---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 24, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met by 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.

Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: I’m Leo Housakos, a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I will start off by asking my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.

Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.

Senator Downe: Percy Downe, Prince Edward Island.

[Translation]

Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.

[English]

Senator White: Senator White, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Senators, today we are continuing our study of the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector and our study of the issues facing the Chignecto Isthmus.

For our first panel, we are pleased the welcome before the committee, the Honourable Ernie Hudson, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for Prince Edward Island. He joins us by video conference, and he is accompanied by Paul Godfrey, Director of Infrastructure, Policy and Planning. Thank you for joining us. We also have with us, of course, Mr. Allan Gray, President and Chief Executive Officer from the Halifax Port Authority. Thank you, Mr. Gray, for being with us today.

We will turn it over to Minister Hudson and then to Mr. Gray, five minutes each for opening statements. After that, we’ll take Q and A from my colleagues. Minister, you have the floor.

Ernie Hudson, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Government of Prince Edward Island: Good morning, honourable senators. As Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for the province of Prince Edward Island, I am honoured to address you today on a matter of utmost importance.

The province of P.E.I. is home to over 170,000 people. Our main industries of agriculture and fishing along with manufacturing industries in the pharmaceuticals and aerospace sectors all contributed to the Province’s GDP reaching $6.5 billion in 2022, which represents a growth of 2.9% over the previous year. It is also worth noting that P.E.I. was the fastest growing economy east of Ontario over that time frame.

Trade and transportation in the province rely heavily on the road network, which became more important after the closure of the P.E.I. railway system in 1989.

The province of P.E.I. has two connections to the mainland; the Confederation Bridge and the Northumberland Ferries service. While it provides an important link to the mainland, particularly for eastern P.E.I., the ferry service only operates from May 1 to December 20. Moreover, the ferry is not immune to disruptions from severe weather events, prolonged mechanical breakdowns or such events as a fire resulting in the total loss of a vessel, as was seen in July of 2022.

These disruptions in travel are exacerbated during high wind and other extreme weather events as the ferry service will cancel crossings and the Confederation Bridge will often impose restrictions on high-sided vehicles such as transport trucks.

Honourable senators, these gateways serve as literal lifelines for the well-being of P.E.I. and its residents.

From a broader perspective, although each has their own unique identities, the Atlantic provinces share a sense of mutual dependence as their main economic drivers require reliable trade routes throughout the region. This economic activity resonates far beyond the Atlantic region, however, as trade with central and western Canada, the United States, and around the world is enabled by a safe and reliable transportation network.

The interdependencies between the Atlantic provinces also extend beyond trade. The IWK Health Centre in Halifax is the only Level 1 pediatric trauma centre east of Quebec. Island families rely on the IWK for the care and specific expertise.

Thousands of Atlantic Canadians also travel interprovincially between New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador for sporting events, attending post-secondary school or for leisure and recreation.

The one thing that these industries and personal travel have in common is the Chignecto Isthmus. Situated in the centre of the Maritimes, the isthmus plays a pivotal role in the prosperity of the entire Atlantic region. On average, 15,000 vehicles pass through this area each day, and it is estimated that over $35 billion worth of trade is enabled by this key corridor each year.

It’s been noted that the rising sea levels, combined with more severe weather events, are putting the 19 kilometres of rail and road network at risk of being impacted. Should trade and transport along the Chignecto Isthmus be disrupted by a climate‑related disaster, Prince Edward Island would face significant challenges in maintaining trade activity, resulting in a decline in our contribution to the country’s economic growth.

In closing, the Chignecto Isthmus stands as a vital lifeline between not only between Atlantic Canada, but the rest of the country and abroad. The prosperity and security of the region are dependent on safeguarding and preserving this key corridor.

Any traffic or rail disruptions along the isthmus would not only contribute to the scarcity of products available for island consumers but would deeply affect P.E.I.’s ability to remain a competitive contributor to the country’s economic growth.

Thank you for your attention and your commitment to this crucial matter.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister Hudson. Now we turn the floor over to Mr. Allan Gray.

Allan Gray, President and Chief Executive Officer, Halifax Port Authority: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for this opportunity.

The Port of Halifax is one of 17 Canadian Port Authorities. We administer 265 acres of marine industrial assets on behalf of the federal government. Our three lines of business include cargo, cruise and real estate. We also run a very popular farmers’ market and we administer Canada’s first living lab for the transportation and supply chain industry called the PIER, which stands for Port Innovation, Engagement and Research. Some of you in this chamber have met with us in the PIER, and we thank you for taking the time to learn more about the innovative side of our operations.

I am here today to talk to you about the importance of the Chignecto Isthmus, or more specifically, the rail and road critical transportation links that run through the isthmus connecting Port of Halifax cargo operations to the rest of Canada and North America.

To fully explain the significance of that connection, I first need to talk about our cargo operations at the Port of Halifax. The containerized cargo represents about 90% of what we do and the impact on the region is significant. The overall economic benefit of cargo operations, including the value of Nova Scotia exports moving through the Port of Halifax, is almost $5-billion.

It’s a significant figure, and equally significant are the 25,000 jobs that are directly and indirectly tied to Port of Halifax operations.

Last year, we moved more than 600,000 twenty-foot containers or TEU through the container terminals. That’s import and export combined. Of that, over 60% moved by rail. It’s important to understand that Halifax is a rail-based gateway port. Most of the cargo moving through Halifax is destined for inland markets like Quebec and Ontario. That is also where most of the export-based cargo comes from. This includes consumer products, clothing, machinery and equipment and frozen food products to name just a few.

All of it crosses over the Chignecto Isthmus, with an estimated value of about $4 billion annually.

When you look at the east coast port and rail network as an interconnected and interdependent system, there is significant additional capacity. In Halifax alone, we can double our current throughput volume without major investment and increase this to around 2.5 million TEUs with further investment.

However, as we saw earlier with climate change disruptions on the west side that resulted in fire and flooding disruptions, we could not realize this potential if Chignecto Isthmus were not available.

So why not just move the cargo through a different Canadian port, maybe one that is closer to those inland markets? It’s because of the size of vessels delivering that cargo.

Halifax is a deep-water gateway port. We are the only eastern Canadian port that can handle the giant cargo vessels increasingly being deployed by the shipping lines to other deep‑water ports like New York, Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah. These are massive vessels approaching 400 metres in length overall that can carry upwards of 16,000 20-foot containers. They are increasingly being deployed by shipping lines, providing direct connections with western Europe, the Mediterranean, Latin America and through the Suez Canal, the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia.

If these big ships weren’t calling on Halifax, they would bypass Canada entirely. They are too big to get up the Saint Lawrence to Montréal, and the tides in the Bay of Fundy mean they can’t call in Saint John.

We expect the calls of these larger vessel sizes through Halifax to continue to increase as the shipping lines work to decrease their carbon intensity. The larger, newer vessels are more efficient and that means the carbon intensity per container is lower.

Our terminal infrastructure is designed to accommodate big ships, and our terminal operator is investing in critical shoreside infrastructure that will increase on-dock efficiency. This is the ecosystem that is already in place that helps generate billions of dollars of economic benefit, key to economic growth in Atlantic Canada, which is supporting billions of dollars in trade and helping lower carbon intensity.

Like any chain, though, it is only as strong as its weakest link. That link, the Chignecto Isthmus, is being threatened with rising sea levels and severe weather events. If these occur simultaneously with a full moon, it could be critical to two areas of significant supply chain infrastructure: highway and rail.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray. We’ll get the Q-and-A period launched by the deputy chair.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: You talked about how crucial the isthmus is. I have to tell you, I was fascinated to hear that it can accommodate larger vessels that can’t use other ports. Thank you for pointing that out. I didn’t know. What do you think needs to be done? Has the Halifax Port Authority looked into the technical considerations around consolidating or improving the Chignecto Isthmus? It’s fine to say the isthmus is important to you, but you are a major player in the region. What kind of link do you want?

[English]

Mr. Gray: Thank you, senator.

Having come from another jurisdiction, as you see — I have an Australian background — one thing I’ve been asking for in Canada is a supply chain strategy. The most important thing about a supply chain strategy is identifying the key freight corridors that impact the flow of cargo into the country.

From my view, with Halifax being a major gateway port, our critical freight corridor is through the Chignecto Isthmus — those highways and rail corridors. A freight strategy would identify that and would put the effort into ensuring they’re protected, whether from climate change or other resilience issues, or protected from urban encroachment. Regardless, the idea is that in identifying these corridors as critical freight corridors, they’re protected by the government in the ways that do that.

So we have listed Chignecto Isthmus as a critical risk for our business, because if it goes down, it significantly impacts our viability. It impacts the viability of the supply chain for Canada as a whole.

Could it go on sea freight as in short sea shipping? Short sea shipping would be four and a half days to transship and about 30% to 40% more expensive. We can get into the market, for example, the Quebec region and Ontario with overnight cargo. We’re one day against four and a half days, and it’s significantly cheaper by transshipping into rail than we are trying to move it by sea.

Effectively, if we couldn’t do that, we would see ships calling to New York, and Canadian cargo would go from New York into Central Canada. We would be reliant on a U.S.-based supply chain corridor.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will be a bit more precise. What do you want? I understand you want a supply chain strategy — you want this to be a priority — but what should be done, from your point of view? Have you done any studies? Do you have any expertise on how it is now, or how safe it is?

Mr. Gray: We’re seeing more frequently that the rail corridor and the highways are being impacted by climate change. We’re aware that the dikes are becoming less stable. The studies we have seen indicate that rising sea levels will continue to impact those.

We’re looking for protection on that freight corridor now so that by the time we are impacted by more severe conditions beyond what we’re getting now, we’d actually see those corridors protected. That’s so that we’re not dealing with it when it’s happening but in advance. We would like assurances of that being fixed so that we have a secure chain going forward.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.

Senator Quinn: Thank you, Captain Gray.

I have two short questions, really. I’m just following up on my colleague. We heard last week that the dikes are already eroding and that they were breaching in 2016 and 2017. In the past, they’ve breached. We’ve also heard how the water has ended up against the rail line. We saw a picture of the train going across with the water up around the wheels.

There’s also discussion about the Canadian National Railway and why they aren’t paying part of the bill to fix the dikes. I’m wondering what your thoughts are on that.

Mr. Gray: To me, there are two components to it. One is the rail itself, and I believe CN is responsible for that infrastructure. They need to ensure that infrastructure is resilient, because that’s what they own. I think there’s a reasonable expectation that the other infrastructure that they don’t own is being dealt with in some other capacity.

I would certainly have an expectation of CN on their rail system to make sure it’s resilient in its own way. If they have to raise it a bit or put more shoring underneath, I’d expect them to be spending that sort of money.

Senator Quinn: Following up to that, are you aware if CN does do that type of work now on an ongoing basis?

Mr. Gray: They do. We get a report each year of the infrastructure spending they’re doing. We recently had a washout in Truro — as an example of what they do — and they were quick to get in, rebuilding and shoring up that infrastructure.

They’re constantly spending dollars on the line to ensure that it stays resilient, but as they don’t own the other infrastructure, I don’t see them spending their time on that.

Senator Quinn: I have one question for the minister. Minister Hudson, thank you for being here as well.

I know there was a statement released by the four Atlantic provinces last spring, I think it was. My question is more around the interactions between the provinces. Do your folks in Prince Edward Island have discussions with the experts in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador? Do they come together and talk about their concerns or what their views of the dike system are?

Second, do they come together to talk about emergency planning — the what-if scenarios? When they do that, is the federal government present? Should they be present?

Mr. Hudson: Thank you very much, senator, for the question.

First, should the federal government be present? My feeling is that if you look at federal-provincial-territorial, or FPT, meetings, for example, it’s important that all stakeholders be present always in these discussions. From my perspective, yes, the federal government should be present. They do need to be a partner in all of these initiatives and a strong partner.

With regard to the first part of your question, senator, officials within the Government of P.E.I. and within my department have ongoing discussions on a regular basis with our colleagues — not only here in the Atlantic provinces but right across the country. I do understand that there will be presentations made by my counterparts in the other provinces, from the Maritimes and Atlantic region.

One of the things that I want to stress and that I hope did come across in my presentation is the impact this will potentially have. We could sit here with our fingers crossed that we’re not going to see any storms to the extent of Fiona, or worse, that we’ve experienced here in the Maritimes and certainly the impact it had in the province of P.E.I. Sitting here with our fingers crossed, to me, just doesn’t cut it. We know that the frequency and severity of storms have increased and will continue to increase. We need to have a secure trade corridor from the province of P.E.I. through Nova Scotia.

I want to emphasize other aspects of this, not only the economic and trade. I referenced the importance of IWK Health Centre in Halifax to the population of P.E.I. and to our children.

There are a variety of aspects here. Certainly, we have ongoing discussions with our partners in the Atlantic region and across the country. To recap, yes, I do feel that the federal government needs to be part and parcel of those discussions, senator. Thank you.

Senator Quinn: Thank you, minister.

Senator Downe: My question is for Minister Hudson.

Minister, on July 12, 2023, the federal Minister of Transport wrote Premier King, further to his letter to the federal Minister of Transport indicating that:

Transport Canada officials would be pleased to engage with P.E.I.’s Department of Transportation and Infrastructure counterparts through a series of sessions to examine options and gather their input on the future of bridge and ferry tolls.

I have two questions. Have those sessions started? If not, when will they start to discuss bridge and ferry tolls? Will the opportunity also rise with this joint committee to look at critical infrastructure in Prince Edward Island?

Mr. Hudson: Thank you, senator. In answer to your first question, those discussions have not started at this point in time. I have had discussions with staff in my department and certainly will be reaching out in the very near future to the federal minister to initiate these discussions.

To the point you raise with regard to those discussions: Should they be broader than just with regard to ferry tolls? Should they be looking at critical infrastructure, specifically with regard to the critical infrastructure that we are discussing here today? Absolutely, yes, they should be part and parcel of that.

Senator Downe: Thank you, minister. As you know, in the provincial election, the premier made commitments on reducing the cost of tolls. The federal government took the initiative last December of freezing the tolls on Confederation Bridge, which would have gone up substantially.

As you know, it now costs over $50 to cross Confederation Bridge leaving Prince Edward Island — a cost that no other Canadians have to pay to depart their provinces. It’s the highest cost per kilometre of anywhere in Canada to travel on part of the Trans-Canada Highway, in this case Confederation Bridge.

I must say, I’m a little surprised that the meetings haven’t started, but I would ask if it’s your intention to keep Islanders informed when the meetings start and who will be on the committee from Prince Edward Island to engage with the federal government to look at options. There are many options, as you know, to reduce the tolls on Confederation Bridge and the ferries.

Mr. Hudson: Absolutely, yes, Islanders should always be kept up to date on what stage discussions are at, senator. I would have to say that I do appreciate the fact that the federal government did freeze the tolls.

Having said that, the tolls — to your point, and with regard to the cost to Islanders to leave the province or come back to the province of P.E.I. — certainly are higher, in my opinion, than they should be. Islanders will definitely be kept up to date.

I’ve used the term “partnership.” We need the partnership of the federal government, which we have had in the past. We need this partnership going forward with regard to discussions on reduction of tolls and to have that broader discussion — not only reduction of tolls, but as I’ve mentioned before, discussions on critical infrastructure.

Senator Downe: Minister, I assume you share my concern that the Confederation Bridge is owned by the Government of Canada. Samuel De Champlain Bridge in Montréal is owned by the Government of Canada. The government made the decision in the middle of the 2015 election that, if elected, they would cancel the tolls on Samuel De Champlain Bridge, a bridge that cost over $4 billion to construct. The Liberals won the election, kept their promise and cancelled the tolls.

Prince Edward Islanders are left with a bridge that cost $1 billion and we’re paying $50 to cross it. It’s grossly unfair and I trust that’s part of your presentation to the federal government. It is part of critical infrastructure in our region. As you indicated in your opening statement, we have a seasonal ferry service. If something happens to Confederation Bridge in February or March, we’re as cut off as we would be if that passage between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick went under. We would be isolated.

We need to do a couple of things. One is that we have to have fairness in this country. Canadians can’t be treated differently depending on where they live. That is what’s currently happening between Samuel De Champlain Bridge and Confederation Bridge. We need to secure the future of that bridge long term.

Are those your objectives for that meeting or do you have any additional ones?

Mr. Hudson: With regard to bridge tolls, I agree 100% with you, senator. I do appreciate your advocacy over the last number of months — indeed, years — for the reduction of bridge tolls.

Given your familiarity with the province of P.E.I. and your advocacy with regard to bridge tolls, I would welcome further discussions on an individual basis with you, senator, as we move forward on this.

Senator Simons: Thanks very much. I want to return us to the subject of our study, if that’s not too much to ask. I have a question for Mr. Godfrey to that end.

I come from Alberta, so I know firsthand the distress that my province felt two years ago when the roads and rail lines washed out that connected the Port of Vancouver to the rest of the country.

When we talk about the risk to the isthmus, are we talking about something that could be dealt with in a couple of days, as the B.C. rail lines were, or are we talking about a more existential threat to the entire region?

CN and CP, working together with the B.C. government, were able to get those road lines and rail lines back up in an extraordinarily short period of time.

I’m curious to know whether you, Mr. Godfrey, from your area of expertise, think that this is something, if it happened, could be dealt with in a week or a month? Or, if what we’re talking about with rising sea levels and more violent winter storms could mean the end of that passageway in perpetuity.

Paul Godfrey, Director of Infrastructure, Policy and Planning, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Government of Prince Edward Island: Thank you for the question. First of all, the infrastructure there isn’t under our jurisdiction. We don’t own it and aren’t extremely knowledgeable about it.

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Godfrey: That said, we do have regular communications with our colleagues in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and we’ve had many discussions on this isthmus dilemma and the need to address it.

From what I have understood from my discussions with them, it certainly sounds like the issue that would be caused if a climatic event did serious damage there, I anticipate that it would take longer than a few days or a week to fix. I think we would see quite a long-term disruption of trade.

Senator Simons: All right. President Gray, let me ask you the same thing. Obviously, you’ve given some deep thought to this issue of the supply chain. When you are looking at potential risks for the Port of Halifax, is the concern that this piece of land infrastructure is so vulnerable that it might be washed out forever, or in your risk assessments are you looking at something that could be a disruption of weeks or months?

Mr. Gray: Thank you, senator. It is twofold. In the short term, we expect short interruptions. We deal with that in the risk assessment. But like anything, even our own infrastructure, we’re looking at resilience against climate change, and we see that there’s a long-term risk there that it’s washed out for good and that we lose it on the long-term play.

Yes, there are short-term disruptions, as you mentioned, that we can quickly deal with, but our concern is that if we don’t take a more permanent approach to this, in the end it will be a long‑term washout and we’ll be cut off completely.

Senator Simons: Wow, all right. Then turning to the bridge question, do we need to be thinking then not just of shoring up the dikes, but thinking of an alternate route? Let me ask the minister. You have the experience of Confederation Bridge. Extrapolating from that, is it possible what we need is a bridge that would be able to withstand the weather, or is the distance that much more than the Confederation Bridge distance?

Mr. Hudson: Thank you for the question. I’ll have to be completely honest that I think the premise of what we’re discussing here today is just a need in one way or another to make sure that this critical link between New Brunswick-Nova Scotia, that has an impact right across our country, that steps are taken to make sure that piece of critical land mass is secured.

But for me to say what would be the best way to accomplish that, it would be outside of my educational background and the like. Certainly from my end, the presentation today from myself as minister is just to emphasize how important this land bridge between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is, as is its maintenance and reinforcement, given the climatic conditions and the storms we have seen and most likely will see.

Senator Simons: I don’t want to undersell the disruption that the B.C. situation caused in Alberta. Not to have that access for weeks was a real hardship for a lot of people, but that’s an entirely different scenario than the premise of the entire isthmus being washed out, which would have an impact not just on transportation but on the people who live there. Thank you. That’s very sobering, Mr. Gray.

Senator Cardozo: Let me ask you a question first, Mr. Gray. In terms of the isthmus, I’m just looking at the map here, my sense is it’s quite a wide area. I compare that to the Trans‑Canada Highway leading into Montréal at Lac des Deux‑Montagnes, where there is a part of the highway which is a six‑lane highway which is very close to water level. A couple of years ago when the levels of the lake were rising, they literally put sandbags to prevent it from flooding. That is a major highway into Montréal, not the only one. That’s sort of a narrow area.

But I look at the Chignecto Isthmus, and it seems like a wide area. Are we talking about shoring up a narrow area within that for the highway, understanding that the rest may get flooded?

Mr. Gray: From what I’ve seen of the engineering studies, it’s about raising the existing dikes to a higher level, so they’re not talking about shoring other areas. They’re trying to re‑establish the existing systems that are there because they’re being eroded away. It’s a narrow area of the whole Chignecto. That’s important. You need your natural wet plains and your natural environmental areas. You don’t want to start impeding some of that, but you need to be able to protect the main corridor which is a narrow section.

Senator Cardozo: Something fairly close to the highway and not the entire isthmus?

Mr. Gray: Yes.

Senator Cardozo: The entire isthmus may over time be covered with water?

Mr. Gray: I think you’ll see other areas, but you’re looking for the main corridor to be protected.

Senator Cardozo: Thanks. To Minister Hudson, I have a question on the tolls. You mentioned that it’s now $50 to use the bridge. What was the toll at the beginning when the bridge opened?

Mr. Hudson: Thank you for the question. The exact toll when it was opened at first, I really couldn’t comment on that. I know it has gone up over the last number of years. I do believe, if my memory serves me correctly, it was in the vicinity of $35 when the bridge opened, but I can’t say that is the precise amount. It has increased on an annual basis basically over that time period.

Senator Cardozo: Right. I do recall shortly after the bridge was opened, I remember thinking it was a bit expensive then, but $50 certainly sounds like a lot for somebody who just wants to go over to the mainland or the other direction. Thank you for that.

Mr. Hudson: Thank you.

Senator Dasko: It’s worth it to see P.E.I., isn’t it? Sorry. I don’t want to divert from our topic.

Mr. Hudson: Thank you for that comment.

Senator Dasko: It’s a beautiful province. One of our committees was just there recently, and I was there, of course, with the committee, so we had a chance to do some touring on a study involving the migrant temporary foreign worker program.

In any case, I digress. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. This study of the isthmus is part of a larger study that our committee is doing, which is looking at the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure.

I just wanted to ask Mr. Gray if you might comment on this. I have read that Nova Scotia is sinking. I don’t know if that’s actually true, but I have read that. Could you comment on the risks to your port of operations with climate change and rising sea levels. How, if at all, do you see the impacts right now on your operations? Thank you.

Mr. Gray: Thank you, senator. Right now, increased storminess is the first impact. We get more frequent storms which are more severe, which has an impact on getting vessels in, getting a pilot out to a vessel because of the sea conditions. So we’re seeing increases in that. We’re managing those risks with different-sized tugs and different ways of operating.

With rising sea level, there is the question of whether Nova Scotia is sinking or the sea is coming up, but either way, the impact is the same way.

Our new infrastructure has all been built at a higher level. As we’re building new infrastructure, we’re building it at higher settings. But our existing infrastructure, over time, becomes more threatened. It’s still a long time off because our berths are, effectively, four metres above sea level, so we have plenty of capacity there. In time, however, we need to ensure all our new infrastructure is being built to allow for the increasing water levels.

The major impact right now is the fact that we’re just getting more storms and those storms are more impactful in their nature.

Senator Dasko: Thank you.

Senator Quinn: Again, my question is for Captain Gray. Back to the theme of interaction with folks who are occupied looking at the dikes and what condition they may be in. Do officials at the Port of Halifax get involved with provinces about discussions on the dikes and what the vulnerabilities are?

Mr. Gray: On a number of occasions, both at the provincial and at the federal level to Transport Canada, we’ve raised the fact that these risks exist there through our supply chain and we’re concerned about the ongoing impacts on the port operations. I wouldn’t say that it’s a frequent conversation, but we regularly raise it as an attention point to say, “What’s happening with this? What are the intentions going forward?” We highlight the risk to the value of the port.

Senator Quinn: My other question concerns your equipment comments about the volume of cargo. You said about 90% of the activity is containers. If there is a significant disruption — which I think a couple of my colleagues have talked about — how significant would it be in the short, medium or long term? If that cargo deviates to another port, like a U.S. port, how hard is it to get that cargo back?

Mr. Gray: Really hard. Montréal and Vancouver are good examples at the moment. In the Canadian landscape at the moment, most of the ports are down about 23% on volumes from last year — in fact, the port of Halifax is down 8% — because we’ve taken volume off the other ports because of the disruptions. Whether it’s a labour disruption or environmental disruptions because there’s uncertainty in that supply chain, people have moved across to Halifax as an alternate pathway. We’re both vying for the centre of Canada, for that Central Canada/Midwest area. They’re splitting their cargo. They’re not giving us 100%, but they’re splitting the cargo to derisk the supply chain.

Once you are seen as unreliable in the market, then you will lose that cargo and it’s very difficult to get it back again.

Senator Quinn: Thank you.

The Chair: You mentioned, Mr. Gray, the drop in cargo in various ports. I assume it’s this year compared to last year. How much of that drop is directly related to environmental and climate change?

Mr. Gray: The 23% is the global markets driving that shift. A large amount of the shift from one side to the other is due to disruption. Some of that is due to the flooding and fire impacts in the West, where the supply chain was cut off; some of that is due to the industrial situations that have occurred both in Montréal and on the West Coast. Whether it’s a disruption due to climate impacts or a disruption due to other things, the market will look at the viability and decide whether they can derisk their supply chain.

The Chair: For the benefit of our study, how much of the disruptions that are taking place in the supply chain, in your experience — and you have a vast amount of it — is due to climate change, how much of it is due to labour and how much of it is due to other extenuating circumstances?

Mr. Gray: Right at the moment, the shift to the East Coast is probably a 50-50 split between climate change impact and disruptions in the supply chain due to fire and flooding and what happened with the industrial situation.

Senator Cardozo: Could you explain that a bit more? How is climate change affecting the traffic coming to you?

Mr. Gray: It’s the impact. We saw that with the fire cutting off the supply chain and the flooding cutting off the supply chain. Those were large environmental events, and people were uncomfortable with the risk of putting all that volume of cargo through one supply chain route. So they looked at the East Coast to see if they could get some of that cargo through the East Coast to the same directions.

Senator Cardozo: Are they going through Montréal instead?

Mr. Gray: No, they are coming through Halifax and then via rail through to central Canada.

Some of our cargo stops at Montréal, but a lot of it goes through to Toronto, Chicago and Detroit. We drive for inland markets. Most of the growth in Canada comes from those inland markets. It’s less growth in the Atlantic region. Most of the growth is in the inland markets in Quebec and Ontario regions.

The cargo that’s coming out of southern Asia could go either way. They could go the Pacific route or through the Suez to us. It’s slightly shorter through to us on the East Coast, but there’s more slots — slots are spaces on the container ships — available in the Pacific route. They tend to hang on that West Coast side because there are more choices, but it’s actually a shorter route to the East Coast and there’s more capacity in the supply chain on the East Coast. We have a lot more capacity on the rail network and in our ports on the East Coast of Canada than we do on the West Coast of Canada. That’s being seen now with the disruptions. People started to stop and say, “Well, can I look, is there an alternative pathway?” Then they say, “Yes, there is an alternative pathway.” Our dwell times are short, generally in the order of two and a half to four days. That’s very efficient. They’re coming to an efficient port like ours and Saint John, and they’re taking advantage of the capacity on the rail network.

My concern is we’ve convinced the market to do that but if we’re impacted by further climate impacts on our side of the country, then you have a situation where people don’t have reliability in Canada at all as a total. At the moment they’re saying, “Okay, we have some disruption, but we have alternative pathways.” However, if we lose those pathways, that’s a concern.

Senator Cardozo: How many docks do you have at the port?

Mr. Gray: For containers, we have four berths available.

Senator Cardozo: With the growth of deep seas, you were talking about deep-water ports. Is that the term? With the preference for deeper water, do you see the opportunity for more traffic coming to Halifax and do you have plans to grow the port over time?

Mr. Gray: Yes. We do see this happening. The companies are deploying larger vessels now. We can double our current capacity without further expenditures. Currently, we’re putting through 600,000. We have the capacity to do 1.2 to 1.5 million TEUs. We have a 50-year plan out at the moment which takes us through to 2.5 million to 3 million TEUs with some further expenditure. We’ve actually started that expansion because we had the availability of infill, so we started infilling some docks on a slow basis to prep that. At the moment there’s capacity there so we can take it now.

The other thing that’s driving it is what we’re seeing in Europe with the carbon taxing on the vessels. Transshipment will be heavily taxed in Europe on these vessels. The much larger and newer vessels are far more efficient from an emissions point of view. Therefore, the carbon tax impact will be lower. That means when they get to North America, which limits the ports that they can call in. We’re one of the few ports that can do it.

Senator Cardozo: With regard to extreme weather, to what extent is the shipping industry changing how they operate? I think of that cargo ship where containers fell off the boat. Is there that kind of concern going forward, namely that there are certain increased dangers for shipping?

Mr. Gray: It’s twofold. One, they’re looking at the design of their vessels. That is happening. We’re starting to see them go back to a system — it’s almost a full circle — where you’ve got extended cell guards. Instead of lashing containers, we have extended cell guards going up which secure the vessel and containers on board.

The other side of it, from a responsibility point of view, is 90% of the world’s trade is by shipping. It’s the decarbonization of the actual vessel. They’re looking at alternative fuels. It’s very challenging. Hydrogen is probably considered to be the best mobility fuel, but the storage of hydrogen on a vessel in enough quantity for them to do their around-the-world routes is quite challenging, so they’re looking at ammonia and methanol fuels.

But they are driving heavily, and the International Maritime Organization is putting a lot of pressure on the shipping lines to come to a solution on renewable fuels.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like you to clarify something. I didn’t quite follow something you said.

If I understood correctly, you said activity at the Port of Halifax was down 23% over the previous year, partly because of the flooding in Nova Scotia — an extreme event caused by climate change. However, British Columbia also experienced extreme events that likely impacted port activities there. How is it that these extreme events affected only ports in Eastern Canada, not ports in Western Canada?

[English]

Mr. Gray: Thank you.

For clarity, what I was saying is that it impacted the west and the east got the benefit. The cargo that was going through the west because of these impacts, they moved cargo from the West Coast to the East Coast. That’s why we’ve picked up some shift; we haven’t gotten as big a drop in cargo this year because we have picked up some shift from the West Coast to the East Coast.

The flooding and the fires were direct impacts on the ports on the west, and we picked up some of the benefit, I suppose.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: And you didn’t get a drop because of your own flooding in Nova Scotia?

Mr. Gray: No.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I didn’t get that right.

Mr. Gray: There is a global market drop overall.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay.

Mr. Gray: It’s just that ours hasn’t been as big because we managed to pick up some.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.

Senator Quinn: I just wanted to come back to your comment on your 50-year plan and increasing volumes.

In your plan, do your folks take into account the effects of climate change? We know there are increasing numbers and intensity of events with fluctuating water levels in some parts of the country. Do those factors come into play, and is Halifax seeing itself as a bigger player, in part due to climate change?

Mr. Gray: We do a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, or SWOT analysis, and look for the opportunities and threats. It’s a little bit mercenary, you would say. When we see the impacts on other ports being from larger vessel sizes or impacts on weather change ruling out some more ports, then yes, we see opportunities come for us.

We’re an ice-free port, we have deep water and we’re on the great circle route from the Suez and Europe across. We’re well positioned. We don’t have the dramatic tides that you’ll be familiar with, senator, in St. John.

We’re in a very strong position, but the one big risk factor is that we rely upon one single rail operator, and most of our cargo is going out with that single rail operator and the trucking industry. The challenges in the trucking industry are labour — getting people to drive trucks nowadays.

If we were to lose those components of our supply chain, we’re not as attractive anymore. As I said, there aren’t any other ports on the East Coast of Canada that can handle the vessels we do.

Senator Quinn: I have a follow-up for clarity. With those factors being worked into the overall equation, if you will, to bring it back to what we’re looking at, which is the conditions of the dikes and the isthmus, are those things that also figured in terms of how they need to be addressed?

Mr. Gray: Yes, it’s considered a threat to our growth path. We would have to change our model to be a transshipment port if we were to lose the isthmus; if we lost the rail and road base, we would have to see if we could become a transshipment port. As a transshipment port, we would need a lot more land to land cargo, let it sit there and then try to ship it out again via ships. It’s not the ideal spot to do that.

Senator Quinn: In conclusion — and now I’m finished — with all of those factors, is it fair for me to say that climate change could have a determining factor on whether cargo comes into Canada via the East Coast, specifically the Port of Halifax?

Mr. Gray: [Technical difficulties]

The Chair: Minister Hudson, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Gray, thank you for coming before our committee this morning and answering our questions.

Honourable senators, we will continue with our study of the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure on the Chignecto Isthmus. For our second panel this morning, we are pleased to hear from some of the experts who have been studying the region.

We have with us Tim Webster, Research Scientist, Applied Geomatics Research Group, Nova Scotia Community College, who joins us by video conference. We have Danika van Proosdij, Director, TransCoastal Adaptations Centre for Nature-based Solutions, Saint Mary’s University. Welcome. We’ll begin with opening remarks from Dr. Webster, followed by remarks by Professor van Proosdij and then proceed to questions from committee members. Dr. Webster, you have the floor, sir.

Tim Webster, Research Scientist, Applied Geomatics Research Group, Nova Scotia Community College, as an individual: Good morning and thank you for the invitation. I conducted a project for the Province of Nova Scotia on coastal flood vulnerability of the Chignecto Isthmus in 2012. This involved acquiring airborne lidar, which is a Light Detection and Ranging technique for measuring detailed elevation, to conduct an assessment of dike overtopping for this transportation corridor. There were several areas along the dikes that were identified as vulnerable, and critical overtopping elevations were discussed in the report. I watched a little of the previous panel. Nova Scotia is sinking as a result of isostatic adjustment.

Relative sea-level rise has been happening in the Maritimes for some time and shows a linear trend of about 32 centimetres per century. Most scientists in the region expect at least a relative sea-level rise of 1 metre by 2100, although there are plausible predictions of extreme global sea-level rise up to 2.5 metres in a recent NOAA report. Thus there is still some uncertainty of the rate of relative sea-level rise in the future. Regardless of how and when we reduce our carbon emissions, sea level will keep rising beyond 2100.

In the past, we have had historic storm events, such as the Saxby Gale of 1869, which had extremely large tides that corresponded with a significant storm event estimated with a surge of about 2 metres. Other parts of Nova Scotia experienced surges in the order of 1.7 metres from Hurricane Juan in 2003, and commonly we get surges on the Northumberland Strait separating Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from Prince Edward Island on the order of about 1.5 from tropical storms and Nor’Easters. Hurricane Fiona set a record for the lowest barometric pressure, which influences the magnitude of the storm surge. We measured a storm surge height of 2.4 metres for that event, and that is the largest I’ve measured in about 20 years of doing this kind of work.

We also measured the wrack line, which is the debris line left from the water washing up onto the land that includes the tide, surge and wave run-up. We estimated the wave run-up to be 1 additional metre on top of the 2.4-metre storm surge.

The options for adaptation for the Isthmus include defending, retreating or abandoning the corridor. In the report, we proposed an alternative route based on the terrain that could maintain a transportation link between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick well into the future.

This corridor makes use of the existing Highway 366 in Nova Scotia, which connects Amherst to the Northumberland Strait. The proposed route travels 12 kilometres north, from Amherst on Highway 366, and then a new section of the corridor would have to be built on higher terrain to connect to New Brunswick, about 35 kilometres’ worth of new highway and potentially rail.

This proposal would fall under the retreat-abandon adaptation measure. At the time of the report, I do not think this option was considered plausible by provincial governments. However, in my opinion, it should be considered as a possible long-term solution to this issue.

Since that report was done, the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have put out the request for proposal for the engineering report that Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions did. The proposal called for the dikes to be raised to 11.2 metres in reference to Canadian Geodadic Vertical Datum of 1928, or 10.6 metres based on the new vertical datum, CGVD2013. This was then shortlisted to three options — I’m sure the committee is familiar with this report — that dealt with either building new dikes or raising existing dikes in the order of $198 million to $300 million.

These proposed solutions do not promote salt marsh growth but limit it even more than the existing diking has done. Many practitioners, especially my colleague Professor van Proosdij, see the value of salt marshes seaward of land infrastructure to aid in both dampening wave action from storms and storm surges. In addition, the marshes absorb and trap a tremendous amount of carbon — additional reasons for perhaps considering to abandon this particular corridor.

In this new reference frame, CGVD2013, the average dikes in New Brunswick are about 7.17 metres, and in Nova Scotia they’re a little higher at 7.86 metres. The Wood study states we should raise the dikes based on the provincial recommendation to 10.6. This would protect us for a while, but longer-term thinking, I think, is the issue.

A reanalysis of the flooding was conducted to see essentially if the water level were to overtop or breach the dike at some point, 9.7 metres is the elevation in which Nova Scotia becomes an island where the Northumberland Strait would then connect to the Bay of Fundy. This number is a little different than was published in the report, and the main reason is the new elevation data is far more accurate than some of the information we were using back in 2012 when we estimated when Nova Scotia could become an island. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Webster. I now turn the floor over to Professor van Proosdij.

Danika van Proosdij, Director, TransCoastal Adaptations Centre for Nature-based Solutions, Saint Mary’s University, as an individual: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

[Translation]

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure as they relate to the Chignecto Isthmus.

[English]

I have travelled here from Mi’kma’ki, the traditional and unceded land of the Mi’kmaq Nation. The narrow isthmus of Siknikt or Chignecto has in fact, for millennia, been a critical corridor for navigation, trade and communication. The expansive tidal wetlands and waterways, linked by well-travelled portages, provided passage between the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence and linked the Atlantic seaboard with the Wolastoq/Saint John River and the interior of the continent.

However, while diking these tidal wetlands in the early 1700s provided fertile agricultural soil for the Acadians, the very nature of these low-lying lands is central to the vulnerability of the Chignecto Isthmus. The much-needed repair, reinforcement and construction of dikes and tide gates by the federal government after the Second World War served to increase expectations that these lands would be protected into the future. When responsibility for maintenance and upgrades was passed to the two provinces in the 1970s, acts were drawn that outlined these responsibilities.

Herein lies the challenge that we are facing today. The dikes were engineered, constructed and maintained to protect agricultural land, built to maintain a minimum critical elevation set in the 1950s. Over time, however, infrastructure has been built, towns have expanded and sea levels have risen. There are currently 40 km of dikes, 30 aboiteaux that protect 10.6 thousand hectares of low-lying land in the Chignecto Isthmus.

The comments that follow will be drawn from my experience working and studying tidal wetlands in the Bay of Fundy over the last 30 years, with the last 2 decades focused on leveraging this understanding to increase the resilience of the dikeland system and restore coastal ecosystems.

Twenty years ago, in April 2003, along with other researchers, NGOs, municipal and provincial officials, and representation from CN Rail, I pored over maps depicting the extent of flooding associated with a repeat occurrence of the Saxby Gale, a benchmark storm which overtopped most dikes in 1869. It was at this meeting that there was the broader realization that the CN railbed effectively acted as the main dike for the protection of the Trans-Canada Highway, which was a new revelation for CN officials.

While at the time, both the vulnerability and critical physical importance of the CN rail line were perhaps not appreciated, the extreme tide levels lapping at the wheels of a passing rail car photographed in November 2015 brought that vulnerability into the mainstream and consciousness of the public. This image did not, in fact, reflect failure or the breaching of dikes. Rather, it depicts the extreme upper extent of high spring tides in the Tantramar River, which is, perhaps, more alarming since it is a natural cycle that will occur again.

Tides occur in cycles with the highest water levels occurring every 18.6 years, with the last peak occurring in 2015. Because of these variations and large intertidal range, the vulnerability of the dike system also varies with time. The greatest risk occurs when high tide coincides with a storm surge, and this risk will continue to increase with rising sea levels. In a dike vulnerability study I led in 2018, we calculated that 94% of the dikes in the Cumberland Basin would overtop in 2050, with a storm surge just under one metre. Topping up or raising dikes in their current locations for climate change, in many instances, is simply not feasible.

The current dike system follows the banks of major tidal rivers, with a narrow strip of foreshore marsh serving as a buffer between the dike and powerful tidal currents flowing in and out twice daily. In places, these currents eat away at the base of the dikes and armour stone placed to protect them do not last long. Topping up dikes in these instances are not long-term solutions.

The mandate of this committee is to focus on climate change impacts, so I will end my remarks with a vision for mitigating those impacts. It’s a vision for today and the future. We must re‑imagine our relationships within this historical landscape and reliance on dikes alone for protection and space as single use. Choices are not black and white, either/or, but rather a continuum of adaptation options.

In some areas, we will absolutely need to raise and reinforce existing protection infrastructure or construct new defences using new engineering standards that have been demonstrated in other parts of the world. We will need to realign dike infrastructure and restore tidal wetlands that can provide a suite of ecosystem services, including coastal protection and carbon sequestration, and can be resilient to sea level rise. In some instances, we may need to relocate a road or buildings, which in the long term is more sustainable and cost effective for the greater good.

Finally, we must reserve lands for future changes in sea levels or storms with land use that can accommodate periodic flooding, provide a space for migration of tidal wetlands, and enact land use bylaws preventing future development in dangerous places. I am happy to expand on any of these points during the question period. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, professor.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you to both witnesses for their fascinating presentations and the tangible alternatives you put forward.

Professor van Proosdij, I’d like to hear more about wetlands restoration. It is not something I’m familiar with. I realize it is one of the solutions being put forward, but, as I understand it, with wetlands having been used for agriculture, they can’t simply be restored in a matter of days. Restoring wetlands takes a considerable amount of time, on one hand.

On the other, you said that dyking wasn’t necessarily the right solution, since the existing dykes can’t be raised. Is restoring wetlands a viable solution, or should we change plans and follow your fellow witness’s recommendation — leave everything alone, put in a detour and use an alternative route for the highway and railbed?

Ms. van Proosdij: Thank you for your question. I carried out my research in English, and it’s very important to provide clear answers, so I’m going to answer in English.

[English]

I will speak first in regard to the first issue you raised about the possibility of using managed dike realignment and tidal wetland restoration as a nature-based solution. In that process, a detailed analysis is done, and based on that analysis, which consists of a variety of things, a new dike structure is built further inland to protect an archaeological resource or transportation corridor. On the land in front of it, we then remove part of the dike and we remove the aboiteau structures, and we allow for the tides to come back into the areas where they once were. The process, particularly in the Upper Bay — where I will say we have actually done this and I can speak to our experience in conducting that in a moment — every time the tide comes in, it brings in some suspended sediments of mud. That then provides a blanket that allows for seeds and root matter from the plants in the surrounding marshes to come and establish themselves. It also allows the low-lying area to rise up and eventually be colonized by salt marsh or tidal wetland vegetation. This provides a buffer to the new dike that was constructed and further increases the resilience of the land that remains. We have done this in 140 hectares out of the 400 hectares that we have restored within the Bay of Fundy with my colleagues at CB Wetlands and Environmental Specialists and the province. I can speak specifically to those instances in the future, if you wish.

In regard to your question about raising the dikes, physically the dikes could be raised if we were to increase the footprint. However, the longer-term resilience in the same location just doesn’t make sense. We need to think about where they are going to be raised and have a buffer in front of it is foreshore marsh and provides room for that marsh to absorb wave energy. We have done research to calculate how much we need in order to provide those protective functions. We can raise the dikes, but we must think strategically about where that occurs to allow for longer-term sustainability. As I mentioned in my closing remarks, we need to reimagine the landscape. That means having a combination of different options or tools in the tool box.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is wetlands restoration a realistic option to get to the point you’re talking about, which could take a few years — I have no idea? Given the situation, would we be better off to take a totally different route to arrive at a more certain outcome in the face of climate change events?

[English]

Ms. van Proosdij: Any solution within the isthmus area is going to take time. We have seen in our experience that within two to three years, we actually have vegetation re-establishing and it starts providing those protective functions. We have gained a lot of experience in doing that within the area, and we also have increasing engineering standards, which are now worldwide, to be able to implement this.

Any adaptation option is not going to happen overnight. If we plan it, we can strategically start to reintroduce waters to raise the low-lying area behind, at the same time, perhaps, while rebuilding larger structures around the transportation corridor proper itself, or relocating, as Dr. Webster indicated, the actual transportation network.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.

[English]

Senator Simons: I have so many questions for these witnesses, I don’t know where to start. I’m going to start with Dr. Webster to pick up where the last question ended.

You seem to indicate in your testimony that building tall new dikes might actually be counterproductive because it might actually destroy more marshland, which has that natural benefit that Professor van Proosdij was just describing. What is the danger of a boomerang effect in building bigger, stronger, taller dikes that might actually make the problem worse?

Mr. Webster: Thank you for the question. Based and the engineering report, of the three options that were proposed, some of them were to build up existing dikes and some were to build new dikes that presented very close to the actual ocean now. Essentially, as Professor van Proosdij has explained, the buffer of salt marsh out front certainly helps to dampen the wave effects and so forth.

My point was simply that we need to have that buffer zone ideally, which will help dampen the energy of the waves. But eventually, with sea-level rise, this is going to be a continuing problem. It’s going to get worse, not better.

It’s almost the situation as when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and there was plenty of talk after that about whether New Orleans should be relocated. Eventually politics took over and that discussion went away.

In this situation, we should really consider the option of moving the corridor to higher ground. Obviously, there are still many things to protect, such as other towns, other transportation routes that people use every day, where diking and allowing salt marshes to grow out in front could be very beneficial. It’s worth considering the long-term approach to this problem.

One thing I’ve learned is, when fighting mother nature, we rarely win. With continued sea-level rise, that is going to be a continuing problem.

Senator Simons: Maybe this is a question to ask the politicians tomorrow. This report is a fairly new report. It just came out last year. It didn’t consider marshland restoration as a feasible strategy, and it didn’t look, as far as I know, at the idea of relocating the transportation corridor, which to be honest, Dr. Webster, didn’t sound that difficult if it also involves pre‑existing highways and maybe even pre-existing railbeds. Why aren’t people looking at the solutions that the two of you are proposing?

Mr. Webster: I believe the terms of reference that went out to that call for proposals that the engineering company responded to, did not list those as possible options. Now, why those were not listed, I can’t really speak to that.

I think a lot of people have sort of set in their minds that this is the corridor we have, we need to protect it, and therefore, what measures need to be taken to try to protect it, irrespective of the long-term challenges that we’re going to be facing, especially in this particular low-lying area. That’s really the main thing I can speak to.

Senator Simons: Professor van Proosdij?

Ms. van Proosdij: I really cannot speak to the rationale about why the consultants and the mandate for that report did not include natural options. To Dr. Webster’s comment, it was an extremely narrow mandate that the RFP had, which was protecting the transportation corridor and using dikes was an option to look at and it was primarily looked at.

As to the motivation why, I’d have to leave that to my political, government counterparts to respond to that, but I think it is short-sighted. We know more now. We also knew then, at the time the report was written, if I should be so bold, that using a combination or what’s referred to as hybrid solutions that incorporates both traditional and grey infrastructure as well as the softer buffer and perhaps even having — a sill in front to suffer some of the wave energy — those are other things happening in other parts of the world. It’s happening in Canada, and it really does perplex me why it was not included in that report. Neither Dr. Webster nor I were involved in that report, but we’re happy here to have the opportunity to discuss other alternatives with you.

Senator Simons: If I can go on second round, that would be awesome.

Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here today, witnesses. I just want to follow on a little bit because what you’re saying is extremely interesting, particularly your last comments on why we didn’t look at grey and natural. Why hasn’t this been considered? I understand the buffering that’s being referred to.

If, at the end of the day, we looked at a combination of the solutions — and I want to keep it to the infrastructure itself, which seems to be at risk, but in addressing that, there could be this combination approach.

My question really is back to Mr. Webster who talked about, we have the world’s highest tides in that area; one hundred billion barrels of water in and out twice a day and storm surges. You mentioned suspended particulate. Is there an issue with additional particulate settling?

I only ask that because of my experience in the Port Saint John with dredging. It just seems to be more and more. At what point does it become problematic? Do you think it has an opposite effect or does it?

Ms. van Proosdij: It definitely does have an impact. The high concentrations of sediment in front of the aboiteaux or the one‑way gates that help provide fresh water drainage from dikeland systems, they can silt up. That is a natural process which occurs. We have to do things to help keep that open. Siltation does occur now. We see it increasingly occurring after historically diking in a particular area because we’ve removed that area of large intertidal expanse that the sediment could be spread over a larger distance in a natural marsh.

When you channelize and you no longer have that place for that sediment to settle, it will settle in front of your aboiteau channels, downstream of the Windsor causeway, for example, in a large mud flat and eventual marsh that develops in that area. Sedimentation is a challenge. Is that going to get worse in the future? Not necessarily, but we can leverage that sediment to help engineer solutions in a more natural way.

Senator Quinn: What happens today with the sedimentation and whatnot? Do you have an idea of what’s involved? What would be the cost of dealing with that sedimentation?

Ms. van Proosdij: In the aboiteaux right now, they’re dealt with. My counterparts with the Department of Agriculture can respond that, I believe, tomorrow. It depends on what’s occurring. In the smaller gate structures, perhaps they are propped open a little bit to allow the fresh water to come through and keep that open. If you’re talking about a larger gate structure, they would be open during a heavier rainfall to essentially flush out. We have these periods of heavier rainfall events and that allows it to pop the plug. In areas where there have been challenges with perhaps debris and excessive accumulation, there have been times where they’ve had to excavate mud from the area. They are inspected and when those issues are noted, they are dealt with when they are able.

Senator Quinn: Thanks so much. We’re usually focusing on road, rail and fibre optics and whatnot, but you’re bringing an important aspect to the discussion.

My next question is around the length of time we have, in your estimate with increasing weather events, intensity and rising sea levels. How do we best proceed to protect that infrastructure that people focus on? The other focus, really — Senator Simons mentioned this — would be effects on property, people and farmlands. On the infrastructure side, how do we address that in the near term while keeping in mind the natural approaches that need to be taken over a bit of a longer time? How do you fit the square into the circle?

Ms. van Proosdij: That is definitely a challenge, but up until now, we have dodged a bullet with some of the storms coming through. We’ve known this for 20 years: It is not a matter of if we are going to be impacted, it’s a matter of when. We have been incredibly lucky. It would be very unfortunate if there were continued studies to figure what we should do here.

What we can do, in designing the solution, is to bring in multidisciplinary, trans-boundary teams where you have expertise around the table that come from different disciplines. It’s not just an engineering solution, so we have to stop having one discipline make those decisions. If we have a 10-year horizon, let us convene that multidisciplinary team and let us use an approach that is done within Europe that is longer-term strategic planning of identifying sections of land that are going to be absolutely protected, areas that are going to be restored, and you then have a plan moving forward. Some actions are going to happen in a very short time period; others are longer term. But you have that 10-year plan where there are different components, and then you can also take advantage different funding opportunities that are available for those little parcels. It’s worked in Europe. It can work here.

Senator Quinn: My last question: Moving forward, would it be fair for me to say that this is an area that’s exposed on many fronts, and would you say that this is something that needs to be dealt with urgently?

Ms. van Proosdij: Absolutely.

Senator Quinn: Thank you.

Senator Dasko: Thanks to our witnesses today for articulating this option.

I want to try to understand what the status is of the proposal that you’ve put forward and the long-term natural options. Would you say you’re seen as an interesting but not going to go there kind of — is that the way it’s viewed right now? I want to get a sense of how it might be — how it is or is not being considered.

I want to also ask you about the cost of it. I’m not sure if either of you mentioned the cost, and if so, I’m sorry; I might have missed it. The three options that we have been told about, range from $200 million to $300 million, but with a caveat that these options are probably going to cost a lot more. That is another thing we picked up. Do you have a cost estimate of the option that you’ve presented to us today?

Ms. van Proosdij: I’ll address your first question first. I will speak with my experience. Most of my experience and collaboration has been with the province of Nova Scotia, and in that, with the Department of Agriculture, yes, integrating a more nature-based solution is something that they are now considering. If you look at their “Working with the Tides” website, they outline now, along with reinforcing traditional dike infrastructure, improving drainage, and dikeland management practices. They also include tidal wetland restoration and managed dike realignment as part of their assessments. For their Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, or DMAF projects, they need to be looking at that as well. So on the Nova Scotia side, absolutely.

The uptake is, perhaps, not as great from the engineering firms. Some are more traditional. There are others that are embracing more environmental methods, and they are definitely considering that. We have been implementing that, and with our new Making Room for Wetlands projects, we are looking strategically within dikeland systems, not directly in the isthmus where we already have done some management realignment, but we are looking at other areas to provide better flood protection, move a dike back in areas where it is not being effectively used for agriculture, improve drainage that will allow us to have tidal wetlands and carbon sequestration, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in those areas.

So on the Nova Scotia side, absolutely. There is a different jurisdiction for dikes in New Brunswick. That has shifted. It used to be Department of Agriculture, and that is where there was a relationship where the Aulac restoration site — about 12 years ago — they worked and moved that dike back. I believe it was 2013 where the jurisdiction was changed from Agriculture on the New Brunswick side to Transportation and Public Works — or Transportation on the New Brunswick side, and there is a different philosophy within that group.

Senator Dasko: And cost?

Ms. van Proosdij: I would not be able to say because this is what Dr. Webster and I are proposing and what I’ve been mentioning. This has not been costed out. We do a costing of what it would cost to maintain and raise an existing dike in a location, let’s say one of the other sites is around Onslow, around Truro, around 90 hectares. The alternative, a nature-based option, was a more cost-effective alternative and particularly for the longer-term benefits because of the longer-term sustainability that results from that more natural approach. I’m happy to speak further another time about that.

Senator Dasko: Thank you.

Senator Cardozo: Just so I understand the geography of the area a little better, how wide is the isthmus in kilometres or miles?

Ms. van Proosdij: I knew I should have looked that up before coming here.

Senator Cardozo: I am looking at it on the map, and it looks like a fairly —

Ms. van Proosdij: It is a very wide area. These were extensive tidal wetlands, some of the largest in the region, prior to the time of diking. So it is a very large area.

Senator Cardozo: It is 20 or 30 kilometres or something like that?

Ms. van Proosdij: I wish I looked that up before I came here. Wide.

Senator Cardozo: Maybe something in that range.

I’ve driven through that area a few times, but I never noticed this interesting part of it. It’s mostly wetlands that we’re talking about in that area?

Ms. van Proosdij: They were former wetlands. There are upland areas as well, so higher-elevation zones, and Dr. Webster can speak more clearly and specifically as to where they are. If you think about it as sort of fingers coming out around the main rivers, the Missaguash River and the Tantramar River, that surrounding land would have been tidal wetlands in the past, but the majority of them were diked by the Acadian settlers in the 1700s.

The exception is — and that is where the image with the rail came in — if you were to look at the images and you look at the Tantramar, the water is able to get right up to the side of the “C” in the “CN Rail.” That vulnerability and realization were not there 20 years ago, but it was raised at that point.

In that case, there is a tidal wetland coming up to the edge. There is a small dike along the edge of the CN Rail. It is a combination of former tidal wetlands that are now diked and now lower in elevation because the land is sinking, and tidal wetlands and intertidal — tidal rivers that will meander — so it’s not a straight line — they are meandering around, and that allows those tides to come in a lot further.

Senator Cardozo: Is there a straight bridge of some kind for automobiles and trains?

Ms. van Proosdij: There is. It is, effectively, a relatively straight line with a bridge and tide gate over the major rivers that, essentially, join Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Senator Cardozo: What you’re saying is just raising that area is not a good solution?

Ms. van Proosdij: No.

Senator Cardozo: Probably is the least costly, but —

Ms. van Proosdij: No. Raising the Trans-Canada Highway itself, and raising the railbed, those are viable options. In those locations, those are options to be considered. They were considered in the engineering report. I don’t know why they didn’t make it to the last three, but those were options looked at, rebuilding and raising the CN Rail, raising the Trans-Canada Highway at that location. My comment about not building dikes up refers to the existing dikes that were originally built by Acadians. They were topped up by the federal government in the 1940s, 1950s, that follow the tidal rivers and come in front of the Bay of Fundy.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Need a picture. We just need a picture.

Ms. van Proosdij: I know. I wish we could share pictures because it’s so much easier once you understand the geography.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you have something to share with us?

Ms. van Proosdij: Yes. Oh, absolutely.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I want to see it.

Ms. van Proosdij: Yes. But I don’t know whether Dr. Webster — because he has access to his computer and screen — would be allowed to show that. I don’t know if that is something — or it could be circulated to the committee afterwards. In the engineering report, you can see the geographies there and where the existing dikes are, and I might refer you to that document.

Senator Cardozo: I have a ton of questions, but just one more at this time. This whole area, then, nobody is living in the area and it is not being farmed or used for any other purpose?

Ms. van Proosdij: Oh, no, people are living in the area, particularly in the towns of Sackville and Amherst.

Senator Cardozo: So that is within these marshlands?

Ms. van Proosdij: They are on the edges of the marshlands, and there are some developments starting to encroach. When the federal government came in the late 1940s and then the province took over in the 1970s, the low-lying lands were classified as marshlands and marsh bodies and developments were restricted in those areas, but you could still have a variance and get a sewage treatment plant, for example, in there. Variances were granted for aspects of the towns to grow out within those particular areas. You do have farms. A lot of it is used for pasture. There are not a lot of cash crops within that area, but the land is used for agriculture. Not everywhere, but there are areas where it is.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you.

Senator Clement: Thank you for being here. Thank you for your work.

This study is a little bit heavy in terms of the future, so it’s good to know that there are some smart people on the job.

Professor, you’ve made the point repeatedly that there has to be a continuum of solutions. We have to do all the things all at the same time. That’s clear. You referenced constructing new defences, which is happening in other places of the world. You referenced that, in Europe, there is more of an emphasis on long-term planning.

What are the barriers here? Why aren’t we in that same space around long-term planning?

Dr. Webster made a comment about politics taking over when he was talking about New Orleans. Are politics and jurisdictional issues a barrier? In other words, are the three orders of government not working together as efficiently as they should?

If you could comment on that, that would be great, both of you.

Ms. van Proosdij: That is a really great question. Within our group, along with some colleagues also at Dalhousie University, we have actually looked at the barriers and drivers for why, in the Nova Scotia context, these types of approaches are not being used. Jurisdiction was one in that it is challenging within the mandates of the various government departments. They are bound to work within particular frameworks. That does create challenges. We have to look at innovations, perhaps.

That was done in the Truro project where Environment, Transport and Public Works saw the land in very different ways, and they worked collaboratively to have that project go forward.

Historically, and what we’ve found in the study, is that, in Atlantic Canada, particularly — in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — there is a very strong sense of heritage — les Acadians — “We build dikes.” The building of dikes is very much connected to the sense of identity in many of these areas. They are very much tied to the sense of self, if you will.

The other barriers are “it’s not going to work; I haven’t seen it done” — the lack of trust in that. Hopefully, that is changing. Some of the work we’re trying to do is to help people visualize what is involved and what happens to that transforming landscape. Things are changing, so I am optimistic that we will be able to have a more balanced path moving forward. It’s just taking a lot more time than we have.

Mr. Webster: Very quickly, it’s about 15 kilometres from Amherst to Sackville. Regarding the Chignecto Isthmus, there were some questions about how wide it is; we’re talking about a 15-kilometre section there.

With respect to why we aren’t considering the bigger picture or looking at it in a more holistic way, the three options when we consider climate change and transportation are to defend, retreat or abandon. Most people want to defend, and it’s a very tough decision to abandon something and move it away. Of course, there would be tremendous opposition to that, probably by several groups. But when we look at the long term of things, we really need to consider that we’re up against Mother Nature. These are natural processes that are taking place that are only going to make things worse in the future in terms of trying to defend that and protect that particular corridor.

The idea of the marshes in front and so forth are very good ideas. Behind the actual corridor, it’s nothing but wetlands. It is totally saturated; the water table is right at the surface. It’s almost as if we have a corridor going through a swamp or a marsh.

When it was built, it was probably the shortest distance between the two towns, and it made sense. Over the long term and with the way things are changing, crustal subsidence with respect to the province, the sea level rising, et cetera, is it throwing good money after bad? That’s something I think we really should consider.

Senator Clement: Thank you, both. That was helpful.

Senator Simons: Dr. Webster, that provides for a perfect segue.

It’s interesting. You’re using these very military analogies, and people see this as a question of ego; that they would rather defend than pull back. I want to talk about the retreat option, because you’re the first person of all the witnesses we’ve heard who have mentioned there is an alternative corridor.

Give us a little bit more detail about how that alternative corridor would work. Would it only be for the Trans-Canada Highway? Is there potential for a rail corridor there?

Explain to me what you think is the better option: Raising the railbed and the roadbed or moving it completely to an alternative route.

Mr. Webster: Thank you.

I must say that I’ve not done extensive cost benefits and those types of things. However, I do know that this type of corridor and infrastructure — we are going to be using that for the end of time, potentially. Therefore, in terms of where it is currently located, regardless of what solution gets decided — and if we raise the roadbed and the railbed, we’re still going to have significant challenges moving forward with the sea-level rise and the potential that we’re seeing with increased storm intensity, and perhaps increased storm frequency. We are really up against Mother Nature in this situation.

Essentially, our analysis has looked at continuing to bring up the sea level where, eventually, Nova Scotia becomes an island, because people realize that is a very narrow corridor between the Northumberland Strait and the Bay of Fundy. There was even a point where we were trying to build a canal to connect those two waterways.

We simply looked at where the high ground is, even though water would connect the two eventually, and said, “There is some higher terrain here as we move away from the Bay of Fundy closer to the Northumberland Strait. There is some higher terrain that, if one were to make a new highway or railbed, et cetera, why would you do it in that low-lying area? Why not pick a higher-terrain area and build that corridor so that you’ve given yourself the time for other actions, as Dr. van Proosdij has discussed, et cetera, allowing those marshes to build?”

There is still significant infrastructure in that low-lying area that we would want to try to protect, but in the long term, moving this corridor really should be looked at and considered rather than the somewhat narrow view that has been taken to date in terms of building new dikes, raising existing dikes and keeping the structure where it is.

Obviously, that would be a very costly thing to do, but when one thinks of the long term, maybe it would be the smarter thing to do. I would think the railbed could go very similar to the highway itself.

Senator Simons: What would that mean for the towns of Amherst and Sackville? I understand it would be a big detour to get from one to the other.

Mr. Webster: It would be, and I’m sure there would be resistance regarding that. The last time I drove through New Brunswick, there was the beautiful new divided highway, but you don’t really see many of the towns that you used to go through on the old Trans-Canada Highway. To me, it would be somewhat similar in that you have a corridor now that, yes, does not take you right beside the towns of Sackville and Amherst. Therefore, they may suffer some economic hardship from that. But the corridor would be, in my opinion, safer and at less risk in the long term.

Senator Simons: What we have heard from witness after witness after witness is the absolutely essential nature of that corridor to supply chains — not just for the people of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland but for all the rest of Canada, everything coming through the Port of Halifax.

Mr. Webster: Exactly.

Senator Simons: It seems to me that spending a lot of money to protect infrastructure that may not be sustainable — these are difficult questions. As you’ve just said, they speak to the soul of the people who live there. But I’m a belt and braces girl. It seems to me madness to spend billions of dollars on something that is inevitably going to be inundated if you could have the insurance policy of having a new highway on high ground that is not as likely to flood. You’re the first person who’s mentioned this. Thank you.

Mr. Webster: Thank you. I would agree with your last statement there. It’s something that I’m pleased I had a chance to present to the committee. As I say, it was in our report, but I’m not sure how seriously people took it. Even speaking to some officials in Nova Scotia, they sort of looked at that idea and thought that’s not even in the realm of possibility. But we do need to think about it.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll be brief. Mr. Webster, the only time you talked about this alternative route was in the report you put out 10 years ago. Could you send us the relevant information on that, unless we already have it? It’s the only reference we have to that option. You haven’t written about it since, I don’t think. That’s my first question.

My second question is this. Does the report include a map that shows the alternative route? How many kilometres is it? My assistant told me that the isthmus route is 24 kilometres, so how many kilometres would the detour be? It would have to be built on higher terrain, as you say, so where, exactly? To the east, west, north or south? Basically, those are the two questions I would like you to answer.

[English]

Mr. Webster: The proposed route is very similar to what I had put in the report in 2012. We now have better elevation data. Before meeting with the committee, I redid that analysis and I believe I included this new map in my notes, which I believe were presented to the committee. Perhaps that didn’t make it to the members.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I wasn’t sure whether this was your map. Thank you.

Mr. Webster: The water is a light-purple colour.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Mr. Webster: With respect to the length and distance, if I go back to my notes — just bear with me, if you would, please.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Just a ballpark, obviously.

Mr. Webster: Yes. We would propose using an existing highway in Nova Scotia that goes from Amherst — and I apologize for all those red lines there. Those are all the roads. I probably should have highlighted. You can see the mass of roads in the town of Amherst.

If we were to go north, that’s approximately 10 kilometres. The thick black line is the proposed new corridor, which is based on the higher terrain, following that high terrain. We’re probably in the order of another less than 30 kilometres, between 20 and 30 kilometres of additional corridor to connect back up to the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick to the west of Sackville.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Here’s my second question: Can you send the committee the report you wrote 10 years ago?

[English]

Mr. Webster: Could I send that report?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Mr. Webster: Yes, absolutely. I will make a comment that in the Wood report, I didn’t see any references to Dr. van Proosdij’s work, which was a bit surprising. The reference that was made to my report in 2012, well, let’s just say, as a college professor, that would have been a big fail. It is extremely poorly referenced. It is referenced to some place in Florida that the website doesn’t even work and it has not even referenced the proper report name and authorship. I thought that was a bit sloppy, to be honest.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s great to have a committee where you can vent like this and say that the work was not done well. Thank you very much for your ideas, both of you.

The Chair: The Senate saves the day again.

Senator Quinn: I want to follow up. This is extremely interesting, the alternatives that are there or the combination of alternatives.

I want to come back to the new corridor itself. I understand very well the higher-terrain approach.

When you were looking at this, surely there must have been some consideration of what that would cost. You’re talking about some new routing, some using existing roadways, probably expanded and whatnot. You must have done some type of a ballpark so people could have an understanding of the order of magnitude, which would be a longer-term solution if not the longest of long term. Again, people will focus on cost. You must have looked at that. I’m wondering what kind of ideas you were putting forward.

Mr. Webster: I’m afraid I did not look at cost. I’m a scientist who is looking at new mapping techniques, potential risk and vulnerability of places. To be honest, the work back in 2012, with a very limited funding envelope, was simply something that, when we looked at the situation and raised the water levels, we thought, well, let’s put this in the report as possible alternatives for others to take and perhaps look at in more detail.

Is it generally in the order of about $1 million per kilometre for building roads? I may be off quite a bit there. My apologies. I did not do an analysis of cost. I would think that people in the business of building roads could do an analysis of that fairly quickly.

Senator Quinn: I appreciate that. I would surmise that, at the end of the day, whatever the alternative or combination of alternatives, including this proposal, costing is very important, because it comes down to the question of who’s going to pay.

Mr. Webster: Yes.

Senator Quinn: That is something that, whatever work is done, will have to be taken into consideration. I guess the new routing would also have to take into consideration the cost of protecting some of the areas you referred to — Amherst, Sackville, Tantramar — and fibre optics, et cetera.

I do appreciate looking at that alternative. I’m just concerned that, as this progresses, people do take into consideration a full costing, so there are fewer surprises as you go forward. Thank you.

The Chair: Professor van Proosdij and Professor Webster, thank you for coming before the committee and taking the committee’s questions. It is very much appreciated.

(The committee adjourned.)