the conditions are largely developed by the provinces and territories and the federal government through FPT arrangements.
FCM has a very good working relationship with the federal government and Infrastructure Canada, but that basic governance structure doesn’t match the reality of who owns the infrastructure, who is managing the infrastructure and who is ultimately cost matching up to a third of the funding. We have recommendations on how to improve that, and there are opportunities just in the coming year. With the Gas Tax Fund, which you also mentioned, Senator Forest, the 10-year agreements are coming up for renewal, and they’re being renegotiated this year, again, between the federal government and the provinces. There are two provinces where the municipal associations are signatories to those agreements — B.C. and Ontario — and so they’re part of that discussion, but really the starting point is the traditional federal/provincial/territorial arrangement. We certainly feel that we can expand on that model and look at new forms of governance.
On the points around federal infrastructure, even though municipalities own about 60% of public infrastructure, the federal government owns a lot of real estate and a lot of infrastructure, as you noted, across the country. I know the federal government is looking directly at the climate risks posed to, whether it’s defence infrastructure or ports, airports, et cetera. I think you’re quite right that there’s a responsibility there for them to upgrade, invest in those pieces of critical infrastructure, to be resilient to climate change.
On the tax question, that one is a bit trickier. FCM was involved in the design many decades ago, in the PILT Program, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, and we do actually have some new recommendations to the federal government to at the very least improve the transparency of how far the decision making is made around how properties are valued. Perhaps that’s a conversation, Senator Forest, we can continue, because we think there are some improvements that could be made to that process.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for the great presentation and the answers you’re giving my colleagues. These are really informative questions and answers, so thank you for that. It’s causing me to shift the questions I was going to ask.
The first point I wanted to make, followed by a second point, was that last week, I had the opportunity to travel to different places in New Brunswick, and one of the areas I looked at was down in the Memramcook area, at the marshes, where the dikes are in such shape that it’s in imminent danger of flooding, endangering communities but also cutting off major transportation corridors. We have this interjurisdictional tension, I guess I would call it, and as has been mentioned, we don’t have time to debate that. We have to get on with things.
What role do you see for the private sector that benefits from remediation actions? For example, on that marsh, the Trans-Canada Highway and CN Railway provide services in and out of Nova Scotia, and it’s such an important part of our economy in Canada. Should there be a role and support for those who benefit from remedial actions that may be taken in situations like that?
My second point again comes back to the interjurisdictional situation. Should we have an entity that evaluates what that relationship is? As you mentioned, your organization represents 90% of Canadians. We need those Canadians, and all of us need to assure that we have those relationships in alignment so that we’re addressing the areas in need so that if and when an emergency happens, there’s a coordinated response.
I would be interested in your thoughts in those two areas.
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you, Senator Quinn. Those are excellent questions.
One of the things we’re hoping to come out of the National Adaptation Strategy is a complementary investment plan and investment strategy. There is a growing recognition and calls from all of the different groups and associations that are watching the development of that strategy that a plan on paper without funding commitments and investment strategy will not be particularly meaningful.
I’m sort of passing the buck here a little bit, but I think part of the question that needs to be answered in that strategy is exactly that differentiation between public and private investment. Clearly, the private sector is going to need to invest to protect private assets. FCM believes there’s certainly a role for public investment in public infrastructure and public/private infrastructure like railways, ports and airports that clearly serve a critical public benefit. When you look at it on an asset-by-asset basis and a region-by-region basis, there’s going to be a funding breakdown that is private and public. Ultimately Canadians are going to need to pay to protect the country from climate change, and we need to figure out an investment plan to do that.
It is important to bear in mind — and I’m sure this is part of your studies — that there’s quite a large body of evidence that upfront investments reduce your costs down the road, and these are costs to the economy writ large. They’re costs through insurance claims, and certainly costs to taxpayers through public insurance like the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangement program. There needs to be a combination of public and private investment, and a national adaptation strategy can help shine a light on what that breakdown looks like.
I also note another initiative, not on the same timeline as the National Adaptation Strategy, is the National Infrastructure Assessment that Infrastructure Canada is undertaking. Part of the rationale for that assessment is something Minister McKenna spearheaded when she was Infrastructure Minister is to look at the impacts of climate change on infrastructure and look at how we can reduce emissions through investments in infrastructure. That might be another way to identify that investment pathway.
On the joint emergency response piece, this is critical, and we’ve spoken with Mr. Blair about it in recent months following the multiple disasters in British Columbia. A lot of the responsibility here in terms of coordination is at the provincial level, but there are some clear gaps. We are very committed to a conversation about how to better align and coordinate respective responses. It’s not appropriate for a local government with limited resources to have responsibilities downloaded to them that they don’t have the financial resources, staff, the training and equipment to respond to. At the same time, we can’t have a top-down response that’s coordinated nationally or even provincially. There needs to be the appropriate involvement of municipal and first responders. A lot of the efforts around coordination are at the provincial level, but I know it’s a priority for Minister Blair and Emergency Preparedness and the Department of Public Safety as well.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Busson: I’m subbing here today for Senator Dasko. This is an incredibly important topic, and I’m so happy to be able to participate today. I’d like to thank Mr. Gemmel for his amazing expertise on the subject.
Being from British Columbia, both the forest fires and the flooding that we’ve experienced over the last year and prior certainly have woken most people up to the issues of climate change. It’s an incredibly important topic at every level.
Your four recommendations are rightly proactive when it comes to critical infrastructure. I have a question from a bit of a different perspective, and I would like to get your reaction to my comment. Perhaps it’s more of a comment than a question, but it’s certainly something that lies in the minds of British Columbians, and I think Canadians.
The latest flooding has been on the Coquihalla Highway, and of course, Chilliwack, which is inland from the oceans, but we all know that the rise in the ocean levels is an incredible challenge for the future. Richmond, and a number of other municipalities in Western Canada, are below if not right at sea level. I’m wondering, with the data that you have, and the imminent future risk to whole municipalities — not just to the actual infrastructure of airports, ports, railways, but to the actual cities themselves — of even a small rise in the ocean levels, how much of your time or what part of your strategic planning is focused on the damage to cities generally around the rise in the ocean levels in the very foreseeable future as opposed to dikes that hold back rivers and issues around infrastructure like bridges and other things inland?
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you, senator.
This brings to mind a couple points I wanted to make. One is the difference between chronic risks and chronic impacts versus acute. What I mean by that is a lot of the climate risks that our public infrastructure faces, including critical infrastructure, are that kind of slow-moving tsunami. There’s a little bit more mundane things like freeze/thaw cycles impacting road and transportation infrastructure. With climate change, we’ll see a lot more increase in freeze/thaw cycles. That increases your maintenance costs over time and has an impact on how you management that. The key piece is the natural disasters. We see the climate-induced natural disasters.
With sea-level rise, it’s a bit of both. It’s the creeping sea-level rise that’s leading to more erosion. We’re seeing that certainly in coastal communities. I saw some numbers out of P.E.I. recently about the rate that shoreline is being lost and the buildings needing to be moved back that are astounding. But, of course, as sea level rises, when you do have storm events, those acute impacts, those disaster events are all that more severe, so it’s a combination of both. We need to keep both in mind as we think about how we manage risks from climate to critical infrastructure. Certainly, we are very concerned about sea-level rise.
We did a study with the Insurance Bureau of Canada about three and a half years ago now that attempted to estimate the need for annual investment in municipal infrastructure to protect Canadians. The methodology was to take the local and regional vulnerability assessments that I was mentioning in response to Senator Simons’ questions, look at the price tag associated with those and then scale that up to the national level as a percentage of our economy. The number we got there, which is surely conservative, was $5 billion a year. It looked at where that cost was greatest, and coastal communities as a result of sea-level rise, as well as impacts in the north, relative to the size of the community and the economy, was where the biggest impacts and where the biggest costs were.
My last point on this is that one of the strengths of the National Adaptation Strategy, and certainly one of the stated goals that Ministers Wilkinson and Guilbeault have for the strategy, is to identify and rank, really, national priorities for investment. Sea-level rise is a good example of where that is needed; it’s important to look at the national picture. The flipside of it, and one of the points I was trying to make in my opening comments, is that we can’t just look at climate risks at the national level, such as sea-level rise and forest fires. We have to look locally at what the impacts are. That’s where the investments in local and regional vulnerability assessments are so important. So with sea-level rise, it has to be both.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Welcome, Mr. Gemmel, and thank you for your engagement. I have two questions.
My interest is around P3 projects, public-private partnerships, which are a long-term approach to procuring public infrastructure. In this partnership, the private sector assumes a major share of the risks in terms of financing and construction, from design and planning to long-term maintenance. As I understand it, one advantage of going the P3 route comes through a broadened focus, from designing an asset to delivery of a service. This also includes maintenance to the infrastructure asset during its operating lifetime. This broadened focus creates incentives for the private-sector partner to design and build better in order to reduce the full life-cycle costs, such as construction and operating costs.
First, on behalf of municipalities, can you tell this committee if P3 projects are something that suit the development or renewal of critical infrastructure? Second, do you, on behalf of municipalities, have any recommendations regarding accessing government infrastructure funding when it comes to aligning government prescribed specifications versus a municipality’s design-build specifications?
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Klyne.
I can certainly answer the first part, but I’m not sure I exactly understand the second part of the question around design specifications. Do you mean on a particular project?
Senator Klyne: I’ll give you an example. From discussions I’ve had with witnesses after they have given their testimonies, they tell me that when they go for some infrastructure funding, maybe to build a bridge, the federal government pretty much foists upon them the notion of “you will build the bridge this way” where the municipality can see savings from using long timber, for instance, which offers a longer life cycle and at half the cost, and all the integrity of design is maintained in terms of achieving or exceeding specifications. How does that all get squared off? I wondered if you’ve had any recommendations about procurement from the government regarding what your municipalities are actually trying to achieve in terms of them wanting to get it done and they want to get it done right, but the government imposes certain specifications that cost more and don’t deliver the same life cycle.
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you. That’s clear. Thank you for the additional context.
FCM’s position on P3 is that, if you looked up our statement on it, it’s a “tool in the toolbox” kind of thing. Certainly, we recognize there’s a role there, especially for larger projects, typically. Our feedback for the federal government over many years on P3s has been that it doesn’t apply in all circumstances and that municipalities need to be able to determine for themselves whether that’s the right model. It also takes a fair amount of internal legal expertise and financial expertise on behalf of the municipality to get a P3 deal done right. Our position has been that it shouldn’t be a requirement of federal funding and it should be up to the municipality to enter into those kinds of agreements.
Currently, the program that most resembles a P3 is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are projects that would fall into the critical infrastructure category around electricity transmission, for instance, and port infrastructure, that the bank is funding and then crowding in private investment. But even in that model, decisions around the design, build, operate and maintain role for the private sector is typically left to the municipality, which seems like a good model.
The second part is that this is definitely a recurring topic of conversation regarding the conditions the federal government puts on federal funding. With recent federal programs — for instance, the Investing in Canada Plan — there have been broader policy objectives around reducing emissions and climate resiliency, actually, that FCM and municipalities support, broadly speaking. The trick is having those designed and implemented in a way that enables municipalities to build projects that achieve that outcome. It’s more of an outcomes-based approach as opposed to strict requirements to build a project in a certain way. I think the federal government is sensitive to not wanting to slow down infrastructure projects for those reasons.
An important conversation needs to be had around just how challenging it is to build things in this country, frankly. It’s all for good reasons, but when you take it as a whole, it’s very expensive and time-consuming to build big projects in this country. A conversation is warranted around how we can make the infrastructure investments we need to in order to protect Canadians from climate change, for instance, but also to achieve other economic, social and environmental objectives. Also, that whole sort of regulatory process and the terms and conditions that come with federal funding are parts of that. It’s a good question to be raising.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: There are three minutes left so please be brief with your questions.
Senator Simons: We’ve talked a lot about the challenges of dealing with federal, provincial and municipal territory-guarding, but is there a role for the FCM in helping municipalities themselves in a region to work together more collegially on some of these projects that will require towns and cities to work together in a region? That is not always an easy alliance to build. Do you think there’s a role for your organization to take a leadership position in helping municipalities to work together on some of these major mitigation projects?
Mr. Gemmel: I think you’re quite right that the solutions here in a lot of cases are regional and transcend or transect existing municipal boundaries. We are playing that role in terms of the capacity-building and programming that we deliver. It is not just talking to one municipality but bringing municipalities from a region together to undertake training and to look at these issues as a whole.
It hadn’t been our role to date to be involved in the actual governance or implementation on a region. There are different models of that. For instance, a good example of where there’s a lot of regional coordination and planning is within a watershed. I’m not saying we’re doing that quite as well as we need to be, but there are conservation districts in certain provinces that look at water control, flood mitigation and flood planning on a regional basis. That does seem to be a model that is working particularly well in some provinces and that could maybe be expanded. Perhaps it is not just looking at water and surface overland flooding but looking at a range of climate risks on a regional basis through similar governance models.
It’s certainly FCM’s position that a regional approach works well. One of the recommendations we have made is that federal funding should be eligible to groups of municipalities that are working together on a regional basis.
Senator Simons: That’s great. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gemmel, for joining us this evening. I would like to ask you something. The committee wished to have a few names of municipalities that are interesting for our study for whatever reason. We don’t want just successes or failures, but those that could be interesting from your point of view, because we need examples. We all have examples because we live in or near a municipality, but since you have a good overview of 2,000 municipalities, we would really like to have some examples and why they are interesting from your point of view.
Honourable senators, for our next panel, we are pleased to welcome Gerard McDonald, Chief Executive Officer of Engineers Canada; and Mary Van Buren, President of the Canadian Construction Association. Welcome and thank you both for joining us. I invite Mr. McDonald to begin with opening remarks, followed by Ms. Van Buren, before we move on to questions.
Gerard McDonald, Chief Executive Officer, Engineers Canada: Honourable chair, vice-chairs, members of the standing Transport and Communications Committee, thank you for inviting us today to provide input to the study of the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors. My name is Gerard McDonald. I am a professional engineer, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of Engineers Canada here in Ottawa. In the spirit of decolonizing my language and sense of place, I recognize that I am a visitor on the traditional and unceded lands of the Anishinaabe peoples.
Engineers Canada is the national organization that represents the 12 provincial and territorial engineering regulators that licence the more than 300,000 members of the engineering profession in Canada. Our organization has a longstanding history of working and collaborating with the federal government to help inform and develop legislation, regulations and policies.
Engineers Canada has been engaged in work on climate change and extreme weather events for over 15 years, with a focus on infrastructure climate vulnerability and risk assessment, as well as proposing adaptation policies, strategies and professional practices to improve resilience. Between August 2005 and June 2012, Engineers Canada, with funding from Natural Resources Canada and in collaboration with partners from all levels of government and other sectors, formed the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee, better known as PIEVC. The committee developed and validated the PIEVC Protocol, a tool to be used for vulnerability assessments of infrastructure systems.
As of 2021, over 100 infrastructure risk assessments have been completed using the PIEVC Protocol across a wide range of infrastructure systems in Canada that include buildings, including residential, commercial and institutional; storm water and waste water systems; roads and associated structures such as bridges and culverts; water supply and management systems; electricity distribution; and airport infrastructure. The Protocol has also been applied internationally. The experiences and outcomes from these assessments have enabled the engineering profession to engage with stakeholders on climate-related infrastructure policy and procurement. The Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction assumed ownership of the PIEVC Program in April 2020.
Extreme weather and rapid changes to Canada’s climate present a profound risk to both public safety and the reliability of Canada’s infrastructure. Disruption and cost to Canada’s economy when infrastructure is damaged or destroyed by extreme weather events is growing and becoming more frequent across this country. In 2020, it is estimated that severe weather events and climate-related disasters resulted in $2.4 billion of insured damages in Canada alone.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada stated that the November 2021 flooding in southern British Columbia is estimated to have caused $450 million in insured damage, calling it the most costly severe weather event in the province’s history. The storms resulted in the tragic loss of life, as well as devastating mudslides and flooded homes, farms and businesses. Public infrastructure, including major highways, was destroyed, choking supply chains and resulting in a state of emergency. An expert panel of engineers concluded that better forecasting and coordination could help prepare British Columbia for natural disasters, while warning the spring thaw and rain could further compound damage caused by recent floods.
In Northern communities like Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, for example, permafrost thaw regularly threatens homes, roads and important cultural sites, as well as marine and coastal environments. This is having a profound effect on Northern and Indigenous traditions, especially for those who rely on the land, sea and ice for their livelihood.
Climate change is happening, but the frequency and magnitude of these changes remain uncertain. What is clear is that licensed engineers, other professionals and policy and decision makers need to consider the changing climate and its impact on Canadians’ safety and quality of life, as supported by public infrastructure.
These concerns are not unique to the transportation and communications infrastructure. Well-designed, properly built, continually maintained and reliable infrastructure is critical to public safety, quality of life and a competitive economy. Therefore, much of Canada’s core public and private infrastructure requires significant immediate and future investments to ensure its sustainability for its complete life and service cycle. Building new infrastructure or rehabilitating existing infrastructure across Canada without considering climate change and extreme weather events has the potential to cause service disruptions and premature failures in the future, thus negatively impacting public safety, increasing business and social disruptions and increasing costs to the government, public and business sectors.
There are two main recommendations that I will present to you today. First, as the federal government works to consider the impacts of extreme climate events now and into the future, it is imperative that engineers be consulted to provide evidence-based environmental assessments to support climate adaptation, mitigation and rehabilitation of climate impacts on public infrastructure. Engineering is on the front line in the provision of infrastructure to society. For this reason, engineers have a significant role to play in addressing climate change issues and incorporating them into engineering practice in Canada.
Second, we recommend that the federal government extend current climate parameters to adapt public infrastructure. A climate index provides a diagnostic quantity that is used to characterize the state of and/or changes in a climate system, such as a circulation pattern. There are a variety of methods that can be used to derive assorted indices, including classically, selected station, grid point or regional average data. Most indices use a single variable, such as sea-level pressure, sea surface temperature or geopotential height, while others use a combination of variables such as temperature and precipitation. Each climate index has certain measurable parameters that influence the properties of a climate system. Engineers Canada recommends that the federal government work with the engineering profession to align engineering needs with climate projections to include specific climate parameters that go beyond temperature, rainfall and precipitation. Including additional climate parameters will build confidence in climate projections, support accurate risk assessments in built environments and will provide engineers with defensible and authoritative climate data when supporting resilient communities across Canada.
There are several climate parameters that can be included, such as wind speed and direction, fog, snow accumulation, duration and intensity, freezing rain and hail, freeze-thaw cycles, and long duration rainfall/atmospheric river tracking. The role of various climate parameters on various types of infrastructure, including transportation and communication, is of high importance, and impacts must be anticipated. Understanding meteorological and climate parameters, such as temperature, local changeability, heavy snow, fog, et cetera, is essential before designing and constructing physical infrastructure across Canada. The combination of extensive climate parameters and infrastructure indicators provides sufficient evidence for professionals to assess specific infrastructure responses to an identified climate condition.
Additionally, it would be beneficial to see a database of climate impacts attributed to climate parameters, which provides strong forensic evidence that is often needed to support the development of new climate change-integrated standards for increased climate resiliency in decision-making. For example, a climate and infrastructure forensic database capturing high impact climate events and the associated failures of assets or services would help to inform many standards, risk assessments, decisions and designs on important breaking-point climate thresholds.
Madam Chair and honourable members, thank you for allowing Engineers Canada to present to the committee today. We hope you will recognize the integral role that engineers play in Canada’s transportation and communication sectors. I wish to assure you that the profession is ready and willing to ensure that Canada’s critical infrastructure is resilient, safe and continues to be an enabler of the economy.
I’m happy to take any questions or comments, Madam Chair.
The Deputy Chair: We will now hear from Ms. Mary Van Buren. The floor is yours.
Mary Van Buren, President, Canadian Construction Association: Good evening, honourable senators. Our offices are located in Ottawa but I am calling you from the traditional, ancestral, unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations in Vancouver.
I’m here today representing over 20,000 of our members from across Canada, 70% of whom are small- and medium-sized enterprises. They work as general contractors, trade contractors, civil, as well as manufacturers, suppliers and service providers. Together, they are in the heavy civil, institutional, commercial and industrial construction industry.
Before I formally begin my remarks, I’d like to take a moment to thank you for this opportunity to raise some issues we are seeing in terms of climate impact on infrastructure and also to note that we have a once-in-a generation opportunity to build Canada greener and sustainably.
Our industry employs 1.4 million Canadians and is responsible for nearly $140 billion in economic activity annually, representing 7.5% of our country’s GDP.
Every aspect of our life is touched by the infrastructure designed, built and maintained by our sector: the schools our kids attend, the healthcare we receive and the systems that keep our water clean and our homes and businesses heated and running with electricity. We’ve talked about the roads in previous testimony. Not only does our infrastructure connect our communities but it connects us to the global marketplace.
We are all witnessing the extreme impact of the devastation that happened in B.C. Some of you have experienced that firsthand or your families have. Locally, many communities have seen the impact of flooding as well. Any infrastructure we build must take into consideration these extreme weather events because we will be seeing more of these.
The Canadian Construction Association worked with our members to prepare a report called Strength, Resilience, Sustainability that contained our recommendations on the path forward.
We spoke earlier about the rising sea levels and the extreme impact this is having on our roads. We are looking at costs anywhere from 5.4 annually in terms of impact. Early investment and adaptation can substantially reduce these impacts and the cost to infrastructure. The key message is that investing today and looking at assets over their lifetime will save money. That makes good sense.
We are encouraged to hear the news of the $183 million investment over the next seven years that was announced in the federal budget to invest in innovative construction materials and to improve the building standards.
Another key message is we do need a long-term investment strategy. This needs to be aligned with the provinces, with the municipalities and with our Indigenous communities. We know that one size doesn’t fit all. When we look at the envelope of investments that has been set aside, they make sense at a national level, but perhaps mass transit is not needed in every small community in Canada. That’s where we see some mismatch and where more consultation and early engagement need to happen.
In terms of our infrastructure, it is aging. Much of it was built 50 years ago, and we are not keeping pace with the necessary infrastructure investment to keep those roads in good condition. In fact, the Canadian infrastructure report card shows that nearly 40% of our bridges and roads are either in fair to very poor condition, and the cost of rehabilitation is around $90 billion. This is urgent, and the investment has not kept pace with what we need to do.
The national infrastructure assessment that has been proposed is something we heartily support. We believe it is a positive step forward.
Right now, we are facing a shortage of workforce, as many sectors are. Having a long-term, predictable flow of projects will help the industry and communities develop the workforce that we need, namely the highly skilled workers: electricians, plumbers, estimators, project managers. This needs five to seven years of training, and we have to track them into our industry as well and we are competing with others.
We need support as well from the federal government to support fair competition, innovation and shared risk. Engaging with contractors earlier will allow contractors to bring their best ideas forward and to try out some new processes and some new materials. That risk can’t be only borne by the contractors. It needs to be a partnership between the owners, the investors and the contractors who are delivering that service.
It’s been mentioned as well that we need reliable climate data. We need updated standards and codes that we can work towards, and we need to make sure we have a strong supply chain that can deliver on the green materials that we need.
I wanted to mention a few things in terms of trade-enabling infrastructure. Canada has fallen significantly in the world standings in our global trade infrastructure — from 10th to 32nd. We are a trading nation. About 65% of our GDP comes from trade. We must invest in trade corridors. That is something that CCA has been working on with Export Development Canada, with the Western Canada road builders and other stakeholders to ensure there is adequate investment in trade corridors.
Also, I mentioned the supply chain. As we know, it has been severely tested by COVID. We need to ensure that the infrastructure investments support the supply chain, the diversification, and it’s consistent and predictable.
In summary, building for today’s communities and tomorrow’s Canada requires long-term planning and better attention to collecting data to sharing this information. This will pay significant dividends. It will accelerate an inclusive economy, create more jobs and provide more diversity for the sector. We can address climate change and support growth and innovation.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to address the committee and for us to talk about the role that construction can play in the path to green.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Van Buren and Mr. McDonald. I would now like to move on to questions. Colleagues, if I may, I’m going to start with a short question before I give you the floor.
Ms. Van Buren, what I found interesting in your brief, which was quite lengthy, is how you compare Canada and Europe. You also look at other jurisdictions, such as Australia. I’d like you to explain something to me: You recommend that Canada, much like Europe, would benefit from regulating construction products to ensure that construction materials are sustainable and suitable for a circular economy. You talk about drawing up a list of products that are permitted or banned in construction so that we can build greener. Did I understand that correctly? Is that what Europe is doing? Is that what you would recommend? A framework like that would be a game changer compared to the freedom people have right now.
Ms. Van Buren: Thank you for the question.
[English]
The way procurement works is generally the contractor bids on the design and often on the materials that have been specified, and so that is what they will provide. When there are increased requirements or outcomes expected around combating climate erosion and issues, contractors need to be assured that they are providing green products and that those green products are accepted by the owner so that they have confidence and the risk doesn’t fall to them. If the expectation is it’s a green product supply, we need to have a definition on that, and we need certification so that the contractor is assured, if they are using that material, that that is agreed as the standard that meets Canadian expectations.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to Ms. Van Buren and Mr. McDonald. I will address my question to Ms. Van Buren. I welcome Mr. McDonald to weigh in if he would like to offer his perspective through experience with both public and private sectors.
I’m interested in one of CCA’s recommendations, specifically that the Government of Canada’s national infrastructure assessment should provide a national vision for infrastructure resilience. I think this would be a valued undertaking, not an easy one, but hard or easy has nothing to do with it. A major challenge will be bringing together key stakeholders, including builders, policymakers, communities, senior levels of government and Indigenous partners, and getting that common understanding with everyone on the same page toward a framework from which regional solutions and sectoral approaches can be developed, ultimately seeking to align and agree on infrastructure priorities from all levels of government, Indigenous partners and the private sector, and then get a commitment to immediate action. My question is this: How do you envision getting this accomplished, coming up with a shared national vision and a commitment with conviction from all stakeholders?
Ms. Van Buren: Thank you very much for that question.
One of the recommendations is that there be an independent organization that will provide data and, I guess, a scorecard, if you will, on how the government is doing. Infrastructure planning is long-term. We think it has to be 25 years, and cycles of governments are much smaller than that. It can often be hard to break through that cycle. We think it’s really important that we have an independent group who helps to advise and hold the government accountable.
Second, we think the federal government should focus on higher objectives and fund programs, not projects. We often will read announcements around, perhaps, $10,000 that the federal government has contributed to a curb program in a local community. That’s great and those dollars are very welcome, but we have to question why the federal government is spending any time at all on projects that are that small. We believe there is a greater role for the provinces, the Indigenous communities and the municipalities to do their own planning. That is what would be funded by the federal government and not project by project by project.
Senator Klyne: So it would be that organization that actually pulls all the stakeholders together to develop this shared vision?
Ms. Van Buren: Exactly. There is a lot of great work that’s already being done. I’ve just spent the last two days at the First Nations Major Projects Coalition conference on getting to net zero. If you haven’t invited them to be witnesses, they are very inspiring. They are leading the green energy and investing in projects. A lot of great work is already happening, and I think it’s just connecting the various organizations and communities that are doing this kind of work.
Senator Klyne: Thank you for that. Did Mr. McDonald have anything to add?
Mr. McDonald: Not much. The idea of a national vision is certainly laudable, and Engineers Canada would support that. The only drawback I would see is the amount of work and time it would take to achieve that vision.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. McDonald. In 2015, your association launched the Infrastructure Resilience Professional (IRP) designation for engineers. This designation provides engineers with the added knowledge and skills they need to plan, design and manage resilient infrastructure. We know that transport and communications infrastructure is often privately owned. With the specific training they have received, what challenges do your engineers face with privately owned infrastructure? For example, do you feel that the private sector is generally well informed on climate change? Do the engineers you represent have a responsibility to raise a flag when infrastructure is not adequate or doesn’t factor resilience in? I’d like to better understand the challenges that engineers trained in this way face with respect to Canadian transport and communications infrastructure.
[English]
Mr. McDonald: Thank you very much, senator.
Madam Chair, through you, with respect to the design of infrastructure, whether it be public or private really makes no difference to the engineer designing it. They have the same obligations to make sure that whatever they design is done so safely and takes into account the appropriate standards.
With respect to designing for climate, it really amounts to making sure that the standards that are there are used appropriately. The real challenge for us as engineers in designing for climate change is how those standards are affected by the change in climate. That is why we’re suggesting that we need better data and more investigation into what data is needed so that we can apply the appropriate risk factors to whatever is being designed, whether it be in transportation or in other infrastructure throughout the country.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Welcome, witnesses. Thank you for being here and the very interesting presentations.
It’s caused me again to ask this question of myself: How prepared are we for climate change effects when we deal with infrastructure in Canada? It seems like there are some initiatives there. How do we bring them together? For example, how do we bring the engineering folks together with construction folks so we know we are getting proper risk assessments or proper protocols in place for those risk assessments? How do we ensure that we get flexibility when requirements are stated for a given project? In other words, if they say they need these materials but the engineering and construction folks say there is another option, how do you deal with all of that while respecting the contracting process of government?
Ms. Van Buren: I can start with that question. Thank you for that question.
One of the important principles certainly in circular economy as well is collaboration and early contractor involvement. Many contracts and procurement models follow the design, and then you go through the bid and then the build. We are suggesting that there are newer models that could be used so that the contractors, designers and the owners are all at the table at the same time and there’s much better alignment on what the overall goals are of the project and the ability to influence and try out new things from the get-go. It’s really hard to do when something like that is already baked, so it is certainly having that early involvement.
The second part is around not using the lowest bid, certainly understanding that for municipalities it’s really tough. If you’ve got $1 billion, you’ve got $1 billion, not $1.1 billion, but that does limit the ability to look at a life-cycle approach, and that’s where I think we all need to move to in procurement models.
Senator Quinn: If I may, a follow-up on that, I’m so glad you raised that, because my experience in the private sector and government is that we always go with the lowest bid and then are killed with extras and what not. Going into it, knowing there will be extra, it makes no sense at all. How do you deal with that? What’s another model that allows for the flexibility that you just stated without locking hands when it comes to dealing with government funding and lowest bids?
Ms. Van Buren: Go ahead, Gerard, and then I’ll give an example of a clause.
Mr. McDonald: We’ve been a proponent for quite some time now of qualifications-based selection in procurement where it gives the bidder the opportunity to present alternatives to whatever design requirements the government might feel they need. It allows for more creativity in the design and could result in lower costs overall, and it’s critical to ensure that you’re doing life-cycle costing as opposed to the lowest cost for the finished product.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Ms. Van Buren: If I may, another example is right now, of course, we’re dealing with extreme inflationary pressure on goods, materials and also supply. That makes it very difficult to complete projects on time, so we’ve been working on having flexibility with the owners to manage those costs.
If there are clauses that allow for fair reimbursement to contractors, then they don’t have to put a huge factor in there to manage for their risk. You can get closer to what the bid should be, and it’s fairer. If you know the time between the RFP and then the bid and you know what the actual price of the goods are, then it can be priced fairly. There are different ways to handle those contracting clauses as well.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you to our guests for shedding some light on these important issues.
I’m subbing for Senator Galvez this evening. I have two questions for Mr. McDonald.
We face a formidable challenge in terms of workforce succession. In several professions, recognizing foreign designations can be an issue and it delays the arrival of qualified staff trained abroad. Have efforts been made for the engineering profession? Have we been able to foster a more welcoming environment for engineers and other individuals trained abroad?
Senator Galvez told me that Engineers Canada has developed a protocol called PIEVC that models the impacts of climate change on infrastructure. Natural Resources Canada and other organizations are using the protocol. Mr. McDonald, could you tell us about this successful Engineers Canada initiative and how many foreign-trained engineers get accepted into Canada?
[English]
Mr. McDonald: Thank you, senator.
With respect to foreign-trained engineers, we do belong to a number of international agreements to look at how we might accept foreign engineers to ensure they have similar qualifications to those who are educated in Canada. We’re a member of the Washington Accord, which includes some 23 countries and recognizes the equivalency of academic requirements for engineers. We’re also a member of the International Engineering Alliance, which brings together 23 countries to look at the professional qualifications of engineers around the world and ensure that they possess the same competencies so that, when these people come to Canada, they can be assessed as being part of that protocol and their admission to the profession is made quite a bit easier.
With respect to the PIEVC protocol that I mentioned earlier in my remarks, essentially that’s a protocol developed by Engineers Canada and is now being run by the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. It’s a standard that is used to assess infrastructure, either existing or new build infrastructure, assess the risk of climate on that infrastructure and allow the engineer to design the building appropriately to account for whatever climate risks may pertain to that infrastructure given the location where it is in Canada.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Senator Forest, do you have a follow-up question?
Senator Forest: No; thank you for that response.
[English]
Senator Simons: Ms. Van Buren, you spoke to the issue of the supply chain. I realize that much of the work your two groups do is not in transportation construction and engineering, but the focus of our study is to look at transportation corridors. I share your concern that if we can’t provide functional transportation networks, it really hurts our competitive position internationally. I wonder if I could get you to focus on this issue of building the transportation corridors that we need and how you think your organization could help Canada to build specifically the transportation infrastructure that it needs to be resilient and to have the fail-safes that we need to have to make sure our transportation corridors are still functional 10 and 20 years from now.
Ms. Van Buren: Thank you very much for the question.
Our industry is very focused on the transportation sector. We have members who build roads, ports, bridges, airports and maintain those structures as well, so it’s very much central to what we do. We work very closely with our road builders and heavy construction associations across Canada. This is something that we’ve been working very hard on with the Western Canadian group to make sure that those trade and transportation corridors are strong.
Another important part of that is the communications and logistics that go with it. When we’re looking at supply chains, we don’t necessarily have a national way of knowing what is where and when it’s coming in, and we think a significant opportunity is to better track and understand and have the data on the various components of the supply chain.
CCA and our partner associations are advocating very strongly for investment in transportation. As I quoted from our report on our infrastructure assessment, it’s not in an acceptable state, and it needs to have significant investment, not just to keep Canadian goods and services and people flowing, but if we look at where Canada’s trade economy is going, we’re looking at Asia being equal to the U.S.A. in the not-too-distant future. We need to get our goods and services out of Central Canada, our food from Atlantic Canada, and certainly our minerals, et cetera, through the Prairies out to Asia, and that is through the west. That’s a big focus of what we’re doing.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Quinn: For both witnesses, I’m wondering what are the interactions you have with the various levels of government and the challenges they face with their infrastructure. Is there such interaction, and how does that affect the standards for the various disciplines that are going to be involved in infrastructure?
Finally, I think, Mr. McDonald, you’ll recall that an association years ago took the lead in helping to form and shape the shipbuilding program in Canada. Is there a similar type of thing that there is space for, or maybe you’re doing that already as the engineering association and as the construction association, to bring that expert advice to government where skill sets and competencies across the board — not only in government but in the private sector — seem to be on the wane. I’m curious if there’s that type of interaction.
Mr. McDonald: I can speak to the latter part of your question, Senator Quinn.
With respect to the interaction we have with other levels of government, we’re the national organization so we don’t have interaction with the provincial levels of government. That’s usually done by our member provincial regulators.
Our primary purpose is to regulate the profession itself and not necessarily provide advice to the government. That being said, we do develop standards of practice for the engineering profession that can apply to these situations.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Ms. Van Buren: CCA has over 60 partners at the local and provincial levels, so we work very closely on aligning our messages, our communications and our advocacy. We share best practices amongst each other. CCA will be invited to support a local or a provincial association on various issues. One of the things we find is that procurement practices can evolve very quickly from a small municipality to the federal level, so we keep an eye on what is happening at the local and federal levels so that we share those best practices and try to optimize Canada’s investments in infrastructure.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses for their participation today. Thank you very much for being with us.
There being no other business, I will adjourn this meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)