THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 7, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with video conference this day at 6:48 p.m. to study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors, and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. My name is Leo Housakos, and I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee.
[English]
I ask my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I am Senator Paula Simons, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Dalphond: I am Pierre Dalphond from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, this evening, we continue our study of the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector and our study of infrastructure in the Vancouver area.
For our first panel, I am pleased to welcome, via videoconference, Councillor Allyson Fraser and Wade Grant, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer, of the Musqueam Indian Band. Welcome, and thank you for joining us. Councillor Fraser, we’ll begin with your opening remarks and, since we have one organization before us in this panel, I will be flexible with the five minutes for your opening statements. We will then turn it over to senators for questions. Ms. Fraser, you have the floor.
Allyson Fraser, Councillor, Musqueam Indian Band: Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to join you this afternoon to speak about how this study of impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors impacts Musqueam.
I am Councillor Allyson Fraser. My traditional name is — [hən̓q̓əmin̓ə language spoken.] I have been an elected councillor member at Musqueam for 20 years, and I am also employed with Musqueam in our property tax department. I am joined by Wade Grant, a Musqueam member and intergovernmental affairs committee member.
We are a traditional hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓-speaking people with a strong and growing community of over 1,300 members. We have been present in our traditional territory for over 9,000 years. Musqueam territory covers 144,888 hectares and includes all of present-day Vancouver, extending northwest up Howe Sound and east up the Fraser Valley.
Most of our members are now forced to live on a small portion of our territory known as the Musqueam Indian Reserve No. 2, located south of Marine Drive, near the mouth of the Fraser River.
Musqueam have always moved throughout our territory using the resources it provides for fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering. We remain distinct, and our cultural practices are strong despite the devastating impacts of residential schools, colonial laws banning our ceremonies, and other attempts to assimilate our people. Our lands and waters continue to support our cultural and economic practices while serving as a source of knowledge and memory encoded with our teachings and laws.
The Crown shall consult with and accommodate Musqueam about mitigation strategies to address impacts of climate change both on our reserve lands and within our territory.
Musqueam is in the heart of Vancouver. Our small reserves are literally surrounded by critical infrastructure, including the Port of Vancouver and the airport. The coastal waters fronting our reserve lands and the Fraser River and the surrounding area form the core of our territory, so any measures taken to address or mitigate the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in and around the area of Vancouver will have serious impacts on our Aboriginal rights and title.
Existing critical infrastructure such as the Port of Vancouver, the airport, sewage, wastewater treatment plant and the Metro Vancouver barge site have ongoing and cumulative impacts on Musqueam. They were put in place without consultation with Musqueam and without considering our Aboriginal rights and title. This is inconsistent with the honour of the Crown and the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as the UNDRIP.
How is climate change impacting Musqueam? In January 2022, during one of the highest king tides in recent years according to the federal hydrographic service, at 5.48 metres, waves crashed at the edge of Musqueam’s low-lying reserve, which is on raised land along the banks of the Fraser River, nearly swallowing the community’s boat ramp. Musqueam Reserve is situated on marsh and swamp land which is more vulnerable to impacts from climate change as coastal wetlands are impacted by sea-level rise and changes in water chemistry. Musqueam is susceptible to flooding and will be greatly impacted by coastal floods as the sea level rises and the potential of a future “perfect storm” if it’s accompanied by a lot of rain and wind.
Three roads connect Musqueam to Vancouver. Flooding from climate events and emergencies pose the risk of damaging transportation infrastructure and evacuation routes. Rising waters mean a loss of access to cultural sites and traditional foods and medicines.
Increased temperatures change salmon behaviour, and warming leads to further degradation of aquatic resources along the coastline. Traditional food sources, such as salmon, are not only an important nutritional source in many Indigenous communities in B.C., but they also play a significant part in cultural identity and social cohesion. Similarly, sharing traditional harvests with relatives, neighbours and those who are in need is one of the foundational elements of Indigenous communities’ resilience. Fishing is not just about sustenance. It is also about family, community, culture, traditions, language and stewardship.
Musqueam will face increasing economic demands to mitigate flood risks and adapt to increasing impacts from climate change.
What is Musqueam doing? We are making a climate change adaptation plan through community-led consultations using multi-generational, land-based Indigenous knowledge systems that date back thousands of years and continue to develop and evolve. Indigenous knowledge and experiences have been underrepresented in climate change initiatives to date. Increased frequency and intensity of extreme heat events will pose risks to vulnerable community members.
The Musqueam First Nation has partnered with the credit union Vancity to help people make their homes more resilient to climate change. Energy specialists have helped Musqueam community members install new windows and heat pumps, making their homes better equipped to cope with everything from heat waves to extreme cold. These improvements also make homes more efficient, meaning they take less energy to both heat and cool. In 2022, over 22 homes on the Musqueam Indian Reserve received these retrofits, the equivalent of taking nine gas-powered passenger vehicles off the road every year.
The next three slides, of which I believe you have copies, will give you an idea of the area where Musqueam live and the waters that surround us. In the top left corner, you’ll see the municipal colonialism in Vancouver city planning and the conflict over Indian reserves. In the top right, you see the flooding roads in the Musqueam reserve. In the bottom, you see the log booms cluttering the Fraser River, making it unusable for Musqueam paddlers to access up river.
Reserve boundaries include the Fraser River, across from the YVR airport, in the top-right picture. In the top left are log booms, cluttering up the Fraser River, along with the centre-middle picture. Then you see Musqueam members accessing the river for traditional and cultural purposes on our Aboriginal rights and title.
On the last slide, you see Sea Island 3, a small, uninhabited, triangular piece of land, by the causeway to the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is approximately 6.6 hectares and is mostly covered by tidal marshland. It is a small piece of land bordered by airport and sewage plant. Sea Island is in red within the rest of Richmond and in light red in the top left.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fraser. We will go to questions, led by our deputy chair of this committee.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In 2017, your people signed a sustainability and friendship agreement with the Vancouver airport. The purpose of the agreement was to ensure a sustainable future for the community, so what did you get out of the agreement and what did the Port of Vancouver do?
You talked about home improvement measures — I’m not sure whether that was part of the agreement, but 2017 was quite a few years ago. Did you get any funding or help from the port authorities to ensure a future for your community without flooding, basically?
[English]
Ms. Fraser: I will defer to my coworker Wade Grant on that question but, just to start, through the friendship agreement, we do receive a percentage of funds from the YVR. Those funds assist us in creating measures and meeting with community to create programs to help with climate change and try to improve things so we’re not affected as much, but, as I said, I will defer.
Wade Grant, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer, Musqueam Indian Band: Thank you for the question.
I believe you are talking about two different agreements. In 2017, the Musqueam signed the airport friendship agreement which Councillor Fraser was talking about, but we also have a relationship agreement with the Port of Vancouver. That relationship agreement has allowed Musqueam to take more of a leadership role on the resources and on the stewardship of the waterways.
However, for many generations, our input was not adequate enough, and we’ve seen the dilapidation in and around our community. The rising tides have impacted us. The port leased out a lot of the river in our community. If you come down here, you will see half of the river is covered in log booms that are making it inaccessible for some of our community members to fish in the way they have fished since time immemorial.
We’re working on that with the port to ensure that Musqueam’s input is there. We are in partnership with them on our foreshore restoration to create a restoration of our foreshore and become more flood resistant.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You’re saying, if I understand you correctly, that you’re trying to improve things, but it has not been an agreement that has helped you that much.
I’m wondering if they have proposed anything permanent in terms of helping you with the floods. We have been talking to the port or the airport authority — I don’t remember which one — and they said that their main tool was dikes, that they had to increase the dikes and that this was their main tool to prevent floods. Have they talked to you about that? Is that the way to go, or do you want something else to be done?
Mr. Grant: I don’t think it would be fair to say that not much has been done because it is still early in these relationship agreements. They are only 3 or 4 or 5 years apart after 150 years of not having any say. The work we’re doing is coming together and trying to find a solution that will work for Musqueam and work for the rest of the area.
If diking is the way, I think Musqueam would do that, but right now we don’t have any infrastructure that creates a sustainable and successful flood mitigation. That’s why we thought it was important to enter into these agreements so that we could have a seat at the table when it came to preparing for 30, 40, 50 years into the future.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, councillor, and thank you, Mr. Grant, for being here this evening. I appreciate you taking the time to share your insights with the committee.
Following up on what my colleague asked, I think I heard some of what I am about to ask, but we’re talking about critical infrastructure and focusing on the airport and focusing on the port, and they’re part of your territory. Are you at that table as they talk about their strategies for mitigation? How involved are you in that? Are you on the ground floor helping them understand what the risk may be? Tied to that, how do discussions take into account traditional knowledge and the history passed through elders and whatnot in terms of the histories of the area and the effects of changing conditions? How does that all work?
Ms. Fraser: I will defer to Wade Grant on the port authority agreement, but with YVR and Musqueam, through our relationship agreement, we have two councillors that sit at that table with members of YVR. We also have an employee that is there that is the go-between, both when we are creating community meetings or we’re organizing meetings with different partners throughout YVR. As Wade indicated earlier, we are still working out the kinks of that agreement, and we are, through our staff in the Intergovernmental Affairs Section, meeting with them on a regular basis, so we do have a voice at the table. At the lower level with staff, working with the grounds crew and other people at YVR, and at the relationship with the two council members and YVR executives, we are continuously in discussions with regard to climate change and different effects on our lands and any development that they’re doing. We’re always fully involved, and they have been really great at that level. If they do anything, we have our archaeological people on site. We have our different employees that will attend on anything that they’re doing over at YVR. It is a good relationship.
Senator Quinn: If I may, does traditional knowledge become a factor in those discussions and the deliberations that you are involved in?
Ms. Fraser: It does, and we have had meetings with our elders. When we have needed to consult with our community members, we always have the first meetings with our elders group, and then we reach out to the broader community.
Senator Quinn: Mr. Grant, will you talk about that same relationship with Vancouver Fraser Port Authority?
Mr. Grant: Yes, absolutely. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority agreement was a follow-up to the YVR agreement and seeing that we could create a relationship based on mutual respect with such a large entity.
In fact, Peter Xotta, the new CEO of the Fraser Port Authority, came down to Musqueam yesterday and toured Musqueam. It is a relationship that has grown over the last 10 or 15 years with mutual respect, not just with respect to right outside of our community but across all of the territory of Musqueam, all the way to the south where a Deltaport expansion is being proposed, ensuring that Musqueam’s voice is at the table when it comes to the harvesting of seafood, et cetera, and how we’ve used those waters for thousands and thousands of years. It’s allowing us to bring that traditional voice that you are talking about, that traditional knowledge and culture that has sustained and allowed us to protect the waters. That is becoming, more and more, an important voice around that table, and they are allowing us to do that. We have that same sort of table at the port authority with two councillors being at the leadership level with the port.
Senator Quinn: Following on that, we have had different witnesses talk about what will happen between now and 2100 as climate change continues, and they talk about having a 1-metre rise in sea level during that period, and I believe, as some researchers have also talked about, it’s not a linear increase. It’s an upswing. As I said last night or yesterday, it’s like a curved hockey stick, not a straight blade, and things may happen sooner than we think. Given that, what are your biggest concerns with respect to the location of the port and the airport within your territory? Is that something that is of concern, not only that sea level rise to your current situation but to the big transportation structures that are there as well? What would be your biggest concerns, and how do we address them?
Mr. Grant: The biggest concerns, senator, are that we are pretty much below the flood plain, right at the mouth of the Fraser River, and these big pieces of critical infrastructure are around the same area as us.
Another one, for example, is the Metro Vancouver sewage treatment plant. It’s right across the river from us, and they are looking to upgrade that in the next 15 to 20 years. That infrastructure needs to be raised. To be able to walk in lockstep with them, we want to partner with them and make sure it is done in the right way. When that was built in the 1960s, we had no say. The largest sewage pipe that runs to that sewage treatment plant runs right through the middle of our community, and we never had any say in allowing that pipe to go through here. This is then allowing us to have a say, and we are saying that if we are going to do this and move forward, we have got to look that seven generations ahead to ensure that we all work together to ensure that water, when it does rise, doesn’t rise and flood us all out.
Senator Quinn: And YVR? Councillor, do you have any observations?
Ms. Fraser: With YVR, we are always concerned about any developments or improvements that they want to be making over at the YVR site, but as we indicated earlier, they have been instrumental in this agreement with partnering with us and being inclusive. I can’t say at the moment that I’m concerned that they wouldn’t create or build something without considering the impacts on the Musqueam reserve.
Senator Quinn: At the end of the day, the purpose of this is that this group will be making a report back to the Senate, and it will have recommendations. What’s the one recommendation you think we should be paying attention to and be putting forward to our colleagues?
Ms. Fraser: As I indicated with the YVR agreement, we made great strides in creating a great partnership with them. I’m sure there are going to be more hurdles along the way. It wasn’t an easy agreement to come to.
As Wade has indicated, right now Musqueam’s main concern is the Iona sewage plant across the way. They’re still trying to find a site to relocate to. They are in negotiations with that, but I can’t say that they’ve been easy discussions at the moment. We also have our leaseholders who live in Musqueam IR2 who are quite concerned about the impacts of the Iona treatment plant.
Mr. Grant: Senator, you hit the nail on the head. Traditional knowledge and teachings are something that need to be taken seriously. We have seen the impacts of climate change in so many different First Nations territories over the years, the flooding and the wildfires up in the Interior. Recognizing that we have thousands of years of history and understanding of what can and should be done to mitigate or prevent any future catastrophes, I think that there are ways for us to walk in lockstep with the knowledge that we all share.
Senator Simons: We’ve heard a fair bit so far in our study about the Port of Vancouver and the airport, but you’re the first people who have flagged for us a concern about the Metro Vancouver barge site. Could you tell us a little bit more where that is, what it does and what your concerns about it are?
Mr. Grant: There are a number of options that we understand are available. The Musqueam are at the impetus of our conversations with Metro Vancouver. The Musqueam want to have an informed decision on where the barge site would go, because it would impact the flow of traffic right in front of our community.
Senator Simons: This isn’t a thing that already exists; this is a thing in the planning stages.
Mr. Grant: It is in the planning stages, but I do know that one of the sites that has been marked was a barge site built when they originally built the site in the 1960s. There are other options up and down the river that have been identified, but one has not been chosen.
Senator Simons: Would these barges carry freight? What is their function?
Mr. Grant: From my understanding, senator, they would be carrying the materials to build or to improve the current site. I have been told that if they didn’t use the barges, they would be using dozens of semi-tractor-trailer trucks every day to bring that in to be able to adequately build that. So the barge would be one, two or three barges a day as opposed to 40 or 50 semi-trucks every day.
Senator Simons: I’m confused. They’re building a barge site to fix the barge site?
Mr. Grant: No. They’re building a barge site to bring in material to improve that infrastructure.
Senator Simons: Which infrastructure?
Mr. Grant: The sewage treatment plant. There is a plan to improve the sewage treatment plant.
Senator Simons: Okay. Now I am with you. So this isn’t about moving freight from the Fraser to the port or anything like that.
Mr. Grant: No.
Senator Simons: You talked about the booms in the river. I confess that I’m a Prairie girl. Whenever I have visited the West Coast, I see the booms, but I don’t actually know what they do. What is their function? Why does the Port of Vancouver use them? Are they meant to be flood mitigation in any way, or are they for the smoother transit of freight?
Mr. Grant: The log booms are being transferred down from other parts of British Columbia — I don’t know exactly where — to be processed in the logging industry. It’s like a parking lot for the logs.
Senator Simons: Okay.
Mr. Grant: Hundreds, if not thousands, of them are parked in front of our community 365 days a year. They become very dangerous for our fishers because some of those logs don’t always stay intact. They’ll drop to the bottom of the river and create a lot of debris that can impact our fishery because the nets and stuff get ripped apart. It becomes dangerous because that part of the river is not dredged.
Senator Simons: Do the higher water levels that people have been seeing have an impact on how dangerous those booms are?
Mr. Grant: Correct me if I’m wrong, councillor. We’ve seen a lot more lost logs that have washed up on our shore in the last little while. If you come to Musqueam and look at our foreshore, there are dozens of logs that have washed up and are now permanently misplaced there.
Ms. Fraser: They’re permanently beached there.
In the recent couple of years since COVID, we’ve started to re-establish our cultural practices of the canoe pulley, and it has really increased activities for our youth, for their mental wellness and other things such as that. When they’re out on those waters and those logs drift out and separate from the rest of the logs there, it becomes very dangerous for them to participate in those types of activities.
Senator Simons: To get back to the question of the transportation infrastructure, which is our focus, in an earlier part of our study, we were talking to people from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia about the Chignecto Isthmus. We heard from people who said that, instead of building dikes, we needed to go back to a more natural wetlands management where you allow the wetlands to come back, and they can hold water, but if you just keep building dikes, you’re actually interfering with the traditional, historic way that the waters were managed. I don’t want to say they managed themselves, but that there was a way, before we intervened, that might actually be safer. Does the Musqueam Nation have any historic, traditional knowledge about ways that we might deal with mitigation of flood risk beyond just bigger dikes?
Ms. Fraser: I’m sure that our people did have some traditional ways of dealing with flood mitigation and other things such as that, but I’d have to defer the question and get answers from our staff that are more expert in that area and who have been having discussions on a continuous basis with the Port Authority and YVR.
Senator Simons: Terrific.
You made this bold statement: “The Crown shall consult with and accommodate Musqueam about mitigation strategies …” Are there things that the port and the airport are doing now that you feel are infringing on your rights and title, or is it more that you’re saying this pre-emptively because you want to be a full partner at the table?
Ms. Fraser: I guess pre-emptively because we want to be more of a full partner at the table and be involved in the decision making of the impacts on the Musqueam reserve, specifically IR2.
Senator Simons: There isn’t anything in particular they’ve done that you’ve found objectionable thus far?
Ms. Fraser: With YVR thus far, no, because they’ve been quite inclusive with us at the table. The agreement itself has made a huge difference. I know the port authority and others are looking at those agreements because the YVR agreement is working for us.
In terms of the port, I defer to Wade, as he works more with intergovernmental affairs on that one.
Mr. Grant: I think that the port has made a concerted effort. We still have a long way to go, but we have a start.
I’ll give you an example, senator. About 15 years ago, before this relationship started, Musqueam members went down to the river. There were new pilings to tie up those log booms that I was telling you about, and they were right in front of our community again. We were never consulted or talked to because the river and riparian rights don’t extend to a First Nations reserve. That’s what we were told. We went down. The CEO at the time was Robin Silvester, who came down. He looked at it and said, “You’re right. That’s not a good way to have that relationship,” and within a week they had pulled those pilings away. That was the start of the relationship and being able to have mutual trust.
Things are getting better, and it’s creating a space for people like Councillor Fraser to be at those tables.
Senator Simons: Thank you. That’s helpful and encouraging.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here tonight from Vancouver.
Do you have any idea where they might put the treatment plant? Has it come to some kind of direction they’re going to take in terms of where they might put that? Is there a serious study happening about that now, and are you involved with them in the study of where they might put this? I think it is a major stumbling block for your reserve to have a sewage plant right across the way. How close is this to being resolved, or is it close to being resolved?
Ms. Fraser: No. We’ve just started our negotiations with Metro Vancouver on the location. As Wade indicated earlier, they have three sites that they’re looking at, and we’re still in consultation with them. As a matter of fact, we’re having a meeting tomorrow with them to try to determine where they want to place this and if we agree with that. We’re very early in discussions with them.
Senator Richards: But there is a resolve to go forward and do this? There is a resolve on both sides to get this done?
Ms. Fraser: They want to get it done. They’re determined to upgrade and expand on the sewage plant that they have in place right now. We want to hear what those ideas are, so we’re at the table with them to try to determine that. Whether we agree with it or not, we’re not at that stage.
Senator Richards: I’m wondering if there is an association, besides the political association, between the band and the Greater Vancouver area. Do First Nations from your band work at the port authority, or is there an interconnectedness beyond the political interconnectedness that has been going on in the last few years?
Mr. Grant: Yes. With respect to the airport, there has become more interconnectedness. We have more of our community members working at the airport than ever before with respect to any infrastructure or builds. There are opportunities for Musqueam-led businesses to be a part of that and to obtain contracts. If there is an upgrade on a piece of property that the port owns in different areas, I’m sure that there are opportunities for Musqueam members and businesses to be a part of that, and same with the airport as they upgrade their facilities. There are more than just political opportunities. There are opportunities for our community members to be more engaged in the economy of Metro Vancouver.
Senator Richards: That’s really good to hear.
What is the main fish that your fishers fish? Is it salmon?
Mr. Grant: It is.
Ms. Fraser: Sockeye salmon.
Senator Richards: Pacific salmon, not Miramichi eastern salmon?
Mr. Grant: As just a bit of a lesson for you, senators, the word “sockeye” actually comes from our language, hən̓q̓əmin̓əm. There you go. That’s what we’ve given to the world, the word “sockeye.”
Senator Richards: That’s great. Salmon in Mi’kmaq is plamu. Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us.
Ms. Fraser, 20 years as an elected councillor? You are a strong woman. That is tough.
Ms. Fraser: Twenty years, yes. My portfolio is usually in housing, and I dabble a bit in the other areas of our nation.
Senator Clement: That’s amazing. Thank you for your service there as a woman being elected.
Ms. Fraser: Thank you.
Senator Clement: I’m very interested — and I’ve asked other witnesses this — about the communications between the different orders of government. You’ve talked about the friendship agreements that you have with the port and the airport, but I’m wondering about your relationship and communications directly with the city, directly with the province and directly with the federal government. It was striking to me to read “municipal colonialism.” I often think of colonialism from a federal perspective, but, of course, all orders of government have structural colonialism. I wonder if you could comment on your relationship to the different orders of government and how those communications work for you.
When you talk about mitigation, who’s going to pay for that mitigation? It’s not the money you get through the friendship agreement. How are you working on that, or are you having talks around that?
Ms. Fraser: Of course, we speak with the city council on a continuous basis and the other municipalities that surround us, like the Richmond and Burnaby municipalities. We’re in constant talks with the ministers at the federal and provincial levels.
With the City of Vancouver, over the years we have created a better relationship where we have the city service agreement, and we’ve negotiated some good terms under that agreement. The relationship has been quite good, especially with our chief, who often sits with the mayors or different political representatives at that level.
We have government-to-government meetings with the City of Vancouver, the municipality and the mayors and councils of Burnaby and New Westminster. Together, collectively, we discuss the impacts of all things for the Musqueam reserve. They have provided some financial opportunities. It’s mostly to build capacity within our organization in order to address and sit at that table when we’re speaking about the different projects and other things that go on.
With the federal and provincial governments, that’s mostly dealt with through our chief, who is quite good at negotiating and delivering the message of how things are impacting the Musqueam reserve and how we can work together to address all those concerns.
Senator Clement: I guess I’d like to know what would need to be improved, then, in terms of you feeling hopeful for the future. You described a lot of the risks for your community. You’re building a relationship, but your colleague pointed out that these friendship agreements are recent. They are just a few years old. Climate change, we understand, is an urgent matter. What do you want to see happen more urgently, or what do you see that needs to be improved?
Ms. Fraser: The agreements are fresh, but it’s a start to building a better relationship, having us at the table to have that traditional knowledge and other things like that shared, so that we can be included in whatever projects and developments they are doing to address climate change in what we call the outside world. We have never been involved at this level that we are right now and getting our foot in the door. We’ve always been left on the side. To improve all of that is a start with these agreements, but I would like to see more focus and attention placed on Musqueam Indian reserve because we are below the flood plains. One disaster is going to wipe us all out. I think that more attention needs to be focused on our people and our community because they’ve done a lot in the outskirts of the city of Vancouver to protect the people, but there hasn’t been too much focus on us, so that’s what I would hope.
Mr. Grant: Senator, thank you for the question.
I think what we are looking at is that we have made a lot of great strides with reconciliation when it comes to government-to-government relationships, but on the ground, we’re still at the early planning part of that. When I say on the ground, I say that as neighbours, as people who have lived in this area for thousands of years now alongside people who have lived in the city of Vancouver for over 100 years.
Musqueam has taken it upon itself, as an example, to protect the wild salmon stock in the creek that still runs through our reserve. We have the last surviving wild salmon stream that runs through our community. In every other stream in the city of Vancouver, those fish have been reintroduced there. Musqueam has taken it upon themselves, using their own funds and partnering with not-for-profits, to protect that creek. If it wasn’t for the Musqueam people taking that leadership role, those salmon would have gone extinct. Now we have over 110 salmon coming up that creek every year to spawn due to the protection of that.
Having partnerships on the ground level where we want to ensure that we protect this for the future — yes, we have great relationships between leadership, but let’s get together on the ground level to find out what is causing things to go sideways sometimes. Musqueam has taken that leadership role and has shown that we can be successful in protecting and mitigating any disaster that comes along, and that shows through our protection of the salmon that we still hold so dearly.
Senator Clement: Thank you to you both.
The Chair: On second round, we have ten minutes left and two colleagues with questions. Senator Miville-Dechêne, you can determine how generous you want to be.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will be quite generous. I just have one question, and I know Senator Quinn loves water, boats, marinas and all those things, so I will let him have some time.
I have a question about this new Roberts Bank Terminal 2, which is a new terminal that will be built in the Port of Vancouver. From what we have read, remediation measures were taken to construct this new terminal in an environmentally friendly way. The federal government is saying that they have your support and that you were involved or in agreement with all those remediation measures. Other experts are saying it’s not enough. Can you tell us directly what you think of what’s being done? Have you been consulted, and are you in agreement with the measures? I think one of them has to do with the routes that the fish are taking and will be moved because of this construction. I don’t know if it’s salmon or something else, but they are fish.
Ms. Fraser: Wade has been more involved in this project. Again, those are intergovernmental affairs things.
Mr. Grant: Thank you for the question, senator.
Musqueam did have a long consultation with the government and also the port, which has put forward this presentation. Our chiefs and leaders did sign an agreement in support of the terminal expansion. Having been living and fishing in that area, we did have experts from Musqueam to consult with and to ensure that the voices of those who were concerned were heard from our community. There are a number of fishers that still fish in that area, but they will be involved as the project keeps on going forward. Yes, Musqueam did sign an agreement that they support that. I believe that was signed in 2001.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Great. Another success.
Senator Quinn: I must say that I had a question similar to that on Roberts Bank, but I will switch to the other one that I have, and that’s to do with YVR. We’ve had various folks talking about what mitigation strategies there could be with sea‑level rise, whether it’s increased heights and insulation dikes. But we have heard people speculating about the relocation of the airport, which is a huge undertaking, as is anything else, like raising the airport or whatever. What would your reaction be if a decision was taken over the next 25 years that they will relocate the airport to another site where there is less impact from sea‑level rise, et cetera? Would it be damaging to the economy of Musqueam? What concerns would you have?
Ms. Fraser: Good question. I haven’t put thought into them moving the airport, but I’m sure that we would have quite a bit of concern on how that would impact Musqueam, our lands and traditional territory. I’m sorry. I have never had that thought, and it has never been discussed at our table.
Mr. Grant: Musqueam has four reserves. One we don’t have any more, but Musqueam reserve number 3 is on Sea Island right next to the airport, so there would be an impact on that. I think that it would be something that Musqueam would be concerned with because of that friendship agreement that they have just signed. I think that was a first step towards real reconciliation, which is putting boots on the ground, putting leaders in different chairs that they have never been in before. To have something like that finally come to fruition and a decade later having it moved, I think it would be something our leadership would like to have a say in. Leadership would like to be able to have input. If it were moved, our leadership would definitely want to have input on what that land was going to become later. Any land that close to us, I think, Musqueam would be keen on knowing what’s going to be done with that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fraser, and Mr. Grant, for coming before the committee and sharing your perspective and answering diligently and thoughtfully all the questions from the committee.
Ms. Fraser: Thank you for having us.
The Chair: For our second panel this evening, I am pleased to welcome by videoconference, Bridgitte Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade; Alex Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce; and Michael Bonshor, Managing Director, First Nations Business Development Association.
Welcome to all of you and thank you for joining us. We will be having opening remarks five minutes each from Ms. Anderson, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bonshor and then proceed to question and answers from my colleagues on the committee. Ms. Anderson, you have the floor.
Bridgitte Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade: Thank you very much, and good afternoon, honourable senators. I’m speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
On behalf of our membership of over 5,000 businesses, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impacts of climate change on critical trade infrastructure in federal supply chains and the transportation sector.
Businesses across Canada rely on well-functioning and predictable supply chains and transportation networks for exporting and accessing imports. Our international reputation as a trading partner also depends on the resilience of these networks.
At the same time, our region is experiencing an unprecedented population growth, which is adding increased pressures on both supply chains and infrastructure. With this growth, the urgency and critical importance of resilient infrastructure become even more pronounced.
Against this background, extreme climate events remain a top challenge facing our communities. Here in B.C., flooding and wildfire events have proven to be devastating to the safety of British Columbians and the communities they call home.
In November 2021, extreme flooding resulted in loss of life, evacuation, and social and emotional hardship for communities across B.C., including 42 First Nations. Supply chain links between the Port of Vancouver and national supply corridors were severed, isolating Metro Vancouver from the interior of the province and the rest of Canada. The impacts on the agricultural sector were also significant, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of livestock and submersion of thousands of acres of agricultural land.
In July 2021, wildfires damaged rail lines, leading to a brief suspension of train shipments in the Fraser Canyon.
These extreme weather events, and others, critically damaged vital supply chain networks connecting goods and people in rural and urban areas within B.C., and B.C. with the rest of the country. Supply chain disruptions also fuel inflation and cause economic stress for businesses and families across Canada.
Transportation is a comprehensive ecosystem and relies on all modes working together. We saw this in action during the 2021 flooding when aviation remained operational and certain segments of the train network continued functioning. While opening up additional truck route options through the U.S.A. did occur, it took a while to happen.
We are incredibly pleased to see the new National Supply Chain Office, as we feel they have a lot to offer in collaboration with industry.
Today, we present several key recommendations to government.
First, develop a national infrastructure strategy and plan prioritizing infrastructure of national significance that requires increased resilience or new infrastructure to support our unprecedented growth. While there has been some federal progress in this area, it has been gradual and lacking clarity on priorities, delaying crucial infrastructure developments.
Second, collaborate with the private sector to address issues, including data gaps, flood mapping and wildfire risk management.
Third, ensure that policies promote a competitive investment climate, allowing for necessary upgrades of new infrastructure while recognizing trade-offs. For example, telecommunications companies have a couple of “mainline” connections/interchanges between Alberta and B.C. Building resiliency means less capital for the new network capabilities or other priorities. There are real trade-offs, and governments should take a light touch and collaborate with industry on the approach.
Fourth, speed up infrastructure permitting processes. The current permitting timelines in Canada are excessively long and hindering any progress. Expedited permitting not only saves costs but also enables more construction. B.C.’s rapid and record-breaking reconstruction of the Coquihalla highway serves as a testament to what can be done if we are all working together in a more enabling environment. Similar urgency and collaboration are needed more often.
Fifth, align funding for climate-resilient infrastructure with the level of population growth. By addressing population growth and climate challenges collectively through coordinated funding, we can ensure the ongoing strength and adaptability of our infrastructure to meet our evolving needs and our expanding communities.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will now turn to Mr. Bonshor.
Michael Bonshor, Managing Director, First Nations Business Development Association: [Indigenous language spoken]
Good evening, here and there as well. My name is Michael Bonshor. I’m a member of the Dzawada̱ʼenux̱w First Nation of Kingcome Inlet, British Columbia. I’m joining you today from the unceded ancestral territory of the Squamish Nation.
I’ve been invited as the managing director of the B.C. First Nations Business Development Association, or the FNBDA, as we call it, which we started in earnest in 2020, early in the pandemic. We’re an association comprised of members of development corporations, so these are First Nation companies that are owned by a B.C. First Nation, or one or more First Nations. We have just under 50 members in our association, and it comprises nearly 100 First Nations from across the province. Some of our members are owned by more than one nation. We focus on supporting and advocating and creating opportunities that benefit our members, also with an eye towards supporting representative participation in the provincial economy by B.C. First Nations.
On the topic of climate change and the effects of climate change, there has been, certainly in the recent past and some of the instances Ms. Anderson noted — the flooding in 2021 and our fire season, which is starting to become an annual event and also a longer event in each of the years — devastating effects on our members’ owners. Those First Nations are, I would say, disproportionately affected by climate change in a number of different ways. It affects our livelihood, our economic standing and our health, and it further affects and does damage to other issues such as food security. All these topics are really top of mind with our membership as well as First Nations from across the province.
As we’re working to become greater players in the provincial economy, we’re also mindful that our economy is changing, and some of that is out of necessity. A lot of our members have traditionally been involved in the natural resource sector, such as forestry and fisheries. Climate impacts are one contributing factor to the decline of those sectors, so our communities and our members from across the province are having to reinvent themselves at the same time as the provincial economy is adapting as well. That’s part of what our focus is within the FNBDA.
I will keep my comments brief. I look forward to your questions, and I thank you for the opportunity to participate.
The Chair: We will now turn it over to Ms. Mitchell.
Alex Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce: Thank you so much, honourable senators. It is my privilege to be here to represent the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce and deliver this message on behalf of our nearly 700 members from across Abbotsford’s diverse business community in one of the fastest growing communities in Canada. In our community, we’re grateful to live and work on the traditional territory of the Halq’eméylem-speaking people, the Stó:lo people.
Our members include businesses of all sizes and across all sectors, including those who rely on critical infrastructure like the Trans-Canada Highway for the movement of goods and people not only through the Fraser Valley, but from the Fraser Valley, as products move from Abbotsford to the Port of Metro Vancouver and out to the rest of the world.
I have two priorities I would like to address today. The first is looking at infrastructure from the lens of its impact on connectivity of the region and our supply chains, and the second is with respect to Abbotsford’s importance to national and global food security. I recognize some of the excellent comments made by my colleague from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. I’m happy to focus many of my comments specifically on Abbotsford.
Firstly, with respect to connectivity through strategic corridors, while we’re discussing the impacts of climate change on infrastructure in Vancouver, there is strategic national and regional importance of Abbotsford as one of the largest communities in British Columbia by geography. Abbotsford is a border city, host to numerous rail networks, and also home to the Abbotsford International Airport, a strategically important asset that adds to the region’s capacity for air travel and the movement of goods.
As extreme weather events continue to impact infrastructure, connectivity often suffers. Here I will speak specifically to Highway 1, the Trans-Canada Highway, which remains one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure relating to the rest of the region. We know that the highway through Abbotsford and Chilliwack specifically is not meeting current needs, with over 80,000 vehicles using it every single day, and we know how a significant climate event causing an interruption on this corridor can wreak enormous economic havoc on our province and country. We saw this during the devastating flooding in November of 2021 and the unparalleled impact of economic disruption from its closure. When supply chains ground to a halt, an estimated $16.3 billion in GDP coming out of the largest port in Canada — the Port of Metro Vancouver — was cut off from the rest of the Lower Mainland for days.
The second element I want to speak to is preservation of farmland to address Canada’s food security. The Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce’s recent report on the economic impact of agriculture found that the sector generates $3.83 billion in economic activity annually in Abbotsford alone. With the highest gross farm receipts in the country, Canada’s food security is contingent on Abbotsford. We need to ensure that critical infrastructure is maintained and is resilient to the impacts of climate change, ultimately speaking to the paramount need for new investments in flood mitigation infrastructure.
A small pump station in Barrowtown became a part of the national conversation in November of 2021, as did our diking infrastructure, as many Canadians learned what businesses and farmers in the Fraser Valley have known for years: infrastructure matters in protecting the Sumas Prairie and the agricultural sector that feeds so many Canadians.
I would be remiss if I didn’t share a comment related to community resiliency when discussing the atmospheric river event, as it fell to community to organize quickly to reduce the impacts on farmers and get through the immediate disaster. Through the Abbotsford Disaster Relief Fund, the chamber, alongside numerous community partners, quickly activated to disperse emergency funding to businesses and farmers. However, the community still asks the question: What about future events? What about next time?
We must ensure that our critical infrastructure remains open and accessible as climate change continues and build additional resiliency-focused infrastructure to mitigate climate impacts, and we can do that through a national strategy on infrastructure.
We truly appreciate the opportunity to engage in this committee’s work. Any assessment of the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure must be seen through the lens of connectivity through strategic corridors like Abbotsford in addition to understanding how flood mitigation infrastructure is essential to national food security and the preservation of Canada’s most productive agricultural land. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I really want to thank Ms. Mitchell for reminding us of the Abbotsford International Airport, which is not something we have talked about yet. When the flooding hit Sumas Prairie a couple of years ago with the atmospheric river, I know a lot of Abbotsford’s farmlands were flooded, but can you tell me if the airport was ever at risk and how far the airport is from the flood plain?
Ms. Mitchell: Thank you for the question.
The airport is a ways away from the Sumas Prairie area, but the strategic importance of Abbotsford airport, or YXX, is all about adding additional capacity into our region. It really does serve as that emergency management and additional level of support for the community at large. It wasn’t directly affected, but it is absolutely a key and critical piece.
Senator Simons: With witnesses telling us that the beautiful Vancouver airport may not be sustainable in the long term, one wouldn’t want to move to a second airport that was also potentially at risk. Is there capacity at Abbotsford if that needed to happen?
Ms. Mitchell: To add in, with YXX, it really does serve as that secondary airport from YVR. It is a critical asset. It is also one of the fastest-growing airports in Canada. Additional capacity continues to be added, especially for low-cost carriers and such, so it’s critical to have this key piece of infrastructure available for the province at large, and it’s something that we continue to advocate for further investment in.
Senator Simons: Then if we turn to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, it seems to me that one of the tremendous challenges of dealing with flood mitigation in the Lower Mainland is there are so many separate municipalities that are all in a very relatively small footprint. How many communities are represented by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade?
Ms. Anderson: Thank you for the question, senator.
You are correct. There are 21 municipalities in the Greater Vancouver region, and our membership comprises about 5,500 members from across the region, so there is a wide representation across a diversity of industries and sectors. We really do represent all sizes of business, from the micro entrepreneur to the largest employers in the region, so we have a broad-based membership and really do reflect the priorities of the full region.
Senator Simons: Is it hard to organize anything when you’ve got almost two dozen municipalities, each with their own little bit of the territory and almost all of it vulnerable to flood?
Ms. Anderson: Certainly there are challenges given the number of municipalities and different permitting and processes that are alive in each of the municipalities. Probably one of the best examples I could use is when we brought in car sharing in British Columbia. There was a different approach in probably all 21 municipalities, but there is a willingness in this region to work together, particularly in times of crisis. We saw that in November of 2021. It really was remarkable to look at the way the Coquihalla recovery and repair happened, and it happened so quickly. If there is a will, there is a way. You do note we have a large number of municipalities and mayors and councillors who need to come together, particularly at times of crisis, to work together to find those solutions.
Senator Simons: Ms. Anderson, I have one last question for you. A couple of years ago, there was a conference of short-track rail people that happened in Edmonton. One of the speakers was from Vancouver, and she talked about how extraordinarily difficult it was to do anything because the cost of land in Metro Vancouver is punishingly high. Any time you’re trying to build transportation infrastructure, it’s next to impossible to acquire land. She said they put in rail lines and people built condos next to the rail lines and the people in the condos tried to shut the rail lines down. When you’ve got so many people in a fast-growing area where housing is at a premium, how difficult is it to do the land assembly you need to talk about flood mitigation work or to enhance transportation hubs?
Ms. Anderson: We have a critical issue when it comes to costs in this jurisdiction. It comes as no surprise to anybody who knows Vancouver. That affordability impacts businesses, families and individuals. Certainly, it applies to land, and it applies to the housing market.
We produced a report in the fall about the industrial land shortage, which is critical to our area. We did note that over just a period of about four years, we lost about $500 million in GDP to Calgary alone. Just the lack of industrial land alone is a significant problem for businesses trying to grow.
Your question about land assembly when it comes to transportation needs is another point that is taken. We are constrained by the mountains, by the ocean, and by the border. We have a limited ability and limited access to land. That makes it very challenging in this province.
Senator Simons: As an Alberta senator, I can’t be sorry you lost so much business to Calgary. If you wouldn’t mind forwarding a copy of that report to our clerk, that could be useful to us.
Ms. Anderson: I would be happy to do that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being with us this afternoon or evening. Your presentations are very interesting for me. I’m a former board chair in my Chamber of Commerce in my hometown down East.
My question is on the relationships. We’re looking at the Vancouver Airport and the Port of Vancouver. All three of you represent significant businesses with members that do business utilizing those assets, and those assets seem to be at varying degrees of risk, if I can put it that way, with respect to climate change. As Chambers of Commerce and as the First Nation business association, how much interaction do you have with the airport and the port? Whoever wants to start, please chime in. I want to hear from all three.
Ms. Anderson: I would be happy to give comments. Both the port and YVR are incredibly important partners to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade as employers and big economic generators in our region. We work very collaboratively with both of those organizations in regard to their business priorities and to educating and engaging the public through our membership. We have regular touch points throughout the organization and host them regularly on our stage so they have an opportunity to connect with the business community.
Ms. Mitchell: I’m happy to speak to that. In Abbotsford, the context is a little bit different in that the Abbotsford International Airport is a city-owned asset. We work very closely with our municipality and all municipal infrastructure that is critical to our community. We work very collaboratively to share information to ensure that the needs of our members and the local business community are being heard all through that local level of government, and they oftentimes participate in our conversations and our events and speak to our members about development opportunities and what’s next for that, specifically the airport.
Mr. Bonshor: Thanks for the question. From a First Nation perspective, the relationships that those entities are developing and growing with First Nations were initially premised on the legal duty to consult and in some cases accommodate First Nations’ interests or address impacts to rights or titles. Those kinds of conversations fall to the First Nation governments themselves primarily. Those relationships have evolved to the point where they’re starting to also talk about economic and socio-economic considerations as well. From a straight business and development corporation standpoint, we’re kind of a step removed in that we might work with Musqueam Capital Corporation, but it’s themselves and their parent owner that are mostly directly involved, given their standing.
Senator Quinn: Would it be fair for me to assume that all three of the organizations, each of you and the businesses that you represent, have a high degree of dependence on the smooth functioning of the airport and the port? Okay.
Given that, can you share some of the strategic discussions you have? For example, if you were listening earlier, I raised the question about previous witnesses speculating on sea-level rise and the effect on the airport more specifically than the port. If the airport was lost and had to be relocated, what strategic discussions, if any, do you have in taking into account the businesses that you represent? There are 5,000 in Vancouver, and I think you said 700 in Abbotsford, and I think, Mr. Bonshor, you said there were 50 businesses tied into 100 First Nations. Looking after their interests, what discussions do you have for long-term strategies should something happen to any of those two crucial assets because of climate change, affecting their operation and, indeed, their sustainability?
Mr. Bonshor: Our perspective is a little bit different in that one of our focuses is to enable our membership and First Nations in B.C. to participate in a more equitable basis in the province’s economy. One of the drivers of our economy here in B.C. and in Canada is the area of export and, associated to that, transportation. The reality is that First Nations’ participation in terms of percentage of goods moved and value of goods transported or exported is nominal. We have very limited participation in the export sector. In terms of strategic conversations, it’s something we’ve talked about with both the federal and provincial governments. I won’t belabour it because it’s not what you’re here to learn about, but they’re not quite there yet in terms of having those kinds of strategic conversations that represent Indigenous economic reconciliation to address these areas.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Ms. Mitchell: In terms of the strategic conversations we have with our airport, those are about economic development opportunities for the aerospace and aviation cluster around the airport but also, more strategically, how the airport serves as an economic generator for the region and adds additional capacity to British Columbia for air travel. That is one key piece.
The other piece I will speak to — again, grounded in the strong agricultural sector in our community — is that the Abbotsford chamber is a vocal voice on advocacy in terms of new investments in flood mitigation infrastructure that we believe are critical. The food security component that I touched on is critical. We continue to add our voice to all of those efforts to push for construction of additional infrastructure that keeps farmland viable for the long term.
Ms. Anderson: We have a slightly different approach, given the partnerships that we have with the port and YVR. Both organizations are intrinsically involved in our policy committees. We are looking at that holistically with both organizations as economic generators for the region. The discussions we’re having could be about attracting and retaining talent or about infrastructure. They could be about a number of things.
In terms of your question with regard to the airport, their economic output is $20 billion, so they are a significant driver of the economy in our region. We can look at the disruptions we’ve seen in the port. I testified before another standing committee some time ago with regard to the impact of the labour dispute. We know that, over a short period of time during the labour dispute, $10 billion worth of goods were impacted. If you think about it in relation to the port or the airport and a disruption of a significant number of days, this would have an impact on workers, on the economy and on local businesses. It would be very significant.
Senator Quinn: Thinking of YVR, as we move to the right, and with the increasing frequency and intensity of weather events and different events that happen because of climate change, if push came to shove and you looked at the investments that would be required to do things at YVR that would set it up for the next number of decades in the face of climate change — some people have talked about raising the airport and some have talked about dike systems and things like that. As those things are examined and the cost factors are better understood, if there is a plan B, can Abbotsford be that regional airport? It’s an hour away. Following up on Senator Simons, can investments be made there to service the Lower Mainland in a way that would replace that which is now done by YVR, should that need ever arise because of the costs of the preventive actions that may be required? Ms. Mitchell, I’m looking for your comment.
Ms. Mitchell: Further investments continue to need to be made into YXX as that economic generator. Ultimately, building out YXX adds resiliency to our overall transportation system. In terms of the specifics of whether it can be a replacement, I won’t speak to that directly, but I’ll speak to it being extremely valuable to continue to make those investments so that the growth continues to be there south of the Fraser. Further investments to build out the capacity of YXX is inherently valuable.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being so diplomatic in your response, and sorry for the directness of my question. What I’m going to take away from that is that, yes, that is something that could be considered in the next 10 or 20 years as we try to deal with expenditures versus other approaches. I’ll leave it at that. I appreciate your answer. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Ms. Anderson. You held a meeting in November 2023. As I understand it, it was a panel discussion with the Port of Vancouver.
On a practical level, did you discuss the flooding hazards and risks in the eventuality that the port ceased to be operational? Are you satisfied with the port’s efforts to prepare for the impacts of climate change? In your opening remarks, you talked about things moving slowly, but I’m not sure whether it had to do with that. I would, however, like to hear your view on it, since your organization represents so many people in the business community.
[English]
Ms. Anderson: I do recall that meeting. Your memory might be better than mine, senator, about whether it was November of 2023. The purpose of that meeting was to bring together a number of the key players involved in the flood response from November of 2021. There was a lot of sharing around the table with regard to lessons learned and also with regard to bringing people together more quickly so that, in the event of another crisis like that, people in the room knew one another and could hear their perspectives. We were pleased to see a national supply chain office open. I think those questions could be better diverted to that organization to answer. We mostly spoke about the lessons learned and about how we could work together to collaborate as industry stakeholders to speak to government about the need for a national supply chain strategy and for climate change resiliency overall.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If you could be a bit more specific about this national supply chain strategy, what are we talking about? What needs to be prepared, changed or reinforced?
Ms. Anderson: Some of those topics are being discussed right now. We’re talking about resiliency in the supply chain, especially when it comes to climate change. In the event that there is another situation like the wildfires or the floods that completely shut down the rail lines or roadways, what can be done?
In the situation of the November 2021 floods, we worked with our counterparts in the U.S., as did the government, to ensure that transportation corridors could be opened up so that goods could move below the border to come up to British Columbia in that way — so the efficiency and the effectiveness of the transportation corridors and also affordability measures.
We have long been proponents of the need to invest in infrastructure. That would be a broad-based approach to infrastructure in the province, given the aging infrastructure and the unprecedented population growth we’re facing in British Columbia. In the Greater Vancouver region alone, 70,000 people — which is the size of the city of North Vancouver — moved into our region last year. That is unprecedented population growth.
A specific strategy is required in order to address, on a national level, what is needed to ensure resiliency now to address some of the infrastructure gaps that are being felt now. The City of Vancouver alone has a $500-million infrastructure deficit that they’re facing every year, so understanding that there are deficits currently and being able to address those and also understanding that we’re trying to build for resiliency in the future in the event of more climate change crises.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can you be more specific when you say reinforcing infrastructure? Is it all infrastructure, or are there particular gaps that should be addressed first?
Ms. Anderson: You would probably have to get that information from the municipalities. We can come up with a more specific list for you and send that in as a follow-up.
I heard the last panel talk about the Iona wastewater facility, which is a $10 billion project. That is one project alone for the region that is going to be critical infrastructure that is needed as we are upgrading that facility.
If we’re talking about infrastructure overall, it really is dependent upon that. We’re talking about roads, railways and bridges and really ensuring that that supply chain corridor can remain. It is addressing the gaps that exist right now but also so we can remain viable and open in the event of more wildfires or floods that are bound to happen.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all the witnesses.
I want to ask a question as a result of something I heard Ms. Mitchell say. What about next time? We are very good at crisis management. We really are. We’re always amazed. We look at the TV, we watch communities come together, and it’s always remarkable. Sometimes I think our vulnerability is in the long-term planning and in the communication it takes to get that right. I worry about that. Ms. Mitchell, you said that when you speak to community members on the ground, they ask, “What about next time?” What do they want to see? You’ve talked about national strategies. All of you have talked about building relationships, networking and connectivity. What does the community say that they want to see so that they feel that next time it’s going to be taken care of, and next time and next time after that?
Ms. Mitchell: Thank you so much, senator, for the question.
The number one thing that we hear from our farmers and our businesses, specifically on the Sumas Prairie, is we want to see the investments into the upgrades of the dike system, the flood mitigation infrastructure pieces that will protect the long-term viability of the Sumas Prairie as some of Canada’s most productive agricultural land. That area is critical, and if we lose its productive capacity, we have an enormously detrimental impact on our national food security, so it really is about seeing that investment happen.
The other piece that continually comes up — we say it over and over again — is Highway 1. It’s seeing that expansion happens, and it’s seeing a prioritization of it as that critical trade route that connects the Fraser Valley through to the Port of Metro Vancouver. So investments into Highway 1 and investments into the upgrades of flood mitigation infrastructure such as our dikes.
Senator Clement: Do the other witnesses have anything to add to that? I heard someone say that we’re not quite there yet. What was meant by that? Perhaps you could delve into that.
Mr. Bonshor: I was speaking to the relationship that both the federal and the provincial governments are working toward with First Nations and the implementation of the different UNDRIP‑related pieces of legislation.
I did want to comment just briefly on the last couple of questions related to what’s needed, what’s next, solutions and so on.
The natural instinct from industry and government, perhaps, is to find a way to build a higher dike, or let’s find a way to build a bigger wall. If we’re talking about solutions that are decades into the future, we need to consider, whether it’s the port or the airport — maybe the port is a better example — that those are the end points of our economic structure. We need to draw a connection between how we collectively — provincially, federally, and maybe even around the world — have shaped our economic activity in our economies, because one of the results of that is the kinds of climate disasters that we’re living through each year now. In having these conversations, in addition to talking about further investments into assets that protect our assets from environmental impacts, we need to talk about what we’re doing out in the land to drive our economy and what that is doing to our climate and our environment.
I appreciate this doesn’t happen in an election cycle, but if we were talking about the degradation of our environment that’s happened in a few short generations that has gotten us to this point, those are the kinds of conversations that we’re having with our communities. We live with the reality that our owners as First Nations aren’t going anywhere. We’re not relocating down to the States or overseas. We’re at where we’re at. The state of our environment, the effects of climate change, are, from that standpoint, even more prevalent, even that much more important. We can draw a connection, for instance, between the extent of damage from fires in the way in which we’ve been extracting logs from our territories or companies have been extracting logs from our territories that eventually end up in the port, as an example.
I wouldn’t want our solutions to lie solely in the end part of the conversation at the port or at the airport, but the conversations really need to cover the full spectrum of how we’re shaping our economy.
Senator Clement: You three could help run the country. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I wear a number of different hats, and one of them is as deputy chair of the Agriculture Committee, so I’m sensitive to concerns about protecting agricultural land. I also know that the Agricultural Land Reserve system in British Columbia has been a source of some controversy and friction. Could tell me — and maybe this is a question for each of the three of you from your different perspectives — if you think there is a concern that the Agricultural Land Reserve system is making it harder to do flood mitigation because they can’t assemble the land necessary to build the dikes or the weirs or the walls or whatever they need to be doing, or is that not a concern?
Ms. Anderson: I have a perspective about it that comes from our Industrial Land Report. Alex may have more of an on‑the‑ground perspective.
In the report that we did, we looked at if just 1% of land was converted to industrial land — that’s land overall, not just ALR land — we would see 126,000 jobs, $8.5 billion in income and $12 billion in GDP. So we recognize that the constraints of the lands overall are significant to the economy.
Your question is about the ALR, though, and it is a sensitive topic in this province. When we’re talking about flood mitigation and agricultural priorities, food security is incredibly important to this part of the equation. From our perspective at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, what we have been urging and recommending to the provincial government is to take that holistic view of land overall and a land-use plan that includes the ALR and includes industrial land and land for housing and land for food security, so to have that broader viewpoint.
Perhaps my colleague from Abbotsford may have a different perspective.
Ms. Mitchell: Thanks so much. First of all, it’s a fantastic report that was done.
The conversation that we have in Abbotsford tends to centre around agri-industrial land. We know that many parcels of land that are in the Agricultural Land Reserve today are not always the most productive for the purposes of agriculture. That’s the conversation we continue to have; it is around adding capacity for food processing and the full lifespan of agriculture and the agriculture sector in our community. That’s the piece when it comes to the ALR and what some of the challenges are right now. Ultimately, the preservation of productive agricultural land is critical, and that’s something we believe needs to be prioritized through these types of infrastructure investments, but opening up the conversation to consider agri-industrial and food processing within our community is key as well.
Mr. Bonshor: Here in B.C., as the provincial government moves through its UNDRIP process, it’s looking to amend legislation that is inconsistent with UNDRIP. One of the pieces of legislation that has been in the news recently pertains to the Land Act and working towards the co-governance of land use decisions with First Nations in British Columbia. I don’t know specifically where the ALR fits within that, but it will be part of that conversation, and this maybe goes to Bridgitte’s point about making decisions on land use in a more comprehensive way that takes into consideration multiple factors.
From our standpoint, one of those considerations that’s going be hardwired in provincial legislation is the advice and direction that First Nations will give as well. All of our communities and their owners from a community and economic development standpoint suffer from a lack of land and resources in which to do business. In some cases, there have been opportunities that have derived from lands that were formerly in the ALR. I say that to bring to light that it is an imperfect system, and there needs to be a better integration of all relevant values to make something like a body or institution like the ALR relevant in today’s time.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to all three of you.
The Chair: Are there any more questions, colleagues?
Seeing none, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here with us this evening and answering all our questions. It is very much appreciated. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)