THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 23, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met by video conference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
Senator Leo Housakos(Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. I am Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec, and chair of this committee. I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting. First, we are joined by the deputy chair of this committee, Senator Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
We have also Senator Cormier of New Brunswick; Senator Dasko from Ontario; Senator Dawson, Quebec; Senator Klyne from Saskatchewan; Senator Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Galvez from Quebec; Senator Quinn from New Brunswick; Senator Simons from Alberta; and Senator Sorensen as well from Alberta.
We are meeting to continue our study on the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communication sectors and consequential impacts on their interdependencies. As last week, today’s meeting will focus on testimony from federal departments.
For our first panel this evening, we are pleased to welcome officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada: Mr. Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, and John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch.
[Translation]
Welcome, and thank you for joining us virtually. We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members.
[English]
The floor is yours. You have 15 minutes, dear friends, and then the floor will be open for Q & A for my colleague senators.
Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you, chair, and good evening, everyone. I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’m joining you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
[Translation]
My name is Douglas Nevison and I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Climate Change Branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
[English]
As the chair mentioned, I’m joined today by my colleague John Moffet, who is Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environmental Protection Branch at Environment and Climate Change Canada. We would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss climate change and the government’s emissions reduction plans.
The science is clear. Climate change is a global challenge and no longer an issue of the future. Canada is warming at twice the global rate, and Canadians have already experienced devastating impacts from climate change, including record heat in Lytton, British Columbia last summer in a wildfire season that saw 2,500 more fires than in 2020.
Canada is an emission-intensive economy with high per capita emissions and vast climate vulnerable infrastructure. We are a federation with shared responsibilities and an evolving relationship with Indigenous peoples. Thus, collaboration from coast to coast to coast is required to meet Canada’s 2030 and 2050 climate targets.
[Translation]
Over the past six years, the government has taken action and committed over $100 billion to reduce emissions, drive the emergence of clean technologies, and help Canadians adapt to the impacts of climate change.
[English]
In 2016, the Government of Canada developed a Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change in collaboration with provinces and territories and with input from Indigenous peoples. This is Canada’s first national climate plan comprised of individual and joint federal-provincial-territorial actions.
Prior to this plan, Canada’s emissions were projected to increase 12% above 2005 levels by 2030. According to the 2021 National Inventory Report, Canada’s emissions were projected to be 19% below 2005 levels by 2030. This represents the single largest projected drop in emissions in Canadian history.
Building on the Pan-Canadian Framework, in December 2020, the government announced Canada’s strengthened climate plan, entitled a Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy, to meet and exceed its previous 2030 target.
In 2021, the government increased the ambition of its 2030 target, previously 30% below 2005 levels, and announced Canada’s enhanced nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement of 40 to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.
[Translation]
Last June, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act became law and enshrined Canada’s commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, established Canada’s 2030 target as the first key milestone for this path, and ensured a transparent and accountable process in meeting Canada’s climate objectives.
[English]
The government recognized that more action is required to meet Canada’s enhanced 2030 target and announced new measures at COP26 last fall, including a commitment to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 via a clean electricity standard and reduce methane emissions across economic sectors by at least 30% and specifically in the oil and gas sector by 75% by 2030.
The Canadian government has committed to using a combination of regulations and investments to ensure that Canada reaches its 2035 zero-emissions vehicle target for new cars and light trucks. It also reiterated the importance of pricing carbon pollution to drive down emissions throughout the economy while incentivizing innovation.
[Translation]
A collaborative approach is required to address climate change. Thus, the Government of Canada has engaged with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and interested Canadians on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan.
[English]
By the end of March, Canada will establish its 2030 emissions reduction plan, setting a path forward for meeting the 2030 target. This is one of the first important deliverables under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, an important milestone on Canada’s path to net-zero emissions.
Even as Canada takes ambitious action on emissions reduction, Canada will continue to experience rising climate change impacts and costs in the near term. The government recognizes the urgent need to build resilience to climate impacts and better support Canadians in a changing climate.
Work is under way with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and other partners to complete Canada’s first National Adaptation Strategy this year. The strategy will build on a strong foundation of existing federal programming and will advance a proactive, coordinated and whole-of-society approach to adaptation in Canada.
The government continues to provide access to authoritative climate science, data and information to help Canadians consider climate change in their decisions through many efforts, such as the Canadian Centre for Climate Services.
While there are many explicit government commitments and initiatives that focus on climate change, meeting Canada’s 2030 and 2050 targets will require a whole‑of-government and whole-of-society approach. Climate action will create many opportunities for Canadians across the country. Full participation from all Canadians in all sectors of the economy is essential for meeting Canada’s 2030 target and building a prosperous net‑zero future for all Canadians.
Thank you very much. Now John and I would welcome any comments or questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We will move to questions now.
Senator Dawson: Thank you for your presentation. I find you quite optimistic about the future.
[Translation]
I think that some international organizations, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, are very insistent on the urgency of taking immediate action. We have ambitions, and frankly, I congratulate the government; I think that having units of measurement is a way to evaluate ourselves. However, is Canada doing all that is necessary to build our resilience to climate change?
Our study focuses on infrastructure; if it continues to deteriorate — and even for our big targets — will the government be able to inject funds to ensure that we protect ourselves from climate change, and more importantly, protect ourselves from creating a harmful environment and climate?
I congratulate you, but I think you are a bit optimistic. Are we really taking the necessary measures, and do you have any examples to give us?
[English]
Mr. Nevison: Thank you very much. In response to those questions, maybe I could come it at from two directions, from the mitigation side and also the adaptation side, to try to provide some concrete examples, as the honourable senator requested.
For example, on the mitigation side, the government, since 2016, has committed over $100 billion in investments through the various climate plans that I mentioned in a wide range of areas, including infrastructure, as you mentioned. On the adaptation side, as an example, in the last budget, there were some significant commitments to increase spending to help on the resilience front. For example, there was an additional $1.4 billion allocated to the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, $200 million for a Natural Infrastructure Fund and there were a number of programs for things such as flood-mapping and wildfire-related programs.
From that perspective, there have been significant investments.
I am optimistic, but at the same time, I hope that doesn’t convey that I do not share your sense of urgency, because I think you’re absolutely right: We certainly need to respect that urgency in our planning and our investments.
Senator Dawson: Thank you very much. Chair, I see there are five or six people waiting to ask questions, so I’ll be back later.
Senator Klyne: My question is for Environment Canada.
Climate-based disasters are becoming more and more frequent. Many Canadians rely on Environment Canada’s weather forecasts and radar information. How secure is the infrastructure that Environment Canada uses to provide weather forecasts? If that infrastructure goes down, what is the rapid response to restore weather reports and radar information?
Mr. Nevison: Thank you very much for the question. As Environment Canada has demonstrated recently through some extreme weather events, the infrastructure has been robust, both from the meteorological perspective but also regarding some of the other areas that are involved in resilience. That doesn’t mean that further work is not required. As I said, there have been significant investments on a number of fronts to ensure that resilience is in place.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much, Mr. Nevison, for your presentation. Will you agree with me that climate change poses a systemic risk to the economic, financial and social systems in Canada?
Mr. Nevison: I’m sorry, senator. Could you repeat the question?
Senator Galvez: We are facing a physical and transition risk with climate change. Physical risks include all the destruction of these extreme weather events that are destroying basic infrastructure — what Senator Dawson was just talking about — but it also exacerbates environmental factors and economic impacts.
On the other hand, every single province and territory has been affected by climate change. So I think we are in the face of a systemic risk. I see you are agreeing with me that there is a systemic risk. Thank you.
So you’re saying that the government is using regulations and investment to solve the issue. This is very important. I want you to explain to me how the government is investing in adaptation, clean energy and electrification of transport, but, on the other hand, we have the financial sector investing in fossil fuels and fuelling the climate crisis.
You said that this is a whole-of-society effort. Are all the sectors doing the same type of effort?
Mr. Nevison: Thank you, senator. That’s an excellent question. I’m glad you picked up on my point about the whole‑of-society approach.
Looking at recent commitments, for example, from corporate Canada, I think there’s widespread momentum to acknowledge the systemic nature of the climate-change crisis and also to put in place plans to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.
For the financial sector, for example, we know that many Canadian financial institutions, going back to COP26 in the fall, committed to the global alliance on the financial situation. Many have developed net-zero plans that extend not only to their operations but also to their lending portfolios.
So we are seeing momentum. Coming back to the senator’s point earlier about urgency, we’re obviously encouraging and trying to incentivize all Canadians to act urgently in response to the climate crisis. As I said before, I am optimistic in terms of the momentum that we’re seeing in a wide range of sectors, but that doesn’t preclude the need for even more urgency.
Senator Galvez: Chair, do I have one minute for a supplementary question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
I’m interested in your definition of “transition.” I’m an engineer, and I’ve been teaching civil engineers. For the last 20 years, we are focusing on hydro, tidal, solar and wind power. We have been telling them for the last 20 years that we are in a transition toward a low-carbon economy and low-carbon energy sources, or renewable energy. However, we seem to be out of faith with what we see in real life, because, for some people, transition means extracting the last drop of oil that is everywhere in our territory.
Do you have a definition for “transition,” and do we need more transformation rather than transition?
Mr. Nevison: We need both a transition and a transformation. Transition, as I think you noted, is transitioning to a low-carbon economy to meet net-zero emissions by 2050. That needs to start now. But for many sectors, that will require a transformation in how business is done.
On the sectoral basis, I may turn to my colleague, Mr. Moffet, to talk to what some of those transformations look like — or we hope they will look like — at the sector level.
John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I could go on at length, but let me just mention two, and then I’m happy to address any follow-up questions that you or your colleagues might have.
You mentioned both electricity generation and the oil and gas sector. The government has announced a commitment to transition the electricity sector to net zero by 2035. We have just issued a discussion paper on this topic, and we’d be happy to elaborate on it with this committee at any time. The paper focuses primarily on the role of a regulation we are developing that will define what we mean by net zero and will establish standards that will essentially preclude or make it financially not viable to invest in large, new sources of carbon-based electricity generation. That will help drive the transformation.
In addition, of course, as the paper acknowledges, there’s a large role for governments, at all levels, to provide investment to enable continued development of clean energy sources, and that includes both electricity generation and the kind of smart grids that you’re all too familiar with that are needed to enable effective deployment of renewables.
On oil and gas, similarly, the government has made a commitment to cap oil and gas sector emissions at current levels and ensure they decline over time. We do not have a discussion paper yet, but one will be issued shortly. Through that paper, we will be seeking to engage Canadians, the sector and the provinces in a discussion about the appropriate nature of the cap and the way that it can work so that we achieve the kind of transition and transformation that you and Mr. Nevison spoke about, in a way that ensures that we, of course, reduce emissions as quickly as possible while enabling the economy to remain viable, retain investment in Canada and keep as many jobs as possible in the country.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your statement, Mr. Nevison.
You mentioned the National Adaptation Strategy. My question is about the collaboration between the federal government and the provinces and territories. You mentioned that you were consulting with the provinces and territories in the development of this strategy.
What are the challenges you face in aligning and matching federal government priorities with those of the provinces, in terms of critical structural infrastructure, of priorities that are put in place?
It seems to me that these are challenges that we hear a lot about, and I think it’s an important issue in terms of achieving the goals that the federal government has set.
I’d like you to tell us more about this collaboration.
[English]
Mr. Nevison: Thank you very much, senator. That’s an excellent question. I will just note that when I mentioned the National Adaptation Strategy, I should have put significant emphasis on the word “national.” This is not a federal government strategy. This is a national strategy in the sense that it not only needs to be developed in partnership with provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples, municipalities and industry, but we also have to recognize — particularly in the adaptation space — that a lot of the actions and impacts are at the local level. One of the key aspects of the National Adaptation Strategy has been working with our partners across the country to develop not only long-term and medium-term objectives but also short‑term, concrete actions that can be taken.
One of the key parts of those discussions is determining roles and responsibilities. What level of government is the right level of government to take action and for a particular risk, for example, on the adaptation side?
We’ve been engaging with our partners for about six or seven months through a variety of different mechanisms, including the creation of five advisory tables to develop the framework for the National Adaptation Strategy. We’ve recently had many discussions with provinces and territories on a bilateral basis to make sure that the strategy reflects their priorities. As I’m sure you know, senator, many provinces are developing their own strategies at the same time, as are our Indigenous partners as well. It is a key aspect of the National Adaptation Strategy.
The aim, as I mentioned, is to have the national strategy in place for the fall of this year. The next phase that will be starting up in the next few weeks will be to broaden the net to have more public engagement so that we can develop a strategy that really reflects that whole-of-society approach that I mentioned in my opening remarks.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, sir. If I may ask, what do you consider the main challenges facing the relations between the federal government and the provinces and territories? Is it more political? Is it more with the private sector? You’re speaking about that plan, and we would all agree there’s an urgency there. But I’m trying to understand what the challenges are. Are they different from one province to another? That’s my question.
Mr. Nevison: One challenge that I would mention is capacity and level of preparedness. Again, some provinces are very far advanced in terms of developing their own adaptation strategies, and we want to reflect that in the national strategy. We’re not looking to duplicate or override very well-developed local or provincial strategies themselves. Provinces and territories and our Indigenous partners are all facing capacity constraints at the moment in light of the various demands that are being placed on provincial governments through the pandemic, for example, and, in some cases, rebuilding after some very significant weather events. I think that is one of the things that we’re very conscious of. Again, it’s why the partnership approach is so important because we can certainly share best practices. We can share information on, for example, climate projections. I mentioned the Canadian Centre for Climate Services, which provides very localized information to decision makers when it comes to making adaptation decisions.
That would be the one that I would flag: that capacity challenge and level of preparedness. I have to say that the level of enthusiasm across all the provinces to deal with this issue and address it in a cooperative manner is very strong. I think everybody recognizes the imperative on this front, and I think that will help develop a very effective strategy in the end.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our guests. I have some practical questions I wanted to ask.
Within your departments, are you doing research and risk analyses for specific areas that deal with the intersection of climate change and transportation infrastructure? I’m thinking about things like the melting of the permafrost and what the loss of permafrost means for roads in the Far North. I’m thinking about things like rising sea levels and what that means for Canada’s ports. I’m thinking about things like the risk of flooding and mudslides and what that means to our rail and road infrastructure.
I’m wondering: Within your department, do you have experts doing long-range forecasts about what the status of that kind of infrastructure might be?
Mr. Nevison: Thank you, senator. I might start on that question, but then I’ll invite my colleague, Mr. Moffet, to add to it.
Within Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have a lot of expertise on the issues you mentioned. We have a sizable science and technology branch that does research on numerous fronts relating to climate change and the like.
I referenced in my opening remarks the Canadian Centre for Climate Services, which, as I mentioned in response to the previous question, is a research centre that provides detailed information — down to almost the 10-kilometre geographic area — to help local decision makers build sound climate data into their decision-making processes. The centre looks at not only history but also projections going into the future under various scenarios to provide data with respect to heat and precipitation.
You mentioned the key issue in the North, the permafrost issue, and what that means for a wide range of infrastructure, both traditional infrastructure and housing. To quickly sum up in regard to your question, yes, there is significant expertise in Environment and Climate Change Canada that can help decision makers on that particular front.
I’ll ask Mr. Moffet if he has anything to add on that. His branch in particular does a lot of work in these areas as well.
Mr. Moffet: I’m afraid I don’t have a lot to add, senator, about what Environment and Climate Change Canada is doing on the research front. I would urge members of the committee to consider seeking input from the National Research Council, which also has useful, ongoing programming in this area. They have an active transportation agenda.
Senator Simons: I’m presuming that because you’re part of Environment Canada, you have the research on what is happening to the environment in specific regions of Canada. Canada is so diverse in its geography and its climate regions. If we wanted to find that information — for example, a study about permafrost, rising sea levels or the impact of wildfires on communication infrastructure — where would we find it? And how can we get it?
Mr. Nevison: Thank you, senator. As I mentioned, our science and technology branch does significant research in this area as does the Meteorological Service of Canada, another arm of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
In response to your specific question, I would point you in the direction of an information portal that we support called ClimateData.ca. It provides a lot of the types of information that you’re looking for.
That’s one level of information, but the Canadian Centre for Climate Services is available to provide customized and tailored help when it comes to providing data on specific regions, down to a local level. There is a wealth of information there. As I said, ClimateData.ca is the entry point to that wealth of information.
Mr. Moffet: Of course, we also publish a report on an occasional but increasingly frequent basis called Canada’s Changing Climate, which consolidates that information.
What I suggest is that we follow up and provide some of these URLs and recent reports. Then, if there’s any interest, we can either come back or have the appropriate scientists come back and discuss any of these studies.
Senator Quinn: I appreciate you folks appearing here this evening. I appreciate the last bit of discussion concerning all of the expertise in Environment Canada.
Of course, this group is looking at critical infrastructure and climate change. The definition of critical infrastructure can be wide, depending on who you’re talking to, but we’re looking to zero in on what those critical pieces of infrastructure are. Senator Simons just mentioned some of that. My question follows hers in terms of the internal process. Much of our critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the Government of Canada or by agencies that are under the broad federal umbrella.
As initiatives come forward, I’m wondering, what is the role of Environment Canada? When there are infrastructure initiatives — the modernization of Canadian Coast Guard vessels, for example — what direct role does Environment Canada have in reviewing the initiative during the Memorandum to Cabinet, or MC, process and the Treasury Board process? Do you folks have direct input during that process, a sign-off almost? I’m not making you out to be a central agency, but what role do you play? You have the expertise.
Mr. Nevison: Thank you very much, senator. That’s an excellent question, and it is a role that Environment and Climate Change Canada is increasingly playing. For example, we’re currently piloting a project that’s called a “climate lens” for a set of departments, including Infrastructure Canada. All MCs and Treasury Board submissions need to pass through a climate lens that assesses what the implications of a particular proposal or measure would be for, for example, achieving Canada’s 2030 and 2050 climate goals and how it fits with the adaptation plans. Again, we’re just developing the National Adaptation Strategy, but that’s where there would be scope for that as well.
In terms of critical infrastructure, it’s Public Safety that is the lead in that particular aspect, but Environment and Climate Change Canada is playing a role both from its information perspective and through the climate lens. We’ll be more and more involved in providing information to decision makers on these types of issues.
Mr. Moffet: One other role that the department plays is not so much with respect to government-owned or -operated infrastructure but through the impact-assessment process. Of course, the federal government has a role in reviewing and approving large new industrial development projects, many of which include the construction of new roads, new ports, et cetera. Under the Strategic Assessment of Climate Change document that we issued about a year ago, all projects that go through that process have to provide information regarding both their decarbonization plans and their commitment to get to net zero by 2050 and their plans to make sure whatever they construct is as resilient as possible to climate change.
Senator Quinn: Thank you very much. I appreciate the observations you’ve made with respect to the environmental lens. I wasn’t sure if you meant it as a pilot project with some departments, so as they come through with initiatives, it goes through the environmental lens. However, the purpose of this committee is to do a report with recommendations, and what I’m hearing is that sometimes it takes a long time to get things lined up, even on a pilot-project basis, given interdepartmental relationships. Perhaps this committee has a role to play with respect to the recommendations that we make about the environmental lens for government initiatives. It’s just something for us to think about. I appreciate that comment.
The other thing I wanted to ask, again, concerns something my colleague Senator Simons said. I know the Public Safety folks look after critical infrastructure, but has Environment Canada identified some key choke points in the country that we should be worried about? One I know of, for example, is the isthmus between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There has been recent news about different options up to $300 million to do different things like raising the dikes or replacing the dikes, things of that nature.
Do you identify hot spots like that? It’s not just the flooding of the isthmus. It’s the disappearance of a rail link or the disappearance of roadways, if it’s not addressed properly. God knows, folks in Cape Breton may not like the idea that they become a second island to the larger island of Nova Scotia.
Do you have the ability to identify those particular hot spots?
Mr. Nevison: Thank you, senator. We certainly work within the interdepartmental community with key partners such as Public Safety and Infrastructure Canada, to name a few, to look at particular issues like that. This is where the National Adaptation Strategy is going to be very important. As you rightly noted, there will be certain issues that are of particular importance for certain regions. One of the objectives of the strategy is to help prioritize particular needs from an adaptation perspective to try to prevent some of the catastrophes that could occur. That is certainly one of the objectives of the National Adaptation Strategy, to build that framework in order to be able to identify key priorities for federal partners but also working with provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners as well. I think that is a key thing.
Maybe just one clarification on your earlier question, senator, if I may. When I mentioned that it’s a pilot program, you were absolutely right. The intention is to ultimately have all departments put their policy proposals through this climate lens. It is just currently being test-run as a pilot for a few specific departments at this point in time. The ultimate objective is to have all government departments submitting and running their proposals through a climate lens.
Senator Quinn: When will the national adaptation be done? What’s the timeline or end point? This year, next year?
Mr. Nevison: We are planning to have the National Adaptation Strategy released in the fall of this year. As I mentioned, we are just about to enter the public engagement phase of the consultations. We’ve had significant consultations with provinces and territories, national Indigenous organizations and industry to help develop a framework for the National Adaptation Strategy. The next step is to road test that with Canadians over the next few months to have that in place for the fall of this year.
Senator Dasko: That was the perfect segue into the question that I was planning to ask, so thank you, Senator Quinn. Thanks to the witnesses for your presentations today.
I want to focus on the public engagement piece that you referred to earlier, whether that is the public communications activity that you’re contemplating, and I assume it starts in the fall of this year. I assume it’s related to the National Adaptation Strategy.
Can you tell me something about the goals of the public communications strategy? What are the activities that you were contemplating? Would it be communications, public communications, advertising campaigns or something along those lines? What would the goals be? Would it be, for example, to change attitudes or behaviours? What would the themes and messages be that you are contemplating around the strategy? What are you trying to achieve with the public communications activities?
Mr. Nevison: Thank you, senator. The main objective of the public engagement process is to make sure that the National Adaptation Strategy reflects the wide range of priorities and capacities across the country. As I mentioned, adaptation is a very localized field in some respects, given the various weather events that hit in different parts of the country and the different capacities and levels of preparedness for various governments.
The main objective of the initial engagement phase and then, ultimately, the public engagement phase is to ensure that the strategy reflects the priorities of Canadians when it comes to adaptation and can help to prepare the country and increase its resilience going forward.
You made an interesting point in the sense that there will have to be, obviously, a communications aspect to that. We know, for example, through some of our early engagements, what some of the actionable items could be. For example, there are some — I won’t say straightforward — things that homeowners can do to protect their houses from flooding, for example. Those types of messages could be the source of a public awareness campaign, as you mentioned.
Those types of actions and where the federal government and its provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners want to focus their efforts is the focus of the engagement process, to make sure that we get that right and that we have a sound basis going forward. Obviously, we’ll have to course-correct as we go and adjust as things happen, but we want to get off to a good start in terms of working with our partners to develop the strategy.
Senator Dasko: Can I conclude from what you’ve said that this is an information campaign, like how to save energy, how to deal with various factors in the environment? Is that what I read from what you’ve said, that it is to help Canadians do things or adapt to the circumstances by changing their behaviours, for example? Is that what I’m understanding? Or, for example, would you be taking a tough approach and saying to Canadians: “We really need to take tough actions here. We’re going to ask you to do A, B, C or D,” which might take them out of their comfort zone, for example?
Mr. Nevison: On the adaptation side, and it applies on the mitigation side as well, I think the first step is to identify the priority actions and where they need to be taken.
Then the second step will be what the right instruments and tools are to achieve those objectives.
As I mentioned, given that many of the levers on the adaptation side, for example, are at the local or provincial-territorial level, trying to determine the roles and responsibilities of the federal government versus some of the other levels of government on that front in terms of trying to incentivize behaviour or change to adapt to a changing climate, those will still be determined. But a key part of one of those instruments may be public awareness campaigns.
At this stage of the game, we’re still trying to determine the most effective tools, but there certainly are areas in the adaptation space where public awareness is very strong. There may be areas where we want to take a more regulatory approach, which, as you mentioned, might be more directive in terms of what needs to be required. But I think at this stage of the game, we’re trying to mobilize all Canadians to build resilience across the country. There will be a wide range of instruments that will, I think, help on that front.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So I have the privilege of coming after several senators, and I must tell you that I am a little depressed because I have the feeling that we are still in “business as usual” mode. We talk about interdepartmental communication, action plans, pilot projects, strategies. We talk a lot about process. Of course you talk about engaging Canadians, but to do that you need something important to come out of the bureaucratic language.
I apologize for the introduction; I will now ask my question. Our role is to try to study climate change in transport and communications; it is really transport, for example, that is an important part of our study. On that, we also need to see what transport can do to reduce its impact on climate change.
You are with Environment and Climate Change Canada. Can you give us some concrete examples, in our transportation, of what we need to abandon, to rethink — what is the revolution we need to bring about? Do we need to reduce the number of planes, or change the means of transport used? What do we need to do as Canadians to get through this climate change?
[English]
Mr. Nevison: John, I think you’re best placed to take that one, if that’s okay.
Mr. Moffet: Sure.
Senator, you’re now introducing what I would describe as another dimension of this important topic. So far, I think most of the discussion has focused on how to ensure that Canada’s infrastructure is resilient to the impacts of climate change, the inevitable impacts of climate change: what kinds of science we need to do to predict where the risks are and what kinds of investments we need to make to either strengthen existing infrastructure or build new infrastructure.
But, of course, you’re introducing another equally important point, which is that as we try to decarbonize the economy, we need to ensure that we provide the kind of infrastructure that will enable all Canadians and businesses to operate in as low carbon a manner as possible.
With respect to transportation, this is extremely important. For example, for vehicles, we need, and the government has committed to, to fund an extensive array of charging stations. We need electricity charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, light-duty vehicles that individuals and small businesses drive. We may also need different kinds of charging infrastructure for some trucks that might use hydrogen as a fuel, for example, or some return-to-base vehicles. Some local delivery trucks might use hydrogen as well as electricity. They also need charging infrastructure so that they can be used.
At ports, it’s very common for — well, it’s not common — but it’s essential for ships to basically continue to run, even when they’re docked at a port. At the moment, many ships continue to use the fuel they have on board. In an ideal world — and this is increasingly the case — modern ports allow them, and some require them, to basically plug in. They can’t plug in unless we have appropriate electricity infrastructure to enable them to plug in.
The list goes on.
We can provide you with examples, but, similarly, our colleagues at Transport Canada, who are the primary overseers of marine, rail and aviation, can give you many more examples of the kind of infrastructure that is needed to enable those modes of transportation to operate as cleanly as possible. Indeed, I’m fairly confident that you will see in the next short while additional government action in some of these areas.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: As the environmental department, are you pushing Transport Canada to do stuff? Is there some kind of shock there where you’re saying, “Do more,” or is it just two silos working side by side?
Mr. Moffet: One of the hallmarks of the work that has been taken under this government since the Pan-Canadian Framework that my colleague referenced has been efforts on the part of the bureaucracy to operate as much as possible as a whole-of-government. I won’t pretend that has always been perfect in a giant bureaucracy, but I definitely would not characterize it as us urging our colleagues to change their behaviour or their policy focus.
I can attest that the work with transportation is ongoing, very collaborative and absolutely aligned in terms of the objectives with respect to identifying exactly what you’re talking about, which is the kind of publicly funded or privately funded infrastructure that is needed in order to enable all modes to decarbonize as quickly as possible.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, gentlemen. My frustration has nothing to do with you personally; it’s more general.
The Chair: As chair, I would like to weigh in on a question here in the first round.
Thank you, both, for your testimony and exchange of views here today. The economy is facing some challenges, as we see. We are in a 30-year high when it comes to inflation and the debt of the nation is at the highest level we’ve seen in the history of the country. There is no doubt that this government and future governments in the short and medium term are going to be looking for revenues in order to sustain the operations that we currently have going.
In your opinion, is it realistic to think, given the economic challenges, that we will be meeting the environmental targets that we’ve set for ourselves over the next two decades?
Mr. Nevison: Thank you, senator.
Personally, I think I was accused of being optimistic at the start of this session, and I will hold to my optimism. You’re absolutely right that there are a lot of economic challenges out there, but in terms of long-term economic challenges, climate change is, I would say, at the top of the list.
As I mentioned, the strengthened climate change plan was called A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy, and I think that is true. There are significant opportunities that will be associated with the transformation and transition to a low-carbon economy. It doesn’t mean that the challenges in the short term won’t be significant, but that’s where a lot of the government support that I mentioned, such as the $100 billion that has been invested since 2016 — a lot of that money is there to help the economy adjust to the transition to a low-carbon economy.
From that perspective, I take your point about the economic challenges that the country faces, but I think climate change is a very significant economic challenge.
The Chair: There are only a couple of minutes left. Maybe the questioners can both ask one question, and then our witnesses can maybe tackle them both.
Senator Klyne: Catastrophic events associated with climate change over the last couple of years have really put our transportation infrastructure and supply chains under a lot of pressure. I’m wondering if your ministry, directly or through other ministries, has been hearing concerns about our transportation infrastructure, competitively speaking — looking to our neighbours to the south — from the likes of Canadian chambers of commerce, manufacturers or other businesses in the business of moving goods regarding our transportation infrastructure and if they have concerns about being able to stay competitive.
Mr. Nevison: Thank you, senator.
Through our engagement process on the National Adaptation Strategy, we’ve been hearing loud and clear that critical infrastructure is a key part of the issue. We just have to look to the recent events in British Columbia, where we saw what happened to the Port of Vancouver and the transport links, and what that can mean to supply chains.
So it is certainly something that is well recognized, and one of the objectives of the National Adaptation Strategy is to make sure that the country can prepare for and prevent the types of events that occur.
The Chair: I would like to thank Mr. Nevison and Mr. Moffet for appearing before us today. Thank you very much for the exchange. It was very much appreciated and informative.
[Translation]
Colleagues, we now welcome our next witnesses from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
We have with us tonight Susan Hart, Director General, Spectrum Management Operations Branch; Marc-André Rochon, Senior Director, Spectrum Management Operations Branch; Wen Kwan, Senior Director, Information and Communications Technology Resilience; Martin Proulx, Director General, Spectrum and Telecommunications Sector; and Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch.
Welcome to you all.
[English]
Thank you for joining us. I invite Ms. Hart to begin with her opening remarks.
Susan Hart, Director General, Spectrum Management Operations Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the committee about this important and timely topic. I am joined this evening by a number of my colleagues who have expertise on various aspects of the subject.
Climate change indeed carries with it the potential for an increase in the frequency of threats to Canada’s telecommunications infrastructure. I am pleased to share with you ISED’s role in supporting this important industry on behalf of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.
ISED’s mandate includes fostering a robust and reliable telecommunications system to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada. The focus of my remarks this evening are twofold: how we address and manage emergencies that impact telecom services and the work we are doing to bolster the resilience of telecommunications and information and communications technology infrastructure so that we are prepared for the future.
First, let me outline for you the work of our emergency management team. This group includes representatives at headquarters in the National Capital Region as well as officers working out of regional offices that serve all the provinces and territories. Our mandate intersects with emergency management where, pursuant to the Emergency Management Act, ISED identifies telecommunications risks — including those related to supporting critical infrastructure — and prepares, maintains, implements and tests emergency management plans through exercises and training.
As part of the federal emergency response, in cooperation with the provinces and territories and the private sector, ISED is the lead department for telecommunications with the core responsibility of coordinating with the telecom industry to facilitate continued services during an emergency event.
During events, our role includes, but is not limited to, providing situational awareness and federal representation of telecom stakeholders’ interests in areas such as fuel prioritization, facilitating access to emergency areas, public communications, international assistance and the movement of resources. ISED, of course, does not own the infrastructure and therefore cannot carry out the physical repair of networks. However, ISED manages the information flow between telecom stakeholders and the provinces and territories and also between other government departments, particularly Public Safety Canada.
As previous officials have indicated, the plans and procedures that have been instituted to address emergency events are frequently exercised and updated and take an all-hazards approach.
Climate or weather events typically generate localized telecom outages. However, we have observed that extreme weather events have been occurring far more frequently over the years, as has the risk they pose to critical infrastructure.
The extreme weather events include heavy rainfall resulting in flooding, wildfires and hurricanes. Flooding events are typically cyclical and occur in areas and times of known risk. However, we are seeing more unusual flooding events requiring an emergency response, such as the B.C. atmospheric river event and associated landslides that occurred last November.
Early in this event, important fibre optic links in the province were destroyed, and there was a risk of a major telecommunications outage. As such, ISED activated its emergency response plans, consulted with telecommunication companies to assess impacts and risks and facilitated access into the affected area for telecommunication companies to cooperatively make repairs to multiple fibre breaks. ISED also worked with federal partners to have aerial photos taken that helped guide mitigation and restoration activities.
ISED coordinated support requests from B.C. provincial emergency management organizations, telecommunication companies and Public Safety Canada. By this point in the emergency, fuel was being rationed and electricity was not available, and telecommunication services were disrupted as a result. ISED, along with its telecom stakeholders, forecasted fuel requirements for the generators required to power the telecommunications equipment. Due to the information sharing between ISED and companies, we were able to reasonably mitigate the impact to telecom services in the affected areas.
There was also a very active wildfire season in 2021 associated with record-high temperatures in areas such as Lytton, B.C., and the surrounding region. During this event, ISED activated its emergency plans to both guide firefighting efforts to protect critical infrastructure, like cell towers, and support rapid restoration of telecommunications in the community that was destroyed by fire.
The COVID-19 pandemic also tested our emergency preparedness. During the pandemic, when there was an unprecedented uptick in demand for connectivity, ISED coordinated and facilitated emergency response efforts between telecom operators to maintain the overall resilience of Canada’s telecom infrastructure and continued service to Canadians.
In the early days of the pandemic, ISED provided fast-track authorizations for spectrum sharing and radio licences so that telcos could support the increased burden on our networks as Canadians worked and attended school from home.
COVID, along with the major weather events, allowed us and our telecom partners to test our plans and glean insights into how we can improve.
Cooperation during emergencies for weather, COVID or other situations are made possible under two major forums where government and industry collaborate. These build trust and, in turn, facilitate information sharing in both emergency planning and response and give ISED a better industry-wide perspective.
The two groups cover the telecom sector on the one hand and digital infrastructure on the other hand. If you think of your own usage, you have your cellphone and maybe a landline and also cable and broadband services, often provided by one or two companies. That is in the telecom sector.
And then you use digital infrastructure like cloud-based services — things like Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud or Facebook — which are accessible via that telecom infrastructure.
For the first group — the telecom sector — our industry-government collaboration is done primarily through the Canadian Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee or CSTAC. CSTAC was established in 2010 and allows the private and public sectors to exchange information and collaborate strategically on current and evolving issues that may affect the telecommunication infrastructure, including emergency events and resilience.
For the second group — digital infrastructure — we collaborate through a new forum instituted in 2020 just as COVID hit. It is called CFDIR, the Canadian Forum for Digital Infrastructure Resilience. While the primary focus is on cyber‑resilience, the work of the forum complements the government’s all-hazards approach to threats, including climate change.
Among CFDIR’s working groups is one that focuses on rapid response to emergencies. During COVID-19, this forum met regularly to exchange information on the resilience of the digital infrastructure. An example of response was to augment the capacity of digital infrastructure to support things like increased call centre capacities for new government programs, as well as increased usage of online meeting tools like the one we’re using right now.
Both CSTAC and CFDIR are co-chaired by ISED and have an industry co-chair that rotates every two years. Together, these groups cover the information and communications technology, or ICT, sector.
Canada’s National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure has identified 10 critical infrastructure sectors, one of which is ICT. While ISED is responsible for facilitating cooperation among stakeholders within the ICT sector, we also participate in cross‑sector collaborations through Public Safety Canada’s National Cross Sector Forum and Multi-Sector Network. Drilling down into the work we do, an important operational part of CSTAC is the Canadian Telecom Resiliency (CTR) Working Group. This group is co-chaired by ISED and a representative from one of the telecom companies that co-chairs on a two-year rotational basis.
The department engages telecom providers monthly, or more often if needed, through the CTR working group. Through this forum, ISED and telecom service providers conduct drills and exercises, develop plans to respond effectively to disruptive events, share best practices and conduct after-action reviews for all incidents.
Telecom companies understand that while it’s important that their individual assets are resilient, the integrity of the telecommunications system as a whole also benefits their enterprise and is integral to the broader economy and the nation’s security and prosperity.
Because of the structure, culture of trust and safeguards inherent to the CTR Working Group, companies work together closely to be prepared for emergency events and to strengthen resilience against future threats. Companies have supported each other in the common goals of public safety and keeping networks running in emergencies.
Through the CTR Working Group, members have adopted mutual aid guidelines which allow them to assist each other at no cost or on a cost-recovery basis.
The CTR Working Group has terms of reference and non‑disclosure agreements, allowing members to share sensitive information despite being competitors, with the common goal of protecting telecom infrastructure and restoring services in times of emergency.
Additionally, the CTR Working Group has developed a comprehensive Incident Response Playbook, which allows the companies to quickly activate emergency measures and work together and in coordination with ISED. This playbook has been validated and updated following several exercises and actual emergency events.
In addition to our industry partnerships, ISED is also in close contact with various headquarters of federal departments, such as the Government Operations Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.
To complement the partnerships at the national level, our regional officers work with the provinces to maintain close contact with their emergency management offices and the regional offices of other federal departments. Our regional officers regularly attend various forums with their respective provinces or territories and have links with telecom companies at the local level and with other critical infrastructure sectors such as power utilities.
Telecommunications and digital infrastructure are privately owned. They are commercial enterprises. And because of that, it is in the competitive best interests of the telecom providers to ensure that their networks can withstand threats from any number of sources. This serves as a safeguard in that these companies recognize that their infrastructure must be able to withstand threats, including threats from climate change, in order to remain competitive.
Our pan-Canadian team, comprehensive plans and partnerships with industry stakeholders, other levels of government and within the federal family allow ISED to support infrastructure resilience and to be prepared for all emergencies under our purview, including climate events.
While there are uncertainties about the nature of future risks associated with climate change, we are certain that flexibility in our approach and forging solid partnerships with industry stakeholders will be key to ICT infrastructure resilience. That is why the information sharing and planning that we are doing now is so vital and puts us on the best possible footing to deal with the challenges ahead.
I want to thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this evening about this important topic. We look forward to your questions. Five of us are here today because the subject, as you can appreciate, is complex and different folks here have expertise in various areas. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hart. We will start with Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Ms. Hart. I had two questions arising from your presentation. Given the vulnerability of some of our land-based communications infrastructure, what do you see as the possible role for low-Earth orbit satellites in terms of being a backstop for communications?
Second, you just mentioned that competition is what keeps telecom companies mindful of the necessity to make sure that their infrastructure is safe. Given the extremely limited competition in the telecom sector and the existence of regional functional monopolies, is that competitive pressure enough to keep companies making sure that their technology is going to work when we need it in a crisis?
Ms. Hart: Thank you very much. That is an excellent question. LEOs, we predict, would be an important role.
Senator Simons: Important to explain because it will confuse the chair of the committee terribly: LEOs are low-Earth orbital satellites.
Ms. Hart: Our expert here, who can respond to your question, which is an excellent question, is Andre Arbour. I’ll ask that Andre take the question.
Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: I’m happy to speak to that. First of all, absolutely, low-Earth orbit satellite constellations have great promise both for increasing the performance of our telecommunications system, particularly in remote areas, but also as a source of resilience. They can provide backup in many different locations. The constellations have global coverage, including very challenging areas of Canada. Because it’s a constellation of hundreds or potentially more satellites, if there’s an obstruction or blockage of any given satellite, there are ways to reroute to alternative satellites, so absolutely. And ISED has made some pretty substantial investments in supporting the development of low-Earth orbit satellite capacity in Canada.
To your second question about competition, certainly, competition is a challenge in the Canadian telecommunications sector, something that we would not say is perfect or does not require improvement.
That said, the resilience of service is such a fundamental issue, and we see consumers switching behaviour. We also see the urgency that the operators put on both responding to incidences when they happen but also the amount of redundancy that they invest upfront in their network because they know a material outage is going to cause flight of their customers elsewhere.
Certainly, there’s room for improvement, but we see behavioural trends that support this goal.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am going to continue a bit in French, along the same lines as Senator Simons. I am wondering about the fact — you said it well — that you work with private companies, of course: the telecommunications sector.
What is your assessment of their preparedness for intense weather events? I am thinking, for example, of the famous cell signal towers. Will all this be replaced by satellites, or should we start by reinforcing these land-based infrastructures? Is this work in progress? What are these telecom companies doing, concretely, to prepare themselves?
Not all companies think about the future. In general, we think more about immediate profits, so it’s quite an important change. In concrete terms, what are these companies doing in terms of strengthening their infrastructure to respond to more difficult climate events? I’m thinking tornadoes, rain, anything that could rip out, for example, our cell towers.
[English]
Martin Proulx, Director General, Spectrum and Telecommunications Sector, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: The important concept to understand is that each of these companies applies a fairly rigorous risk-management process. That means that within their core processes, they have people with responsibilities and they have processes to continually assess where the biggest risks are and what mitigation measures are necessary. Then, if events occur, they make sure that they are detected, which is not always as obvious as it sounds if we’re talking about cyberattacks and such things. Then they respond and recover, to my colleague Sue Hart’s earlier statement.
As part of that risk assessment, it’s fair to say there’s a continual evaluation of the physical infrastructure deployment and also the logical and technical layers of software that go on top of those networks. It’s a bit of a continuous process with them.
For example, during the first year of COVID, unfortunately, as the carriers and we were working closely together to deal with the change in traffic flows, because of people working from home as opposed to going downtown, there were a few incidents — and it started to grow — where there was some vandalism at some cell towers. There were some in Quebec and some in Ontario. That led to a review of the security measures taken around the towers and the strengthening of the focus and making sure there was physical protection around those towers. Then it was fed back into their planning processes. That’s one concrete example.
I hope I answered your question. Do you have a follow-up question?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is, are they ready? They did that during COVID for a very particular thing. Are they ready for extreme weather events?
Mr. Proulx: Yes.
The right question might not be, “Are we ready today?” To me, the question is this: Do we have the right partnership between government and telcos, and do they have the right processes such that they continuously adapt to the changing climate and, therefore, make the investments necessary in order to mitigate before the next event, especially as they get faster and more intense?
I think that process is well under way. As my colleagues have said, it’s essential to their business, so they’re focused on that.
Is there always more that can be done? Of course. Would we benefit from a stronger five- and ten-year outlook, with some clarity around the scale of the impacts and making sure that long-term capital investment plans in those companies are aligned? There’s still some work that could be done there.
In terms of the companies today being extremely aware of these risks and managing them — and starting to report them as part of their financial tracking — and their ability to evolve over time as the risk evolves, I think the base is there. Again, it’s driven by market forces. Even though we might not have the level of competition we want, if they want to get large contracts with the government or with the banks, these organizations set extremely high requirements in terms of availability of the service. To win that business, they don’t have a choice but to continue to build that resilience into their networks.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I am very interested in the programs you describe. Why? Because when there is a destructive extreme weather event that rips up roads, streets, ports, towers, et cetera, the costs associated with rebuilding are mostly donated by the insurance industry.
We know that these costs are underestimated, because there are many other costs that insurance companies do not take into account. Today, I am learning about everything you are doing. I see that the program is considering public-private partnerships with the objective of increasing resilience and redundancy. These are adaptation measures. They cost a lot of money.
In the time that you have been around or that this program has been around, have you noticed an increase in the costs of these programs? What percentages represent the government portion and the private industry contribution within the partnerships? Thank you very much.
[English]
Ms. Hart: Thank you for the question. I’ll say a few points and then my colleague Martin Proulx may be able to elaborate.
I don’t know what the restoration costs are that the private sector pays to restore their networks; I personally don’t have the information of what they have to pay to restore their networks. I do know they have extensive capabilities for the repair and restoration of their infrastructure. In many instances, they’re able to restore their networks in under a couple of hours. However, what that cost is, I do not know.
The federal government — our department — does not give funding to the companies to restore their networks. The only cost to us is really what it costs us to manage. I have a small team. The chair of the CTR Resilience Working Group is actually here, Marc-André Rochon; he’s the co-chair of that group. There are some people in the regions who work in emergency management. That’s the only cost that comes from the federal government in terms of restoration. The rest is with the private sector.
I’ll maybe turn this over to Martin, who may have more knowledge on the topic than I do.
Mr. Proulx: Thank you, but no, I don’t. When it comes to the relationship between telecom climate change impacts and insurance, that clearly falls under the umbrella of the operators’ private business. They don’t share that kind of stuff with us.
Ms. Hart: I could add that at least the large players spend — you’ll see in their annual reports — somewhere in the order of a couple of billion dollars a year to maintain, upgrade and build their networks. I know that’s not restoration per se, but there is an extensive amount of money that they spend on their networks, not just building out but actually maintaining and upgrading each year. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: One of the best ways to protect networks, perhaps obviously, is to build more than one network. In my home province, there are kilometres upon kilometres of dark fibre that serve as backup for emergencies and reserved for emergency services, including the RCMP’s use, during a time of emergency.
I understand and accept that it’s one thing to build more than one network in corporate centres; it’s quite another to build multiple networks connecting rural, remote and Indigenous nations. A part of the government’s role is getting wireless spectrum to network builders, and I understand there’s a spectrum auction coming up. I also understand spectrum caps at auction are a way to ensure companies get the spectrum they need to build robust networks.
My first question is this: What is ISED doing in this upcoming spectrum auction to ensure network builders get the spectrum they need to build robust, resilient networks across Canada?
Regarding my second question, I understand that the set-aside policy has led to a lot of spectrum going unused. This is an issue for many reasons, but in the context of emergencies in underserved markets, it’s very important for families living in rural and remote areas, especially in an emergency. It’s also able to shed old legacy applications and install new legacy applications in areas of health, social services and education. It is also important to be able to participate in the new economy at CRT standards of 5,010 megabytes per second. If they can’t connect or the broadband does not meet CRT standards because a network builder or a telco decided not to build towers and put up radios in the area it holds spectrum licenses, they are essentially blocking these citizens from accessing new legacy emergency and social services, long-distance education and economic opportunities.
So my second question is, what is your solution to prevent cell companies from squatting on spectrum or selling it at profit when they should be serving these underserved markets and ensuring emergency facility use?
Mr. Arbour: I’d be pleased to answer that question, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
First, regarding spectrum. ISED, in its role as management for spectrum, has quite an aggressive set of activities under way to make more spectrum available for wireless communications, in particular to support the development of 5G communications.
We just concluded a consultation on the next main band for 5G called 3800 megahertz. In that, we consulted on the use of different mechanisms for promoting competition. These included the potential for spectrum caps, and a decision on that spectrum band and the auction framework for that spectrum will be forthcoming soon.
Other spectrum that the department is working to release is something called millimetre wave, which would follow. Then there are several consultations, both on tightening deployment conditions. Any spectrum we auction come as conditions of licence with deployments.
And then there is a separate consultation on a new access licensing framework for instances where even perhaps the deployment conditions have been met but the spectrum may not be in use, that other providers could get access to that spectrum in a more timely way.
I would add, in the context of COVID-19, something that was facilitated by ISED was facilitating sharing of spectrum or emergency access to spectrum that would relieve congestion.
And then speaking more broadly, because oftentimes a lack of access to the 50-tonne target in rural and remote areas, frankly, spectrum is part of the puzzle, but it tends to be a function of business case, that the customer base there would not be able to sustain the infrastructure in time or given the high cost there.
Since 2016, the government has committed $7.2 billion in total to co-invest in these areas so that all Canadians will eventually have access to minimum target speeds.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is somewhat in line with the issues that were raised by Senator Klyne. I am immensely concerned about rural areas. I would like to better understand how your department is supporting certain areas at the very time of the incidents.
I will take a very concrete example. Five years ago, New Brunswick was hit by an absolutely horrendous ice storm. The electrical system was decimated and two people died. In the Acadian Peninsula, where I live, I think the area went about 12 days without power. It had an impact on telecommunications. There were a lot of players involved, including the municipality, the province, and the telecommunications companies, Rogers and Bell.
What support role do you play during the crisis, not strictly in terms of prevention and assessment, particularly in rural areas where access to the internet is sometimes difficult?
Marc-André Rochon, Senior Director, Spectrum Management Operations Branch Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Thank you for the question. I will answer the question as co-chair of the Telecommunications Resilience Committee.
There are a couple of components to your question, Senator Cormier. When these incidents occur, as you know, it is the municipalities that respond first. When the crisis is too urgent and the municipality cannot handle it on its own, the municipality calls on the province. When the province can’t handle the emergency, they call on the federal government. So that’s the way it’s done in terms of emergency management.
When it’s a major emergency, we ask for help from the committee, from the telecom companies, and from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) to look at the situation and see if the telecom companies are handling the emergency adequately. They come to us for information and assistance. Often, we will only exchange information to see if they are able to manage the emergency themselves. As it is their infrastructure and their clients, they start to manage the situation themselves. When the situation is too urgent and they can’t handle it on their own, they come to us for help.
In a situation where the power grid is no longer functional, according to their resiliency plan, most critical infrastructure has batteries that can run for 12 to 48 hours. After that, if the power is not back on, they will use generators to allow them to continue to operate telecommunication equipment. Often, we will intervene to manage the prioritization of fuel for the different telecommunication companies, to see if we can provide fuel in the right places and at the right time to keep the generators running, so that the telecommunication network can continue to function. As you can imagine, many other critical infrastructures need fuel in such circumstances. We ensure coordination between Public Safety and the provinces.
The provinces are on the ground and they see what is happening. With them, we can start to decide who can get the fuel first, depending on the different critical infrastructure that is in need.
In closing, senator, in order to achieve this, we conduct regular exercises and make a lot of commitments beforehand with the emergency management organizations in each province and territory so that everyone knows what their responsibility is. So when there’s an emergency, the province can contact us very quickly for help, and we, if the telecom companies need help, can communicate very quickly with the provinces to manage the emergency in a consistent and effective way.
Senator Cormier: I have a follow-up question. This is the scenario where everything works. What are the main challenges you face in this vast process? Because when there is a crisis, there is an emergency. What are the main challenges that arise?
Mr. Rochon: As in most emergency situations, it is difficult to get the information at the right time. There is a period at the beginning when there is a kind of fog, when you try to understand what is happening on the ground. Having an overall operational vision and making sure that everyone has the same vision is perhaps the most complex thing. At that point, it’s not about whether the telecom is working in New Brunswick or somewhere else, but rather it’s about the information that’s being shared within the telecom companies, the municipalities, the provinces, and with us, to make sure that everyone is aware of what’s happening at the right time.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: First, thanks to the witnesses for being here this evening.
You mentioned all of the collaboration that’s going on with the provinces, the departments and some of the agencies. I think Senator Cormier was getting at the idea that often the crises tied to climate change have local impacts first. I’m just wondering, do you have connections to the various cities, for example, to understand how their system works and how that — I assume — cooperative approach is in place with the provinces, so when you come in, you have an understanding of how that network is working?
Mr. Rochon: That’s a good question. For jurisdictional reasons and to ensure the coherency and efficiency of communications, we deal with the provinces first to communicate at the municipal and the local level. If and when the province wants to bring in the municipalities, then we’ll have conversations and exchange information at the municipal level as well.
To add to this, we also participate in various exercises. For example, there is a coastal response exercise coming up in 2023 in B.C. where they are going to simulate a big earthquake that would affect critical infrastructure. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, Public Safety Canada and multiple federal departments will be at the table. Of course, the Province of B.C. will be there, but the City of Vancouver will be at the table as well. Our regional representation in B.C. will be at the table. That creates synergy, people getting to know each other, building trust and knowing who knows what and who is responsible for what. That way if and when there’s an emergency — let’s say in B.C. in this case — those relationships are built, including with the City of Vancouver.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. My first question was about satellites. Now, I want to ask about undersea cables.
When we think about the internet, we think about the telcos that bring it to us, and we’re not always aware of the deep infrastructure that connects us to the internet at large. I’m wondering about the vulnerabilities of cables that run under water, whether that’s offshore or at the bottoms of lakes. Are they more or less vulnerable to events like extreme ocean storms?
Mr. Arbour: Generally, for the broad use of undersea cables, they are plowed right into the ocean floor. They don’t interact with ships, ice floes, storms or what have you.
The main point of vulnerability is at the landing places where they connect with individual communities. To mitigate this issue, usually, horizontal drilling is used. They will drill underneath the waterline, into the shore and up through a manhole cover, because, again, the surface is the primary source of vulnerability.
The length and depth of the drilling all goes into the engineering study in the design of the network. Because a breakage is a major event, there’s extensive analysis to try to mitigate these issues. Fibre optic cables generally are positioned in a ring, which means that if there is a cut, the signal can be rerouted in the other direction.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Dasko: We heard earlier about the threats of climate change and the impact of COVID on technology and communications infrastructure, climate change, weather change and so on. We also heard about the monopoly structure of the telecommunications industry.
This is a question you may not have an answer to, but wouldn’t these events actually create less competition? If consumers are confronted with these kinds of threats, don’t they become more cautious in terms of the suppliers they are looking for? Wouldn’t they tend to prefer established suppliers in the face of all of these threats, and wouldn’t this work against competition and freer market forces in this industry? I know you are government people, you’re not industry people, but I wonder if anybody has any thoughts about this. Thank you.
Mr. Arbour: Thank you for the question.
Certainly, consumers can be risk-averse in their choice of supplier. That can mean going with a more established brand relative to someone they may or may not be familiar with.
However, we have been seeing competitors steadily taking market shares from the larger companies. It is an ongoing process, and it’s gradual. However, as they get more established, they can leverage more economies of scale in this space.
The other thing is that in many instances, it’s just not economic to further duplicate the existing infrastructure. This is particularly the case for wired infrastructure. In that case, there are rules in place that require the large players to give their competitors access to their networks, so in those cases, the competitors are using the large players’ networks.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any more questions?
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for your participation today, Ms. Hart, as well as your entire team. It is much appreciated.
[English]
If there are no other questions or any other business, I will adjourn this meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)