THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 13, 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 Julie Miville-Dechêne (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Julie Miville-Dechêne. I am a senator from Quebec and the deputy chair of the committee. I will now ask my fellow senators to introduce themselves, starting with the senator to my right.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, from Treaty 6 territory.
The Deputy Chair: Today we continue our study of the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector, and our study of the infrastructure in the Vancouver area. It is our last meeting on this case study. For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome by video conference Kate Moran, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ocean Networks Canada; Vanessa Lueck, Researcher-in-Residence, Living with Water project, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, University of Victoria; and Stephanie Chang, Professor, School of Community and Regional Planning and the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia. Welcome to all of you.
[Translation]
Thank you for joining us. I recognize that it’s quite early on the West Coast. We are very aware of the time change, but the committee has to meet at very specific times.
[English]
Kate Moran, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ocean Networks Canada: Thank you for the invitation. I’m speaking to you via Zoom from the traditional lands of the Lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. Climate change is likely to impact ports around the world, mainly associated with sea level rise and extreme storms that cause coastal surges, which can cause temporary or long-term disruption of trade that would impact the Canadian economy. The Port of Vancouver’s locations and its feeder roads on the coast of the Lower Mainland are at risk of these climate impacts. The port has been proactive in both investing in sustainable approaches that help to stave off climate change and in understanding impacts of climate change for purposes of adapting to them. For example, the port is a participant in the Fraser Basin Council’s Lower Mainland Flood Management Strategy initiative that has been conducting work assessing flood risks from the Fraser River and other coastal impacts. The flood risks from the Fraser River are much better constrained than those associated with coastal sea level, exacerbated by storm surges, which have an impact on port, ferry and airport infrastructure, feeder systems and operations. Hence, there’s a need to invest in detailed analyses of these coastal risks to the southwestern coast of British Columbia.
Unfortunately, these types of analyses can no longer be readily based solely on historical records, due to the primary drivers of sea level rise and storm surges, which are not in the historical record because of the growing impacts of climate change. For example, the rate of sea level rise is accelerating: The rate of rise has more than doubled throughout the 20th century, and this will not abate. The lack of abatement can be attributed to the increasing loss of glacial ice from land to the ocean. The international panel on climate change concluded that ice loss was the largest contributor to sea level rise over the last few decades and will continue to be a large and perhaps non-linear contributor to rising sea levels.
Storms are on the increase as well due to climate change, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, assess that high-tide flooding events are 300% to 900% more frequent than 50 years ago. Thus, there’s a need for forecasting the impacts of these coastal events that are clearly in our future. To do so requires high-quality data and collective efforts. In my written submission, I explain the need for high geographic resolution digital elevation models as a foundational element to forecasting. Digital elevation models in the coastal zones are complicated because of the need to merge data from different references to Earth’s geoid between bathymetry, water depth and topography land height. At Ocean Networks Canada, we sponsored workshops where we brought NOAA experts to Canada, who shared their knowledge in this work with my staff, but also federal, provincial and local experts. This elevated the knowledge base in Canada so that digital elevation models can be built and improved in our areas most vulnerable to sea level rise. It was a team effort that built the digital elevation model I submitted, which has been used by experts in our region for both coastal storm surge forecasting from the University of British Columbia and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, and tsunami, with sea level rise, inundation forecasting. But these results are not static because the sea level is continuing to rise and the characteristics of coastal storms are likely to worsen. Hence, forecasting inundation scenarios must be conducted on a regular basis as new observations of these impacts come to light. These forecasts are central to risk assessments that can then be compared with the measures taken by operators for hardening infrastructure and coastal protection.
At some point, risks may rise to the point where retreat or offshoring measures may be needed. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We will now hear from Vanessa Lueck for five minutes.
[English]
Vanessa Lueck, Researcher-in-Residence, Living with Water project, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, University of Victoria, as an individual: Good morning, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Thank you for this opportunity to witness. I’m calling in from what is now called Victoria on the unceded territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋən and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples. I co-lead the Living with Water Theme Partnership project on flood governance. My focus is on governance, interrelationships and justice equity, diversity and inclusion in climate adaptation. The project Living with Water is essentially about thinking about flooding and sea level rise differently. Living with Water realizes sea level rise, increased precipitation, riverine flooding and water drainage issues are only the start. So, the project recognizes and elevates a diversity of perspectives and values in a desire to broaden flood response options, which includes maintaining and improving nature-based solutions to floods, managed relocation if necessary or desired and collaborative participatory governance. Within all of these, Living with Water recognizes the interconnections between governance, flood infrastructure, people’s values and the natural world around us. I’m going to talk about three of these components.
First, there is a diversity of values and perspectives present in the communities around the Port of Vancouver and the Vancouver International Airport. Recognizing and engaging with these local perspectives is important for successful adaptation.
Second, nature-based solutions are relevant factors for key economic infrastructure, especially to avoid unintended consequences, enable reconciliation, support recovery of biodiversity and connect with local communities.
Finally, governance structures are key. As you’ve already heard, sea level rise and other interconnected flood governance for both the port and airport is overlapping, divided among jurisdictions and generally uncoordinated across these divisions; however, there are possibilities for collaboration in the Lower Mainland of B.C. that the federal government could support.
There are two that are connected to Living with Water and another that consists of several participants, including Living with Water. The Living Dike Roundtable, which is ad hoc, has brought together stakeholders around alternative flood protection and reconciliation in Boundary Bay. This bay is close to the U.S. border, where both Highway 5 and the railroad pass along. Without this collaboration, the City of Surrey would not have been able to lead this cutting-edge nature-based solution. Similarly, the Sturgeon Bank technical round table brings together — again, ad hoc — stakeholders with interests in the sediment deposition along the Richmond coast that are supposed to build up the salt marshes, which in turn will help protect the coast from flooding and save critical habitat.
Finally, the Lower Fraser Floodplains Coalition brings together multiple stakeholders to work on flood recovery from the November 2021 Atmospheric River Event and flood management moving forward. This is another ad hoc group.
These ad hoc groups span various levels of government, various governments and various private and non-profit actors, bridging the divisions and providing a space for coordination and collaboration.
Facilitating and incorporating these types of groups and the work they do brings in diverse perspectives and thus builds legitimacy for flood adaptation, and could make a huge difference for developing responses for both the Port of Vancouver and the Vancouver International Airport. No matter what the final decision is for enhancing, moving and protecting these pieces of critical infrastructure, without legitimacy, there will be serious challenges. Including local values and perspectives, broadening the solution space to include more than hard infrastructure and facilitating collaborative round tables or similar governance structures would not only improve the likelihood of successful adaptation but also provide an example for other similar critical transportation challenges across Canada.
The potential trade-offs around flood and sea level rise adaptation for both the port and airport will involve difficult decisions. I ask you to consider facilitating, funding or incorporating local perspectives and values, non-traditional solutions for sea level rise and flood adaptation and especially support for collaboration across the many jurisdictions involved.
This all takes time, funding and support but also deliver the ability to respond with cutting-edge solutions, with solutions that are more broadly accepted, and can start discussions that are necessary for the time when the sea level has risen so much that our current infrastructure must change dramatically. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We will now go to Stephanie Chang for five minutes. Please go ahead.
[English]
Stephanie Chang, Professor, School of Community and Regional Planning and Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, as an individual: Thank you. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I’m joining you today from Vancouver on the traditional unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. My area of research is urban disaster risk and resilience, and in some of this work I’ve studied transportation and other infrastructure systems in disasters such as floods or earthquakes. I understand that the committee is interested in learning about my research as it applies to the topic of climate change and transportation infrastructure in the Vancouver area. I would like to share three insights — three of my own takeaways — from research related to this issue.
The first insight comes from the Council of Canadian Academies 2022 report Building a Resilient Canada, which was concerned with disaster resilience in a changing climate. The idea is that in thinking about what can be done to reduce risk and build resilience, it’s helpful to think systematically in terms of reducing hazards, exposure to hazards and vulnerability to hazards. A hazard is the likelihood of an event like a flood occurring, exposure is what and who could be flooded if that event were to occur and vulnerability is the propensity for loss if those people or that property were flooded.
In the case of a transportation system, reducing the hazard could entail raising dikes to protect the road network from flooding; reducing exposure could mean realigning a road away from a floodplain; and reducing vulnerability could mean having flood warning systems and emergency communication plans in place so that if evacuation is needed, it can take place smoothly. There are many ways to address the impacts of climate change-related disruptions on transportation systems — and the impacts of transportation disruptions on communities — and we need to consider the full range of approaches.
The second insight I will share is that solutions can involve knowledge-sharing and capacity-building, and this relates to some of the work that my research group conducted on the Resilient Coasts Canada platform, or Resilient-C for short. Resilient-C is a free online tool that helps coastal communities to identify other coastal communities that are similar in terms of hazard vulnerability and then find out what actions they’re taking to address coastal hazards. When we analyzed the data for communities in British Columbia, we found that even though in principle, community could undertake many kinds of actions, in practice, similarly vulnerable places tend to take similar actions. For example, large urban centres are more likely to engage in structural flood protection, while smaller, remoter towns are more likely to rely on land-use regulations.
This general approach, meaning identifying and sharing lessons between similarly vulnerable communities, is relevant to climate change-related transportation vulnerability too.
For example, in B.C., some remote coastal or island communities are concerned about wildfire risk and are making emergency plans to evacuate, if necessary, by boat. Their planning approaches could be shared with other coastal or island communities that are also facing a wildfire risk.
The third insight I’d like to share is that transportation resilience planning must consider how transportation functions as a system. I’ll focus on the example of coastal shipping. Here in B.C., there are many coastal and island communities that are almost entirely dependent on shipping for the supply of goods. Vancouver Island relies on ferry service for 90% of its food, and the City of Victoria on the island has been estimated to have a food supply sufficient for just three days. Metro Vancouver is a central hub for shipping goods to these coastal and island communities, and here I’m referring not to the Port of Vancouver but the facilities of BC Ferries and other local shipping companies.
So to function, the transport system involves not only the ferry terminals but also specialized ships, trained and certified crew, scheduled routes, regulations, not to mention landside roads, warehouses, trucking and so on, so mitigating the potential impacts of shipping disruption in disasters requires understanding how the entire system functions, where the vulnerabilities are and where the resilience-building opportunities are.
Transportation systems are complex. They provide critical services and are vulnerable to disruption in disasters. While these risks will be exacerbated by climate change, they can also be reduced through proactive investments and coordinated planning. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[English]
We will now start the question period.
Senator Simons: I’m a Prairie girl, so I don’t think about ocean storm surges, and until now, I’ve been thinking of the problem of inundating the ports and the ferry terminal and the airport as a sea level rise issue; but, Ms. Moran, when you put it in the context of storm surges that are obviously going to be higher as sea levels rise, and both you and Dr. Chang have mentioned the issue of earthquakes — obviously, earthquakes and tsunamis are not caused by climate change, but clearly if the sea levels are rising and an earthquake produces a major wave, that wave will, perforce, be larger if the sea levels have risen.
Ms. Moran and Dr. Chang, could you tell me at what point storm surges become a serious threat not just to human life but to infrastructure? The thought that Victoria only has three days’ worth of food if the ferries can’t travel is pretty disturbing.
Ms. Moran, why don’t we start with you?
Ms. Moran: Thank you. I think it’s important to potentially separate the tsunamis from the storm surges. The tsunami inundation for an event that would happen from an earthquake off our coast can be forecasted. For example, those are four-plus metres in places like Boundary Bay, so we have to be prepared from an emergency perspective for those.
I don’t think at this point we’re at that stage for storm surges. If we want to look at the storm surge perspective, it would be important to begin to look at some of the aspects mentioned earlier by both Dr. Chang and Dr. Lueck. Building up coastal resilience against storm surges is critical.
There is another aspect has not been mentioned yet, and we haven’t yet assessed it from a risk viewpoint: We have been observing, in our observatory, events called meteotsunamis. These are tsunamis generated from large storms. These are new. It’s the beginning of understanding the impacts of those. It is unlikely that these meteotsunamis would be impacting the mainland because of the protection of Vancouver Island, but it could impact areas like Victoria and the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Senator Simons: That’s another thing to keep me up at night.
Dr. Chang?
Ms. Chang: Yes, thank you. I think you’re alluding to the issue of compounding hazards with coastal storms, storm surges and the potential tsunami risk. That’s one example of different hazards interacting. It’s really important to keep that in mind. There are many other examples, too, wildfire and riverine floods, for example, or other kinds of interactions.
The issue of tsunamis and earthquakes is always in the background in this part of the country. We are preparing for them in many ways, but any one hazard needs to be thought about in concert with others.
One example, which I think has come up already in your committee, is the issue of diking systems and their vulnerability to earthquakes. It’s a well-known problem. It’s been identified, and there is a big price tag to upgrade dikes in this region, but it remains a problem. We need to understand it, as I was saying earlier, from a systems perspective. Dikes are one example but tsunamis and storm surge are similar examples.
How likely are these very severe disruptions to occur, and what might be the impacts on everything from people’s lives to economies to supply chains and so on? We need to understand the magnitude of those, as well as the potential interventions and ways of preparing in terms of expensive capital investments or engineering works. On the other end of the spectrum, what emergency preparedness can we have today with relatively little cost?
Senator Simons: Ms. Moran, you said a storm surge could be up to four metres in the case of a tsunami. What does four metres mean? What would that mean for the airport, the ferry harbour and the Port of Vancouver?
Ms. Moran: Flooding would impact major infrastructure. That’s what we’re seeing. We ran one scenario based on a subduction fault off our coast. There is potentially a 10% chance of that occurring over the next 50 years. Flooding and inundating would come in waves. There would be a repeated flooding event for hours.
You’ve probably seen other places where emergency responses are needed to major tsunamis. The good thing about tsunamis is that you tend to know they’re coming. As Dr. Chang mentioned, we’ll feel the earthquake, so people would be aware the tsunami is coming and could begin to implement emergency responses before the water hits. We could protect people and infrastructure, and operators could get people to safety. If in the future we have some kind of barrage protection, which they do have in other major ports in the world, that protection could be implemented. An emergency response plan could be implemented. Vancouver would have about 25 minutes of advance alerting time for tsunami waves coming into the southern Salish Sea.
The Deputy Chair: Should we do this barrage protection now? You seem to be saying it exists in some other ports. I know we have dikes, but do we need this? What is it exactly?
Ms. Moran: I’m pretty sure the Port of Rotterdam and, obviously, the Thames River have barrage protections already. I’m not suggesting it will be necessary here, but it’s something that will always have to be on the table going forward if extreme events continue. It certainly is an approach that has been taken in other large ports of the world.
The Deputy Chair: And, physically, does it mean the whole port is surrounded with a barrage?
Ms. Moran: It is used in places where water would normally be incoming. In the Thames River, obviously, it’s the Thames River Barrier. Dr. Chang is much more familiar with transportation systems.
The Deputy Chair: Sorry, it just interested me.
Senator Dasko: Thank you all for being with us today.
My first question is for Ms. Moran. You have spoken about the importance of forecasts and the need to analyze that phenomenon better. We’ve all grown up with weather forecasts, of course. I wanted to ask you about improvements in weather forecasting. I would assume or certainly hope that kind of forecasting has improved over the years and, of course, storms are part of weather forecasting.
One of the aspects of forecasting that would be important for people is how far ahead the forecasts are accurate. Obviously, if you’re forecasting something same day, that is not quite the same as being able to forecast these events well ahead of time.
Can you comment on the improvements in forecasting, whether that be forecasting weather or the other phenomena that you have talked about? You just talked about tsunamis again.
Ms. Moran: I cannot comment as a meteorologist but just as a science nerd. I’ll speak about storm surges in the U.S. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association here in Canada is following that same approach. The storm surge forecasts are on the order of days now. They’re getting better in terms of predicting storm surges. That is continuing to improve.
What has not yet improved is what I described in my submission: how a storm surge will impact the coastal infrastructure. That’s called inundation; some people call it run-up. We don’t fully know how to forecast that without combining bathymetry with topography.
I’ll give you a clear example of what I mean by that. I worked on the tsunami event in the Indian Ocean after the fact. I visited an island impacted by the tsunami. I’m talking about tsunamis, but storm surges have inundation in the same day. In the north end of the island, it was one metre of inundation. On the south end of the island, it was almost 20 metres of inundation, and that was because of the bathymetry interacting with the land and how it focused water.
We are not there yet with respect to getting that baseline data and combining bathymetry with topography to get good inundation forecasting. We know the storm is coming in three days but must be able to better forecast what will happen under various storm surge scenarios.
Senator Dasko: Do you feel that is improving? Are we making progress in that area, or is that still very new, untested and unanalyzed?
Ms. Moran: Yes, it is improving. I submitted a digital elevation model that was developed for southwestern British Columbia, which has been used by many people now. My organization was one group that participated in building that model. I think it is high enough resolution for these inundation forecasts, but we certainly need to do it elsewhere in Canada.
We also need to continually run these inundation models as we learn more about the characteristics of these storm surges, because they will change with time.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Professor Chang, you spoke about the issue of the supply available for Vancouver Island in case of an emergency: three days of food. To what extent is there emergency preparedness among the transportation agencies? You mentioned the intricate network of transportation. There is public transportation and private sector involvement. To what extent has emergency preparedness advanced in this situation?
Ms. Chang: Thank you very much for that question. I’m drawing on a couple of studies that I did on shipping disruptions in this region. One of our findings is precisely about this.
The system is very complicated, as you alluded to, and involves many actors, including many levels of government, but also the private sector such as BC Ferries, the shipping companies, many who specialize in different types of transport and so on, and all the regular transport companies, trucking and so on. One of the things we found was that no one has a complete picture of how the system works, getting supplies from the Lower Mainland to Vancouver Island, for example.
We also looked at fuel and emergency medical supplies. We did interviews and tried to collect data for all of these different critical commodities. We basically found that not only are the systems complicated, they’re also all very different. The transport supply system for food, for example, is very different from the marine transport system for fuel. So it is complicated in those dimensions as well. As I said, no one has the overall picture of this.
Your question was about emergency preparedness. What we basically found was there’s no forum for coordinating emergency planning for these kinds of major disruptions that could affect the entire region and the different aspects of shipping, not to mention that if it’s an earthquake scenario, you have a lot of other aspects as well, such as damage, casualties and those kinds of things. It’s a very complicated problem.
When we started the project, we thought that shipping would be relatively simple as a transport system. It turns out it’s not. Even though there are relatively few actors and organizations involved, the system itself is very complicated. There is a lack of information flowing smoothly through the whole thing, so no one has visibility over the entire system.
The implication of what you’re asking is whether there should be some sort of a coordinating forum. I absolutely think there is a need for that.
The Deputy Chair: Who should be in charge of this forum?
Ms. Chang: Who should be in charge? That’s a natural question. Many people should be involved. I cannot say who should be in charge, but all of the entities that are involved in shipping on a day-to-day basis need to be involved. I’m referring a lot to the private sector. They have the assets that are needed, for example, the ships and ferries. They know how the system works. They know which ships can dock at which terminals and which cannot. They have other vessels that are not used on a regular basis but that in an emergency could potentially be used to help out — barges, for example — to access communities that might otherwise be cut off.
Basically, the organizations that are involved in shipping on a day-to-day basis need to be at the table on an emergency planning basis as well. The key point is that they’re not.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Chang: I’m sorry. I don’t have a sense of who ought to be in charge.
The Deputy Chair: I’m sorry for the question. Maybe it was not appropriate, but I’m always wondering, when we say there is a lack of coordination, who should coordinate. Because the private sector is so involved, you’re saying they should certainly have a part in it.
Thank you very much.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, witnesses, for being here so early in the morning and all the work that you do in this particular area.
I’m going to go back a bit before I continue with my questions. That last discussion was an important discussion. Chair, your question about who should coordinate was very valid. I would hope that those folks who are a combination of the research —
The Deputy Chair: Our big audience here, the folks who are listening to us.
Senator Quinn: Yes. The folks who are involved in looking at the research and doing the data and those types of things certainly are, in some ways, better informed. You folks are higher up on the elevation, if I can put it that way, looking down to see what’s going on and who is involved. I would encourage you folks to really reflect on who should be in charge. I think you’re in a good position to make observations and recommendations.
My question really comes down to and is linked to this. We’re looking at critical transportation infrastructure and climate change. As was indicated by previous witnesses, the frequency and intensity of events are on the increase, so it’s not a linear growth. It’s an upward curved increase in the frequency and intensity.
From the work that you’re doing and being aware of what pieces of critical infrastructure are involved, which of those pieces of critical infrastructure are most at risk?
Second, if an event occurred and we were doing the post-mortem, what would you recommend be done now to be better prepared for tomorrow? So often we have post-mortems, and people saying that we should have done this and we should have done that. I’m asking a futuristic question today. What needs to be done today to be better prepared for tomorrow?
So two parts: First, what critical infrastructure is most at risk? Second, what should be done today to be better prepared for tomorrow? I would like to hear from all three of you. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Who wants to start? Dr. Lueck, we haven’t heard from you a lot.
Ms. Lueck: I’m happy to start. I think that one part of critical infrastructure is the people involved in running and governing it. I can’t tell you which physical pieces are at risk, so I’ll leave that to my colleagues, but one of the greatest challenges, and something that would answer your question about the future — and is also about the now — is building the ability to collaborate and creating spaces.
I mentioned the ad hoc-ness of the three groups that I mentioned. One of the issues is that those people are pulling those groups together on their own. Some people in these groups are even volunteering their time. We’re not talking about the Boundary Bay dike right now in this group, but it is an important piece for transportation that they’re putting their time into.
I think from my own research, as well as from my work on Living with Water, enabling, building, supporting — it could be financial; it could be putting out funding calls; it could also be research — these types of collaborations across jurisdictions are key. They are key for the future. They are key for responding immediately. They are key for protection and responding to something like another atmospheric river the size of the one from 2021, for example, if that were to happen. This human element is critical.
Senator Quinn: Dr. Lueck, thank you for that answer.
To expand, I’m going to return to the previous question asked by the chair.
Given your involvement with people — I agree, people are so important — if you were put in a position where you had to decide who would be in charge of bringing all these pieces together, who would that be? The federal or provincial government? The port authority? Who brings people together to respond in times of emergency?
Ms. Lueck: I’ll start with who’s doing it right now. There are different people who are concerned. There are people who are doing it together, which is great — except that it takes a lot more time. I think the response needs to be at different levels for different pieces.
For shipping, if I understand correctly — I don’t work in shipping — more of that is tied to the federal level. Maybe there is a role there.
For the dikes, we’re definitely looking at the province. The province is involved with Living with Water and is recognizing some of this.
There also needs to be outside support and a push for many municipalities. They don’t have the capacity, even though they want it. That is a real challenge for Surrey, for example, who we’re working with.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. Dr. Chang?
Ms. Chang: Yes. Returning to the question of who should be in charge, echoing some of what Dr. Lueck was saying, the problem of potential transportation disruption in a disaster is something that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one municipality. It affects many at the same time.
There is a role for the provincial government. They do that in emergencies anyway. They do provide that support and coordination function to some degree.
In terms of the pre-disaster preparedness for problems such as this that exceed any one municipality’s or jurisdiction’s boundaries, that’s a broad system-level problem. That seems to be a natural place.
People who are here have the know-how and the local knowledge about the risks, vulnerabilities, what can be done and so on. It is really important to activate and enable that local capacity.
We often hear that there are resource constraints. That’s typically a role where municipalities would look to higher levels of government.
Getting back to your question of what’s most at risk and, if we’re looking at things from after a disaster, what we would recommend, because there are many different parts of the system, I wouldn’t look at it from the perspective of identifying the most at-risk part of it; it’s more like we need to evaluate the entire system. All of the organizations that are involved have to look at their own facilities and operations to figure out what their vulnerabilities are and what they can do.
It’s important to have some thought as to the risks across the entire system as opposed to a single bottleneck. I don’t think we would find a single bottleneck. There are many vulnerabilities and ways to address those. Many people would need to be involved in doing that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Ms. Moran: I agree with Dr. Chang. Obviously, the Lower Mainland is at risk because it’s low-lying. There are many elements to the transportation system there.
In terms of who should be in charge, the Canadian Coast Guard actually runs the maritime security centres, both nationally and locally. If you take a look at security — that word, “security” — for example, in the U.S. military right now, and it’s taking effect in the Canadian military, part of security is climate change impacts. It’s important to have that discussion with entities that are already set up for looking after security associated with the maritime system.
If you’re talking about the maritime system here, there is a big role for the Coast Guard, who work very closely with Transport. It’s worth looking at that. If you haven’t already interviewed the leads of these maritime security centres, that would be a really important aspect of the work that you can do.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: My first question is for Dr. Chang and Dr. Moran.
On the question of storm surges, I think about Vancouver International Airport. I’m always struck by the fact that it exists on Sea Island. I wonder if anyone was thinking about that name when they put the island there. It was a hint.
We have an island with the sea encroaching on it. We have these dikes going up. What’s your sense of whether these dikes are going to be strong enough in the storm surges we have now and expect in the years ahead?
Ms. Chang: That’s a technical question that I don’t have a good answer to. I’m sorry.
Senator Cardozo: Thanks.
Ms. Moran: You’re talking about the geotechnical characteristics of these and if they could be resistant to impacts from storm surge.
In terms of multi-hazards, as Dr. Chang already mentioned, these kinds of structures can be impacted by earthquakes. That’s something that has to be addressed. Someone in that area of expertise could be assessing those.
The fact is they can be repaired, fixed and strengthened. That’s really the way to look at it: Is there a problem? Is it something that can be mitigated through strengthening? I’m not someone who can assess whether they are at the moment, except for the fact they would be susceptible to ground shaking from earthquakes.
Senator Cardozo: The discussion we’ve had — and that’s not everything — but I have the sense that the diking, or the raising of the dikes, was more focused on the level of the rise in sea levels. I don’t recall getting into the issue of storm surges. Thank you for that.
Dr. Lueck, can you talk about the work you’re doing on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI? What aspects are you dealing with in terms of these issues? I have a further, more general question on DEI: There seems to be a growing pushback in the corporate world against the advances that have been made in diversity, equity and inclusion. There are certainly reports that some corporations have stopped taking measures and others who are continuing their measures but trying not to talk about it. Could you answer those two questions, please?
Ms. Lueck: I will start with the first question, about the work, and come back to the second question.
In the work we’re doing in DEI, one of the things in Living with Water that we are focusing on is placing both Indigenous and local perspectives first, or at least foregrounding them, and recognizing that they play a really important role.
There are a couple of reasons for this. One is because of equity. We are interested in more equitable adaptation, recognizing that we can’t — in a four-year project — achieve full equitable adaptation. We are focusing on that with our project.
However, there is another piece to this that is more practical on a certain level. We know that adaptations generally do not work if they come from the top down. Adaptation is something that is based on values, as well as what people value, what their priorities are and what’s important to them — which is also based on their values.
If communities are not involved in their adaptation, especially when looking at some of the more difficult forms of adaptation, such as managed retreat, those adaptations will fail. We are interested in successful adaptations. That is another piece of the DEI that we’re looking at within our project.
Regarding the pushback in the corporate world, I was actually quite surprised to hear that. I know it’s happening in some areas. I should disclose that I am a U.S. citizen, so I am well aware of some of the pushback to anything connected to DEI on a large political level. However, my experience in adaptation and working with people who are interested in changing the rules for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, or for the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, or TCFD, is that people are saying that this increased diversity can actually help and, in fact, help the bottom line. People are starting to recognize that and embrace it, but not necessarily, as you mentioned, very publicly. I’m not sure how you want me to speak to that in this context.
Senator Cardozo: I’m wondering whether, in the work you do, you get pushback from any sources.
Ms. Lueck: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Maybe we’ll leave it at that.
Senator Cardozo: I would like to hear more.
The Deputy Chair: Do you have more to say?
Senator Cardozo: Without disclosing what you’re not comfortable with.
Ms. Lueck: I can’t actually disclose a fair amount of this because it is people who are working in their positions who have talked to us. We have a rule called “the cone of silence” in some of our meetings when we’re talking about specific topics. In addition, when we’re talking about managed retreat, that is an area that’s a potential political bomb. I’m sure you are all aware of this. I have to be really careful about what I say in that space, but there is definitely pushback.
Senator Cardozo: Thanks for that. If I can come back to the first question —
The Deputy Chair: You’ve had seven minutes now.
Senator Cardozo: Do I have a minute?
The Deputy Chair: One minute.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. If I can go back to the first question, your project is on Vancouver Island. We have heard earlier from people dealing with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority that there are several First Nations that the port authority deals with and works with. Is that the kind of work that you have knowledge of and would see as important, in terms of how ports are interacting with the First Nations that they are located with?
Ms. Lueck: It’s extremely important. In fact, most of our project deals either directly or indirectly with First Nations. We’re mostly on the Lower Mainland of B.C. I just live and work from Victoria.
Senator Cardozo: Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the extra time.
The Deputy Chair: No, that’s fine. It was an important question.
Senator Simons: When we began our work on this Vancouver case study, we were focusing primarily on Vancouver International Airport and the Port of Vancouver, but I’m really happy, because these witnesses have raised an issue that is very important that we haven’t talked that much about, which is ferry service, both for passengers and freight.
Dr. Chang, I wonder if we could go back to you, because I think you were the one who first mentioned this. What is the importance of the ferry system to the supply chain for both goods and people? Can you talk a bit about the unique vulnerabilities of those ferry harbours and ports in Vancouver and all the other places that the ferries end up?
Ms. Chang: Yes. As for their importance, they’re essential. That’s basically how people and goods get around to these island and coastal communities, and there are very many of them. There is very little in the way of substitution. Basically, they’re essential to this part of the country and there are similar systems in the east.
Senator Simons: Otherwise there would be, what, helicopters dropping stuff from the sky?
Ms. Chang: Yes, and you can’t do that in volume, right? Maybe for extremely important emergency medical supplies or something like that, emergency managers that I’ve talked to have considered helicopters and even, depending on the situation, airplanes and float planes.
Within the shipping system, one of the approaches that has been raised is using barges to get to communities that might be isolated or disconnected for various transport reasons. Barges that would normally not go to certain places could, if necessary, do that as a way of supplying them, but there are limitations there.
Bottlenecks we may not necessarily think of immediately but that are real include, for example, increasing the use of barges to supply places on the coast that have been affected by a tsunami or something. There are limited numbers of those vessels, and there need to be arrangements and preplanning in place to get them there during a large event that affects a large part of the coastline. There may be a need across many communities and very limited ability to help them.
There are all sorts of things that need to be thought about in advance. Off the top of my head, but discussions have been had about whether we can, if necessary, access vessels that are normally in Washington State, for example. We share the same body of water. There are all sorts of possibilities that can be thought about in advance, but they need to be thought about in advance to work effectively.
Senator Simons: Obviously, if there is a tremendous storm inundation in the Lower Mainland of B.C., it’s going to affect Washington State, too. It’s not as though they’re separate ecosystems.
Ms. Chang: Right, and the same obviously goes for a tsunami. That would absolutely affect the entire coastline of B.C. and Washington State.
The Deputy Chair: I have a short question before we close this panel. Dr. Lueck, you talked about non-traditional methods. I’m intrigued. With respect to flooding and tsunamis, what non-traditional methods, as opposed to dikes and barrages, could help in order to avoid being flooded?
Ms. Lueck: I’ll choose one that’s going on right now. It’s being run by Nature Force, which has a bunch of private insurance companies putting money into it. They are doing sediment deposition along the Richmond coast, and it’s called the Sturgeon Bank. If there is not enough time now, I can send information later.
They are depositing sediment offshore. Then, through natural means, the sediment is being brought up onto the salt marsh, which raises the salt marsh. That’s why they’re running it right now. It’s a test, a pilot, to see how quickly the salt marshes will increase in elevation and how effective that will be. This is not in the nature-based solutions guidelines of Canada, which will be coming out I believe in March, I hope, and is led by Enda Murphy. It is one that could have far-reaching impacts and would also be interesting for the airport.
The Deputy Chair: Please send us some documentation on this because, obviously, we’re focusing on the port and airport. Would marshes be possible there? That’s a question.
Thank you. We’ve exhausted our time.
[Translation]
Thank you, ladies. It was nice to have a panel of technical experts who are all women. Thank you for being here.
Thank you for joining us, but we have a bit of housekeeping before we get started. I move that, notwithstanding usual practice and pursuant to rule 12-17 of the Rules, the committee be authorized to receive evidence today without a quorum, where two members are present. Do I have the committee’s consent to adopt the motion?
Is it agreed? The motion is carried.
Honourable senators, we are now resuming to continue our study of the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure in the Vancouver area. Today, we are concluding our case study on the Vancouver area with you, ladies and gentlemen.
[English]
For our second panel this morning, we’re pleased to welcome Marc Brazeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada; Dave Earle, President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Trucking Association; and Bonnie Gee, President, Chamber of Shipping.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us. We’ll begin with opening remarks of five minutes each from Mr. Brazeau, followed by Mr. Earle and Ms. Gee. We’ll then proceed with questions from senators.
Marc Brazeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Railway Association of Canada appreciates the opportunity to appear for a second time on this —
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I’m going to have to stop you there. We’re having some technical glitches.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Deputy Chair: We will now go back to Mr. Brazeau. Please go ahead. You have five minutes.
[English]
Mr. Brazeau: The Railway Association of Canada, or RAC, appreciates the opportunity to appear for a second time on this important topic. Since we last appeared as part of the study in April 2022, we’ve all clearly seen the need for climate-resilient infrastructure. Whether it’s fires, floods, washouts or extreme cold temperatures, railways and railroaders have responded to numerous challenges with dedication and ingenuity. Unlike public roads, most rail infrastructure is private; the cost of maintaining, upgrading and protecting the infrastructure — from tracks to bridges and culverts — is borne by the railways. Over the past 10 years, railways have invested more than $21.5 billion — nearly 25 cents of every dollar earned — to enhance the safety, fluidity and resiliency of Canada’s rail network.
[Translation]
If Canada wants to better protect transportation infrastructure from weather events, it needs a regulatory and policy framework that supports and strengthens those types of investments. It is investments, not harmful regulations like extended regulated interswitching, that will strengthen supply chains and make them more climate-resilient.
Rail is the greenest mode of ground transportation. Canada’s railways are at the forefront of green innovation. Despite moving more than half of Canada’s exports and $380 billion in goods each year, railways account for less than 4% of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation industry.
[English]
From Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited, or CPKC’s hydrogen locomotives to the Canadian National Railway Company, or CN’s in-house fuel-saving system to the Southern Railway of British Columbia, or SRY’s 100% biodiesel pilot project and VIA Rail’s emission-reducing AI software, innovation is happening across the industry to further reduce emissions. Similarly, there is much work being done to predict, prevent and respond to weather events. For example, Watco’s Agawa Canyon Railroad in northern Ontario uses specialized flood monitoring sensors. Big Sky Rail in Saskatchewan uses lasers and drones to assess bridge integrity. Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway is upgrading its geohazard management system. Indigenous owned and operated Keewatin Railway deployed a digital tool to identify potential improvements to culvert design. Each of these projects required railway investment and were supported by the government’s Rail Climate Change Adaptation Program. We recommend that, given its success and the acute need to accelerate predictive and responsive innovation, the funding envelope increase to $10 million annually. When we talk about a supportive investment environment, that includes repealing investment-stifling policies like extended regulated interswitching. It also means ensuring that depreciation rates and rules are competitive internationally and balanced across transportation modes.
[Translation]
Why do our counterparts in the trucking sector, which benefits from publicly funded infrastructure, have access to better depreciation rates than those of us in the rail sector, which is four times more fuel efficient?
The unequal treatment of transportation modes goes against the objective we and the government share: transporting more goods by rail to reduce emissions. Our association recommends accelerated depreciation for everyone in the supply chain. At the very least, a rebalancing of depreciation rates and rules is needed to encourage investment in Canada’s rail sector.
[English]
Further, governments should adopt the U.S. short line railroad track maintenance tax credit model to ensure short line railways and the customers they serve are sustainable and can build for the future. The need to support Canadian short line railways is well documented in the 2016 Emerson Report. Vancouver is a critical hub for Canadian railways and a gateway to the world. Protecting its port and associated infrastructure corridors is essential for Canadian importers and exporters. Vancouver has always seen its fair share of rain, but recent events are more concerning. Grain, for example, is not loaded from railcars to vessels in inclement weather at the Port of Vancouver, yet in competing ports in Seattle and Portland, they’re doing exactly that. This is a perennial and unnecessary bottleneck in Canada’s grain supply chain. According to the Port of Vancouver, resolving this issue would unlock about 7% in new capacity. This is why we recommend fiscal measures, including accelerated depreciation, to encourage grain terminal operators to make the investments needed to prevent grain loading bottlenecks from delaying trains at port when it’s raining, and we know it rains in Vancouver a lot.
Recalling the historic rains of 2021 in the Lower Mainland and the interior, RAC members, including CN, CPKC and SRY Rail, performed an engineering marvel to restore washed-out tracks, clear debris and get trains running again within days despite extreme challenges. Such events require close coordination between infrastructure owners, operators, first responders and local officials. There must also be planning at the front end to proactively reduce risk and mitigate potential climate impacts. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brazeau.
[English]
Now we will hear from Dave Earle.
Dave Earle, President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Trucking Association: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. The importance of the commercial truck transport industry in Canada can’t be overstated. The commercial road sector transports well over 95% of all consumer goods; virtually everything a consumer buys is brought either last mile, first mile or all miles in the back of a truck. The B.C. Trucking Association is a member-based, province-wide, non-partisan, not-for-profit motor carrier association. Our members operate about 13,000 to 14,000 vehicles, employ over 26,000 people and generate about $2 billion in revenue annually in British Columbia. A pillar of our mandate is to work to decarbonize the commercial transport sector. We work closely with equipment manufacturers, all levels of government, academia, NGOs and our members to understand the state of the art in decarbonization efforts in our sector. Next week, we’re hosting the largest heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle show ever held in Canada. At the time of writing this letter, on February 9, we will have 500 attendees, and I’m advised that, as of yesterday, we will have over 600.
There’s a lot of appetite and excitement, but even with all this excitement, commitment and diligence, we have to state unequivocally that there is no possibility commercial transport can even begin to approach our greenhouse gas, or GHG, reduction target as set by the government. Achieving this is a literal mathematical impossibility.
This is why we believe the work of this committee and its study are so very important as we prepare to mitigate the inevitable and oncoming effects of climate change.
Therefore, our first recommendation is that all levels of government publicly recognize that we can’t meet our collective climate change goals within the time frames committed to, as well as the importance of working with communities to mitigate the unavoidable impacts of climate change.
Those impacts were well illustrated by the floods of November 2021. Literally overnight, a series of significant Pacific storms, coupled with mild, though not unseasonable, weather and an early snowpack, resulted in massive destruction to our infrastructure. The Lower Mainland is home to Canada’s largest port and over 50% of British Columbia’s population. The province’s highway network connects the coast to the rest of the province, the rest of Canada and the continent. Overnight, we lost 80% to 90% of our ability to move goods. Overnight, it was gone.
The next morning, we found out that the entire capacity was gone — 100%. We were not able to move any goods east-west through Canada at all.
We did have the option to move them through the United States; these are called in-transit moves. We found that even with the structures in place, those moves were taking 8 to 12 hours longer, and because of different barriers that exist in terms of customs and different rules for moving goods, those inter-moves were possible but only able to replace about 200 to 300 of the thousands of daily moves that were missed each day.
So our recommendation is that all agencies and jurisdictions potentially impacted by these types of incidents immediately work to remove trade barriers and develop a detailed, broad-based in-transit move protocol to allow for maximum flexibility and very rapid implementation.
Since the floods of 2021, the provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has worked to rebuild infrastructure — which, we must note, despite more than two years and a cost of $5 billion plus and climbing, is not complete. The highways have not been completely rebuilt.
But the ministry is also using what is called criticality mapping to identify infrastructure priorities. The measure of criticality is the measure of the importance of an asset to the resilience of the overall transportation system. This information makes it possible to weigh mitigation alternatives, know where emergency response plans are most urgently needed and identify alternate routes that should be examined for improvement should a critical link be highly susceptible to failure.
Unfortunately, we see this happening all too often. Last August, we saw the closure of a highway connecting two small communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island to the rest of the island and, thereby, the rest of Canada. The alternate structure was a very small forest service road. It had not been identified prior to this as an alternative route, but with some hasty work overnight, we were, again, able to keep the supply chain running.
Our recommendation that, as we go forward, all levels of government undertake criticality mapping would address this. Inevitably, this assessment will identify areas of criticality that require significant and prolonged investment. In fact, it already has. During the 2021 floods, kilometres of Highway 1 in the Fraser Valley were underwater for weeks. The highway was built to the standard of the day over 60 years ago, but neither it nor the diking in place around it can deal with current, let alone future, climate-related events. Years after the water receded, damage has been repaired, but work is not under way to mitigate the next disaster.
Even before the criticality mapping is completed, the province has identified this section of Highway 1 as critically needing upgrades. It has begun design work and budget allocation to rebuild the highway several metres higher than its current configuration over the next decade.
The problem is that the provinces can’t act quickly enough without federal funding and support, so our last recommendation is that we use the federal government to create a funding mechanism to support infrastructure projects identified by criticality mapping and defined by our need to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee today. I’d be happy to discuss any elements that we’ve raised with you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Earle.
Now we will hear from Ms. Gee. You have five minutes.
Bonnie Gee, President, Chamber of Shipping: Good morning, senators, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Chamber of Shipping serves as a unified voice of the marine transportation industry navigating the Asia-Pacific Gateway. We represent international shipping lines that are a vital component of global supply chains, transporting goods and materials across the world’s oceans in a cost-effective manner. Maritime transport accounts for nearly 90% of the world’s trade by volume and 80% by value. Through international bodies such as the United Nations International Maritime Organization, or IMO, and the International Chamber of Shipping, ocean carriers have recognized that international shipping remains highly dependent on fossil fuels and represents about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships seeks to reduce the carbon intensity of international shipping by at least 40% by 2030. It also aims to increase the uptake of zero or near-zero GHG emission technologies, fuels and/or energy by 2030.
The International Chamber of Shipping has submitted a detailed proposal to the IMO for a zero-emission shipping fund to accelerate the transition to net zero by 2050. The fund is intended to incentivize the acceleration and uptake of zero-GHG marine fuels and technologies and generate billions of dollars to support energy transition in developing countries.
Under the proposal, contributions from ships, per tonne of CO2 equivalent emitted, will be used to reduce significant cost gaps between zero-GHG fuels and conventional fuel oil. The Government of Canada must work with its provincial partners to support the energy transition for international shipping.
The new zero-emission fuels are expected to be lower in energy density, requiring vessels to refuel more frequently. Substantial investments in technology and infrastructure are needed to support the shipping industry’s decarbonization efforts.
Climate change is causing La Niña and El Niño events to be longer in duration, more severe and more frequent. Extreme weather events, including hurricanes, cyclones, high winds, more precipitation, flooding and drought conditions will have an impact on maritime operations.
The Panama Canal is currently experiencing drought conditions that have resulted in 40% fewer transits per day. The Panama Canal services approximately 46% of the container traffic between the U.S. East Coast and northeast Asia. There’s potential for this traffic to be diverted through the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert in view of existing rail connections to the U.S. Midwest.
Recent wildfires, combined with an atmospheric river event, have highlighted the vulnerabilities and devastating impact that climate change can have on the Port of Vancouver’s transportation network. The unprecedented collaboration that followed between supply chain partners and leadership in multiple levels of government resulted in remarkable recovery. However, having digital infrastructure in place serving as a backbone for the supply chain could have expedited the recovery and provided shippers and shipping lines with better information to manage vessel arrivals and prioritize the movement of critical goods. The Government of Canada must prioritize the implementation of a digital framework that supports a secure, resilient and competitive goods-movement strategy across all modes of transportation.
Adoption of international data centres is key to enabling regional and national collaboration across borders in the event of catastrophic climate-related events.
Increased flooding, high winds, extreme cold and heavy precipitation all have an impact on cargo operations at the Port of Vancouver. Regular maintenance dredging is increasingly important to terminal operations on the Fraser River. High winds and precipitation regularly shut down cargo operations, so an increase in the frequency or duration of these events will affect the supply chain.
As unanticipated delays to cargo operations increase, so will the demand for anchorages. Safe anchorages are essential for fluidity in cargo operations at marine terminals. During extended periods of disruption, we have seen all available anchorages in the region occupied, resulting in several vessels holding offshore.
Canada needs a strong maritime authority with a clear mandate to actively manage these vessels, along with the appropriate tools and authorities to mitigate risk. Active vessel management, combined with strategically placed emergency towing vessels, is essential to providing the operational readiness required to protect our coastlines and provide emergency response to coastal communities following a natural disaster.
Managing biodiversity, warmer climates and changing ecosystems where ports operate is also critical. Global trade can serve as a pathway for invasive species that can overtake native species and alter healthy ecosystems. Phytosanitary requirements are likely to evolve to protect against new pests; therefore, investment in resources for inspection capability and detection technology will be needed to minimize disruptions to port operations.
Indigenous nations are the stewards of biodiversity, as they are often the first to detect changes to our ecosystem as knowledge keepers of our lands and waters. Unfortunately, the absence of a transparent framework governing the relationship between Canada and the Coastal First Nations in southern B.C. has resulted in inertia vis-à-vis a broad range of important initiatives concerning the management and protection of marine ecosystems. The chamber encourages governments to have regular and open dialogue with industry on how to move forward with reducing environmental impact and developing best practices to provide greater clarity and predictability in our operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. That concludes my opening remarks and I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to all three of you for your presentations. We will now begin the question and answer portion.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. It’s great to have railroad and sea in the room at the same time.
I apologize in advance — I have another commitment, so my question will be short and to the point.
With the transportation infrastructure and systems and all the linkages between concentrated in the Lower Mainland area, affecting the port — and the airport, but I’ll concentrate on the port at this point — what value, if any, do you see for short-sea shipping as a contributor to being better prepared for alternative routings should the inevitable become a reality?
Ms. Gee: I absolutely think short-sea shipping is essential. We just need to have the appropriate infrastructure to allow that to be in place. We do have short-sea shipping happening between the mainland and Vancouver Island right now. That seems to be working well, but certain regulatory changes are necessary to allow that to be fully impactful.
Mr. Brazeau: I don’t have a lot to add other than to say that there is the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver. Any investments being made to expand port facilities and terminals need to happen.
I touched earlier on the fact that, on average, railways reinvest 20% to 25% of their total revenues earned year over year back into their infrastructure.
We have an integrated supply chain in Canada. When one part of the supply chain breaks down or is not making the right investments, there is a ripple effect. We need to ensure that we encourage investments across all supply chains. The federal government has a role to play in that in terms of having specific programs, such as the National Trade Corridors Fund, which will help to support that, but also accelerating depreciation opportunities for these capital investments that are made by the railways. We would like to see some changes in the accelerated depreciation costs.
Mr. Earle: Thank you again for the question. Bonnie spoke about this: When we talk about diversification, it is creating alternatives to a vulnerable piece of infrastructure. In addition to creating better efficiencies and throughputs in short-sea shipping, there is a real value to taking some of that activity and moving it out of the immediate physical area to provide us with an alternative.
In terms of the criticality of the supply chain as a whole, we can look at the trucking industry in B.C. As highly visible and critical as the container work is that our members do, it’s about 2% of our industry in B.C. There is a lot more happening that we need to be mindful of.
Senator Quinn: Who would you recommend be the lead, if you will, to examine a mitigation strategy such as short-sea shipping — whether it is viable and whether it makes sense, et cetera — to get around these bottlenecks when disasters happen? Would that be the provincial or federal government? Who should take the lead to do that kind of examination today to be better prepared for tomorrow?
Ms. Gee: I believe the port has already done some work, in conjunction with the Province of British Columbia, on short-sea shipping.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I have a question about funding and who’s going to fund things.
Mr. Brazeau, you talked about corn-loading terminals not being rainproof, if I can use that invented term. How would you make it rainproof?
My larger question to all three of you is this: How do we pay for the investments that you feel are necessary? We’re in a situation where the federal government is turning off the taps. We saw recently that they refused to extend the CEBA loan program, which is a considerable cost item to the Treasury Board but also a considerable cost item to small businesses. We’ve seen renewed pressure from south of the border in terms of our contribution to NATO, which is coming with all sorts of threats. You’re in competition with a lot of big items, including with a possible future president of the United States.
My first question is this: How would you make it rainproof? Second, what are alternatives for covering these costs? If we, as a committee, say that the federal government should cover A, B, C and D, it’s going to fall on deaf ears.
Mr. Brazeau: Thank you, senator. As I mentioned, just south of Vancouver, they are loading grain in the rain, in Seattle and Portland, because they made investments in the infrastructure: roofs to protect the loading of the grain against inclement weather. That’s a decision that a supply chain partner needs to make, whether it be the port or the grain terminals.
We believe that whatever incentives can be put in place to encourage investment is good. In the last several years, we’ve seen a focus on adding regulations that stifle investments. Extended interswitching is a great example; that prevents railways from reinvesting in our network when you have regulatory policy that disincentivizes investment.
We want to see a climate where the private sector can invest more. Accelerated depreciation measures are an example. We want to see the government utilize programs such as the National Trade Corridors Fund to invest in the right critical infrastructure and to invest smartly. This needs to be in conjunction with all supply chain partners.
I agree with you that we’re facing austerity measures and the government has to make tough decisions. But we need to move goods in this country. We’re an export-focused country. We need to get our goods to global markets. We need to do that efficiently and safely and to maximize the capacity that’s there. There are real opportunities, like at the Port of Vancouver, where we can increase capacity by 70% by just building a roof so we can load grain in the rain.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Earle: Thank you. I have three thoughts for you. The first is to use criticality as our guiding principle and not political expediency. That is a difficult conversation for local politicians, in particular, to have with constituents and say, “No, your priority doesn’t fit and doesn’t override national and provincial interests.”
The second is to look at the allocation of taxes already being collected from different industries. With respect to the differential of carbon tax pricing and how it is treated, we believe there are opportunities to reallocate that within the transportation sector to provide additional funding.
More than anything else, when we talk about the need for funding, it’s not so much the dollars and cents but the long-term commitment. When we talk about the need to rebuild Highway 1 in the Fraser Valley, this is many years of work. To parse it out and build it in stages is inherently more expensive. This is where you get into mobilization and demobilization costs. We are much better off having one long-term project that will be funded over a period of six to nine years rather than project after project going through procurement and bidding and all those processes again and again to deal with it in stages.
For many years, we’ve been proponents of looking at long-term funding commitments so that the dollars going out the door are better spent; it’s not necessarily more dollars.
Ms. Gee: I will add that funding is certainly becoming a greater concern. I understand that a couple of infrastructure projects at the Port of Vancouver have now been put on hold because of the increasing cost of construction. When you have a public-private type of partnership, often the costs go back to the shipper, which essentially makes Canadian shippers a little less competitive in the global market. There does need to be a longer-term strategy when it comes to funding critical infrastructure.
When we talk about loading grain in the rain, we’ve been working with the terminal operators and our carriers to try to overcome this issue. We have some solutions in place, such as allowing vessels to load grain through cement feeder holes, but other measures have not been accepted by labour groups. We are looking to overcome some of the challenges that have been identified there from an efficiency standpoint.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Mr. Brazeau, I want to start with a question for you that may seem a bit out of the box, but I think it relates.
Over the last couple of years we’ve seen rail lines, especially the bigger ones, using more precision-scheduled railways so they have larger trains. Instead of all putting all your eggs in one basket, you’re putting all your cargo in one long train. Does that make the rail system more vulnerable to infrastructure disruptions, having to take an entire train that long and shunt it to the side if it loses its capacity? Is there a danger in adopting this strategy of really long trains?
Mr. Brazeau: Longer trains have proven to be safe and fluid. They’re maximizing the capacity, but our safety record on the longer trains, both Class I railways, CN and CPKC, have the best safety record of all Class I railways in North America. We take that seriously in terms of our ability to have longer trains. Our trains are shortened in the winter when we reach a certain temperature because of the air brakes.
Again, if you look at the investments that have been made, for example, in new grain hopper cars that were built in Hamilton, Ontario. Between CN and CPKC, we’re talking about thousands of new high-capacity grain hopper cars. We’re able to carry more grain in one unit train than we have in the past. That’s ensuring we’re meeting demand and have capacity. We’re not seeing any significant negative impacts from longer trains. In fact, we’re seeing positive things. We’re making sure that the network remains fluid and meeting the capacity demands of our shipment customers.
Senator Simons: Mr. Earle, you’ve raised what I think is the critical question, namely, how do we figure out what to fix first? “Criticality” is a lovely word, but you’re right to point out the vulnerability from people politicking and pushing for their pet project in their area, which is the most important thing to them. How do we establish a body that can objectively decide where the greatest crisis points are?
In our study, we started by talking about the Chignecto Isthmus, which connects Nova Scotia to New Brunswick and could well be under water by the end of the next decade and a half. Who decides whether that is more important, which is essential to connecting Nova Scotia to the mainland; versus the Port of Vancouver, which is our absolutely critical Pacific shipping port; versus what happens in the Great Lakes; versus what happens if the Mackenzie River can’t get goods to people because the water levels have dropped so low? How can we figure out where we should put our efforts first in a federation where the provinces and the federal government rarely agree on much of anything?
Mr. Earle: I could give you a fun answer, but no.
Senator Simons: Give me the fun answer because after some of the testimony we’ve heard this morning —
Mr. Earle: All kidding aside, I would approach the question differently. It’s not the body but the question itself. We need to create a conversation. That was my first point. A mythology exists in Western society that we’re going to get to our climate targets by 2030, 2040 or 2050. It’s not going to happen. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I can tell you definitively that for the commercial transport sector, it is mathematically impossible.
Senator Simons: Even if we did reach those goals, climate change is happening right now.
Mr. Earle: Right. That first question is this: What is the conversation? You say “criticality” is a nice word, but what does it really mean? I believe we need to have a conversation with Canadians to reach a common understanding of what it is before we identify the body. We need to create that conversation and that narrative so that we understand what we’re talking about is not the notion but the fact that we are dealing with a climate crisis and these impacts and that we need to know what to look at. That is, what is “criticality”? Once we have that common definition, it’s easier to make decisions based on that than it is on the priorities of the day. Absolutely, my colleagues in the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association will talk about the need to address that infrastructure, and they’re right. However, in the world of reality, where we have limited resources, we’ll have to be extremely strategic and thoughtful about where we spend them.
My suggestion would be to have that conversation about that common definition first. That’s why I think this work is so important.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Brazeau, thank you for mentioning the Agawa Canyon Tour Train. I recommend this tourist train in my beautiful province of Ontario. It is a great day trip up there.
You were commenting about how the railway industry is a leader in green innovation, but you did not mention hydrogen trains. I had a conversation with a VIA Rail executive last week about hydrogen trains. I would like your take on this way of dealing with climate change. Is this the future or not? How long will it take to implement these trains and where can they be used? Please give us your take on hydrogen trains.
Mr. Brazeau: As an example similar to the Agawa train, which is a great tourist train in the summertime, there is one in Charlevoix as well —
Senator Dasko: I’ve seen it, yes. It’s a hydrogen train.
Mr. Brazeau: — called le Train de Charlevoix, which is testing a hydrogen train with Alstom, one of the train manufacturers. They had a successful tourist season in 2023 and they’re doing it in 2024. Some real-life testing is being done with hydrogen. CPKC is active in that area and CN is looking at technology more on the battery side as well. A lot of R&D and innovation is happening, but it’s going to take several years of testing before you get to the point where you can say that you can take a diesel train, especially a freight train, like that. Freight trains travel long distances through mountainous regions, so you need technology that’s proven. Good work and testing is being done, but it’s going to take time before we get to a mass market or a point where we can take diesel trains off the tracks. That will take longer.
In terms of our environmental commitment as an industry, we just renewed a memorandum of understanding with Transport Canada. Since 2005, we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the rail sector by over 25%. Again, these are commitments we had in place for several decades and we want to continue to reduce our carbon footprint through some of these initiatives.
Senator Dasko: Do you feel the hydrogen train is actually viable? Do people in the industry think it is the way of the future or has it still not been tested enough?
Mr. Brazeau: I think it’s still in the testing stage, senator. Again, like anything else, when you are introducing new technology, you want to make sure it stands the test of time. We are going to continue to see evolution with hydrogen trains.
Senator Clement: Thank you for being here and for your testimony. I came in late because I have chamber duties. I apologize for that.
I have a question first for Ms. Gee and then I want to continue the conversation that you started, Mr. Earle, with Senator Simons around criticality.
Ms. Gee, I heard you talk about decarbonization in shipping requiring more frequent refuelling. That’s a technical aspect that I would like you to expand on. I’m trying to understand what that means.
The second thing I heard you say was that, at a time of crisis, it’s remarkable how well we come together. I don’t think we’re as good at long-term planning, but with respect to crisis management, we’re on it. You said it could have been even better if we’d had better access to digital information. Could you expand on the refuelling and then the digital information?
Ms. Gee: Sure. Currently, the Port of Vancouver sees about 2,700 vessels a year. We’re not known as a bunkering port where vessels actually take on a majority of the fuel they need for their trans-Pacific voyages.
Senator Clement: Will we ever be a bunkering port?
Ms. Gee: We may be. The newer fuels have a lower energy density, so we may have the opportunity to become a bunkering port with those newer fuels that are coming on stream.
Senator Clement: To have the capacity to store that?
Ms. Gee: To actually provide them. Some vessels have now been equipped to be dual fuel, to use LNG, or liquefied natural gas, as an alternate fuel, but we know that is really a transition fuel. A number of carriers are talking about using methanol and ammonia as fuel for their voyages. So Canada may be in a position at some point to provide green ammonia or ethanol to fuel vessels. Canada and the provinces should look at that as an opportunity.
Senator Clement: Would that require a federal investment?
Ms. Gee: And provincial investment as well.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Ms. Gee: The other question was around how we came together following the washout in 2021. We had some experience, through COVID, with collaborating with the federal government in managing vessels and crew, but when we had the flooding situation, the province and the federal government really stepped up. They pulled together interested parties to talk about the current challenges, and they were meeting daily at that point.
We find the information-sharing between federal departments is restricted because of current privacy laws; they can’t share information between departments. Every department has a silo of information. They do not have a full picture of what’s going on and how to facilitate the movement of goods during disruptions.
Senator Clement: Are you referring to privacy around contracts?
Ms. Gee: I’m referring to data sharing. For instance, our vessels will submit vessel clearance data to 10 different departments, and it’s often very similar information.
Senator Clement: Does that make sense?
Ms. Gee: No, it doesn’t. We’re really encouraging Canada to follow through on that. The new National Supply Chain Office has digitalization as part of its key mandates right now. There is work to be done.
Senator Clement: Thank you for identifying that. That’s helpful.
I want to go back to criticality and bring in local municipal governments as well. We often talk about federal and provincial governments, but people really think of their government as the municipal governments. It’s their closest level of government.
On this idea of having a common definition of criticality, if you talk to a Canadian, they will not know what that means. I wonder about your association, for example. Do you have direct relationships with communities, with municipalities, around criticality? If we’re going to rely on governments to have common definitions, we may be disappointed. Everybody needs to be involved, including different professional organizations like your association. Do your associations have direct contact with Canadians? Do you have awareness campaigns? What do you do around defining criticality for people?
Mr. Earle: We do have direct relationships. We’ve only begun the conversation on criticality and what that looks like. Again, this is because of the work that’s coming out after 2021. One of the interesting pieces, when we look at these issues — particularly because highways are a provincial jurisdiction, of course — is our work with the province. We look at how they cast about and ask how to go about doing this, asking what methodology they can use. They found a couple and latched onto one which was first developed and tested in Colorado.
Missing from the provincial standpoint was a recognition of the different nature of population distribution in communities in our province and in our country. Missing was a recognition of the needs of Indigenous communities. We are trying to build that into the whole assessment of what this means.
In broad terms, in terms of criticality, it does not mean having the ability to commute on a lovely seven-lane highway on your way to work, but that your basic daily needs are met. Coming out of 2021, we were a little slow off the mark, but those memories are fresh, particularly in British Columbia. We see disruptions to supply chains there every year due to climate-related events. Those memories continue to resurface and are fresh. There is a real opportunity to have that conversation and ask what it means. Does criticality mean you have access to your recreational property, or does criticality mean the people who live in those communities year-round have access to groceries? We need to have those conversations. Where does our economic well-being fit? It’s critical.
Senator Clement: Are you consulting around that?
Mr. Earle: We’re just beginning the conversations with our members and in our work with our province, but when I talk about that definition, it is a much broader conversation that is difficult to have. To the senator’s point, everybody’s needs are important. Everything is important — but if everything is important, then nothing is. We will need to have some very difficult conversations about what this means as we move forward.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: You were adamant about the fact that you aren’t able to meet your greenhouse gas reduction target. I assume that is due to the fact that so few large trucks run on hydrogen, electricity or other such fuels, especially now.
I’d like you to explain the problem to us. You can say that you won’t be able to meet your target. Part of the issue is that we produce too many greenhouse gases, which contributes to climate change, and that is a problem out west, but you say there is nothing you can do. I think that’s a rather short answer.
Where are you? Are you doing anything? What is happening?
[English]
Mr. Earle: Thank you, senator. Yes, I was brief, and we only have a few minutes. Our industry is 100% in to make the changes. Again, we will be holding an event which has not been held anywhere else in Canada, next week, on February 21, in British Columbia. We will have 20 vehicles from 15 manufacturers and over 600 people attending to learn more about the state of the art. Being mindful of time, I will be very quick.
To achieve a 40% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 would mean replacing literally 40% of the fleet with zero-emission vehicles. That is a mathematical impossibility. To achieve this, every new vehicle sold in British Columbia, sold in Canada, would have needed to be zero-emission beginning three years ago — all of them. We just can’t do it.
The Deputy Chair: Let’s go with the positive. What are your goals, and what can you achieve?
Mr. Earle: Yes, what can we do? We’re working with governments and manufacturers and carriers to achieve the art of the possible. We know battery electric vehicles will work in local environments, where about 20% of the national fleet works. They come back to base every night, the couriers and regional runs. We’re working there. We need to stop thinking about putting electrical charging stations on interprovincial highways. Battery electric technology will not work in those situations. We need to look at alternate fuels like hydrogen.
The issue with hydrogen is the production of the element. It is the most prodigious element in the universe; however, it doesn’t exist in nature in its own isotope. We have to produce it, and we have various methods. We can strip it out of natural gas, and that is colloquially called grey hydrogen. It’s more carbon-intensive than burning diesel. Then we move to blue with carbon sequestration, and then we move to green. A lot of the work is on green hydrogen, meaning you need electricity to run the electrolysis facilities.
The Deputy Chair: Regarding not having rechargeable electricity on roads — is it because there aren’t enough people on back roads?
Mr. Earle: People are missing the fact that, with the trucks running, the range is not the range; it’s energy. In British Columbia in particular, it’s hills and mountains. No vehicle on the market and no vehicle coming will be able to run from Vancouver to the Coquihalla Toll Plaza, which is about 100 kilometres past Hope. It’s the elevation gain.
If we were able to get those vehicles and if they could charge at the top of the plaza, just to do the moves that we are doing, maintaining the volume would need 50 chargers running 24-7 with trucks lined up and charging every 45 minutes. The power draw would be equivalent to a city of about 20,000 to 25,000 people.
The Deputy Chair: Well, thank you for being graphic. That explains things a bit better.
We’ve run out of time. I’m sorry, Senator Simons, there will be no second round. We had less time this time, and I wanted to put in a question. Thank you, senators.
With that, the meeting is adjourned, and thank you very much for coming and for being patient with our technical problems. You were able to express yourselves and we had enough questions, so all is good. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)