THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 6, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.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 Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators, and welcome to this meeting. I am Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec, and chair of this committee. I would like to invite my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Richards: Senator Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Quinn: Senator Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Senator Cardozo, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Today, we are continuing our study on the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector and our study of infrastructure in the Vancouver area. For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome by video conference Mr. Dale Muir, Principal, Hydrotechnical Engineer; and Mr. Derek Ray, Principal, Geomorphologist, both of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants; and Professor Xuebin Zhang, Director of Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium.
We will begin with opening remarks from our witnesses. We will start with Mr. Muir and Mr. Ray, to be followed by Dr. Zhang. We will then proceed to questions from senators.
Mr. Ray, the floor is yours, and I remind our panellists that they have five minutes for your opening statements. Then we’ll go to Q & A.
Derek Ray, Principal Geomorphologist, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants: Thank you very much, honourable members of the committee, for inviting me to speak on this topic.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. is a specialist firm practising engineering and geoscience in coastal and river processes, including assessment of hazards and adaptation solutions relating to coastal and river flooding. My professional practice over the last 27 years has included numerous assessments of rivers and coastal flooding, and erosion processes, as well as work to offer solutions for communities to adapt to climate change.
I’m joined this morning by my colleague, Dale Muir, who is also a principal owner of the firm. Mr. Muir is a senior engineer who specializes in the assessment of flood hazard and risk, as well as the development of mitigation options to improve community resilience to flood hazards.
We speak to you as practitioners who work within a team of professionals who are regularly tasked with quantifying risks and developing mitigation to the impacts of climate change for a variety of private and government clients. Provided with this opportunity to speak on this topic, we as a group wanted to highlight three areas where we see a need to do better: one, the science of climate change and hazard mitigation; two, criteria to guide hazard assessment and mitigation for critical infrastructure; and three, better institutional mechanisms to coordinate our collective efforts.
Before I describe these in more detail, I’d like to briefly frame the challenge in a way that will make the importance of these three areas more evident.
The Port of Vancouver and the Vancouver International Airport, also known as YVR, are understood to be important hubs within the overall transportation and communications infrastructure in the Vancouver area. Located along the Lower Fraser River at the Strait of Georgia, both of these entities are vulnerable to climate-change-induced flood hazards, and both are taking planning steps to adapt to meet future conditions. Both entities exist within an interconnected system of infrastructure in a region that is operated and maintained by various jurisdictions, including local to federal governments, Crown corporations and private businesses. Thus, many aspects of climate change mitigation are outside the care and control of the port and airport authorities.
The importance of these hubs extends beyond the local region to many areas of British Columbia and the rest of Canada. It is understood that many parts of the transportation and communications infrastructure are vulnerable to natural hazards that could disrupt the supply chain as well as have other negative consequences for the population of the region. A recent case in point is the atmospheric river event that affected British Columbia two years ago in November 2021. Lives were lost, the farming sector was severely disrupted and the supply of goods, food and energy were disrupted for months until the main highways and rail lines could be repaired. Not only was this event a wake-up call of sorts to the scientific community, reminding us all that we must keep working to better understand how conditions may be more adverse in the future, it also highlighted the vulnerabilities within our interconnected transportation network, which can also impact port operations.
This brings me to the three areas we believe warrant attention to better inform and mitigate the flood risk to critical infrastructure under the changing climate.
The first is the increased support of science, and for this topic, that is the science that relates to floods and climate change. Professional practitioners, policy-makers and property managers necessarily base their underlying assumptions of what the future holds on climate change science. In particular, when tasked with developing solutions to increasing risks that will occur in the future, we must consider rising sea levels, more intense storms and bigger floods. In doing so, we rely primarily on the science to predict the severity and magnitude of these conditions. While there will always be uncertainty in the science, we should continue to understand our changing climate to the best of our abilities to reduce uncertainty and better define the conditions that we should expect in the future.
The importance of baseline monitoring using weather stations, wave buoys, and river and tide gauges to monitor our environment and provide the necessary data to inform engineering and policy decisions at all levels of government cannot be understated. Better hydroclimatic monitoring and downscaling of global climate change projections provide improved prediction of future conditions and the basis for adaptation to mitigate the flood risks. Limitations on available data and scientific knowledge is critical for Metro Vancouver but even more prevalent in remote and First Nation communities. Clearly, we need to continue to fund and increase funding for environmental monitoring.
The second area where work needs to continue is in the realm of public policy and the guidance offered to local governments and local regulators. Presently, in Canada it is accepted engineering practice to base protection from flooding to the 200-year event or even the 100-year flood event. This means there is a 0.5% or 1% chance of occurrence in any given year, but over the life of a project — say, 100 years for critical infrastructure — this results in a 40% to 60% chance of occurrence.
This may be acceptable for individual residences, but more critical infrastructure, such as airports, ports, and associated transportation and communication networks, may warrant a higher level of design, despite the potential increase in initial costs. Careful thought should be given to whether we are sufficiently preparing our transportation and infrastructure systems to be resilient in the future and if we are looking far enough into the future when planning critical infrastructure. This means reconsidering our existing practices, codes and guidelines, particularly for critical infrastructure.
The third area where we would like to see more work is in how efforts between and among the various entities charged with planning for future climate change are coordinated. We believe that important vulnerabilities in our systems will remain until we find a way to apply a consistent approach to planning, designing and protecting infrastructure across multiple jurisdictions. Continued operation and flood resilience for the Port of Vancouver and the Vancouver International Airport rely on design, operation, maintenance and surveillance of infrastructure under the authority and control of various levels of government. Appropriate and sufficient scientific understanding, design criteria, funding, long-term adaptation planning and coordination across the various entities are required to avoid vulnerabilities in protection and continued operation of these facilities. This may lead to reinforcing current facilities and access to these facilities or planning for future relocation as sea levels rise.
Thank you very much for your time and interest in this subject.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ray.
Now I turn the floor over to Dr. Zhang.
Dr. Xuebin Zhang, Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium: Good morning. I’m Xuebin Zhang, Director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria.
I would like to give you a little bit of my background relevant to this panel. I have studied climate change in Canada and globally for over 28 years. More recently, I have been involved in national and international assessments of climate change. Notably, I led the assessment of Canada’s climate change that was released in 2019. I led the assessment on changes in precipitation temperature. I was also heavily involved in the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I was a coordinating lead author of the chapter: “Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate.” My experience and also the assessment led me to give you the following.
Recent changes in climate, including warming and sea-level rise, are widespread, rapid, intensifying and unprecedented in thousands of years. Canada has warmed about twice as fast as the global average with more than double the rate of global warming in the North. Human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, are causing climate change and making extreme climate events — including heat waves, heavy rainfall and droughts — more frequent and severe. Changes are projected for all aspects of the climate system.
There are two particular areas that are quite relevant to our infrastructure in the Vancouver area. One is from extreme precipitation. What we know is that extreme precipitation will increase — it has been projected to increase — by roughly 7% per one degree temperature increase in our region.
A second noticeable thing that is fairly relevant is the increase in sea level. Sea-level rise is projected to be more than a metre by the end of this century in our region. This combination of sea‑level rise and increase in extreme precipitation will cause more severe flooding.
The confidence about this projection is very high. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Zhang. Now we will turn it over to Q&A, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Miville-Dechêne.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: This question is for Dale Muir. I’m going to check that you have access to the interpretation. Perfect.
Your site states that your firm has conducted an assessment of sea-level rise and the flood risk for the port of Vancouver. You modelled four scenarios representing a combination of sea-level rises and storm surge return periods. Which of these four scenarios is most likely?
Simply put, what’s likely to happen, and what port infrastructure should be prioritized to better cope with climate change? In other words, it’s one thing to say it’s going to get bad, but what needs to be strengthened?
[English]
Dale Muir, Principal Hydrotechnical Engineer, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants: Thank you for your question. The infrastructure for the Port of Vancouver is, obviously, along the Lower Fraser River and at the sea in the lower mainland, so it has a number of hazards imposed on it. Similarly to what Dr. Zhang said, there is the increasing sea-level rise — which is a hazard — as well as the increased precipitation. The other hazard that wasn’t mentioned is the increasing flows on the Fraser River. All three of these influence or could impact this infrastructure.
As reported, the sea level could rise by as much as a metre by the end of the century. On top of that, past projection suggests that the precipitation could increase by as much as 40% — even 75% — by the end of that same time period. We combine that with the Fraser River, where extreme events are also supposed to be increasing in the order of about — I mean, it could be 0% to 10% increases within that same time period for the freshet flows. The freshet flows typically occur during the spring, whereas the winter flows, which occur during the fall and winter when there’s the highest precipitation, could increase up to as much as 75% of what was occurring before.
If you combine all those events at the same time, you could have increasing Fraser River flows in the winter, increasing precipitation in the winter as well as the sea-level rise. The highest tides are typically also in the winter. These ports on the Lower Fraser River, at the estuary and at the outlet of the Fraser could be impacted by all three of those events. These areas have the highest water levels but are also where it is most challenging to deal with the stormwater. That is because, typically, the stormwater would drain by gravity to the Fraser River or to the sea. If those have also been elevated, it is that much more challenging to deal with that stormwater.
Therefore, what is required is additional infrastructure, either storage of that flow when water levels are lower — such as lower tides — or increased pumping capacity.
One of the issues that Mr. Ray mentioned was coordination between the different entities. When you’re looking at the port, it’s not just the port that has to deal with it, but they also have lease holders at the port that often have control of these facilities. So they also have to manage and be directed on how to manage these ports under these future design conditions, as well as any other infrastructure to access these facilities such as railways and highways.
The study we did was primarily looking at these different events, but strictly to do with the port and not the additional infrastructure to access these facilities and ensure they are operational. The main issues were primarily the increase in water levels and increasing stormwater in the future.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If we stick to the port — and I don’t know who is best, Mr. Ray or you, to answer — what’s going to happen? Are you thinking of a complete flooding of all the infrastructure? If so, what should be done concretely now?
Mr. Muir: It’s not necessarily that all the infrastructure floods. It would be the lowest-lying areas of the infrastructure that would be impacted. What needs to be done now is to look at these future events and where flooding will occur and address it. That could mean raising locations up to protect against flooding or elevate critical infrastructure, whether it’s main electrical switch gear or other electronics — to have them raised — as well as planning for the future so that if there’s any additional development or future work at these ports, they’re designed to that future design flood level.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: To understand well, if you take the whole Port of Vancouver, what percentage of it is threatened by this flood, the one that’s on the lower land? How much of the port are we talking about, and is it the main part of the port or not? We don’t have a map in front of us, so help us.
Mr. Muir: I don’t have that information directly in front of me, but I could look it up and get back to you on what percentage it is. The port itself, there are a number of facilities along the Fraser River.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It would be great if you could send a little map with that.
Mr. Muir: Sure. I can do that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Well, this has been deeply depressing. Thank you to all our witnesses for being with us at 6:00 a.m. British Columbia time.
I wanted to follow up on the questions asked by my colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne and now turn our attention to the airport in Vancouver. I wonder, either Mr. Ray or Mr. Muir, if you can provide a similar assessment of the vulnerabilities of the Vancouver airport, how high-risk this is, and what infrastructure steps need to be taken in the immediate and the medium term to ensure that we don’t lose that airport property.
Mr. Muir: Thank you for the question. I haven’t actually worked directly for YVR or the airport, so I don’t know the exact specifics of their facilities. From research online, it appears that most of it is designed to the 200-year event. That’s going to change as we have sea-level rise. I believe some of the dikes are, at current elevation, around 3.5 metres above mean sea level.
The City of Richmond has jurisdiction over some of the dikes, and other dikes on the facility are under the jurisdiction of YVR — the Airport Authority — so they both have to work in conjunction to elevate and strengthen their dikes to the higher level.
In addition to that, as I mentioned, for the other facilities, as increasing storm water as well as the water levels on the water side of the dikes all increase, it’s going to be that much more challenging to drain the storm water that occurs on site.
Currently, I believe YVR, for development and any kind of work at the airport, it refers to the jurisdiction of other areas. I believe the development permit application suggests that it look at local jurisdictions to meet design flood levels, which would be the City of Richmond. That goes back to what Mr. Ray said in the introductory comments: if that’s a reasonable design criteria for such critical infrastructure.
For example, a 200-year flood event, as Mr. Ray said, has 0.5% chance of occurring in any given year. In a 100-year period, that’s roughly a 40% chance of occurrence. Is that an acceptable level of risk for this infrastructure or should a more extreme design event be considered instead of relying on what’s good enough for a city or local residents? Is that the same design criteria that should be applied to the airport?
Mr. Ray: I might add that the airport is a good example of infrastructure that may be very vulnerable to very intense precipitation events. It’s in a low-lying portion of the Fraser River delta. It’s protected by dikes, but as it rains, that water needs to drain seaward during very high water levels. On the ocean side, that drainage occurs through pumping. That would be another area of vulnerability, combining the hazard of very high sea levels with a very intense rainstorm event.
We had a big atmospheric river event in 2021. As far as I know, the Airport Authority was not affected by that, but that is an example of the type of storm that occurred that exceeded previous rainstorms.
Senator Simons: Maybe this is not a fair question to ask a climate scientist and two engineers, but it seems to me that one of the challenges with planning in this area is that certain things are under municipal jurisdictions, and there are many different municipalities in Metro Vancouver. Then you have things that are under the responsibility of the Airport Authority and the Port Authority, then you have things that are responsibility of First Nations, then you have the province, and then you have the federal government. Do we need to have a better coordination?
This is a holistic problem, and it seems to me that one of the issues here is that you’ve got so many jurisdictions that may not be working collaboratively, and nobody is responsible for the overall flood response.
I know this is outside of your technical expertise for all of you, but just as citizens of the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, do we need to have better coordination of the engineering response to this situation?
Mr. Zhang: Perhaps I can say a few words.
Senator Simons: Please.
Mr. Zhang: Certainly, there is a need for a coordination of close-level government. As far as I know, the federal government has invested quite heavily in something called flood mapping, with the aim to produce new maps about flood hazards in different parts of the country. That is one area of coordination I see that is happening, but, certainly, there is a need to enhance that.
In British Columbia, there is new legislation that requires climate change adaptation on all infrastructure designs and so on. This is another piece that is happening.
I certainly see the need to enhance coordination in the future, but that is not to say that there is nothing happening.
Mr. Ray: Yes, I agree. It is dangerous to say that there is no coordination now, but it is an area where we could be doing better. Because all these systems are inter-reliant, a bridge or a road that is flooded in one part of the system can block the transfer of goods, infrastructure, workers, emergency services. So, yes, I do think that better coordination and increased coordination between all these various entities would be something to look at.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Zhang, the comments you made about expecting that there could be a sea-level rise of a metre by the end of the century is a very concerning one, and I don’t doubt it. That’s 75 years away, but as I look at it and look at various predictions about climate change, oftentimes we’ve been off by those estimates and things happen a lot faster.
The other thing that could happen is you’ve got the sea-level rise happening, but if that’s combined on occasion with major storms, atmospheric rivers and things like that, you get a number of things coming together.
My thought is about Vancouver Island and sand airport. Is that not really in a dangerous spot?
You and the other witnesses have talked about the dikes. We’re relying on dikes, but it seems to me that there are much more threatening forces when you have sea-level rise and major storms. Should we not be thinking about raising the whole island, or at some point, maybe by the end of the century, we just give up on that area because it won’t be safe to have an airport there?
Mr. Zhang: The exact engineering part is not something I’m familiar with, but there is, certainly, the combination of sea-level rise, which we cannot avoid, by the way, even if we reduce emissions a lot. Sea-level rise will continue because of what we have already done. Sea-level rise will continue. That’s one.
The second is that extreme precipitation will increase both in intensity and frequency, and, certainly, the combination of them will happen over the years. The kind of situation you mentioned is something that is certain to happen. What is uncertain is just how big that might be regarding how much mitigation we are going to do with regard to reduction of CO2 emissions.
That’s the situation. Should we abandon the place where we live? That is another question. I won’t be able to say, but in places like Netherlands, most of the Netherlands is under sea level, but they have been able to build dikes that are so good that it has protected them quite well over the past many years.
It is about the investment. It is about if there are other places we can go, and if we cannot go to other places, then, I think, our choice will be how we can protect ourselves. That’s one.
The other thing is how we can adapt in a way such that our infrastructure becomes less vulnerable. There might be some other kind of innovative solutions that will reduce it, of course. One other thing, to raise the land is probably not something we can do very easily, but there are certain areas where there might be some engineering solutions; although that’s not something I’m very familiar with. I leave this to my colleagues, Mr. Ray and Mr. Muir to address.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Ray or Mr. Muir, do you have any comments on my question?
Mr. Muir: Thank you. I agree with what Dr. Zhang said as far as it would be fairly costly and probably not that feasible to elevate the whole airport with the amount of fill and infrastructure that is there without having to reconstruct the whole site. However, there could be improvements to dikes to make it more resilient than what it currently is and raise them over time and adapt to account for that increasing sea-level rise and increasing hazard.
However, we haven’t done a cost-benefit analysis, and I haven’t seen one done on whether it’s more practical or feasible to relocate the airport, but I have heard many people discuss that potential option and what the long-term viability is and the long-term cost of maintaining this facility where it’s at versus other locations. Whether that’s 100 years from now or 200 years from now, the time frame depends on how climate change is in the future.
Senator Cardozo: There are not a lot of other alternatives unless you move some of the mountains around there. There is not a lot of space to put in another airport.
Mr. Muir: Yes. Correct.
Senator Cardozo: That may be a costly approach.
In terms of the ports and the question that my colleague was asking you earlier, Vancouver and Vancouver Fraser Port Authority cover many terminals, if I can narrow it down that way. Do you have a sense of how many of those terminals are in trouble in the next couple of decades?
Mr. Muir: For the nature of how terminals operate, they are usually not super high above the water level, because they want to keep it functional for when ships come and use the ports. So all of them are, obviously, right at the water and fairly low down on the elevation.
As far as what they are at risk of, I think they are all fairly similar in issues, but, I mean, it depends on exactly which site, and I don’t know offhand. It is similar to the request that was provided earlier about providing a map and identifying which areas are at greatest risk. I can dig that up and try and provide something for you.
Senator Cardozo: With the terminals, you say they are built closer to water level now. It would be relatively easy, then, to raise them up by a few feet or a few metres. The problem may be the infrastructure to get to them, such as the rail lines and things like that?
Mr. Muir: That is true. There is infrastructure all along the rail lines as well as the roads. Similar to what Mr. May said earlier, it’s both the equipment and goods that are being transported but workers also have to get to these facilities.
For example, in the 2021 atmospheric river event, we had bridges and railways that were damaged up in the Fraser Valley, hundreds of kilometres away from the sites, and it still prevented transportation access to these facilities. It’s not just right at the ports themselves; it’s all along that whole route.
Senator Cardozo: Just in case we think the atmospheric river was a one-time event, there has been one happening right now over the last couple of days in California. This is not a phenomenon that is going away any time soon.
Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here so early in the morning.
I want to make an observation and pick up a little bit on what my colleague just noted. It’s not just the event that is happening in California, but we also have a weather event happening in Eastern Canada with disastrous snowfall. These events are becoming more and more common. I feel like we are at an intersection, and we are looking to the left and seeing a truck coming, and we continue to collect data, which is so vitally important, but we don’t move out of the intersection, and we know the truck is coming.
My observation is that like the ostrich, we take our head up, we listen, we see, we research and we put our heads down. Nothing is getting done concretely.
Is this a mistake? Are we needing to see more action today, based on the information we have, so we can move more quickly? If you were in charge, what would you do?
This question is to all the witnesses.
Mr. Muir: As far as the engineering side in British Columbia, we are designing everything with the consideration of climate change going forward. I mean, that’s mandated by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure as well as Engineers & Geoscientists British Columbia, so anything that is new or is an improvement, we are considering climate change.
Part of the challenge is the uncertainty of that climate change and the future conditions. That’s one challenge. The other challenge is how you deal with that uncertainty and how much of a factor of safety or other considerations you put into that potential challenge.
I mean, we can design for a very extreme outlier of what climate change may occur in 50 or 100 or 200 years, but then the cost to do that, is that warranted based on that uncertainty?
It’s a bit of a balance on what we can design for today versus how we can leave the ability to adapt as we learn more and as climate continues to change in the future.
Senator Quinn: I want to comment on that. While I agree in many ways, the data shows us that it’s not a linear increase in occurrences or in intensity. It’s quite the opposite. It’s going up like the curve on a Bobby Hull hockey stick.
While I hear what you said, and I appreciate that, do you not think that we need to be looking — Vancouver is our second-largest airport. It’s such an important cog in our economy, as is the Port of Vancouver; it’s the largest port in Canada — I know that very well. It’s one of the largest in North America.
Shouldn’t we be doing things more expeditiously, knowing that these are not linear increases? They are increasing on a curve basis. We need action today, do we not?
Mr. Muir: I agree with what you’re saying. One of the items, when I say we are designing or considering climate change in our design and trying to accommodate that, the level and how extreme we’re addressing it currently seems fairly consistent, regardless of whether it’s an individual residence, YVR, a port or any kind of critical infrastructure. Definitely, that should be reconsidered. This more consequential and critical infrastructure, should it not be designed to a greater design event or to better account for that level of risk than other less critical infrastructure? That would go right from the structure itself, whether it be the port or the airport, all the way up to the supply lines that go past the mountains and out to the east.
Senator Quinn: Would you share your thoughts?
Mr. Zhang: We do have evidence of potential changes in the future, such as the event of the 2021 atmospheric river. Atmospheric rivers have always been here and always will be here. What has happened is that the intensity or the amount of rain they bring has increased.
If we think about physics, that translates to 1 degree of increase in temperature will increase precipitation by 7%. In terms of the level of the atmospheric river that we had in 2021, which damaged our area, the frequency of that has almost doubled. This means that now we have that kind of event twice as often as before, when there was no such thing as climate change. But in the future, we are looking at more than double what we are seeing now in terms of frequency.
More importantly, something that we haven’t seen before and that we think could be really bad, or what we now see as a very rare event, could increase in frequency even faster, relatively. What used to be a 200-year event, in the future could be more like a 40- or 50-year event.
That is the kind of situation we are dealing with. Certainly, it requires us to act quickly to adapt to it in terms of new design where we take into consideration the increase of such events. The old infrastructure of our airports were not designed even for the current climate, in general. These structures were designed many years ago, using the standard at the time, and the climate has changed. This kind of structure was not designed for the climate we are experiencing today. There is a need for adaptation, although how we are going to do that depends on what is available in terms of resources.
Senator Quinn: Dr. Zhang, thank you very much for that response. I’m focused on governments not having a stellar record in terms of being quick in decision making. We have a bit of a history of that.
What is one concrete thing that we can do? I know we’re doing preventative things, as described by the previous witness, with respect to future builds and so on. Unfortunately, most of our systems are dependent on current infrastructure. If you were in charge, what is the one thing you would insist be done to protect current infrastructure?
Mr. Zhang: First, we will see what we can afford. Within the kinds of things we can afford, I would think adaptation in the areas where we can would be quite important, although I don’t know exactly how to do that. I’m not an economist or engineer. I’m a climate scientist. The message we are getting here is that our facilities are not operating at the safety level that they were designed for many years ago. That’s an important thing that people need to recognize, because climate has changed.
Senator Quinn: Any observations that you may have?
Mr. Ray: It occurs to me that one part of this puzzle is the standards. As my colleague mentioned earlier, most infrastructure is designed to a 1-in-200-year event. That’s the event that will result in failure of the infrastructure or failure of the dike.
I don’t know that we’re giving enough thought right now to whether that is sufficient for infrastructure that is critical. The airport is a very expensive facility. If it is damaged or if service is interrupted, it has implications beyond the airport authority.
I guess the question would be whether designing and maintaining it to withstand a 1-in-200-year event is sufficient. Is that reducing our risk of negative outcomes in the future? Should we be considering a bigger event, like a 1-in-500?
The Netherlands is a case in point. They consider more extreme and less likely events in terms of their design. They would like to withstand the 1,000-year flood event, for instance. That’s a societal decision that is made. They have said that they won’t accept failure of their infrastructure at anything less.
That is another piece, because that is the impetus behind investment and decision making that will guide those entities.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: If I may weigh in as well, as chair. I appreciate all the questions of my colleagues. We should not forget that we have a panel of scientists and engineers here. Maybe in the future we can invite Nostradamus to the panel and he can predict with more precision what is around the corner in terms of climate change.
We have to recognize that there has been changes in the environment for thousands of years. What we have done for thousands of years, as humanity, is to adapt. I keep hearing today in just about every answer how there is a need for adaptability to all the various things that are undeniably happening right now.
As you can see, dear witnesses, we, as legislators, are doing a study where we’re trying to change the reflex that has been going on for a long time of being reactive to these challenges, and we’re trying to be proactive.
I know some of these questions are difficult to answer, but I’m going to ask a simple one, I hope.
Are there other nations and jurisdictions around the world that are more effective and proactive in dealing with some of these challenges than Canada or British Columbia have been? If there are any examples, what would they be?
Mr. Ray: The example we would look to, to start with, is the Netherlands. That’s a country that has reclaimed massive areas that were previously flood prone and have converted them to their upland use. That might be the gold standard in the world. I’m certainly not an expert in comparing other jurisdictions, but that’s the one that comes to mind.
Mr. Muir: I would add to that, both for supporting the ability to adapt, as well as — going back to the previous senator’s question — the one thing that we could be doing, and that is to provide room to adapt.
On the coast, as we have increasing sea levels, the waves get larger at the site itself because there is less shoreline to initiate breakage of the waves. We need some space to be able to build larger dikes and to break the waves and the cause for erosion.
Likewise, on the rivers, as Dr. Zhang mentioned, we will be getting greater flows and more frequent larger flows. The rivers adapt to these greater flows and become wider and deeper. Again, we need more room between dikes and between infrastructure to accommodate these larger flows and changing river conditions. This is challenging when you’re going through a highly developed area such as Metro Vancouver but may be less challenging in other areas upstream of the main development.
When Mr. Ray mentioned the Netherlands, that community has been looking into providing more room for the river and larger corridors to allow for these kinds of changes.
Mr. Ray: I should also add that our neighbours to the south in some jurisdictions have done some very interesting things about setback dikes, giving rivers more room and reconnecting rivers with flood plains. It’s typically a federally funded project that mandates if you’re going to repair a dike, move it back and improve the river corridor situation. I think we have examples there as well.
The Chair: Dr. Zhang, do you have anything to add to that or we can move on?
Mr. Zhang: No, I don’t have anything to add with regard to the experience of other countries other than that what I know about in other countries, especially Australia, they do apply new standards that take climate change into consideration.
Of course, in Canada, we are also doing that. The 2022 building, highway and bridge codes, with their new revisions in 2025, they will each have a specific clause about how changing climate should be addressed. We are working with the Canadian Standards Association, also known as the CSA Group, to produce a standard that tells people what we call intensity, duration and frequency and describes how much precipitation falls for a certain period of time and where it needs to be in the future. There are some clauses about adaptation of new codes that take climate change into account.
Senator Richards: My question is short and it follows Senator Housakos. If you look back five or 10 years ago and your predictability of events that were coming, how do you think your predictability fared in the last 10 years about the Port of Vancouver or the airport or any other problem we might have with climate change? I’m thinking of my river, the Miramichi, where we have to dig out tunnels for our salmon to get up because the river on the northwest is so low. It has been that way now for seven years. It’s not a kind of universal pattern we’re talking about here, is it?
Mr. Zhang: In terms of predictability, the prediction skill of our weather forecast system has really improved. In terms of weather warnings, this kind is not quite effective, but then the usefulness of prediction for flood protection can be limited in an area where you have a road, a bridge or an airport and you cannot move them away when a big storm happens.
It is really what our engineer friends mentioned. That it’s about building resilience in the structure. Can we withstand this kind of system or weather in the future? That is more important than just the prediction itself. Yes, prediction has improved, but its utility to protect our roads, bridges or airports are more limited because it cannot prevent water that would come in our way.
Senator Richards: Would anyone else want to comment on that, please?
Mr. Ray: I can’t really comment on the predictability aspect, but you did touch on the issue of low water levels and drought. That’s not inconsistent with the predictions that have been made. We have mentioned several times that the atmospheric river event of 2021 was very disruptive here in British Columbia. That event was preceded that summer by a very bad forest fire season. Forest fires affected a lot of the province. We lost Lytton — the town of Lytton was burned that summer. That very dry event in the summer followed by a very intense rainstorm in the fall is not inconsistent with climate change predictions.
Senator Richards: I’m well aware of that. My question is whether the predictability of what will happen is theoretical science, not actual science. I’m not criticizing you people at all. I think you’re trying to do a job that needs to be done. I’m just saying that it’s not an actual science. You can’t tell in three years if the south branch of the Miramichi will have any salmon because the water is so low or if it will rise again.
I’m following on Senator Housakos’s question. This has been ongoing now for 150 years. I am not questioning the idea of climate change — I see it. I’m just questioning the idea of how accurate your predictability is about what is going to happen in 10 or 15 years, that’s all.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My questions are again for Mr. Muir and Mr. Ray. It’s a real question for engineers, as the chair asked us to ask.
In 2016, you produced a study assessing the flood risk for the proposed Fraser Grain Terminal development. This study provides an assessment of the local flood levels and the extent of flooding for a prescribed flood, but there is no assessment of the hydrotechnical facilities and especially erosion. So, we’re going to build this terminal, the announcement was made in 2023.
Based on your study and what you know about the upcoming construction, will it take flood risks into account? Do you feel that your study will be followed? Have you adopted the same standards today, or have you taken into account what’s going to happen?
[English]
Mr. Ray: Senator, unfortunately, neither Mr. Muir nor I are familiar with that particular study.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You didn’t do it?
Mr. Ray: Not personally.
Mr. Muir: There are probably about 100 people in our company in B.C., so we haven’t worked on every single study our company has done here.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m sorry. I will pass the buck to my colleague.
Senator Simons: I have a more global question. We talked a little bit about costs. The cost of not doing anything could ultimately be catastrophic. But just to put it in concrete terms with the kinds of responses that we need to make to preserve this critical infrastructure, what scale of spending are we talking about? How many billions of dollars would it cost to retrench the dikes, raise the levels of things and prepare for the changes that we know are coming, if not in five years, then in 50 years?
Mr. Muir: That’s a good question. Probably out of the panel, I’m the one who should be able to answer that one. Unfortunately, I don’t have that information on hand either, but if there’s a reference, I’ll try to get it to you.
Senator Simons: I’m asking an almost fanciful question because I can’t imagine how many billions of dollars this would take. Let’s break it down, then. I should ask this question first. Do you have information about what a specific project would cost, just to give us a sense of scale?
Mr. Muir: Every project is really different depending on where it is, how much things are raised and how things are changed. It’s fairly common to have small sections of dikes that are increased. That’s in the millions of dollars, even though it’s only maybe a kilometre of dike.
Some of the other challenges, as I mentioned earlier, as we have increasing flows, similar to what Mr. May said, it’s important to set things back to provide room so that the river can grow to convey that greater flow and prevent ongoing erosion and channel migration.
One of the challenges for local governments is that there are very limited options to purchase new lands and relocate things like dikes or build new dikes because of the challenge for funding to acquire property.
Senator Simons: Funding for projects on this scale is going to be out of reach for smaller municipalities. This is going to have to be something where federal and provincial governments step in. A city of 100,000 or 500,000 people is not going to be able to afford that kind of deep infrastructure work.
Mr. Muir: Correct.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The question I asked, which relates to a report probably prepared by other experts, is still important to know whether lessons are being learning from what’s happening. Could you send us a brief summary of the situation for the Fraser Terminal and tell us whether your recommendations have been taken into account? My question is for Mr. Muir and Mr. Ray.
[English]
Mr. Muir: Senator, unfortunately, I’m not sure what measures were taken after that report was prepared. I believe when that report was prepared, it was an initial step. There was consideration to look at additional ports and come up with long-term planning. I’m not sure where it’s gone from there.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank our witnesses for being here with us today and contributing to our study and report. Thank you for being with us today.
For our second panel this morning, we are pleased to welcome, both by video conference, Paul Blomerus, Executive Director, Clear Seas; and Amy Kim, Associate Professor, Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia. Welcome to our committee, and thank you for being here with us.
You will each get five minutes for opening remarks, and then we will turn it over to my colleagues for Q&A. Dr. Blomerus, you have the floor, sir.
Paul Blomerus, Executive Director, Clear Seas: Thank you, and thank you, senators.
My organization, Clear Seas, is an independent Canadian non-profit research organization. We’re determined to try to make marine shipping safer and more sustainable. Given how important maritime transport is to the economy and to the ability of people to go about their daily lives, we are particularly concerned about the threat presented by climate change to this important and vital transportation system.
Prompted in part by the disruptions to the West Coast supply chain that occurred in 2021, we undertook a research project and published a report released in April 2022. The research was carried out by Dillon Consulting, with funding provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. The goal was to gather best practices and resources for those carrying out the vital work of risk assessments and adaptation planning.
The conclusions from our research are not earth-shattering and, unfortunately, don’t provide any quick fixes or shortcuts, but I can share with you four key insights that we gained during this research.
First, I would say that it’s about quality. Simplistic, box‑checking climate adaptation plans are, frankly, potentially dangerous. Questions need to be asked about the quality of those assessments and the mitigation plans that are contained in them. For instance, what assumptions about sea level, weather and temperature were they based upon, and what sound engineering practices were employed in that risk assessment?
That leads me to my second point: the importance of good data and models. Incremental design practices that rely on backward-looking experience have hopefully been consigned to the history books, shall we say, and they should be replaced with up-to-date data and model predictions that can underpin the quality of the vulnerability assessments that we need. More than that, the pedigree interest and traceability of that data is also vital. How do we know that the risk assessment is aligned with the latest climate change predictions? Did the consultant who completed it give a best-before date, for instance, so that we can feel confident and know that those were completed accurately?
The third key conclusion we gained also concerns the quality of assessment; it is vital to take a system-thinking approach. Designers and risk-assessment facilitators need to broaden their approach to consider risks and failure modes not previously thought of. High water and high winds might have been previously sufficient to consider, but what about high water, high winds, no power, no internet and personnel unable to reach the critical infrastructure to intervene due to infrastructure and transport networks?
The final key conclusion concerns decarbonization. Unfortunately, the decarbonization energy transition itself introduces additional vulnerabilities. Allow me to try to illustrate. Consider an electric battery tugboat that is unable to recharge in a power outage and therefore cannot escort ships safely to berth. Another example is this: The derailment of a train at a washed-out embankment with rail cars filled with green ammonia instead of diesel fuel for ships necessitates the evacuation of a wider area and shuts down all surrounding infrastructure as this toxic cargo is cleaned up.
Again, new knowledge and skills are demanded from the risk assessors and adaptation planners to ensure they can account for these kinds of scenarios.
I would like to try to finish on a positive note, though. As a final comment, I would leave you with an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is that lean data-connected supply chains can be more robust to climate-change hazards. As an example, fewer ships waiting to load cargo means that fewer anchorages are needed as places of refuge in the face of a storm. Also, better data visibility allows for rapid replanning and redeploying of assets.
The challenge, as we see it, is to break down some of the barriers to the visibility and the implementation of these lean system philosophies. At Clear Seas, we continue to advocate for the creation of realistic simulation models that will allow all the actors in the supply chain to understand their role in creating bottlenecks and those vulnerabilities. A model such as that would give us the knowledge and understanding to properly conduct the risk assessments and create the much-needed adaptation plans using a system-level approach with high-quality data. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Now the floor is turned over to Professor Kim.
Amy Kim, Associate Professor, Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, as an individual: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I work at the University of British Columbia, which is located on the traditional land of the Musqueam people. I am also a registered professional engineer in the province of British Columbia, and my specialization is transportation engineering.
At UBC, I lead a research group that studies how the components of long-distance interregional transportation systems operate. These components can vary from individual facilities, to corridors, to multimodal networks. We look at different aspects of these systems, including how they operate under disruptions, how to consider climate-change adaptation needs and how these systems work in emergencies.
To do this work, we gather large datasets and build models to understand the data, and we will sometimes go a step further to use these results to build decision-support models. Our goal is to provide empirically driven methodologically sound analyses that could be helpful in supporting decision making about transportation systems, infrastructure and operations.
Canada’s long-distance transportation system is under pressure. Much of it traverses incredibly difficult terrain and operating environments, and covers vast distances. This makes our system enormously difficult to build, maintain and operate. Thus, there is often very little redundancy, even using alternate transportation modes.
Our long-distance transportation systems are also being impacted by climate change due to both slow and rapid-onset events. The latter includes more frequent and severe extreme-weather events and hazards. These cause infrastructure damage, operational disruptions and make critical supply chains in remote communities access, which are already fragile because of the lack of redundancy and access routes, even more tenuous.
A failure in one part of the network can lead to cascading impacts over both space and time. For example, after the November 2021 atmospheric river in B.C., several major highways were closed, which led to trucks being rerouted significant distances, massive delays and increased road safety concerns.
On top of these essential day-to-day freight and people movements, the system is also required to accommodate evacuations of citizens and livestock, and emergency response movements in the event of wildfires threatening communities, for example.
To describe a wicked problem very simply, the impacts of climate change on our transportation system are such that we are demanding even more performance from a system whose infrastructure is already under increased pressure. Thus, my lab specifically aims to answer questions around how weather and natural hazard events affect their transportation infrastructure and operations. I will list a few examples.
First, we have used statistical models to quantify crosswinds and poor visibility as the main drivers of flight disruptions at Iqaluit Airport. Second, we have investigated how marine barging schedules on the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories might be adopted to accommodate changing water levels and conditions. Third, we modelled the duration of disruptions on the B.C. highways network based on precipitating hazard events and locations of occurrence. This example is important, because some locations where these disruptions occur are located in quite remote and difficult terrain, and it’s harder to access.
Fourth, in collaboration with the wildland fire scientists, we have mapped directional fire travel times into communities against evacuation time estimates to understand community vulnerability to wildfires. I must note that much of this work was done with tremendous support from our government partners.
Currently, our research largely aims to improve our understanding of these problems rather than offering solutions. Broadly, engineers and planners are really challenged in determining new paradigms for this physical infrastructure and, mostly importantly, how this infrastructure is used.
In moving forward in my research, I think about the following question: Since we have limited resources toward reinforcing our existing systems or replacing them to withstand these changing forces or building additional facilities, can we imagine a more expansive view of how our facilities can be utilized toward a transportation system that is more adapted to these challenges and can be used more flexibly as demands arise? Another question I have is: Do we have sufficient data to support this work? The truth is, senators, as a researcher, I have far more questions than answers.
The multimodal transportation system of our vast country consists of many individual vital parts that work together, but the transportation system is part of a larger infrastructure and societal networks that go far beyond transportation alone. When something happens in one part of the transportation system, significant consequences can be felt downstream within the system itself and often well beyond it.
We rely on the system to deliver essential connectivity and access for individual people and interconnected communities, as well as for the health of our national economy.
I thank you for studying this important issue and for allowing me to speak here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I now turn it over to Senator Miville-Dechêne, the deputy chair of our committee.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Paul Blomerus, and I’ll ask it in French.
Thank you for being here. We heard from representatives of Clear Seas as part of our study of Bill C-48, and I remember their expertise and the independence of their research.
I’m trying to understand your comment a little better. Did you try to do a study just on the coast guard? Was it this study that showed that, on the coast guard side, you felt that the answers were unsatisfactory and that it was more an exercise in ticking boxes, or was the study broader in scope and was it jeopardizing all marine transportation in the years to come?
I don’t have enough information to fully understand. When you mention the term “key insight,” what did that study say? Why do you think that was insufficient? If I understand correctly, your report isn’t there at all.
[English]
Mr. Blomerus: I should clarify. The report that we conducted was not an assessment of the readiness. The report and the research we conducted were to prepare resources for the Canadian Coast Guard and all the other partner organizations that provide the services to keep the maritime transportation system going.
The conclusions that I drew and gave you in my initial statement were concerning observations of readiness activities around the world that the researchers provided for us. I can’t comment with knowledge on the readiness of the Canadian Coast Guard, but I will say that they did engage us as part of their efforts to increase their readiness in anticipation of their adaptation planning for climate change. That’s certainly an indication of an increased level of activity at the Canadian Coast Guard as part of their program of climate change adaptation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are you suggesting that simulation should be used, new technology? Is this used in the Canadian ports, in the Port of Vancouver or with our Coast Guard?
Mr. Blomerus: The Port of Vancouver is a good example. There are some examples of system simulation. It is a new technology.
To try to simplify, one way to think about it is an investment in infrastructure improvement is very costly, so how can you be sure that you are prioritizing and investing in the weakest link in that system? You could spend millions on raising the level of a dike, but you’re vulnerable to the electricity infrastructure in a different position, and spending less money strengthening that other component of the infrastructure would be worthwhile. That’s the benefit of taking that system approach.
There are some examples in the Port of Vancouver of considering the overall supply chain system, and Transport Canada has announced the establishment of the National Supply Chain Office, but the primary goal of these supply chain activities is to improve the efficiency and the throughput of these supply chains. I think it’s important, potentially, for this committee to remark on the opportunity to make use of those supply chain modelling and visibility exercises to ensure that we’re assessing the climate change vulnerability and the robustness of those systems.
Senator Simons: Professor Kim, I’m delighted to hear that your group has done studies of river barging and water levels in the Mackenzie and the functioning of the Iqaluit airport. Today’s focus is on the Lower Mainland. We previously did an intense look at northern transportation infrastructure. I wonder if you could make sure that our clerk and analyst receive a copy of the reports of your work on the Mackenzie and the Iqaluit airport. That would be very helpful.
Ms. Kim: Yes. Thank you. I can provide the reports and the papers.
Senator Simons: Terrific. Thank you very much.
Mr. Blomerus, we’ve been talking about infrastructure in a lot of ways — economic, practical, get the goods from point A to point B — but in both your answer to Senator Miville-Dechêne and in your opening remarks, you highlighted concerns to do with safety, that I don’t think we’ve talked enough about.
Apart from the supply chain disruptions, which are visible to everyone, how much more dangerous does climate change make it for maritime operations up and down the B.C. coast? With Bill C-48, we had a lot of discussion about whether there were safety protocols in place for oil tankers, but I wonder if you could talk about the ports of the Lower Mainland how much of a challenge climate change is to the safety of people on the water.
Mr. Blomerus: That is an excellent question. You’re right. It’s part of our mandate to consider not only the economic impact of the transportation network but safety. Our focus is often on pollution prevention as part of safety, hence the focus on oil tankers, but these kinds of climate change events expose personnel to risks that were not previously designed as part of the response network.
As a case in point, the focus from the Canadian Coast Guard, who is essentially providing search-and-rescue capability, is having to reassess whether their facilities, vessels and response procedures are actually appropriate in the sea conditions that they’re likely to experience, or if their protocols for getting their personnel to the locations where they need to be to engage in those search-and-rescue initiatives are appropriate.
It’s hard to give a concrete answer, but I think it is an important consideration, because it’s clear that the safety of personnel who are engaged in providing that critical movement of goods is also at stake. So those considerations need to be considered. The human aspects of the system are as important, possibly, as the cement, concrete and steel.
Senator Simons: You mentioned this tension between wanting to transition to newer, greener technologies and not knowing what are not only the long-term risks but the extra challenges that are created if you’re using a more volatile fuel that has lower carbon emissions, which may have other safety concerns when you’re talking about using new technologies that may not be weather tested.
How do we strike the balance between making the transitions that are necessary to reduce the pace of climate change while at the same time ensuring that we have the technical expertise to guarantee that these technologies actually work for us when we need them most?
Mr. Blomerus: I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it is important that we place those requirements on new projects that are attempting to move forward with those new technologies and that we ensure they are also robust, that they are providing the decarbonization as we need them to, but they are also robust to the climate change that they’re trying to mitigate.
I can’t provide any better solution other than to ensure that those requirements are part of the design considerations when we commission those new alternative fuel projects or those decarbonization projects.
Senator Simons: This may be a technical problem. Are you saying decarbonization or decolonization?
Mr. Blomerus: Decarbonization.
Senator Simons: Thank you. Decolonization is also very important, but I couldn’t see how it related to this. Thank you, that clarifies things.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, witnesses, for being with us today. My first question is for Mr. Blomerus. In the past, I have had a number of interactions with Clear Seas. One of the things I found fascinating was that it brought together a research element but also was on the ground. I always thought the relationships you had with various players throughout the industry and throughout the supply chain were viable connections.
I also recall having discussions after the meetings about what needed to be done in any particular topic. So let’s pretend we’re after this meeting. If I was with you, what needs to be done? Who should lead it? In your experience, what is the concrete action that needs to be taken? This is sort of like the after‑meeting discussion.
Mr. Blomerus: Thank you, Senator Quinn. Thank you for putting me on the spot.
I would return to my final comment about the fact that I’m concerned that we’re giving ourselves a false sense of security through action on climate change adaptation that may be misplaced. I hate to say that the action that is needed is more analysis, but in this case, I believe it’s true. We need the kinds of analyses that Professor Kim is conducting with her team — these kinds of system-based approaches where we can actually truly understand the vulnerabilities of the overall system. It’s true with the environmental impact assessment — the criticism, often, of environmental impact assessments of new project proposals is that they only consider the individual impact of their project and do not consider the cumulative impact of all systems. Therefore, I think we should take that approach and ask how we can understand where we are truly vulnerable rather than focus, for instance, on just the port infrastructure or the rail infrastructure.
There is no one silver bullet where we can say the weakest unless we have that system and look at it together and understand how that bridge over the Fraser River or that electrical substation is the key vulnerability. Until we do that, I think we’re flying a little bit blind.
Senator Quinn: When this committee started its work on this topic a couple of years ago — we had other bills we had to deal with in between — we were beginning to understand that we had taken a big bite. We were looking at the system and vulnerabilities in that system due to climate change. If we were to take that systems approach today, who should own that in terms of providing the leadership? Is it the government or is it the private sector that the government designates, saying that you guys need to do this? Who would lead that? That’s a big bite, as you know.
Mr. Blomerus: It is a good question. It’s interesting because I’m suggesting you need to do those system-level modellings to do a vulnerability approach. However, I think it’s even challenging to get those industry players together to create those system-level models for economic benefit. I mean, everybody benefits when the supply chain flows more seamlessly, but I’m sure the committee is aware of the challenges that the Port of Vancouver has had in trying to get the West Coast Supply Chain Visibility Program working and get railroads, port terminal operators and marine operators to share data. Some of the recent bills that are being considered currently tend to improve that visibility.
There is certainly a role for government, to answer your original question. A government can facilitate. One idea that we have put forward is to — I think it’s a matter of trust. One of the issues with getting everybody to play in the simulation environment and provide that kind of system-level modelling with real data is that they need to trust that they will see a benefit.
I think there is room for more sandbox-type models that will allow people to understand their role in the overall supply chain — lower-stake supply chain models that will allow all of the actors to understand how important they are in the supply chain both to its fluency but also to its vulnerability. I think that’s a necessary step. That can also be facilitated by governments.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Doctor Kim, I have a quick question for you — a similar type of question. One of the things for sure is that data is so important as we go forward and try to get our hands wrapped around this and come to concrete actions and what not. My experience in having interactions with the research community on a number of files is the same thing. It’s the after-the-formal meeting discussions where we get a little bit more concrete. Maybe it’s because people are more relaxed. They have more concrete and specific views.
Who needs to lead the efforts to ensure the sustainability of our critical infrastructure? Who should take that on and absolutely lead it?
Ms. Kim: Thank you. From my perspective, I try to look at transportation systems as larger networks. Of course, as I mentioned in my remarks, that’s part of a larger system of interconnected civil infrastructure. It then also goes beyond that.
Just because of the nature of the systems and their interconnectivity and upstream-downstream huge impacts, I believe that government has a major role to play to be able to have that systems perspective. That perspective is what can help us researchers do our work from a systems lens. There are so many incredible researchers that are working to look at these systems in their various parts, ways and aspects. We really do need that sort of view and leadership.
Senator Quinn: Who should that leadership fall to?
Ms. Kim: From a systems perspective and from what I’ve seen, it is really government that has that large viewpoint. Therefore, I believe it should come from there.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: Professor Kim and Mr. Blomerus, from your points of view, what would be role-model nations for jurisdictions when it comes to dealing with climate change? Who would Canada learn from them?
Mr. Blomerus: In our report, we did actually survey a number of nations to see where we could find examples of best practice. I think we looked at some of the activities in the United States, Norway and the Netherlands, particularly on these questions of adaptation planning and risk assessment. I think we found examples of best practice in all three jurisdictions.
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that. We should all look at those three jurisdictions more closely as we progress with our study.
Colleagues, are there any other questions on second round? If there aren’t any, I will, on behalf of the committee, thank Professor Kim and Mr. Blomerus for your participation this morning in our study and hearings. Thank you very much. I’ll see everyone later this week.
(The committee adjourned.)