THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with video conference this day at 9 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; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Leo Housakos, and I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee.
[English]
I would like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: Today we continue our study on the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector.
We’re pleased to welcome the officials from Transport Canada before us this morning. Joining us by video conference is Paula Vieira, Director General, Environmental Policy. We’re also joined in person by Paul Sandhar-Cruz, Director General, Strategic Policy; Christian Dea, Director General, Transportation and Economic Analysis and Chief Economist; and Charles Haines, Executive Director, Decarbonization of Air, Rail and Marine Transport.
Welcome and thank you for joining us. We will first have opening remarks of five minutes from Ms. Vieira, followed by questions and answers from my colleagues.
Paula Vieira, Director General, Environmental Policy, Transport Canada: Good morning, everyone. I hope everyone can hear me; I’m coming to you from Greece, so my apologies in advance for any technical malfunctions.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on how climate change is impacting our transportation networks, the challenges this presents and the actions we are taking to mitigate these effects. This comes as a follow-on from previous appearances from my colleagues in the department, which focused on our adaptation and resiliency work when this study was just beginning.
We know that Canada is warming at twice the global rate, and in the North, three times as fast; and 2023 stands out as the hottest year and the most devastating wildfire season on record. We also experienced hurricanes in the east and flooding and tornadoes across the country. Any one of these alone could have devastating impacts on our transportation infrastructure and supply chains, but the cumulative impacts of all of these in one year caused severe disruptions in our access to essential goods and services and put the safe movement of people at risk.
The effects of climate change on transportation are even more pressing in Canada’s North, where there are often few transportation alternatives. As extreme weather events become more frequent and climate change more prevalent, addressing vulnerabilities and adapting for the future are critical to keeping our transportation networks efficient and reliable.
According to the Canadian Climate Institute, damage to roads and railways from rainfall or extreme temperatures could escalate significantly, bringing annual costs to more than $5 billion by mid-century, and close to $13 billion by the end of the century. As we invest in new transportation infrastructure, we must ensure that the most advanced and climate-resilient technologies and materials are used, while also enabling the transition to a low-carbon future.
We know that a transportation system that is safe, secure and reliable forms the backbone of a thriving economy. We also know that in Canada, like many other countries in the world, the transportation sector is the second-highest contributor to Canada’s overall emissions. This is why the government is taking a two-pronged approach to addressing climate change, investing in both climate change adaptation by supporting the build-out of resilient infrastructure and climate change mitigation by working to decarbonize all modes of transportation.
For example, Transport Canada’s National Trade Corridors Fund is investing billions of dollars to help improve the efficiency, reliability and resilience of Canada’s transportation supply chain infrastructure across the country. These investments are also equipping the private sector with the data tools required to better operate, maintain and manage infrastructure in a changing climate. We have also recently launched the National Supply Chain Office to help make Canada’s supply chain more efficient, fluid, resilient and reliable, working with industry and governments to respond to major supply chain disruptions.
For Canada to be on a path to net zero, we must also take action to drive down emissions from across the entire transportation ecosystem itself. Transport Canada, together with other government departments, is taking a comprehensive approach to addressing emissions from all modes of transportation, including cars, trucks and truck depots, airplanes and airports, marine vessels and ports, locomotives and rail yards, while also looking for opportunities for mode optimization. To do this, we are using a comprehensive suite of measures, including regulations, codes and standards, incentives and tax credits.
With respect to on-road transportation, we have adopted sales targets for zero-emission vehicle deployment, including 100% by 2035 for light-duty vehicles and 100% by 2040 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks where feasible. These regulated targets are backed by incentives for vehicle purchase and financial support for the build-out of much needed charging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure.
We are also investing billions of dollars to increase the supply of clean fuels like hydrogen, ammonia, sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, renewable diesel and methanol, which are all essential to driving down emissions from harder to abate modes of transportation like including freight, aviation and marine shipping.
For aviation, we know that sustainable aviation fuel will be essential to driving down emissions. That is why we have set an ambitious aspirational target for 10% SAF use by 2030, and are working on a made-in-Canada SAF blueprint to identify the necessary actions that will help us achieve this target. Our airports are also on the leading edge of adopting clean technologies to drive down emissions from their operations.
In the case of the marine sector, we are using green shipping corridors, which link two or more ports that are adopting clean technologies — like shore power and low-carbon material handling equipment — with marine vessels that are also using clean fuels like methanol as essential anchors to decarbonizing the marine sector. Just this past December at COP 28, we announced a MOU to enable the establishment of a green shipping corridor from Canada’s West Coast to ports in Asia and the Middle East, and we are negotiating a new MOU for a corridor off our East Coast to ports in Europe and Singapore. These MOUs are complemented by Transport Canada’s $165 million Green Shipping Corridor Program, which was also launched in December 2023.
Given the global nature of transportation, we are also working with key governments and industries beyond our borders through multilateral fora such as the IMO, ICAO, G7, G20 and the Clean Energy Ministerial to help advance global decarbonization.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Vieira. I will turn it over to my colleague Senator Simons to launch off the questions and answers.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Ms. Vieira, and to all of our witnesses. I have to say that every time a “Paula” appears in public, it makes me happy because there are not so many of us. Thank you so much for joining us from Greece today.
I have two separate but somewhat related questions. I’m also the Deputy Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and we just finished our report about the flooding in the Fraser Valley after the atmospheric river, and we called government officials to give their response in person to our committee. What emerged in that discussion was a realization for me that there is nobody who seems to be in charge of looking overall at the resilience of infrastructure to climate change. Infrastructure Canada has money, ISC has money, you guys have money, but there doesn’t seem to be any one office in charge of coordinating and looking to see where our greatest points of vulnerability are and what has to be done. Instead, you have municipalities, provinces, airports and port authorities competing for grants and funds with no one setting priorities for the greatest crisis points. Am I just being cynical or is that an accurate assessment?
Ms. Vieira: No, you’re not wrong, and that happens across many mandates. In fact, 90% of our public infrastructure is not owned federally; it’s owned by other levels of government, whether that’s provinces, territories or municipalities. Of course, then you have, as you noted, the airport authorities and the port authorities, which also govern their assets. Transport Canada owns assets as well.
One of the goals of Canada’s adaptation strategy was to ensure that we were looking at all of these things in tandem and that we had a strategy now that looks at adaptation. It had all the departments, provincial and territorial involvement and Indigenous communities looking to set guiding principles that we all could apply to the assets that we govern and to any new assets that we would make. I think that went a long way in recognizing that there is distributed responsibility for these assets. However, if we can address this with guiding principles that we all agree upon, that takes it a step further. I’ll leave it to my colleagues if they have anything to add.
Paul Sandhar-Cruz, Director General, Strategic Policy, Transport Canada: I would add two things to Paula’s remarks. First, in response to the impacts of the pandemic and the impacts on supply chains, the former Minister of Transport launched the National Supply Chain Task Force and made recommendations to help with some of those activities. The department launched a national supply chain office late last year that will look at trade-related issues around supply chain movements at a national level, working with industry.
The second thing the Minister of Transport announced back in late February is a federal-provincial-territorial working group on infrastructure to look at Canada’s long-term needs on infrastructure. Resiliency of the transportation infrastructure is one of the areas on which we’ll be collaborating with the provinces and territories.
Senator Simons: I have one more rather specific question. We did our study as a series of case studies. Information came to me last week about a community that wasn’t included, but I want to have the chance to put this on the record. The community of Fox Lake, which is part of the Little Red River Cree Nation, was devastated by wildfire last summer. The Paskwa fire ran through the community basically from May to September. They have no bridge across the Peace River so they rely on barges. They had to evacuate 4,000 people by boat and barge in very short in order. In order to rebuild the community, they were counting on building ice bridges across the Peace River this winter. However, the warm temperatures in Alberta combined with the fact that BC Hydro kept releasing warm water from the W.A.C. Bennett Dam meant that their ice roads washed out four times. They couldn’t get any supplies in this winter.
Transport Canada never said a peep about their barges. However, now that the barges have come to their attention as a result of the wildfire, they’ve told the community that the barges don’t have the proper accreditation and that no federal employees, including members of the RCMP, will be allowed to take the barges across the river this summer. The only access for all federal employees, whether they work for Indigenous Services, Transport Canada or the RCMP, or whomever, will have to fly into the community because they can’t take the barge.
That is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the system right now. Can you tell me, as an Alberta senator, what Transport Canada could do to help the people of Fox Lake since you can’t magically construct a bridge? Will Transport Canada do anything to help the community certify its barges so they can at least get some goods and services into the community this summer?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: I’ll look into the specifics. I don’t have any background in terms of the barges.
Senator Simons: I understand.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: When Transport Canada looks at infrastructure, we have an infrastructure funding program. Other departments, like Infrastructure Canada, have tools available as well, including their permanent Community-Building Fund, which is available to help communities repair infrastructure and bridges. I’ll take it back to work and consult with my infrastructure colleagues and with the department on the situation with the barges.
Senator Simons: Yes, if you could, because it’s fine to say that there are funds, but every community in the country is competing for those dollars. There doesn’t seem to be any guiding intelligence that says, “All right. This is a crisis point. This needs to be addressed first.” I feel like there’s nobody at the wheel. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome and thank you for your interest in our case study work. I’d like to say that I share the concerns that Senator Simons raised on our behalf. This is a question we’ve wondered about throughout our study: Is someone responsible for ensuring that funding is directed where it is most needed in the short term?
My question is about the Arctic, because we did a case study on the Arctic that led to some particularly difficult findings. Jackie Dawson, a professor at the University of Ottawa, stated that the way infrastructure funding usually works does not apply well to the Arctic because the population is too small.
However, according to the Arctic National Strategy, which was introduced in the Senate in October 2023, Canada did not sufficiently increase available funding. What programs is Transport Canada planning on implementing to deal with this situation? I spoke to you about the Mackenzie River area in particular, because we heard from many witnesses who were there on the ground. They told us about a road that would be a link between communities in the area, but it could not be completed. This is related to problems such as the water levels in the river, runways and permafrost thaw. In short, the situation seems to be very difficult, and the population requirements that you tend to use don’t work in the North because it is home to so few residents. However, that is where they live and that is their ancestral land.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question.
[English]
I take your point about the unique challenges in the North. The government has an Arctic framework recognizing that and at Transport Canada, we have our own northern transportation lens/framework as a part of that, also to help guide investment in understanding of the needs of the North. We’ve allocated $1 billion in the National Trade Corridors Fund for northern projects. So we have been funding a number of research studies with academic institutions, with territorial governments and with some of our federally regulated partners in the North to look at the impacts of climate change, adaptation strategies while working with communities on their unique needs. We do understand. As a result, we’ve tried to carve out a policy framework that is adaptable to the needs of Northerners and to the changing climate in the North.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You’re not in action, if I understand well; at this point, the federal government is into studies. For example, with the road that stops — I’m sorry, I don’t know exactly the municipality — Mayor Pope wants it to go to his municipality. This doesn’t seem to be that complicated. They need a road because the barge system doesn’t work. There is a real problem there. Can some money be allocated a bit quicker or do you need all these studies? What is the framework?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Yes, it is a combination of both. Projects that are being done at airports and there are road projects. For the longer term, the projects that we know are going to be disproportionately impacted by climate — and Paula talked about the climate change impacting Canada in the North — it’s acute. It’s making sure that we’re going to build or have infrastructure that is able to withstand those climate change impacts.
We are also working with our federal counterparts, including Infrastructure Canada and National Resources Canada, with their Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund, on identifying opportunities to strengthen and to build private roads. Obviously, there are the rebuild efforts that will come out of the wildfire and the impacts on those communities. As I mentioned earlier, we are working with the federal-provincial ministers for transportation nationally to look at kind the longer-term needs — that will include regional assessments — to ensure that we’re identifying what needs to be in place to support the communities and trade over the long term.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can you be a bit more specific for our stakeholders who are waiting there in terms of agency? It’s fine to think and try to do something, but do you have some deadlines?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: For the NTCF, or National Trade Corridors Fund projects, we’ve announced a number for the North and for the territory governments in the North. Each project has its own timeline in terms of its implementation. Some of them are studies, so when we get the studies, they will move to the next phase.
With the working group with the federal-provincial-territorial ministers, we were looking to finalize a report in 2025. The ministers gave us direction to be more aggressive in certain areas, so we’re looking to accelerate that work. On the capacity and demand side, we would be looking at trying to have a report back to ministers in 2024.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can you tell us about the sector where you have to be more aggressive or is this a state secret?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: No. It’s around capacity, namely, the system capacity to support our trade. The National Trade Corridors Fund is trade focused. It’s able to support a number of objectives, including climate change resiliency and environmental impacts, but by and large it is a trade-focused fund. In understanding our capacity, the demand on the network is key and it’s accelerated since the wildfires, the B.C. floods and even the impacts of the pandemic. Communities were cut off. It was an unprecedented circumstance.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: It caused us to re-evaluate the vulnerability of that trade network and the system and now, because of climate change that Paula mentioned, the wildfire risk again this year.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, folks, for being here. Special thanks to Ms. Vieira for being with us from Greece.
I want to pursue the same line of questioning that my colleagues have. I understand full well the difficulty of having a coordinating role. It’s hard enough to coordinate within a department, let alone between departments or between provincial and federal governments working in the private sector. I want to focus on assets that are owned by Transport Canada to the Government of Canada.
We heard many different stories. Senator Simons gave a great example, because so often the little guys get lost in the shuffle. That’s what happens here. On government-owned assets, we’ve got legislative initiatives that are putting new controls in place around ports. Why is there not a requirement for ports to have a life cycle asset management plan that clearly demonstrates the conditions and the investment requirements of all infrastructure for ports owned by the Government of Canada to help folks in the Department of Transport to better review and select those that need to be invested in on a priority basis versus others that are invested in because they’re the big guys? Often in our Canadian port system, the little guys are left out. Why can’t we get at least movement in that direction just within Transport Canada?
The same comment could be made for airports owned by the federal government and leased to the airport authorities. Every penny invested in those assets is improving the federal government’s property holdings. Why can’t we, at least within Transport Canada, put a requirement in for life cycle asset management costed out to better inform the folks who analyze this information to make their recommendation to go up the line for investments from NTCF? Because that doesn’t happen. That’s something that is within the control of Transport Canada. That’s my question.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question. I’ll defer to my colleagues who are the experts on port management, but the government did table Bill C-33, which is a port modernization bill, to look at how ports are governed and to bring that framework up to modern standards, taking into consideration what’s going on globally and the investments that are needed for exactly the reasons that you’ve outlined. Also, through the National Treaty Corridors Fund, we have been supporting infrastructure projects at ports. Again, I’m not the expert on it, but the ports manage the assets, they don’t necessarily own the terminals; private entities operate some of the assets in the port authorities as well. I’ll defer to my colleagues.
Senator Quinn: I want to be clear that I fully understand that the ports manage the assets. The ports are landlords, so they belong to the federal government. My question is very focused: Why isn’t the government providing at least that coordinating role that my colleagues have talked about within their own assets and deal with that?
I’ll telegraph this now for anyone who wants to comment on Bill C-33: It is rife with shortcomings. We’ll deal with that later, but that’s where I’m going. Why don’t we have a concentrated effort? Transport Canada will be wrapped up forever trying to answer the sites such as what Senator Simons has raised. Everyone likes to deflect and defer. These are your assets. Why are we not coordinating better?
Ms. Vieira: Sorry for interrupting, but perhaps I could add something. Transport Canada does have the Transportation Assets Risk Assessment Program, TARA, announced in 2017 to do just that, namely, to look at federally owned assets and conduct climate risk assessments and related activities to understand and better prioritize the conditions of the assets.
As of February 2021, 45 transportation assets covering all modes had been assessed. It is exactly that. We do have a program. I’m happy to send more information on this to the committee about the designated and purposeful instrument for conducting climate risk assessments on federally owned assets, including ports, airports, bridges and federal highways.
Senator Quinn: I appreciate that. I would like to see that information and I would like to see the report that does the risk analysis. I’d also like to see how it links into life cycle asset management planning that identifies clearly where the priority dollars need to be spent. If you can do those two things, that would be great.
When we were looking at the St. Lawrence Seaway system, we heard many observations. One of the things that we heard was a bit about the Port of Hamilton doing an experiment or a trial with short sea shipping. It made me think of studies back in 1989-90 that clearly demonstrated the modes of transportation in descending order of harmful effects were trucking, the rail industry and shipping, which is the least. Since then, they’ve made great advancements in cleaner fuels and things of that nature.
Why isn’t Transport Canada thinking big and looking to see how we can take better advantage of that St. Lawrence Seaway system and have multiple thousands of trucks taken off the road for significant periods of the year? With global warming, the St. Lawrence shipping is becoming closer to year around. When I first started, it was a six-month operation; now it’s nine months.
Is anyone thinking about how we can displace trucks from roads and focus more on marine shipping backed up by rail? I know it’s controversial because 100,000 jobs involved, as we were told by the Ontario Trucking Association. I know it’s a big job number, but why aren’t we thinking big to see how we can take better advantage of the cleaner transportation methods?
Ms. Vieira: I am happy to take that question, senator. That is very much the analysis that we’re doing.
As Transport Canada looks to analyze departmentalization of all modes of transportation, looking at mode optimization and modal shift is absolutely part of that equation. You are absolutely right; the reason I am in Greece right now is that I am one of the representatives here for the Government of Canada at the Our Oceans Conference. When looking at green shipping and its role, it is the cleanest mode of transportation and, in many cases, the most economical as well. We are underutilizing our seaway in our Great Lakes and also off both our coasts. Short sea shipping could help take some of the volume off our ports and port communities, not only reducing emissions but giving health benefits as well for the societies and communities that live around ports.
That is part of what we’re looking at — what is the most effective, most efficient, most economic and sustainable mode of moving people and goods? There are opportunities to move more products on rails and through short sea shipping. Absolutely, we will be doing that as part of our analysis. We are looking to put forward a report on all modes of transportation, including mode optimization, by the end of 2025.
Senator Quinn: With the ports that exist now — leading up to the reports you just referred t —, are there any in-department discussion papers as to why you would want go into the next level of study, if I can put it that way? Is there anything I you can supply to the committee to show us what your early thinking is?
Ms. Vieira: I would be happy to share some of the information in terms of the analysis that we are doing. This is two years of effort. We are going to get early results in terms of what actions can be taken at ports and some of the economic analysis that we are doing to support some of the recommendations that will be made in the more comprehensive transportation report. I’m happy to share it as that information becomes available.
Senator Quinn: I appreciate that, specifically because it has been, in my experience, a 35-year study. Anything you can do to help us get up to date would be appreciated. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. I want to drill down on the airline sector and airports. Last week, we had witnesses from the Toronto and Montreal airports here and they told us about the efforts that they were making in their own operations to try to reduce carbon emissions, for example, energy use, electric vehicles, cogeneration and various other activities. Of course, when it comes to airports, shall we say, the elephants in the room are the planes that are on the tarmac. With air travel massively increasing after COVID, it is going nowhere but up in terms of the use of airlines for travel — personal or business use.
Ms. Vieira, you said earlier that one of your goals was to drive down emissions from all modes of transport. I wonder if you or your colleagues can explain the policy tools that the Government of Canada has to actually do this. I know you talked about risk assessment — that’s an analysis activity — but what tools do you actually have to deal with emissions in this sector? Anyone can answer.
Ms. Vieira: Yes, in terms of emissions, aviation, although not the greatest source of emission, is 5% of our transportation emissions. It is one of the tougher nuts to crack, obviously, because of the type of craft that you’re talking about. Airplanes have been in use for many decades and are therefore much more difficult to decarbonize. In airport operations, a lot of clean technologies exist — having clean power at the airports, hydrogen use, all of that in terms of airport operations.
You are right to point out that greatest source of emissions is the craft itself. That’s where sustainable aviation fuels come in. That’s why Canada has been showing leadership at the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, to try to have global carbon intensity standards and pricing measures, as well as fuel standards at an international level, very similar to the kinds of things we have here in Canada. We have a clean fuel standard. We have carbon pricing. We have those tools here in Canada, so it is a push that we are making internationally for aviation.
Our national target is 10% sustainable aviation fuel use by 2030. Blending biofuel into existing jet fuel, which you can do up to a certain percentage without any technical impediments, will start to bring down the carbon intensity of the flight itself. Over time, you can increase that percentage until such time as you have new craft technologies whether you are doing electric flights for short flights or hydrogen. Until that time, you will be blending cleaner fuels into your current jet fuel, and that will bring down emissions.
We have a target of 10% SAF use by 2030, and we are working on a made-in-Canada blueprint that will lay out the actions that are needed to ensure that can happen. Can we have production in Canada? Do we have the right policy instruments to attract that fuel into Canada until such time as we can produce it for ourselves and ensure it is available to our airlines? Our airlines are looking to purchase that fuel, but it is highly sought after, very little of it is produced anywhere in the world, and none is produced in Canada at this point.
Senator Dasko: Is carbon pricing the main policy tool that you have for the sector right now?
Ms. Vieira: Economy-wide, carbon pricing is that umbrella tool that we have, but there are other instruments supporting aviation. The Clean Fuel Standard is something we are looking at in terms of bringing down the carbon intensity of fuels. As it is used right now, it doesn’t cover jet fuel, but it does offer credits for the production and use of that fuel, so it is offering the credits and starting to poise the market to go in that direction. There are also a lot of incentive programs for capital investments to have that fuel produced in Canada, to build those plans in Canada, to take advantage of our biomass advantage and have those fuels produced here so they can be available for use.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. My apologies for being late. I don’t know if you have covered this before, but I just want to ask — and the issue has been raised a couple of times. We have looked at a few cases — and Senator Simons mentioned that it has been a series of case studies — from the Chignecto Isthmus to the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Vancouver International Airport. I am assuming you have a list somewhere of all of these endangered sites, or sites that are facing danger with climate change. Is that the case?
Christian Dea, Director General, Transportation and Economic Analysis and Chief Economist, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question. We have done analysis that looks at the vulnerability of the assets, but also the different routes in Canada. We do have a list of these vulnerable assets from an economic perspective, an environmental perspective or a security perspective. We are reassessing that right now within the federal government, but also with the provincial governments and the U.S. government right now to make sure that we come with a common perspective about where the vulnerabilities are and how we measure that. That will better inform a risk assessment framework moving forward.
Senator Cardozo: And are you starting to put a price tag on what is involved to get these up to scratch?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: That is the purpose of the working group that we have announced with the provinces and territories. It is to put some scope around the range of issues that are faced from a capacity standpoint and also from a resiliency standpoint. Resiliency for climate change for risks of disruption from a number of —
Senator Cardozo: Is that a list we can get in whatever form it is at?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: I can share with the committee the terms of reference that we’ve agreed to with the provinces and territories that outline in detail the issues that we are looking at.
Senator Cardozo: And the sites that you would be looking at?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: It’s national. We will map the entire transportation system nationally and then run analysis against those assets on the vulnerability from climate change and flooding and —
Senator Cardozo: But would you have a list of vulnerable sites that you could share with us?
Mr. Dea: Thank you for the question. At this moment, we have a list that has not yet been validated with all the parties. But this list is more based on an analysis of the vulnerability of the different areas of the country. We are looking to validate that, as my colleague mentioned, through the federal-provincial process that we have initiated. The plan would be to have the study available later this year, and we will be more than pleased to share the results of these analyses with the committee.
Senator Cardozo: Well, I would certainly be interested in seeing whatever you can share at this point. That would be useful.
Given what you know about our study, what would be helpful to you? We have completed a study in terms of hearing from people, but we have not decided what we will highlight. What would be some of the things that you might find useful from our work?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Perhaps I will begin, and then I will let Paula weigh in on the environmental side.
One of the biggest challenges — and I’m sure you are hearing this — is that you can’t prepare for every contingency or every possible scenario. Really, from working with our partners in both the private and public sectors, it is around prioritization and where to put the focus. As mentioned earlier, we have a separate strategy for the North. We have a supply chain office that will look at the risks around supply chains and trade movements. From a broader government level, Infrastructure Canada has its programs to help build on the resiliency part.
As Christian was mentioning, in terms of the asset mapping we are doing in provinces and territories, it’s primarily and principally our trade-enabling and supporting infrastructure. But there can be a breakdown in the system anywhere along, and just because they are the main arteries of trade infrastructure, some communities are still 100% reliant on one asset or one road.
One of the big challenges will always be where to focus the energy and the prioritization. Everyone will have a different perspective on what that should be.
I don’t know if Paula wants to add anything on the environmental side.
Ms. Vieira: I have just a couple of points to add. Certainly, I agree and, to add to what Paul was saying, all infrastructure will be vulnerable to climate impacts, especially if you see years like last year where we had catastrophic events of all kinds throughout the year, in all parts of the country.
From an environmental perspective, we are continuing to tackle emissions from transportation itself so that we are tackling climate change — so that it is not just a vicious cycle of rebuilding and rebuilding — ensuring that, as we rebuild, as part of the key principles of the adaptation strategy, all new decision making, all new investments, wherever that may be, will all follow the principles. Technical standards. planning and decision making have to be step one. We can’t just, out of crisis, simply rebuild what we previously had. All decision making has to be informed by system-wide assessments.
Something was noted earlier, which is also important in terms of these principles, is that the decision-making has to prioritize the benefits to marginalized populations.
As we are looking at all of the projects and all of the investments that must be made, resilient criteria is needed. Whether you are building new infrastructure for decarbonization, new infrastructure at airports, new infrastructure at ports, you need to ensure that those investments apply resilient criteria. You need to ensure that you are benefitting marginalized communities first and tackling those projects first. Those principles and those objects of the National Adaptation Strategy are kind of what should be applied by every government department in its investments, in its tools, in its own tool box.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I wanted to talk about the Vancouver airport. I must say that — the people at YEG will be sad — I think the Vancouver airport is my favourite airport in Canada. It is extremely important not just for passenger service but for supply chain as well as a cargo airport.
I think we were all shocked, as we did our study, to hear just how vulnerable the Vancouver airport located on Sea Island is. It has been a long time since Canada has seen the construction of a major new international airport, but how prepared are we for the seeming eventuality that we may need to relocate one of our three largest international airports? Now that it’s in the hands of an airport authority, where would the funding come from should we need to build a new airport to serve B.C. and Western Canada?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: The work we are doing with the federal-provincial-territorial counterparts on asset identification would identify our key trade assets. The Vancouver airport, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and others would appear as significant hubs.
The first step for us is identifying those volumes and then projecting out our trade needs based on the information and assumptions that we are using.
The second layer will be in terms of which of those assets are at risk from climate change. That will then allow us to look at planning from a mitigation standpoint of what can be done from a temporary basis. What can be done to add capacity? Can other airports or facilities be leveraged to fill in gaps on temporary measures?
That’s really the gist of why we are doing this work, to identify those longer-term needs and understand what Canada’s trade needs will be going forward. That’s always an evolving and shifting reality because we operate, we trade, in a global environment.
Senator Simons: I am curious that you are framing all of this from a trade perspective. I am from Edmonton. I will say the Edmonton International Airport is an extraordinarily important cargo airport, but it is less vulnerable to climate change than the Vancouver airport. Edmonton’s challenges are around wildfire smoke, primarily, but other than that, it’s going to be pretty safe.
My question is — and I don’t want to give people in Vancouver the heebie-jeebies — if the Vancouver airport sinks into the sea, it strikes me that studies and analysis of its capacity to handle cargo will not solve the existential problem of who funds the building of a major new international airport, should it come to that?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: I do appreciate that. In response, I would say that there are many vulnerabilities to assets. The flooding risk for an airport is one. But when the B.C. floods happened on the Lower Mainland a few years ago, the airport was not able to get aviation fuel for its planes. So there are events and things that could trigger disruption in the operations.
Senator Simons: I’m going to try and rephrase this. Let’s take the Vancouver airport out of it. Let’s have a hypothetical conversation. Who funds the building of a new international airport should one need to be built? Is that the responsibility of the airport authority? Is it the responsibility of the federal government? Charging a little fee on my airplane ticket is not going to build a new airport. Can anyone tell me the protocol for major national infrastructure that can’t rest on the shoulders of an airport authority?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: I guess there could be different scenarios where you have an existing airport authority that would like to do an expansion or —
Senator Simons: That’s not what I’m talking about. If an airport is destroyed let’s say by a hurricane, an earthquake — make up an example. This is a question further to what Senator Quinn was talking about. We have devolved responsibility for our airports to airport authorities, whereas when I was a kid, the federal government controlled those assets. There are lots of good public policy reasons to devolve the operation and management of airports to regional/local airport authorities with local boards. But if you face a major existential infrastructure crisis, it seems to me that the devolution works against you.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Perhaps we could offer a briefing on the airport structure. For major airports, they are federal lands; the airport authorities are paying rent in operating. There are airport assets that have been turned over and devolved to municipalities. I guess it would depend on the scenario, but more —
Senator Simons: So then would the federal government be responsible for the cost of building a new airport?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: If it were a federal asset and in an emergency situation, then I’m sure that would trigger an emergency federal response.
Senator Simons: I’m not talking about an emergency. I’m talking about proactively preventing an emergency.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: That’s the work we are undertaking with the provinces and territories to look at our vulnerability to say we don’t have enough of this type of capacity to meet our demand or in the face of climate change risks. And then what do we need that had to do in terms of partnering, working, co-funding, whatever it is, or site selection and then what will be the impacts?
It is important to note — and you made the point — that we’re not running the assets in the system. They are largely commercial decisions in traffic, flights, movements, trade; they all go by where the commercial decisions being made allow it. So we, as the federal government, are looking at the federally regulated sector. We will work with provinces and territories on their own assets, highways, roads, bridges. We will look at the system in its totality and assess the vulnerability from the perspective of the national trade, and it has important implications for communities, as we talked about for the North. That would be the basis from which we could assess that vulnerability and then look at different scenarios that may be triggered in the event of something happening or an identified need for future capacity.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to refer to Transport Canada’s Grants and Contributions Service Standard Report Card 2022–2023, which states that the department has achieved its 80% service performance target for these grant and contribution programs.
We’re faced with the same conclusion you’ve reached. During our study, however — and perhaps this is unrelated, but it seems to me it is — we met with Quebec City’s municipal politicians, who seemed rather overwhelmed by the state of the Port of Québec. The word “overwhelmed” may not be the right one, but they were alarmed by the state of the Port of Québec because of soil erosion and because the docks and all the facilities seem completely outdated. The Port of Québec, which is deeper than Montreal’s, could be a port that is used in the event of worsening weather.
Documents show that things are going well 80% of the time. There’s a tendency to think that the funding is flowing and that things are going well. We have major port facilities — I’m thinking of Quebec City, because we’ve studied it — where the port authorities don’t even seem to be able to upgrade their infrastructure. We’re talking about a port that isn’t upgraded and isn’t ready for worst-case scenarios.
That’s another tough question. Are they right to be concerned? Is this part of the existence of ports? We’re not talking about airport facilities here. We are talking about ports. Will we be able to help them? Will the federal government be able to help them? Will you be able to help them?
[English]
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: That’s an important consideration in terms of asset utilization across the country. That’s the work that my colleague Christian is undertaking in understanding the movements.
The opportunities for investment upgrading and updating port infrastructure are taken into consideration in the applications that the department receives. Also, it is based on the business case that the entities are outlining and their ability to attract business and new business. Taking into consideration all of those factors, we will continue to look at investment opportunities and working with our partners to invest in infrastructure where it is needed. We are also looking at the asset utilization from that vulnerability standpoint, where we have pockets in Canada where our assets are under intense pressure and then we have other areas where the asset utilization isn’t as high. So we are looking at it from the perspective of whether there are opportunities for —
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Mr. Dea: Is the Port of Québec critical infrastructure that could play a major role in the climate change crisis?
Mr. Dea: Thank you for the question. Yes, the Port of Québec is an important part of the port infrastructure nationally. At present, the port plays more of a regional role because it serves the region of Quebec and the Maritimes, but it could eventually be part of a long-term strategy to enhance the resilience of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is there a plan to fund the infrastructure upgrades, then?
Mr. Dea: As my colleague mentioned, that choice will be considered as we review the proposals. Obviously, the work we’re currently doing will help us assess the condition of port assets, in co-operation with the ports, and prioritize certain investments. The challenge is that resources are limited and needs are great. That’s why the study in question will help us undertake a process to set priorities based not only on the actual condition of the infrastructure, but also on the investment opportunity it represents from an economic, environmental and safety standpoint, in order to support the Quebec communities you mentioned.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: When will this study on ports be published?
Mr. Dea: We’re aiming to submit a report on that to the federal and provincial ministers by the end of 2024.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, gentlemen.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Can you share a list? I understand you are doing all the consultations and I know that will take a long time. Can you at least tell us what the top two or three items are? What jumps out at you as things that we really ought to be concerned about in this country in terms of critical infrastructure? What are the top two or the top one?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: The assets — and I will share the question with Christian — the focus for the past decades —
Senator Quinn: I will run out of time. I just want to know: Can you share the top one or two? Is it Vancouver? Is it the Port of Quebec?
Senator Simons: Is it the Chignecto Isthmus?
Senator Quinn: Is it the Chignecto Isthmus? Which is identified in the North American study, but I don’t want to be self-serving here.
What are the top one or two? If you can’t, you can’t, that’s fine. But can you tell us?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: The busiest ports have been on the West Coast because of the container ice trade.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. I think you should look at the study done in North America; the Chignecto Isthmus was two and New Orleans was one.
Have you had contact with Public Safety? Their critical infrastructure branch does have a list, as I understand, of those places considered most at risk due to climate change. Do you guys coordinate with them at all?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: We do share —
Senator Quinn: Do you actively work with them? You’re doing a study. Has it been informed by their work?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: We’re working with all of our federal partners. At Transport Canada —
Senator Quinn: I asked specifically about Public Safety. Are they involved in your work on the list that Senator Cardozo asked about?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Yes, they will be.
Senator Quinn: They will be or they are?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: We’re working with them on the critical infrastructure work that they are doing and we’ll bring in the asset part.
Senator Quinn: The only other thing I wanted to ask about is how you link it to the National Cross Sector Forum of 2021-23, which was done by Public Safety with respect to critical infrastructure. That also identified different areas. Are you aware of that study? Do you link into this study? Is it informed by that study? I’m worried that the cross-work — which I am aware is so difficult to do within a department let alone between departments. Are you actively involved? Are they at the table for the discussions with you as you are undertaking the work on the list that Senator Cardozo asked about?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Our colleagues at Transport Canada are.
Senator Quinn: They are working with them. Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to thank the officials for being here with us this morning. Ms. Vieira, enjoy beautiful Greece; I’m sure it is sunny and warm. We will be thinking of you. Colleagues, we will briefly suspend to go in camera so we can discuss future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)