"Municipalities are on the front lines of climate change. From forest fires in British Columbia to hurricanes on the East Coast to melting permafrost in northern communities, more frequent and unpredictable weather extremes are threatening homes, businesses and critical municipal infrastructure."

Royal Canadian Navy sailors from the Naval Reserve assist Immediate Response Unit soldiers from 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group as they conduct a shoreline reconnaissance of flood afflicted areas in Ottawa, Ontario. Photo: Avr Melissa Gloude/CAF

This federal election, discussion around climate change has pivoted on reducing greenhouse gases and putting a price on carbon. And while we must do more to curb emissions, we are now facing the costs of climate change and the extreme weather that comes with it. Given the flooding, wildfire and windstorms escalating across this country these past three years, adaptation must be a priority for any politician who hopes to lead Canada into the next decade.

Municipalities are on the front lines of climate change. From forest fires in British Columbia to hurricanes on the East Coast to melting permafrost in northern communities, more frequent and unpredictable weather extremes are threatening homes, businesses and critical municipal infrastructure.

Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities set out to find exactly how much government investment is needed to adapt to our changing climate. They contracted Green Analytics to conduct an extensive research study.

The study’s key finding is this: An average annual investment of 0.2 per cent to 0.3 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product is needed to adapt to climate change at the municipal level. But adaptation costs need to be shared by all three orders of government, with the federal investment being well represented by current and future increased support to the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund. In national terms, this represents a total expenditure of approximately $5.3 billion per year.

Without a doubt, it’s an ambitious investment and a serious commitment. But the cost of not adapting is much, much higher. Every $1 invested in adaptation now saves $6 in future recovery costs. So it’s clear that implementing an adaptation strategy now is the most cost-effective and efficient way forward.

Manitoba’s approach to flooding is a valuable example of the importance of adaptation. In 1960, the federal and provincial governments invested $64 million to build the Manitoba Red River Floodway. Since then, the floodway has saved tens of billions of dollars by preventing damage to infrastructure and family homes.

Municipal governments own 60 per cent of Canada’s public infrastructure — the highways, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, sewers and sidewalks we all rely on every day. Yet more than one-third of this vital infrastructure has been rated as being in fair, poor or very poor condition.

READ MORE: Liberals promise net-zero emissions by 2050, offer sparse detail on path ahead

Local leaders are making the most of limited tools to build resilient communities and keep people safe. But local adaptation opportunities far outstrip current federal funding commitments. For example, 60 per cent of the 10-year Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund’s $2 billion was allocated in its first application process. That’s going to leave many vital local projects unfunded.

Another challenge with the fund is that projects under $20 million don’t qualify, such as fixing the local fire hall’s flooded basement or most initiatives involving natural infrastructure like ponds and wetlands. This threshold also needs to be lower so smaller communities can submit their own critical projects.

Envisioning a more effective Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund also means ensuring we tackle the biggest risks. Since 2009, flooding has emerged as Canada’s most pervasive and costly natural disaster. We’ve seen devastating floods in communities across the country.

And flood damage varies dramatically across different regions. Municipalities on the East Coast, for example, are not only vulnerable to flooding, they have rising sea levels, coastal erosion and hurricanes to contend with. In the North, the degradation of the permafrost has created sinkholes and potholes, which are damaging roads, bridges, runways and railways. As a result, these two regions need particularly generous portions of the climate adaptation pie.

With federal party leaders now criss-crossing the country, presenting their visions for Canada’s future, IBC and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have put forward a two-step approach to protect Canadians from extreme weather. First, we are calling on every federal party to unlock ready-to-go projects now by committing to immediately top-up the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund by $2 billion if they are elected. Second, we’re urging federal parties to commit to adaptation in the longer term by providing the fund with no less than an additional $1 billion a year for 20 years.

Adaptation measures bring a multitude of other benefits, from increased employment to reduced energy costs to better air and water quality. These are benefits that every government and every political party can get behind. Furthermore, adaptation saves more than just dollars. After the 2013 flooding in High River, Alberta, for example, there was a 164 per cent increase in the use of anti-anxiety medication. That’s a human cost we simply can’t ignore.

Keeping Canadians safe starts locally, and adapting to climate change cannot wait. Canadians deserve immediate action on adaptation from their federal leaders. With the right tools, municipalities are ready to scale up critical local adaptation work. And with the right tools, they’re ready to build better lives — safely and more securely.

READ MORE: Federation of Municipalities release recommendations to federal parties

Don Forgeron is the president and Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Bureau of Canada and Bill Karsten is the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.