THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 25, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:48 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: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
I am Julie Miville-Dechêne, a senator from Quebec and Deputy Chair of the committee.
[English]
To our witnesses and to those watching our meeting today, it is with deep regret that I convey to all of you the news that the Honourable Senator Ian Shugart passed away earlier today. There will be an opportunity to pay tribute at a later time, but, at this time, I extend deepest sympathies on behalf of all senators and all associated with this meeting to his wife Linda, his son James, his daughters Robin and Heather, and their entire family. I would ask that we now pause and join with me in a moment of silent tribute.
(Those present then stood in silent tribute.)
[Translation]
I would now like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, traditional territory of Mi’kma’ki.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, we meet this evening to continue our study on the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector and our study on the issues surrounding the Chignecto Isthmus.
For our first group of witnesses, we are pleased to welcome to the committee officials from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We have a great panel this evening.
[English]
From the Government of New Brunswick’s Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, we are joined by Rob Taylor, Deputy Minister; Jim Doyle, Director, Strategic Partnership and Trade Corridors; and Melissa Cummings, Director, Environmental Services. They are accompanied by Michael Pauley, Project Manager, Public Services and Procurement Canada.
From the Government of Nova Scotia’s Department of Public Works, we are joined by Peter Hackett, Deputy Minister; and Bonnie Miles-Dunn, Director, Federal Infrastructure Programs and Stakeholder Engagements. They are joined by Kevin Bekkers, Director, Resource Sustainability, Department of Agriculture.
[Translation]
Welcome and thank you for joining us. We will begin with Mr. Taylor’s opening remarks, followed by Mr. Hackett’s, and then we’ll open the floor to questions from committee members.
[English]
Mr. Taylor, the floor is yours for five minutes.
Rob Taylor, Deputy Minister, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Government of New Brunswick: Thank you, deputy chair. First off, I would like to pass along our condolences to the late senator’s family as well. I know that I speak for all witnesses when I say that.
Good evening, honourable senators, deputy chair and other members of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. On behalf of the Government of New Brunswick, my team and I are here to discuss the risk to the Chignecto Isthmus infrastructure from a critical infrastructure perspective due to the impacts of climate change.
The Chignecto Isthmus is the sole land bridge joining mainland New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This isthmus landscape includes communities, Crown land and private lands, including numerous land trusts. Various conservation organizations and rights holders have an interest in the isthmus as well. In addition, the Chignecto Isthmus also houses critical transportation infrastructure, and serves as a major conduit and trade corridor.
This area was originally diked in the 1600s for agriculture, and since then significant infrastructure has been built within the diked area, including the Trans-Canada Highway, the CN railway line, electricity transmission lines and telecommunication lines, as well as increases in population and agricultural lands. As the Mayor of Tantramar and the Mayor of Amherst stated last week, there is a significant people component of the isthmus as well.
From a critical infrastructure perspective, the Chignecto Isthmus is considered to be a trade corridor of national significance, as it is responsible for carrying approximately $35 billion in trade per year on the CN rail line and the Trans-Canada Highway.
Climate change impacts — specifically storm surges and increasing sea levels — pose a risk to infrastructure within the isthmus. Potentially 38 kilometres of dikes, 19 kilometres of Trans-Canada Highway and 19 kilometres of the CN railway could be severely impacted by flooding due to a climatic event in the near future.
Climate change is affecting the frequency and intensity of storms. We will get more precipitation but in fewer, more severe events. This will result in fewer rainy days, but more severe and intense storms. Storm winds will also become stronger, which will increase the storm surge along the coast.
In multiple locations in both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, we can document the sea level rise that has taken place. The following information that I am going to share is from the Marine Environmental Data Section of Fisheries and Oceans Canada: in Saint John, New Brunswick, a 27-centimetre rise in sea level since 1961; in Escuminac, New Brunswick, a 17‑centimetre rise in sea level since 1971; in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, a 21-centimetre rise in sea level since 1966; and in Halifax, Nova Scotia, a 19-centimetre rise in sea level since 1961. Atlantic Canada is expecting a one-metre increase in sea level by 2100, and two metres or more by 2150.
For environments like the isthmus, the sea level rise, more severe precipitation events and higher storm surges will interact to raise water levels significantly in these storm scenarios.
We have been relatively lucky so far, but as the effects of climate change worsen, the chances of this perfect storm increase every year.
The previous information is also referenced in the 2020 R.J. Daigle Enviro report, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2021 Sixth Assessment Report, or AR6.
For over five years, New Brunswick has been working closely with our partner — the Province of Nova Scotia — as we both understand the challenge and risk that climate change and related climatic events have on the critical infrastructure, including the transportation trade corridor, electrical transmission and telecommunication lines, as well as communities and property owners.
Our New Brunswick-Nova Scotia partnership work is ongoing. Through Transport Canada’s National Trade Corridors Fund, we partnered with the federal government in June of 2019 on a comprehensive engineering and feasibility study. The purpose of the study was to determine up to three preferred, viable engineered options to protect the transportation corridor against the effects of climate change. The scope was to provide a required protection level of 10.6 metres — the Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum of 2013, or CGVD2013, is the vertical datum. The water level is the combined result of the sea level rise, storm surge and tide. At least one of the options had to include the dike and aboiteau solution; at least one of the options — not all of the options — they chose should have included that. Options included a range of solutions that we heard from previous witnesses, such as rerouting the Trans-Canada Highway and CN rail line, the possibility of a bridge and multiple others. The Chignecto Isthmus Climate Change Adaptation Comprehensive Engineering and Feasibility Study was released in March of 2022.
Based upon the results of this comprehensive engineering and feasibility study, on July 19, 2023, a joint comprehensive Chignecto Isthmus resiliency project proposal/application was submitted to Infrastructure Canada for funding from the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, or DMAF. The application carries a cost estimate of $650 million for the project. The cost was based on several scenarios for the final design which is expected to contain elements from all three options identified in the feasibility study.
The solution will be further refined. Design and construction will proceed in a manner that anticipates, adapts to and mitigates projected climate change impacts. The planned approach will include elements of nature-based solutions.
This critical link between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is currently under threat because of this climate change. We wish to acknowledge, as per previous witnesses and climate science experts, that it is not about whether the Chignecto Isthmus infrastructure will be impacted by a climatic event, but when it will happen. We need to address this risk now, especially since an engineered solution will require up to 10 years to complete.
The previously shared Mike Johnson photo of the water lapping up against the shores of the CN railway in 2015 is not a worst-case scenario. That is high tide. It does not include storm surge. It does not include additional precipitation. Imagine if that had occurred when a major storm came through; it would have overlapped.
Officials with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia continue to meet on a regular basis, and continue to advance the project. Project planning and preliminary work is ongoing.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will now hear from Mr. Peter Hackett from Nova Scotia.
Peter Hackett, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works, Government of Nova Scotia: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for having us here tonight. I’m honoured to speak to you on this critical matter of the Chignecto Isthmus.
We understand the importance of the isthmus to Nova Scotia, the Atlantic provinces and Canada. Our newest estimates show that roughly $100 million a day — or $35 billion a year — worth of trade crosses the isthmus on its way through Canada and the United States. It contains vital power transmission and telecommunication lines, as well as the Trans-Canada Highway and the only rail link between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
P.E.I. and Newfoundland have already stated the importance of the crossing for their provinces for health care, essential goods and services and much more. It is literally what connects Nova Scotia to the rest of Canada.
Today, I hope to address two questions: What needs to be done? And why now?
The isthmus contains a network of dikes and aboiteaux that protect communities, infrastructure and natural resources from rising sea levels. They were built to an agricultural standard — not to an engineering design standard required to protect critical infrastructure such as this critical corridor.
The answer to “What needs to be done?” is fairly self-evident. The dike system needs to be raised to strengthen it against the impact of climate change. This was identified in the engineering and feasibility study recently completed by Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The study also showed us that the project will have significant costs and take many more years to complete.
There is no defence against rising sea levels and storm surge until the last section of the dike is complete and connected to the surrounding uplands.
This brings us to the question of “Why now?” — and the answer comes from recent experience. As in many places in Canada and around the world, our region is experiencing stronger and more frequent storms. Over the past seven years, we have seen devastating events that include extreme flooding, significant damage to infrastructure and, tragically, the loss of life. We’ve had several once-in-100-years storms over the past 10 years. They come with significant repair costs for disaster relief programs. It is no longer a matter of if we will have a catastrophic event; it’s going to be when. When we have the right hurricane conditions in the Bay of Fundy, the dikes will fail, and the area will be inundated with seawater. Trade will be disrupted, communities will be damaged, and people will be hurt or worse.
Due to this certainty, we have been working with New Brunswick on a contingency plan. We have accessed the viability of rerouting traffic from the Trans-Canada Highway onto secondary roads and through communities. We have met with municipalities, emergency management representatives and engineers to make sure we are as prepared as possible.
But this is not a good alternative; there will still be disruptions in traffic and goods, and it will add over 30 kilometres each way to trips through this area. The secondary roads were not intended for trucks, high volumes or high speeds. They will quickly become congested.
I think we can all agree that it is far better to take preventative measures rather than be forced into reactive ones. That is why, in advance of any funding agreement, we have started working with our counterparts in New Brunswick. We have developed a project plan that will include a coordinated approach to initiating the next stage of preliminary work on this project. It is a matter that needs to be addressed now for Nova Scotians, the Atlantic provinces and all of Canada. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for those opening remarks. We will now move on to questions.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you, witnesses, for making the trip here to speak with us.
I want to start by asking you about the three options in the report. We have heard from three different witnesses now who have raised concerns that those options do not give enough deference to the role of natural marshlands in helping to regulate water. Indeed, we have heard that there are concerns that if you build the dikes too high, there could be a kind of boomerang effect because you might be degrading those marshlands and, as a result, not getting the benefit of their natural resilience.
What do you say to those critiques of the plans that it could actually make the problem worse in some ways?
Michael Pauley, Project Manager, Government of New Brunswick: Thank you for that. When we were going through the study, we did speak about natural solutions. When we went through that, we also expected that when we do pick the final alignment, it will include some of those natural solutions, but our experts did not recognize any ill effects from incorporating those solutions.
Senator Simons: When it comes to alignment, this is the other option that was presented to us at the last meeting. The expert witness said that the isthmus is always going to be vulnerable because it is below sea level. Using his background as a cartographer, he suggested that a better alignment would be to move it to higher ground so that it would sort of loop over the top edge of the isthmus.
Mr. Pauley: Okay.
Senator Simons: What are the pros and cons of that route? I have to admit that sounded like a plausible alternative.
Mr. Pauley: Thank you for that.
Again, we looked at that as part of the study. Also, as you have heard from the opening remarks, it adds an extra 30 kilometres to the trip through there.
The other things that are contained within the isthmus are the transmission lines, the fibre optic comms and the other utilities and critical infrastructure that are there. So while you might move two of those, you are still leaving the other critical infrastructure exposed.
Senator Simons: We’re the Transport and Communications Committee — we look at both things, but this is the first time that anyone has raised to us the issue of fibre optics or telecommunications. Can you drill down — pardon the expression — and tell me just how vulnerable that is?
All we have heard up until now is about moving goods and people, which is bad enough, but if you are cutting people off from the internet, that is an entirely different level of problem.
Mr. Pauley: There is more than that involved. Right now, the fibre op is contained in the CN railbed; that is where it exists. We found that out when we were doing our work on the study.
Senator Simons: That was a surprise, was it?
Mr. Pauley: Yes, but it was not unexpected because it is typical that they would have arrangements with entities to contain infrastructure within their infrastructure.
Senator Simons: Can you tell me how vulnerable it is — does it work if it is under water?
Mr. Pauley: No, it doesn’t work if we lose the rail line because it is contained within that.
Right now, two kilometres of the CN rail line act as the diking system. So if that is washed away, then that line is gone, and it will not work — that is for sure.
Also, off of that are the transmission lines that we also have contained behind the roadway. That is there. We also have the windmills in that area, and we also have lagoons and things of that nature that are intricate to the communities.
The Deputy Chair: I will put you on for the second round, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: Yes, please.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, witnesses, for being here and for your remarks.
I have a few follow-ups. On the communications side of it, you mentioned the internet, but does it feed into the subsea-floor Atlantic communications and conduit systems that hit Europe, for example?
Mr. Pauley: During the study, we didn’t get into exactly what it was. CN indicated to us that it was a very crucial part of infrastructure that was to be protected.
Senator Quinn: Okay.
Now that you have raised CN, we learned that there are a few kilometres of dikes that are part of the rail system. I’m thinking that CN must maintain the rails, their embankments and things of that nature. Is that a fact?
Mr. Pauley: You would be correct, senator.
Senator Quinn: When it comes to contingency planning, you mentioned emergency management — or one of the witnesses did. I understand from other witnesses that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick communities have interactions about emergency management contingency planning. Is the federal government at that table? Should the federal government be at that table? Should they be playing a lead role? How does that all work?
Mr. Bekkers: It is my understanding, senator, that Public Safety Canada has commissioned a study with National Defence to look at the impact of the isthmus. They are organizing a meeting with stakeholders to discuss that. We have had various tabletop exercises in the past where the federal government has participated in that, and we relied upon those resources for discussing when a major event like that were to occur, as well as what is available for resources.
Senator Quinn: I believe that you have mentioned this, but have there been weather events that have compromised the dike system, which was the principal infrastructure that was installed? What is the condition of those dikes?
Mr. Taylor: From my understanding, the last time the dikes were overtaken was in the 1860s during the Saxby Gale. With the exception of that, the dikes have not been overtaken in the last 150 years.
I know that we talk about whether that is the solution. It has been a successful solution to date, so when we talk about potentially enhancing that system, you can understand why we would want to.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: As I try to piece this together — or take it apart, rather — what are your thoughts about just raising the current road and railway as a solution?
Mr. Taylor: We brought a large team here, so there is a lot of brainpower in the room. I will start it off, but someone might want to jump in.
The railbed is part of the diking system. It is a dike now used as a railbed. The road was never designed to be part of the dike system. There was a dike system further out that was part of that system; the road is there. It could probably act as a dike system in the short term, but we would never know what damage that would do to the road. It was never designed to act as a diking system.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. Are there any other thoughts on just raising the road as being part of the solution?
Mr. Pauley: We thought about that as well, but if we just raise the road, it doesn’t do anything for the rail system because that is contained on the inside. The road is behind it, so that would leave the rail system vulnerable. Also, with the current configurations of the options, there is added value to that, and protection for the communities as well. The study was just for the national trade corridor, but by coming with those further options, if you look at what is going to be protected, it is basically protection for all.
Senator Cardozo: As Senator Simons pointed out, the idea of fibre optics and other transmission cables is not something we’ve heard a lot about, and that is, obviously, extremely important.
In terms of the layout of that area, I’m assuming the isthmus is something like 20 or 30 kilometres wide.
Mr. Pauley: It’s 21 kilometres wide.
Senator Cardozo: One of you said there are currently other smaller roads that go across?
Mr. Taylor: There would be access roads off the Trans-Canada Highway here and there.
Senator Cardozo: Would they cross from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia?
Bonnie Miles-Dunn, Director, Federal Infrastructure Programs and Stakeholder Engagements, Department of Public Works, Government of Nova Scotia: They wouldn’t be 100-series highways. We would have a local road and secondary road network, so it’s built to a different standard.
Senator Cardozo: For the urban part that is considered part of the isthmus, such as Sackville, am I right in saying that is on a flood plain, or can that have a separate set of dikes around it?
Mr. Pauley: It currently has the dike system protecting it in Sackville.
Senator Cardozo: Are they looking to increase the height of this?
Mr. Pauley: Yes. The options that are presented will raise the dike, but it would move into what they call the upland — the upper point. If they were built into that level, the dikes around it would protect Sackville and Amherst.
Senator Cardozo: In terms of the urban areas, that part of the solution is just to increase the dikes?
Mr. Pauley: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: What we’re talking about more so is what happens to the road and the railway that goes across from one province to the other?
Mr. Pauley: That’s right. In the effort to try to protect the rail and the road, you also protect the communities. That’s an added benefit.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Does the federal government seem to be as concerned as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Do they have a hands-on policy to any degree with this? Have you gone begging to them? If you have, how have they treated you?
Jim Doyle, Director, Strategic Partnership and Trade Corridors, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Government of New Brunswick: Over the last two years, we’ve worked closely with both federal departments of Infrastructure Canada and Transport Canada. Right up until the submission of our Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund , or DMAF, application on July 19, we were having monthly meetings with officials from both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as well as Infrastructure Canada and Transport Canada. They’re well aware.
Also, as Mr. Pauley mentioned, the funding for the national trade corridor study — the feasibility study — was through Transport Canada. They worked very closely with us. Federal officials on both sides are aware of the implications and issues of the project.
Senator Richards: Do you or they have a figure in terms of the cost of this and the length of time, and how it’s going to be managed? Who will the stakeholders be, and how much is it going to cost?
Mr. Doyle: In our submission on July 19, working with a consultant between both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, we looked at the feasibility study as our base. The submission of $650 million that was put forward was based on a lot of factors. We were seeing increased costs of tendering, increased inflation and what have you — it’s a number of factors. We looked at those original estimates, and then we looked at the options. We were able to satisfactorily come up with a $650-million cost estimate.
In terms of the timeline, it’s not a short-term project. In our submission, we had a 10-year timeline with a significant number of years up front on pre-engineering work, design, stakeholder consultation, Aboriginal consultation with our First Nations and environmental impact work of up to 3 to 5 years of those 10 years.
Senator Richards: Do you have any idea when you can begin this?
Mr. Doyle: As Deputy Minister Taylor and Deputy Minister Hackett mentioned, both provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are waiting for a response from Infrastructure Canada on the DMAF submission. We’ve been working closely on that, and have started some of the preplanning work.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Hello, and welcome. It’s good to have you. I sense that you watched the previous testimony.
Full disclosure: I’m a former mayor, and I am coming at this from a municipal perspective.
Mr. Hackett, you talked about a project plan and a coordinated approach. I’m wondering how the communications are going through the three orders of government: municipal, provincial and federal.
Mr. Doyle, you just spoke about the federal government in response to Senator Richards.
I want to go a little further and check with you about how communications work between the three orders of government, as well as how municipalities are included in the project plan and what your plan is for the future around communications. I have concerns about not just infrastructure development, but also crisis management and leaving out one order of government.
Ms. Miles-Dunn: Thank you, senator. I can speak to that. A recent good example of that is around our contingency planning, which was spoken about. In order for us to ensure that we have a way to get goods across the isthmus in the event of a catastrophe — where we have flooding — we have gone through an exercise where we have looked at alternate routing. Certainly, that did involve the members of the municipality looking at that with us, as well as some of the local enforcement agencies; some of the emergency management organization, or EMO, branches; and other government departments. There were meetings held about that.
We’ve worked with the municipalities throughout this study. We’ve had information gathering, and we’ve shared information. We’re certainly aware of some of the concerns. I think they’re quite relieved to see that the options proposed do provide community protection.
As Mr. Doyle mentioned, we’re getting ready to start the next phase of work, which is the early planning. For that, we will be engaging with stakeholders, and that would include the municipalities.
Senator Clement: It’s right from the get-go, then, in terms of the planning? Sometimes municipalities are brought in after or too late in the process. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Miles-Dunn: We know that there is a lot of interest in the work we’re doing, so we will be bringing everybody into our project solution.
Mr. Pauley: When we started our study, we met with the communities and told them they were coming. We worked with their engineering departments to gather all the information. We communicated with them throughout the study to make sure their concerns were met.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here.
My question was going to be along the lines of Senator Richards’s questions about the money — the cost — and also the expectations around who is going to pay, and how much, and so on. Of course, these are always very important questions.
I have read that the Council of Atlantic Premiers has called on the federal government to fully fund the project, so I wanted to ask you about that.
We have also been told that the Nova Scotia government has asked the Nova Scotia court to rule on whether the federal government has the exclusive responsibility to maintain the infrastructure.
I wonder if I might be apprised of that initiative and where you are. I see, at the same time, that you’re speaking amicably, I assume, with the feds about their role in the funding.
I’m interested in the money and where it’s going to come from — $650 million is the amount we’re looking at, right?
Mr. Hackett: Thank you for the question, senator. As for the funding, as Mr. Doyle mentioned, we’ve applied to the federal government for the DMAF funding. The two provinces are working closely together on putting the project together — the project management and what it will look like, as well as the costing and all of those things.
For where we stand, or where the province might stand, with regard to federal funding, as you mentioned — or the courts — that’s not something I can comment about because we’re here more on the technical point of that than for the funding from the federal government.
That’s being dealt with by others, but I want to say that the costing, the project management and the collaborative effort between the two provinces — and working with the federal government — has been going very well so far, and we are looking forward to continuing in that direction, and looking forward to getting the funding for the project to move forward.
Senator Dasko: You are looking to the federal government for a substantial amount of this $650 million?
Mr. Hackett: Yes, under the DMAF funding that we’ve applied for.
Mr. Taylor: If I could just add to that, under the DMAF funding, the federal government will contribute 50% of the funds — that’s the application we submitted. It’s 50% of the project funding, and the plan would be for the remaining to be split between the two provinces.
Senator Dasko: Which province would pay more?
Mr. Taylor: Nova Scotia, obviously, senator.
Senator Dasko: If I can pursue the reason for that, is it because Nova Scotia is more vulnerable or has a larger population?
Mr. Taylor: I’ll start this off, and Mr. Hackett can probably correct me when I’m wrong. This is a very unique situation. Nova Scotia would be cut off from the rest of the country. That being said, it is a unique project in that 70% to 75% of the isthmus falls within the New Brunswick boundaries. It’s about finding the happy medium of where the percentage of payment is — the difficulty of potentially paying for assets that a province doesn’t own is creating some complexities that we’re still trying to work through. At this point, we’re looking to become as amicable of a 50-50 share as possible. Where the chips fall, I’m not 100% sure.
Mr. Hackett: That’s a good way of putting it, Mr. Taylor. As we’re working through this, those discussions are happening, but not so much at the technical level — it’s more at the finance level, and a little bit at the deputy minister level. With this group, we’re looking at the technical part of it. In terms of the financial part — the 50-50 part — and how that would be split, there are some different facets that we have to look at to see how that would be broken down, but right now we’re asking the federal government for 50%, and the provinces would take the other 50%.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I didn’t quite understand the role that natural solutions would play in your project, particularly the draining of wetlands. You said you would consider them at some point, which seems rather vague to me.
The researcher who came here said that, as far as she understood, she had not been consulted, nor was there any mention of these famous wetlands that need to be drained.
I understand—perhaps incorrectly—that all this has to be done together, because the dikes have to be at a certain distance so there are enough wetlands to do the necessary work. I’d like to know if natural solutions are really included in the scenario. You mentioned three scenarios. Have you chosen one? Did you choose the $650 million one, or did I misunderstand?
[English]
Mr. Taylor: I’ll start this off, and then I’ll hand it over to Mr. Bekkers. I want to state that we don’t have a final solution yet. We assume this will be a combination of varying solutions — potentially the top three. Those are the three that came to the top during the study. In terms of what the final solution is, we are still working toward that, with procuring a consultant and working between the two provinces. I will hand it over to Mr. Bekkers who can probably give you a better answer on the natural component that we’re potentially going to be seeing.
Kevin Bekkers, Director, Resource Sustainability, Department of Agriculture, Government of Nova Scotia: Thank you, senator, for the question. Nature-based solutions are a vital part of a dikeland system solution. It has always been part of our tool box as an option for making a better solution where it is possible. Through the analysis, we’re going to explore where we can include nature-based solutions. We will be retreating the dikes in areas where we’re losing foreshore. In areas where the foreshore is growing, we may not be required to retreat the dikes further, and there are good nature-based solutions that are there. We work very closely with Dr. van Proosdij from Saint Mary’s University, and she has quite a depth of knowledge in it — worldwide — and tracks a lot of that information and the trends that are going on. We have initiated pilot programs in Nova Scotia — one is on the isthmus currently with a nature-based solution. We’re trying to make sure that the textbook data or the methodology is not only available, but that it’s also there so that we can use it in practicality. That is one of the tools that is in the tool box, as Dr. van Proosdij mentioned in her previous discussions as well, and it will be included in this project.
With regard to the route and the cost, we have to confirm the sizes of water control structures and locations. It’s very complex engineering, but it is also a sensitive cultural and heritage site. There is archaeology involved. It is too early in the project stages to predict the full cost. We’re making sure there are enough dollars there to build the adequate solution, and we’re looking at the worst-case scenario for that based on those three options so that we’ve covered all the bases.
The Deputy Chair: You’re saying that you’re waiting for the federal government to put up the money, but, on your side, when will you be ready with a final solution?
[Translation]
When will you decide which project will go ahead? Right now, you’re asking the government for money, but when will you be ready to say, “Here is the project that’s going to address the needs?”
[English]
Mr. Bekkers: With the project that we’re working on, the dikeland system solution is the approach that we’re taking. We’re doing the preliminary work for that: defining the scope; looking at the corridor for that; and preparing for presentations to various stakeholders to further define that scope. That is how we consider the initial stages of the project and the preliminary work. Once we solidify the funding and other aspects, we will move further into the stages of the project, and get into the conceptual and detail design, and then into construction. We’re aligning the team and the project definition and plan to move now because, as we mentioned, with the storm situations that are here, we can’t wait.
The Deputy Chair: I am sorry for the translation.
Senator Simons: It wasn’t — I’m sorry. I find that phrase very triggering. I beg of you not to use it when you’re discussing something like this. It’s a very sensitive phrase, and I won’t repeat it because I can’t.
I want to come back to this question of relocating the infrastructure. Maybe it’s because I’m from Alberta, but 30 kilometres doesn’t seem like that far of a distance for me. It’s certainly not what people are used to when going from Sackville to Amherst. But it seems to me that because of a decision made by Acadian farmers in the 1600s, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have put all of their most critical and sensitive infrastructure in a parcel of land that is uniquely vulnerable to climate change and the associated storms and flooding.
It’s the perfect example of a literal sunk cost fallacy. Do you continue to try to protect infrastructure that is arguably in the wrong place, or do you make a much harder decision to move everything to higher ground, where it might be able to sustain for the next century?
Mr. Taylor: I’ll start it off there. There are a few things to look at. Moving the dike system would, effectively, potentially wipe out some of the communities that are right —
Senator Simons: I didn’t say to move the dikes. No — leave the dikes in place. Move the railbed and the road.
Mr. Taylor: The other issue I’ll bring up is the Chignecto Isthmus —
Senator Simons: I don’t mean take down the railbed. I mean build a new road and a new railbed and a new fibre optic link over the top.
Mr. Taylor: The Chignecto Isthmus that falls in the Northumberland Strait and the Bay of Fundy is a sensitive area. It is a low-lying area the whole way. It floods from the Northumberland Strait with freshwater coming in from the north, and, from the south, it can flood from the Bay of Fundy.
We received an email today from the Nature Conservancy of Canada, who has done significant work in protecting the land that the witness — from the other day — proposed to move the reroute to. The proposal would have negative impacts on the more than a decade of work that the Nature Conservancy of Canada and partners have done to protect wildlife connectivity through the isthmus. It is land that is currently protected through the conservation agency.
Senator Simons: I guess the animals know the best route.
Mr. Taylor: As I said, the Chignecto Isthmus is not a great location for a road or a railway.
Senator Simons: But that is what you have.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, that is what we have.
Senator Simons: Thank you. That clarifies things.
As I said during the first round, this is the first time many of us have heard about this other infrastructure. Are the power lines above ground, or are they buried power lines?
Mr. Pauley: They are above, with towers.
Senator Simons: Sometimes especially big power lines are put underground these days. So these are big transmission towers? How vulnerable are they to flooding?
Mr. Pauley: It is like everything else. When they were designed, they were not made for that type of event. Moving on to the windmills, they are made so that their power transmission is actually at ground level.
There is a lot to consider with a lot of infrastructure there.
Senator Simons: To be clear, is the risk that flooding will short out the power, or is the risk that high winds will tear down the lines and knock down the power poles?
Mr. Pauley: I believe that the consultants were concerned about that big event perhaps taking a tower down.
Senator Simons: Yes, that is clear. Thank you very much.
Senator Quinn: I have a follow-up. We have heard tonight and from previous witnesses about the dikes effectively creating new areas, if you will, that are important for farming and whatnot. I also understand — from what you have said and from others — that there is an environmental question. Not only is it a sensitive area, but there is a uniqueness about the area.
Are you able to talk about the environmental issues and the uniqueness of the area?
Melissa Cummings, Director, Environmental Services, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Government of New Brunswick: This area of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is extremely significant in terms of ecological importance. As the deputy minister spoke about earlier, it is a very important wildlife migration corridor in which both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia place a lot of importance. A lot of the conservation organizations in this area have a high interest in even our existing roadways through there. There is that component.
As previous speakers have spoken of, it is a tidal marsh area. There are freshwater marshes and a lot of tidal rivers. It is an important bird migration area. There are species at risk. There are all kinds of different environmentally important species in this location in the isthmus.
It is a challenging area to build infrastructure in. Those are all factors that we will be taking into consideration as part of this project.
Senator Quinn: You mentioned earlier about the photo of the train going across; we saw that photo of the train almost going through the water.
We also heard previously from other witnesses that there was flooding that took place in 2015 or 2016 — something like that — and that event had water up against there; the existing dike system, in fact, has had failure.
In terms of the railway and the roadway, we heard that the roadway is not designed to be a dike. If those dikes were to have a colossal failure, would the roadway and railway be sufficient to stop the event? Would such an event impact the towns, or does the roadway and railway protect the towns?
Mr. Taylor: I will start this one off.
From what I understand, the existing dikes are currently higher than the actual roadway. If the dikes were overtaken, the road would be under water, and — I am assuming — a portion of the CN railway as well.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Mr. Bekkers: To follow up, those flooding events in 2015 were freshwater events. There are some freshwater challenges for both of those communities: the municipalities of Tantramar and Amherst.
To my knowledge, the dikes have not breached in the last 60 years since being built by the federal government. They have been maintained by both provinces since then. They were built to an agricultural standard. That is primarily for a one-in-10-year storm event. They are not designed for the critical infrastructure that is now behind them. The project is proposing to upgrade that for a solution that would protect the infrastructure that is there.
The Deputy Chair: I have a question.
You are saying that if the dikes are overtaken, the road will go under.
The dikes should be raised with this project that you are talking about, but why don’t you also raise the road? I did not quite get what you said about that. Could we raise the road too, or is it one or the other?
Mr. Bekkers: It is one or the other. The dike is an earth embankment that will protect the infrastructure behind it, regardless of whether it is the rail system, road system, communication lines or communities. The project is proposing that solution out in front with those nature-based options and considerations of all the aspects that we have discussed here: environmental, historical, cultural, et cetera.
The Deputy Chair: We have a last question.
Senator Cardozo: Maybe this is outlandish, but did you ever think of doing a bridge like the Confederation Bridge?
Mr. Taylor: I will start this off as well.
As I mentioned, there were multiple options that we looked at as part of the study. It was an option that was looked at. I can say that a bridge would definitely not protect the communities there. It would eliminate the diking system, and, as a result, any low-lying areas would be washed away. That is one of the concerns in going with a bridge solution.
Senator Cardozo: It could take care of the roads, but it is hard to put a train on a bridge over a long period, I guess.
Mr. Pauley: Also, there is the other infrastructure that I spoke about earlier: the power lines and the windmills. There are a lot of items other than those to consider.
Senator Cardozo: This is my other question — and it is probably more of a suggestion: I have been here in the Senate for about a year, and I cannot recall any organization who has ever come to a committee and said, “The federal government is spending enough on us. They should spend less on us.” That is everything from health care to defence spending.
One of the things you are up against is that we’ve got a federal deficit that is quite large. Up until about a year ago, it seemed to be okay to deficit spend. Political winds are changing. There is a lot of pressure on the federal government not to spend and to reduce the deficit.
At some point, people who are asking for money need to say, “It is going to increase the deficit by $325 million, but it is important because of X, Y and Z, or because there are costs if we don’t do it.” We always know there are opportunity costs of not making these kinds of major repairs.
At the end of the day, committees often say to the federal government to do this or do that —
The Deputy Chair: Senator, please ask your question.
Senator Cardozo: My question is a suggestion: What are your thoughts about how you address the deficit, or do you want to stay out of that?
The Deputy Chair: I’m not sure if it is an appropriate question, but why not have a take at it quickly.
Mr. Hackett: I’m not sure about the deficit costs, but, as we said in the opening remarks here tonight, the Chignecto Isthmus is an important part of the infrastructure and the land that has infrastructure across it. It is an important part for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the rest of Canada. We have to balance that out between funding something that could become catastrophic and putting money toward that so that we do not lose that section of land and the infrastructure there. We have to think about that when we are looking at the actual costs and the budgets here, as well as where to spend money.
If there is a disaster at some point — and we have had a number of unexpected disasters in Nova Scotia in the last number of years — and we do not have some of these controls in place, then we are going to pay a price for that, so that is what we have to balance.
Senator Richards: My question was just asked and answered.
If a catastrophic event ever occurs, senator, the federal government will feel very foolish for not helping now — I will tell you that — because it will cut Nova Scotia off from the rest of Canada. It is as simple as that — I am just saying.
My question was answered with that. I will just ask Mr. Doyle a quick question about another part of New Brunswick: Escuminac and Baie-Sainte-Anne. Are they facing floods every year? Or how are those two twin towns prospering now?
Mr. Doyle: Senator Richards, as far as the flooding issues there, I am familiar with both of those areas — and both of us are Miramichiers, originally from the Miramichi, so I have an affinity with those areas and know them quite well. There have been, in the past, flooding issues, but, again, they are unrelated to the isthmus issue with the Bay of Fundy and the tidal issues there. As you know, there was the Escuminac disaster many years ago from storms and storm surges there in that area of infrastructure.
As far as our transportation infrastructure, there have not been any major issues regarding area that in the past — that I am aware of — but we anticipate that it will be protected as well as possible.
Senator Richards: We are surrounded by water.
Mr. Doyle: Exactly.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for speaking to us about the complexity of this issue, and for making the distinctions you felt were necessary. We look forward to a positive conclusion to all this. Thank you for making the trip. This concludes our first panel of witnesses, whom I would like to thank.
[English]
Honourable senators, we are now continuing our in-depth study on the impact of climate change on the transportation infrastructure of the Chignecto Isthmus.
[Translation]
Tonight, for our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Martin Guimond, Vice-President, Transportation, Eastern Region, CN, by videoconference.
[English]
We welcome Chris McKee, Executive Director, Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association. We also welcome, from Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated, Tracy Cloud, Director of Trilateral Negotiations; and Charles Labillois-Bjorndal, Director of Indigenous Knowledge, who are joining us by video conference.
[Translation]
Welcome and thank you for joining us.
[English]
We will begin with opening remarks from Mr. Guimond, followed by remarks from Mr. McKee and Ms. Cloud. We will then proceed to questions from members.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond, the floor is yours.
Martin Guimond, Vice-President, Transportation, Eastern Region, CN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair.
[English]
Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members.
[Translation]
First of all, I’d like to thank you for the invitation.
My name is Martin Guimond and I’m Vice-President of Transportation for the Eastern Region, at CN.
As the committee meets to study the potential impacts of climate change on the transportation industry, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you this evening.
Responsible engagement is at the heart of how CN is building a sustainable future. This means transporting our customers’ goods safely and efficiently, conducting our business in a way that minimizes environmental impact, attracting, developing and retaining the top talent, and helping to build stronger, safer communities, all while adhering to the highest standards of governance.
[English]
In 2021, CN announced our commitment to setting a target in line with the 1.5 degrees Celsius scenarios, and to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. CN was the first North American railroad to formally commit to setting a net-zero target by joining the Business Ambition for 1.5°C, as well as the United Nations Race to Zero campaign and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Net-Zero Challenge.
We have also announced an important partnership related to renewable fuel testing and the purchase of a battery-electric locomotive.
[Translation]
We recognize that the climate is changing, and that businesses must not only adapt, but also be part of the solution.
We want to play an instrumental role in the transition to a lower-carbon economy, while conserving resources, protecting and restoring natural ecosystems, and advancing the circular economy.
The efficiency of our operations is the hallmark of our success. Rail transport is about four times more fuel-efficient than truck transport, which means that switching from truck to rail for long distances can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 75%.
CN is also a leader in the North American rail industry, with locomotive fuel consumption per gross tonne-mile some 15% below the industry average.
[English]
We are working to reduce the carbon footprint of both our rail and non-rail activity. We are also focused on reducing the emissions across our entire value chain. As we reduce our emissions, we are helping our customers reduce their emissions.
[Translation]
As an economic driver, we recognize how important it is to ensure our rail network is resilient. CN’s network spans some 30,000 kilometres across North America.
Each year, we invest to maintain and develop this network. Over the past five years, we have invested nearly $16 billion.
Rail is an outdoor sport, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Our entire network is exposed to weather conditions on a daily basis, from forest fires and floods to rising sea levels.
When our infrastructures are damaged, we strive to build back better and to invest in the resilience of our network.
[English]
Climate change has been incorporated into our risk assessment processes, which consider both physical and transition risks, including extreme temperatures, flooding, hurricanes and tornadoes, as well as legal, policy and market impacts.
With regard to the Chignecto Isthmus, Madam Chair, CN has made its position clear to all stakeholders: We are committed to making the necessary direct investments to protect our track infrastructure from the impacts of climate change. We would be open to engaging with all levels of government to coordinate work to drive efficiencies, should there be an opportunity to do so. To assess risk and look at possible solutions, CN participated in the 2022 Chignecto Isthmus Climate Change Adaptation Comprehensive Engineering and Feasibility Study.
[Translation]
Thank you once again for inviting me to join you today.
The Deputy Chair: Now we’ll hear from Mr. Chris McKee, Executive Director, Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association.
[English]
Chris McKee, Executive Director, Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, honourable senators, and thank you so much for the opportunity to appear before you this evening.
The Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the interests of the trucking industry in Atlantic Canada, and we serve as the united voice of the trucking industry. We advocate for our members through government, and strive to create an environment conducive to the growth, success and safety of the industry. We are a privately funded organization with most of our revenue coming from our membership dues.
We currently represent about 350 members in Atlantic Canada, and those are made up of small, medium and large for‑hire motor carriers, private fleets and associate members.
The trucking sector in Atlantic Canada is absolutely vital to the regional economy, with 64% of our sector’s operating revenue in 2019 related to interprovincial or international shipments. As of the 2021 census, the trucking industry directly employed over 18,600 people, and supports tens of thousands more indirectly through industries such as forestry, fisheries, agriculture and construction. Benefits and salaries for trucking industry employees and owner-operators in Atlantic Canada exceeded $1.7 billion in 2021.
The trucking industry generates more than $4 billion a year in revenue in Atlantic Canada. The sector in New Brunswick is actually significantly larger than its neighbours, generating more revenue per capita and a higher share of provincial GDP than any other province in the country. It generates more GDP than the entire accommodation and food services sector, the crop production sector, oil refining, paper making, wood product manufacturing and seafood production.
Our industry runs on tight margins, so costs matter. Any delays to our members’ operations due to infrastructure failures could lead to a significant increase in operating costs, further squeezing these margins, but also increasing costs for consumers. Truck transportation firms in Atlantic Canada already play on an unlevel playing field, paying about 15% more for fuel costs than their peers across the country.
The Isthmus of Chignecto plays a significant role in the transportation and trade between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the rest of the continent. If this road link were to close or become impassable due to a natural disaster, it would have a significant impact on trucking and transportation, and disrupt the major trade route between Atlantic Canada, the rest of Canada and the United States.
The approximate 20 kilometres of Trans-Canada Highway — that’s Route 2 and Route 104 — through the isthmus between Sackville, New Brunswick, and Amherst, Nova Scotia, acts as an integral component of Canada’s Atlantic Gateway and Trade Corridor, and is the principal routing system for all land-based trade between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and points west.
Provincial estimates value trade passing through the Chignecto corridor at approximately $35 billion per year. The province of New Brunswick’s traffic counts at the permanent counter near Aulac, New Brunswick, indicate annual average daily truck traffic of approximately 2,500 commercial vehicles, or about 912,000 trucks per year.
The transportation linkage is also critical to the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. In Prince Edward Island’s case, this link is a key year-round route for truck traffic travelling to and from P.E.I. via the Northumberland Ferries service which operates between Caribou, Nova Scotia, and Wood Islands, P.E.I.
Similarly, for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all land-based freight traffic must cross the isthmus for access to the Marine Atlantic ferry service, or to the Oceanex direct water service from the Port of Halifax to St. John’s, Newfoundland. According to Marine Atlantic data, roughly 93,000 commercial vehicle units use their service each year, bringing a vast array of consumer goods — fresh and frozen food and medical supplies — to Newfoundlanders. The isthmus is also a vital link for the export of Newfoundland’s products, particularly their seafood industry, to international markets, including the United States.
Again, any disruption to this vital link will impact supply chains, causing delays to the delivery of goods and raw materials to businesses and manufacturers; this, in turn, of course, could lead to production slowdowns in our region and economic repercussions.
In closing, I would like to say that any disruption of the free flow of goods across the isthmus to truck and rail traffic would have significant, far-reaching impacts on trucking and transportation. It would require adaptability, increased costs and potential long-term changes in our strategies to mitigate the effects of this disruption.
While our association does not feel that we should be weighing in on which formal options are being examined — and which option should be chosen — we are adamant that something needs to be done with this vital link sooner rather than later. We would like to see governments — our provincial partners — choose the option that leads to the least disruption to the eastbound and westbound lanes of the Trans-Canada Highway, and we would like to offer our support and consultation as this project progresses. Thank you.
Tracy Cloud, Director of Trilateral Negotiations, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, senators.
My name is Tracy Cloud, and I’m the Director of Trilateral Negotiations for Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated, or MTI, and I’m joined by our Director of Indigenous Knowledge, Charles Labillois-Bjorndal.
We are presenting to you from the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Mi’gmaq in what is currently known as New Brunswick. Our people have occupied and cared for these lands and waters since time immemorial, and have never ceded Aboriginal title of ownership and stewardship over the lands and waters.
MTI is a not-for-profit organization created by the nine Mi’gmaq First Nations in New Brunswick. Our objectives include promoting and supporting the recognition, affirmation, exercise and implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights and the right of self-determination. We work on behalf of our communities.
Thank you for allowing us to present our thoughts on the work proposed for the Chignecto Isthmus. This evening, we will address three key areas that need to be considered when you’re drafting your report and recommendations.
First, the Chignecto Isthmus is a significant cultural area for the Mi’gmaq. Further study is required to understand and appreciate its significance. Second, because of the significance, deep and meaningful consultation on any work done in this area is required by the provincial and federal governments. Third, climate change and sea level rise have impacted our communities through the loss of land and artifacts, including the Chignecto Isthmus area.
The name “Chignecto” is a European adaptation of the Mi’gmaq term for a much larger region — Siknikt, meaning the “drainage place.” It extends from the Cobequid Highlands to the eastern edge of the Wolastoq River drainage area, and north to the Baie-des-Chaleurs.
We know that the Chignecto Isthmus is a very important corridor for our country with goods passing through each and every day. This has always been the case. Archaeological studies have been done in the area that show it had been one of the most densely populated areas of Mi’gma’gi, and was a centre for trade. The isthmus was and is a resource-rich marshland, containing portage routes which link the Bay of Fundy to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and further on to other major river routes. This area is still commonly used by community members to exercise Aboriginal and treaty rights.
When we first heard about the proposed work, we met with the provincial Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, and suggested that an Indigenous Knowledge study is required. We were told by the Government of New Brunswick that only $30,000 would be made available. That is not nearly enough to undertake the work that is required to do a comprehensive assessment.
We assume that once the federal and provincial governments can agree upon a cost-sharing model, they will want to see this move ahead quickly considering the economic impacts.
Despite it being in the early stages, deep and meaningful consultation is required, and, ideally, it should begin now. The project should go through a Mi’gmaq Rights Impact Assessment process.
Just to let you know, the isthmus is known to host 44 federal and provincial species at risk. Wildlife experts believe that the isthmus is particularly important for at-risk bird species that rely on forested wetlands, and for the provincially endangered Nova Scotia mainland moose. It is certainly a concern.
In addition to the species at risk, the region supports over 250 species of conservation concern in Nova Scotia, and over 170 in New Brunswick.
In addition, you should know that seven Mi’gmaq communities have purchased the former CBC property which has 124 hectares located along the isthmus.
Considering the extent of interest, we have had a meeting with a private consultant, but there have been very few substantive meetings on this project to date.
The Mi’gmaq have experienced and have had to adapt to climate change in the area. Sea level rise has meant loss of land in our communities and around traditional territory. Flooding and erosion have meant that artifacts, burial areas and sacred sites have been swept away, or are currently being threatened. Measures must be taken to ensure the land and artifacts are preserved in the Chignecto Isthmus.
Moving forward, the following must occur: The Chignecto Isthmus is a culturally significant area for the Mi’gmaq, and an in-depth Indigenous Knowledge study needs to be undertaken. The provincial and federal governments need to have deep and meaningful consultations on this project, and this should not be delegated to a private consultant. Governments must invest more in mitigation measures to prevent more loss of land and artifacts due to climate change.
Thank you so much for your time, and we look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Cloud. We’ll now move to questions.
[English]
Senator Quinn: My first question is for Ms. Cloud. Could you talk a little bit more about the importance of traditional knowledge as the governments move forward in looking at this?
This is where I am coming from: I happen to believe that traditional knowledge has a very important role to play in projects that are undertaken because the history and the knowledge that are embedded in Aboriginal culture can have a significant role. Can you talk about the importance of that to this project?
Ms. Cloud: Senator, I might pass this on to my colleague Mr. Labillois-Bjorndal since he is certainly the expert on Indigenous knowledge.
Charles Labillois-Bjorndal, Director of Indigenous Knowledge, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated: Hello, senators. The importance of Indigenous knowledge and traditional knowledge — I guess we could call it — is that they are fundamental to who we are as Indigenous people, as Mi’gmaq people. That knowledge is passed down through generations, through oral history. It helps sustain our culture and our livelihoods. It makes us resilient as Mi’gmaq people. That’s pretty much the importance of traditional knowledge on a small scale.
Senator Quinn: To build on that just a little bit, we heard earlier about the various species and sensitive fauna that are residing in the area. Is that part of the traditional knowledge — the history of migratory patterns, et cetera? Is that something that can be helpful in informing proponents about the need to pay attention?
Mr. Labillois-Bjorndal: Yes, most definitely. That could help the proponents use mitigation factors around certain areas. For example, if there is an archaeological site, and if the proposed project is to go through that area, we could discuss mitigation factors to avoid that certain area. It is the same with the species at risk. If we know of a species’ habitat, we could propose a mitigation factor to work around that specific place. Mitigation with our colleagues and our partners, as well as an honest, good discussion, would be worth it.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
I’ll head over to Mr. Guimond from CN: We heard earlier this evening from the provinces about the ongoing maintenance of the rail that crosses the isthmus. You mentioned the moneys invested by CN.
Can you talk a little bit about the importance of that, given that you are the only presence on the East Coast for rail transportation? Could you talk a little bit about why that investment is so important?
Second, could you talk about the existing dike system? We heard this evening that the dikes are actually a little bit higher than the rail and the road. Can you talk about the importance of doing preventive things today to prevent your infrastructure from being inundated?
Mr. Guimond: Thank you for the questions. In terms of the maintenance, as I said, we have 30,000 kilometres of track across North America. We have a rigorous maintenance process to inspect our tracks on different frequencies, depending on the use of that track.
The East corridor is no different than the other places because that specific area is considered to be on the main line. This area has the most inspections that it can have because it is our main line.
We use a visual type of inspection called “hi-rail,” where we have employees who go on the site. We also use technology. A couple of years ago, we developed a type of technology that we call the Autonomous Track Inspection Program, or ATIP, and we have one of those dedicated systems here.
Basically, it is a railcar equipped with tons of lasers with the potential to capture data, and we’re able to go across the rails. We collect all that type of data, and send it back to an office where people analyze it and help us immediately attack any specific area if we find any discrepancies from what are supposed to be the standards. In this area —
Senator Quinn: Maybe I can ask you to talk about the out-front section; otherwise, I will run out of time.
What is the importance of the out-front section and the dikes that protect it? Your comments are helpful, even on the natural solutions that are there today. It’s the out-front section that is protecting the rail — how important is that area? What are your fears on the condition of that?
Mr. Guimond: That section is as important as our network. We have dedicated ATIP cars that move back and forth between Halifax and the western part to ensure that we inspect that section.
In terms of the second portion of your question, I’ll be honest; I’m not an expert in understanding the dike versus the height of our track. We do have an engineering group that looks specifically at all those components, including the potential risk assessment. That’s where we allocated our capital expenditures, or CapEx — or investment money — when needed to maintain or make more resilient our part of the network. This is covered by an engineering group that looks at all the potential impacts from climate change, and that area is part of it, of course.
Senator Quinn: Chair, perhaps if CN has information on that, they could submit it to us.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we are doing a study especially on that region.
[Translation]
That’s what we’re interested in, Mr. Guimond. We need information on what you are or are not doing. How do you technically view this rail line, which floods very often? Is it safe or not? We really need technical information.
Senator Simons: Thank you, Mr. Guimond, for being with us this evening. I have three questions for you.
[English]
First, I want to understand this: What is CN’s own in-house risk analysis of this portion of the line? What is CN willing to pay, not just to shore up your own line, but would CN also be willing to contribute anything to the overall cost of securing the isthmus?
Finally, we’ve heard from a lot of government people that they found it extremely difficult to communicate with CN, or to get any response when they have reached out to you. I’m wondering if you could tell me what CN has been doing to try to work collaboratively with the provinces and municipalities involved.
Mr. Guimond: Thanks for the questions. I’ll try to go one by one.
In terms of the communication, we have a public affairs group. We have a dedicated person who looks at the Atlantic, and we are hiring an extra person who will only look at the Atlantic in the future. We try to engage through our public affairs people. From there, they bring the information and contact the different departments that we have in CN. Also, in terms of collaboration, CN participated in the 2022 survey for the Chignecto Isthmus.
We understand that we operate throughout numerous municipalities across the country. We have resources dedicated to that to ensure that we work as collaboratively as possible within the different areas that we have.
In terms of cost and investment, I think CN makes it pretty clear to all our different stakeholders that we are committed to investing directly to maintain our track infrastructure. This is what CN is willing to do in terms of payment for the maintenance of the track in the Chignecto Isthmus.
Senator Simons: If I can interrupt, maintaining the track is not the problem — maintaining the water level is the problem. You could spend $1 billion on the track, but if the isthmus is inundated, that is money wasted. Are you willing to spend beyond checking the ties, and spend anything on the grander project of protecting the area?
Mr. Guimond: Part of our commitment is to make our network resilient, and to ensure that we incorporate the risk of climate change. The commitment of CN is that we’ll invest directly in our infrastructure to make it resilient — not only to repair and maintain it, but also to make it resilient for the future as well.
Senator Simons: But would making it resilient include looking at the macro problem of flooding of the isthmus? Is CN willing to come to the table with the federal government, provinces and municipalities to invest money not just in your railbed right-of-way, but also in the future of the entire length of the track where it runs?
Mr. Guimond: We’ve already been clear that we will invest direct money in our infrastructure.
Senator Simons: Right, but what I’m asking you is this: Will you invest in the infrastructure that protects your railbed? Because, as I say, you could make a rail line out of platinum with diamond ties. If the whole thing floods, what have you accomplished? If CN is willing to mitigate the risk by protecting the isthmus, that would be valuable to know.
I have a final question about the fibre optic cable that runs along your line. Whose cable is that, and what is CN’s relationship to protecting that cable bed?
Mr. Guimond: I’m not an engineering expert on fibre optics. However, I can tell you that it’s correct that in some areas we have fibre optics that run along our right-of-way. I’m aware of this, but I would not be able to comment right now specifically to that area. I would be more than happy to provide the information specifically on the fibre optics in this area.
Senator Simons: That would be extremely helpful.
Ms. Cloud, what would it take for you to feel properly consulted? When you say that the land is unceded and unsurrendered, do you have a claim to that land? Would you be asking for compensation? What would that look like for you to feel that the Mi’gma’gi are properly involved in this project?
Ms. Cloud: Thank you for that question. We have a process called the Mi’gmaq Rights Impact Assessment, or MRIA, Framework, which complements the federal environmental impact assessment, or EIA, process.
Senator Simons: There would have to be an impact assessment.
Ms. Cloud: Yes, it will take into account any issues that might impact rights, and look specifically at what studies might need to be conducted in addition to what might have already taken place. To answer your question, we do have proven rights in the area, but there are active title assertions by several nations in the province as well.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, panellists. I have a question for Ms. Cloud. [Indigenous language spoken]
It has been a while. I just said, “Hi and good day.”
This is a follow-up to Senator Simons’s question delving into the area of consultation. You referenced deep and meaningful consultation. Could you share any perspectives or examples with respect to how that has worked for your organization? Thank you.
Ms. Cloud: Absolutely. Thank you very much, senator.
I’m trying to think of an example that might be relevant. What I can tell you is that the work that’s been done with the province has not been sufficient. The discussions are not cooperative in terms of taking into consideration the MRIA Framework. The federal government has taken that into consideration. We certainly appreciate working along their process because it’s much more comprehensive than what the Province of New Brunswick has indicated in the past.
We do have a process. Through the MRIA, it’s an eight-step process. I am happy to send that along as a supplementary document following these discussions so that you can take a look at it. It sets out a process to be able to assess the depth of the impact of rights.
The potential impact would depend on what potential mitigation factors might be put in place, or what accommodations could be considered moving forward. Certainly, the process allows for that open dialogue to take place. We’ve had a number of proponents who have gone through the process, and we’ve gotten some really great feedback on it.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I have three quick questions. Mr. McKee, the first one is for you just in case you’re feeling left out. You were just so clear that we don’t have too many questions, but I do have one.
Witnesses before you were suggesting that the other side roads beyond the Trans-Canada Highway were not very good for trucks.
Mr. McKee: That is 100% correct. There is a series of back roads, specifically Highway 97E in Nova Scotia through New Brunswick on Highway 366. Those connect to two-lane highways — Highway 15 and Highway 16 — at various points through the isthmus. Depending on where the potential damage could be, there would be an alternate route. But, as I stated, we’re looking at a volume of 2,500 trucks per day. That infrastructure is in no way prepared to take that load, nor is the congestion or the small communities and homes along those routes.
Senator Cardozo: Have there been any temporary closures of it? There was a temporary closure.
Mr. McKee: You have to forgive me; I have not been in the industry for that many years. I recall there was a brief closure, and there were trucks routed through one of those back roads, but I apologize that I don’t know the specifics.
Senator Cardozo: But it still caused a lot of backup.
Mr. McKee: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Guimond, I have a question about the costs. Our previous witnesses talked about the costing of approximately $650 million. Do you see CN putting any money into the cost of this project?
Mr. Guimond: Thank you for the question, senator.
CN’s commitment is to put investment directly in its infrastructure. I guess the best example that I can give is someone referenced the washout that we had in the Truro area this summer. We managed to repair that disruption, and we invested money and repaired our network. This is the type of investment we’re making — not only did we repair it with our group, but we are also studying what climate change can bring to us in terms of futures. When I was speaking earlier about resiliencies, not only did we repair it, but we also made it more resilient by putting three culverts instead of two. The diameters of those culverts incorporated data analysis from a hydrology group — the water flow level. This is how we invest our money, and invest in our network to make sure it is resilient, including the factors of potential climate change in the future.
Senator Cardozo: Do you think that one solution could be to raise the level of the railroad? Would you cover that?
Mr. Guimond: If we have to invest in our bed of the railroad and the infrastructures, as long as it’s within the infrastructures, that is something that CN would look into.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. Do you share the rail line with CP?
Mr. Guimond: No, we don’t share the rail line with CP in that corridor.
Senator Cardozo: Do they go across that isthmus?
Mr. Guimond: No, they don’t go across.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. In terms of the transmission of fibre optic lines, those are not connected to your structure or anything — are they?
Mr. Guimond: We do have some fibre optics with us. They are in our right-of-way; they are on our property over there from what I know.
I just want to go back to my previous answers: I’m not extremely familiar with this specific area, but it is my understanding that in a lot of places across the country, there are fibre optics that go on the right-of-way of CN. But, as I said, I would be more than happy to provide that information to the committee afterwards.
Senator Cardozo: Okay, thanks. Would that likely be buried as opposed to being on the power lines above ground?
Mr. Guimond: Most probably.
Senator Cardozo: Ms. Cloud, you’ve talked very eloquently about land rights, and also about the wildlife in the area — the flora and the fauna. Could you say a little bit more about the flora and the fauna in that area, and your concerns about what needs to happen as we look at the increased possibility of flooding in the years ahead?
Ms. Cloud: Sure thing. There are a number of sacred medicines that are currently being harvested in the area — sweetgrass is one of them. Sweetgrass generally grows where the saltwater and freshwater meet, so it’s a prime location for that, as well as for many migratory birds and culturally significant animal species — as well as ecologically significant — such as the wood turtle, which is certainly significant for everyone, but specifically for the Mi’gmaq people. I’m sorry; I forget the second half of your question.
Senator Cardozo: In terms of the flora and the fauna, and the wildlife in that area, there was just the one question.
Ms. Cloud: Yes, that’s the moose love corridor. So if this area is cut off, the moose will be unable to actually traverse into the mainland of Nova Scotia. Certainly, it’s not just species, but also, indeed, the archaeological significance. There are many archaeological features in that area that we don’t want to see washed away and we would like to see protected.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Ms. Cloud, for reminding us of the Indigenous language of the region, and that the meaning of “Chignecto” is “drainage place.”
The question is for all three of you. The climate crisis and the impact on infrastructure requires everyone at the table — all hands on deck. I sense competence in everybody’s specific sphere of expertise, but I wonder about the cross-pollination and the communication between all of those players and parties.
For Mr. McKee and Mr. Guimond, when do you meet? Who is the convenor that brings all of you together to talk about how all of you are going to participate in these solutions? Do you attend meetings? How does it work that you are all working together, or are you?
I heard you, Ms. Cloud, when you said the province is not sufficiently consulting. So I have suspicions about how well all the orders of government are working together, including the associations and stakeholders. If you could comment on that, please.
Mr. McKee: I can maybe go first. Madam Senator, thank you. To this point, our association has not been involved in any discussions with stakeholders or partners on this issue. This is our first time sitting at the table.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. McKee.
Mr. Guimond: Thank you for the question. I’ll go next. Truly, as explained early, we have a public affairs employee who tries to get engaged when parties are called to the table. In this specific case, CN did participate in the 2022 Chignecto Isthmus Climate Change Adaptation Comprehensive Engineering and Feasibility Study.
When it comes to our network and infrastructure, when there’s an invitation or there’s something, we will participate. Often it’s going to be through our public affairs group with our expert internal lead who will attend those meetings. But so far, to my knowledge, we have participated in the 2022 Chignecto Isthmus Climate Change Adaptation Comprehensive Engineering and Feasibility Study.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Ms. Cloud: The last time that we might have had a discussion with anyone on this project was well over a year or two years ago. We had certainly expressed the need for them to engage us at the earliest point possible. We were invited to the announcement a little while back around the study, but we did not participate directly in that.
We do have conversations with some of the other NGO conservation groups — the Nature Conservancy of Canada. There are certainly collaborative discussions that happen quite consistently with that group. As far as any of the other stakeholders, there has been very little to no communication with the Mi’gmaq at this point.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all three of you.
Senator Dasko: I hate to be accused of piling on, but, Mr. Guimond, I do have a final question about costs and expenditures. You mentioned that CN was taking into account the impacts of climate change, rising sea levels and storms. Have you identified any costs that the company will have to — and that you expect it to — undertake to deal with those issues over the next few years? Have you identified an amount that you feel the company will have to spend — what are the risk factors, and what might you have to spend to deal with those factors? Thank you.
Mr. Guimond: Thank you for the question.
Yes, we, as a company, have introduced two things: the physical and the climate risk change over time — the transition to climate risk — in our processes. I honestly don’t have a number for you right now, but I can tell you that there is some risk that has been evaluated, and an amount has, probably, been put toward it.
This is also how we plan our investments on a yearly basis. When we decide where we need to prioritize on a yearly basis, an amount of money — part of our global envelope that we have — goes toward the resiliency of our network, not necessarily increasing the capacity all of the time. I would say a good portion goes toward the basic maintenance and resiliency of our network. As part of that, we consider the study for climate change, and where we need to reinforce the network versus where we need to maintain it, according to the location of the network and the potential risk of it.
Senator Dasko: So you do have a figure that you have estimated for the maintenance and repair in dealing with the risks in the isthmus, in particular?
Mr. Guimond: I would say that I don’t have a number in mind right now, but I know that we probably have a range of risks and potential figures that were elaborated.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
If you could send that to us, it would help us understand the investment that you are contemplating. If you could send us that, that would be great. Thank you.
Senator Simons: My question is for Mr. Guimond once again.
The Deputy Chair: You can speak in either language, Mr. Guimond.
[Translation]
You can speak in the language you’re most comfortable with, because we’re asking you quite a few questions. We’re very interested in the role of CN, because it’s really central. I’m sorry because we have some pointed questions, but we need answers, so we’re putting you in a not-so-easy position. I understand that you don’t have all the answers, but we’re going to keep on questioning you.
[English]
Senator Simons: When the CN and CP lines were washed out off the coast of British Columbia during the floods there a couple of years ago, that hit us very hard — I am from Alberta. Without those rail lines and roads, Alberta was very much cut off.
But CN and CP worked together, and they — remarkably quickly — were able to restore rail service and repair their railbeds.
This is what I am concerned about when I look at the state of the isthmus: If there is a flood, it may not be a short-term thing where you can rebuild the railbed fairly swiftly. We are hearing about the potential for a catastrophe if there is a combination of high tides and a hurricane. That could sink things for months, if not years.
When you are doing your risk assessment, how concerned are you about that kind of existential disaster versus the kinds of smaller things that we saw in British Columbia that could be repaired in relatively short order?
Mr. Guimond: Thank you for the questions.
I would consider what happened in British Columbia not to be a small thing. We have a dedicated workforce, and our engineering group works non-stop — day in, day out — to repair those. I cannot really comment on what CP does, but I know our engineering group was working on it.
In terms of when there is a disaster, it is the size of the disaster and what kind of solution we can bring. We have experts in our engineering group; that is their job to do. We have people who specialize in bridges and structures within our engineering group. We have been able to rebuild bridges in a really quick manner in the past. Again, I will use the example that happened in Truro this summer; that was in my region. If I go back to what I read at the beginning, a lot of people thought that we would be out for months, and, within a couple of days, we were back in operation.
Really, it is a bit difficult to try to plan for disasters.
I will reiterate what we do: We have changed our processes so that when we do our budget allocation and the planning of our maintenance, we involve climate change right now. We have been able to demonstrate that we can turn around pretty quickly to be able to restore a network.
I cannot speculate on what type of disruption that can be done. We have lost bridges this summer because of wildfires in northern Quebec. We have lost our network in Truro due to a massive washout. Some of you might remember seeing the pictures in the paper with our tracks suspended in the air, but, within a couple of days, we were back in operation.
Senator Simons: It is very difficult for me to judge — as a senator from Alberta as opposed to an engineer from Nova Scotia — just how vulnerable this isthmus is. From your own internal risk analysis, can you tell us this: Are you seeing this more as a series of — I do not want to call them minor inconveniences because what happened in Truro was not a minor inconvenience — soluble, smaller, discreet problems, or one large, more extensional crisis that could wipe out every transportation corridor for months, if not years?
Mr. Guimond: I will be honest here; I’m not an expert on what the risks are. We rather that rely the expert. I’m part of a group of operations that run a network. We have engineering people who are more specialized in this to study that. And there are those who participated in the visibility study.
I’m not in a position, honestly, to answer that question because I’m not the expert to evaluate what type of risk could be dealt with in this.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: We’ve heard clearly that CN intends to make the necessary investments in its lines.
[English]
I will come back to it, for clarity. I’m not talking about your dikes that form part of your rail line across the isthmus; I’m talking about the protective barriers called dikes — that are outside — that do protect your rail line. The question that people are proposing is a yes or no type of question. Would CN invest directly in the dikes that are not their dikes, but offer the protection for their line?
Mr. Guimond: Thank you again for the question. Again, I have to tell you that CN will invest in its direct infrastructures. With our track, our infrastructures and our bed, this is where CN committed to invest and to put money.
Senator Quinn: If the isthmus floods and your rail is gone, you are out of business on the East Coast.
Senator Cardozo: This is a brief comment, and it may not even need an answer. It strikes me that both the previous panel and this panel are saying that there is a 10-year framework with which to do this. I wonder if we have 10 years to do this. I want to table that as a thought: We may not have 10 years.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: On that note, Mr. Guimond, I’d like to remind you that we’ve asked you for a number of things. You could send us written answers, particularly on your risk analysis for the region, and let us know the amounts, if they are public, that you are prepared to invest.
We’d also like to know, from a CN engineering perspective, what’s happening with the Chignecto Isthmus. We did not hear enough about that. I understand that your role is more on the operations side, but if we could have that information in writing, it would be most helpful.
Colleagues, please join me in thanking our witnesses for sharing their knowledge and answering our questions today.
[English]
To all of you, thank you for waiting, for testing all of the equipment and for being here. We learned a lot from the three of you.
(The committee adjourned.)