THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 31, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference 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: Good morning, honourable senators. I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order. I am Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
I would like to invite my colleagues, starting from my left, to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, senator from Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are continuing our study of the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector by hearing from researchers from across the country who can share their expertise with us.
On our first panel, we have with us Ryan Ness, Research Director, Adaptation, Canadian Climate Institute; David Sauchyn, Professor and Director, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina; Sebastian Weissenberger, Professor in environmental sciences, Université TÉLUQ; and Natalie Carter, Community Engagement Lead, StraightUpNorth, McMaster University.
Welcome and thank you for joining us.
[Translation]
Each witness will have five minutes for opening remarks, after which we’ll open the floor to questions.
[English]
We will start with Ryan Ness. Mr. Ness, you have the floor.
Ryan Ness, Director, Adaptation, Canadian Climate Institute: Thank you very much, Senator Housakos, for the invitation to speak. My name is Ryan Ness. I am the Director of Adaptation at the Canadian Climate Institute, which is Canada’s independent climate policy research organization. We generate research and advice for key decision makers to make informed policy decisions and to drive action that is in proportion to the scale of the challenge that climate change poses for Canada, whether it be adaptation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or transitioning our economy.
The Canadian Climate Institute has examined many of the potential impacts and costs of climate change on Canada’s infrastructure as well as the benefits of proactively adapting that infrastructure as part of our Costs of Climate Change for Canada research series, which is the most comprehensive study to date of the economic implications of climate change impacts for this country.
Today, I will highlight key findings and recommendations from our work that I hope will be helpful to the committee in its efforts to identify the regions and critical pieces of transportation and communications infrastructure in Canada that are most vulnerable to climate change and that can most benefit from adaptation action.
The first key point is that Canada’s road and rail infrastructure is highly vulnerable to slow-onset impacts of climate change. While we often picture climate change causing catastrophic damage to roads, railways and bridges during extreme weather events, such as the 2021 British Columbia floods, the slower and more insidious effects of climate change can have an equal or even greater impact on transportation infrastructure.
For example, our analysis found that the wear on roads from ever-hotter summers and more frequent year-round rainfall across much of the country could increase maintenance and repair costs for Canada’s 2.8 million kilometres of roads by up to $3.5 billion annually by 2050 and by almost up to $8 billion annually by 2080.
The second key point is that the costs of delay and disruption from road and rail infrastructure that is less reliable and out of service more often because of these slow-onset impacts could be of the same order of magnitude as those associated with paying for climate-change-induced repairs. Our analysis showed that the costs of slower personal travel and freight delays associated with out-of-service or underperforming road and rail infrastructure could amount to $1 billion annually by 2050 and $2 billion annually by 2080.
Fortunately, there are some straightforward adaptation solutions that can prevent and delay damage to those kinds to infrastructure.
Our analysis shows that relatively low-cost modifications to road asphalt materials and road embankment designs and temperature monitoring systems on railways to identify when hazardous conditions are occurring under high heat where rails kink can eliminate 75% to 98% of damage and delay costs.
A third key finding from our research is that people in Canada’s North are by far the most affected by climate change impacts to transportation infrastructure. Climate change in the North is happening faster and having a greater impact than in the rest of Canada, and all projections indicate this will continue to be the case.
Our modelling suggests that nearly all the permafrost on which most northern infrastructure is built, including all-weather roads, will thaw by the end of the century, requiring extensive repairs and often complete rebuilding. We estimate the cost to territorial governments could easily double current annual spending on roads within one or two decades to keep up with this repair backlog.
Winter snow and ice roads, which are critical for remote communities to travel and import essential supplies at reasonable transportation costs, are disappearing quickly. We estimate that more than half of winter roads in the North will be non-viable within 30 years, with most of the remainder disappearing by the end of the century.
Airports, which are another critical transportation link for remote communities, face not only slumping runways from permafrost thaw but changing wind conditions and warmer temperatures that cause the air to be less dense. This means that planes will be able to carry less cargo and passengers than they currently do with current airport infrastructure and runway lengths.
Adaptation of transportation infrastructure in the North will be a challenging and costly undertaking. The incremental improvements to design and materials that can prevent impacts to southern roads and runways will not protect that infrastructure in the North. Investments in completely new infrastructure will be required, sometimes leapfrogging to entirely new types of infrastructure and systems, perhaps such as the airships currently being piloted in some parts North, to be able to provide northern communities with the transportation services they need.
These kinds of investments and actions are needed immediately. Northern communities and especially Indigenous communities already have a more difficult time accessing critical services than people in the South, and this gap will widen as climate change accelerates in the North.
I hope these insights are of assistance to the committee. I look forward to the testimony of the other experts who are joining this morning and to the questions that follow. Back to you, Senator Housakos.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ness. We will turn it over to Professor Sauchyn.
David Sauchyn, Professor, Director, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, as an individual: Good morning, honourable chair and members of the committee. Thanks for the invitation to participate in this panel.
I’ll begin by referring to the national and provincial building codes for the design and construction of engineering structures, such as the National Building Code of Canada and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. These codes specify climatic design variables, such as a range of temperature and humidity, amount and intensity of precipitation, wind pressures and snow and ice loads. Climate change is altering all of these variables. Thus, most of our existing public infrastructure was designed using weather data from a climate that no longer exists.
Exposure and vulnerability to climate change determine the physical risks. I will address vulnerability in a few minutes; however, the expertise of my research centre is the study of climatic variability, climatic change and extreme weather events.
These three scales of weather and climate represent different types of hazards, although they are interrelated. As the climate changes, there are shifts in variability and an amplified severity of extreme weather events.
Given that brief lesson in climate science, let’s consider how and where transportation and communication systems are exposed to climate hazards. In Canada, much of the warming is occurring in winter. While this lowers our exposure to extreme cold, climate models indicate that warmer winters will have storms of longer duration and greater intensity. Also, winter precipitation will increasingly involve freezing rain. Communities and industrial sites in Northern Canada will be the most disadvantaged by the loss of a cold winter, as the previous witness indicated.
While these slow-onset climate changes will be consequential, extreme weather events have immediate impacts, as demonstrated by recent floods and wildfires. Heavy rainfall, flooding and heat waves can damage infrastructure, resulting in higher maintenance and repair costs and reduced lifespans. They can also disrupt transportation networks and supply chains, leading to delays, cancellations and closures and an increased risk of accidents.
At this point, I want to depart from the consensus of opinion on climate impacts in Canada, as typified by the National Adaptation Strategy and various other climate change reports that refer to flooding, storms, sea-level rise and forest fires as the dominant climate hazards in Canada. In the Prairies, where I live and work, the worst-case scenario is not these hazards but successive years of drought in a warming climate. The Prairies is the only region of Canada where water supplies can entirely disappear. This scenario is presently playing out in southern Alberta, where streams have run dry, reservoirs are low, and communities are taking preventive actions to maintain their water supplies.
The municipality of Pincher Creek, for example, has mandated extreme water restrictions. By hauling water, they hope to avoid a critical stage where potable water use is limited to just drinking and sanitation. When the commercial consumption of water is restricted, then the use of trucks and trains is diverted from industrial products to moving water and livestock feed, as is the case right now.
Drought has other implications. Low water levels can undermine the integrity of bridge foundations and dams. Forest fires are the outcome of drought, and water may not be available to fight fires. Under this extreme scenario that is being considered, some structures could be sacrificed in the absence of water.
Supply chains are disrupted when commodities are affected by drought, particularly in the agricultural sector, but also with cascading effects. Dust storms can damage equipment and affect the performance of communication structures. Dust storms have been the cause of multiple-vehicle accidents on prairie highways.
Droughts are relieved when precipitation is sufficient, but sometimes it is excessive. These compound hazards can have a whiplash effect, with more severe effects than just drought and flooding that occur in insolation.
I mentioned that I would speak briefly about vulnerability, the other term in the climate risk equation. Canada’s transportation and communication networks are vulnerable because they service a population that is dispersed over a huge area. The provinces with the most miles of roads are Saskatchewan and Alberta, which were surveyed in mile-by-mile sections that are bounded by roads and road allowances. The maintenance and repair of these roads fall to rural municipalities, which typically lack the resources to maintain them. Also, poor or no internet or cellphone service compounds vulnerability, given the essential role of communication in emergency response.
The disclosure of climate-related risks should include an evaluation of dependency on transportation and communications. The potentially enormous social and financial costs of climate change can be addressed by enhancing the resilience and effectiveness of communications and transportation networks. Adaptation strategies include innovations in infrastructure design and developing more efficient transportation systems that can withstand the impacts of climate change.
Sustainable and low-emission transportation options include electric vehicles; however, the electrification of transportation will lead to increased energy demand and challenges for power infrastructure. The reliable generation of baseload energy relies on water, either directly or as a cooling agent, and thus is compromised by drought.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Sauchyn.
Now I turn it over to Natalie Carter. You have the floor.
Natalie Carter, Community Engagement Lead, StraightUpNorth, McMaster University, as an individual: Thank you. Good morning, chair, honourable senators and fellow panellists. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. I am Dr. Natalie Carter, joining you today from Guelph, Ontario, and I am honoured to be speaking with you.
As a non-Indigenous person, I have been conducting collaborative social science research with community members and organizations in Arctic Canada since 2016. My expertise is weaving scientific methods and Inuit knowledge to develop actionable solutions that meet Inuit community needs and inform government decision making.
In the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices research project — my focus today — I led engagement with Arctic communities, methodology, data collection, analysis and results sharing. Our collective goal was to infuse Inuit knowledge, concerns and recommendations in decision making surrounding increased marine shipping in Arctic Canada.
I have three main points: First, the problem is that, driven by climate change, marine shipping traffic is increasing in Arctic Canada, which negatively impacts Inuit travel safety, food security and cultural interests and poses environmental and wildlife risks and risks to maritime traffic safety.
Second, if unmanaged, significant impacts to Inuit and ship operator safety, Inuit food security and environmental damage due to accidents are probable and will be very difficult to respond to, given the remoteness of Arctic Canada.
Third, the proposed Government of Canada-led Low-Impact Shipping Corridors framework provides opportunities for shared leadership using informed measures to lessen negative impacts on Inuit and ship operator safety, wildlife, the environment and Inuit harvesting areas.
Marine shipping traffic has more than doubled in Arctic Canada since 1990 and is expected to grow as climate change makes the Arctic Ocean more accessible. Around 50,000 Canadians, 47,000 of whom are Inuit, live in communities along the Arctic Ocean. Increased marine shipping driven by climate change plus growing international interest in Arctic sovereignty, tourism and marine trade have Inuit communities concerned about the impacts of ships on safe, sustainable and subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering — activities vital for cultural well-being, livelihoods and food security.
Our partnered research with 14 Arctic communities recorded Inuit concerns that the marine areas that are most significant to those harvesting activities, which they rely on daily and year‑round for food and income, are located in the heart of the Northwest Passage — in exactly the same areas experiencing increases in ship traffic. We documented how this increase threatens Inuit ability to safely travel on the water and sea ice and access wild food, and we documented risks such as contamination due to accidents, disruption to Inuit travel and safety and interference and disturbance of wildlife.
The Government of Canada is developing a network of shipping corridors to support shipping governance in Arctic Canada while lowering shipping impacts in key areas. The corridors’ objectives are to establish safe corridors for ships to take while minimizing effects of shipping on wildlife and respecting culturally and ecologically significant areas. In 14 Arctic communities, we documented Inuit-identified actionable solutions and recommendations for the corridors.
Our survey of Inuit organizations and federal agency and industry representatives showed that the corridors framework has high potential to reduce the negative impacts and risks of Arctic ship traffic as well as to value and use Inuit knowledge to support decisions about corridor location and governance.
In summary, increased shipping negatively impacts marine traffic safety, Inuit travel safety and cultural interests, and it poses environmental and wildlife risks. If unmanaged, significant impacts to personal safety of Canadians, Inuit food security and environmental damage due to accidents are probable and will be very hard to respond to.
The proposed Government of Canada-led Low-Impact Shipping Corridors framework provides opportunities for shared leadership and enhanced safety for Inuit communities, ship operators, wildlife and the environment.
Thank you, senators, for your attention and for this opportunity to appear before you today and to those who facilitated this meeting.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Carter.
[Translation]
I now give the floor to Professor Weissenberger.
Sebastian Weissenberger, Professor in environmental science, Université TÉLUQ, as an individual: I thank the committee for inviting me. My name is Sebastian Weissenberger, and I’m a professor of environmental science at Université TÉLUQ. Today, I’m going to talk about Quebec and New Brunswick in particular, as my research takes place mainly in these provinces. Also, since most of the communities I work with are francophone, I’ll make my presentation in French, but I’ll be happy to answer questions in English afterwards.
My research topics focus on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, particularly in coastal and flood-prone areas.
The main hazards affecting transport infrastructure in these areas are erosion and submersion — or flooding, which is more or less an equivalent term.
These hazards are affected in a number of ways by climate change. First, storms are expected to be more severe; not necessarily more frequent, but of greater magnitude. We’re already seeing changes in winter conditions, such as the absence of sea ice during winter, which exposes coasts to storm impacts or more frequent freezing and thawing episodes in winter, which increase gelifraction and erosion of coasts, and unconsolidated cliffs.
And, of course, sea levels are rising. To date, sea levels have risen by about 20 centimetres. According to forecasts in the sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, a further rise of 38 centimetres to 77 centimetres is expected by the end of the century. However, the accelerated melting of the large Greenland and Antarctic ice caps has not yet been factored into this figure, which could therefore be higher. We also need to bear in mind that sea levels will continue to rise for several centuries, if not millennia, and will reach several metres during this period. So this is a very long-term problem.
Certain characteristics of Quebec and New Brunswick make them particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, since a large proportion of the population and infrastructure are located near the coast or in flood-prone river valleys. Roads and railroads are often located on the water’s edge or in flood-prone areas. Examples include Route 132 in the Gaspé region, Route 138 on the North Shore, Route 113 on the Acadian Peninsula, Route 114 along the Bay of Fundy and Route 119 in the Magdalen Islands. In all these cases, roads are often flooded, damaged or in need of repair. What’s more, communications are often interrupted, causing a great deal of inconvenience, delays and significant costs for public authorities, and affecting communities in a very significant way.
There’s another peculiarity: There are often very few bypass routes for the population. So, as soon as a road is cut off, it causes very long delays for people, and it also causes problems for emergency services, who can’t get to places where they need to be within a reasonable time. It can even lead to situations like the one we saw in the Saint John River valley during the spring floods of 2018, when isolated communities had to be evacuated by the Canadian Coast Guard because there was no way to get there by land. All kinds of very important issues will arise more and more.
Then there’s the problem of certain critical infrastructure that may be inaccessible in the event of flooding. I’m thinking in particular of the Fredericton hospital and certain government buildings that are inaccessible during a flood, specifically because the access ramps to the bridges are flooded, so you can’t drive or cross the bridges. Other examples include Moncton’s fire station, which is located in a flood zone; its command centre has to be relocated when flooding occurs. Many infrastructures are not necessarily flooded themselves, but become inaccessible when transportation corridors are cut.
In addition, there are certain major transportation routes such as the Trans-Canada Highway and VIA Rail’s Ocean train line which, in southern New Brunswick, particularly in the Saint John River valley or in the Tantramar Marshes, are located in flood‑prone areas and are regularly interrupted. We’re talking about transportation infrastructure that is absolutely critical for the entire Maritimes.
How are communities and municipalities adapting? There are many ways to adapt: artificial protection, natural protection and better land-use planning, of course. There is also the question of upgrading infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure. I will mention two examples. The City of Fredericton has implemented the mainstreaming of climate change in the refurbishment and maintenance of infrastructure, meaning that every time infrastructure is maintained, it is upgraded in relation to expected climate change, based on climate models and historical flood maps that the city has drawn up.
On a smaller scale, Pointe-du-Chêne, a small municipality on the Acadian coast, would regularly get cut off from the mainland during floods and storms. Following a research project led by Omer Chouinard of the Université de Moncton, the municipality identified the raising of the bridge as an adaptation priority and succeeded in obtaining funding from the Department of Transportation to raise the bridge by one or two metres. Immediately after its construction, in 2010, during a major storm that reached record levels, the bridge was not flooded. It was noted that this investment immediately paid off handsomely for the community.
The fact remains that, generally speaking, what we hear in all the research projects being carried out is that the impact of climate change on roads and transportation infrastructure remains a major challenge for municipalities and communities in the two provinces I’ve named, but this can be extended to other provinces, such as British Columbia, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. So it’s a Canada-wide problem.
On that note, I thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Weissenberger. We will now open the floor to questions.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you, witnesses, for being with us today. They were very interesting testimonies.
I’m going to ask two questions. My first question is to do with the Arctic. My second question, which I will put first but ask you to think about, is this: Professor Weissenberger, you are probably aware that we have been looking at the Chignecto Isthmus as one of those vulnerable points in Canada — in fact globally. I would like to have the other witnesses give specific examples. I will come back to that. The question I want to ask first is to do with the Arctic.
Ms. Carter, you have given some compelling — frightening, I can say — testimony with respect to shipping lanes, the increased frequencies of vessels transiting those areas, the lack of preparedness and the difficulty of accessing areas should and when incidents occur. My question, really, is this: With questions of sovereignty and all those types of things, is this not the time when we should be recommending that policy-makers look at this area in a very concentrated way and look at the regulatory regime that would need to be put in place? I’m thinking about things like vessel reporting structures such as the ones we have on the East and West Coasts and also the types of cargoes that can be put through there — with the proper escorts — and things of that nature.
Isn’t this the time? If we wait, as increased navigation continues, we are increasing the risk of incidents. It’s really about the preparatory work that needs to be done, and it needs to be done now. I am almost looking for a bit of a recommendation that we may want to report on.
That is for Ms. Carter and any others.
The Chair: Dr. Carter, maybe you can launch this off, and the other witnesses can weigh in as they see fit.
Ms. Carter: Yes, I would be happy to. Thank you for the question, Senator Quinn.
Absolutely, this is the time. Certainly, we have seen that shipping traffic is increasing but is still at a level that is not as high as in, for instance — as you said — other coasts of Canada. So, this is an excellent time for policy-makers to be looking at these regulatory regimes and reporting on and looking at the types of cargo that are going through.
My understanding is that through the Low-Impact Shipping Corridors framework, some of the goals are to be able to provide that enhanced charting and weather information and to make these routes safer for ships to take. The concept — to the best of my knowledge, since I don’t work for the federal government — is that those corridors would be voluntary and incentivized. The intent is not for them to be mandatory or that there would be regulations for those. There are, of course, other regulations for ship types that can be in the Arctic and these sorts of things.
Definitely, the time is ripe for really moving this forward in order to be prepared and to meaningfully include Inuit and northerners who are in those regions, with their input and expertise of the areas as well.
Senator Quinn: I agree. If it’s a voluntary system, it makes me think of other areas of the world where we have international waterways that a nation has put mandatory requirements on. Our fear, I think, is that we have an inability to enforce regulatory regimes in some of our waterways, particularly in the North. Without it being mandatory — if you are going to volunteer, then great, but it really doesn’t address the risk that will present itself. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Carter: Yes, I do think that it has been identified by our research participants as a weakness of the corridors’ framework that it is not mandatory that ships be in those corridors once they are developed.
Senator Quinn: The other question, if I can come back to it, is this: Since we’re looking for the opportunity to examine specific cases, do the witnesses have areas that they would say are very much at risk that we should be looking at in our little microscopic studies, such as that which we have just done on the Chignecto Isthmus? I’m just wondering if can we tap into your views on that, your advice.
Ms. Carter: Thank you. Absolutely. There are areas that are vulnerable, and within our research, working with the 14 communities, we have mapped those areas — culturally significant marine areas that are very important and vulnerable. As well, we have mapped recommendations within the corridors for key areas to avoid, to restrict shipping, modify vessels, where charting is needed and preferred corridors. I would be happy to share the information about those locations.
Senator Quinn: That’s great. Thank you. The other witnesses, if you can quickly just identify areas of priority from your expertise.
Mr. Weissenberger: Yes, some regions that I mentioned in my presentation would be the Gaspé Peninsula because it very much depends on one road that goes around the whole peninsula and very few other roads on the inside. So when this road is cut off, then communities are isolated, sometimes for several days. Of course, you mentioned the Chignecto Isthmus, which we know has a lot of critical transportation infrastructure — rail and the Trans-Canada Highway. In 1869, during the Saxby Gale, Nova Scotia temporarily became an island, and that is something that might happen again more frequently in the future. So, definitely there is some thought to be given on how to maintain those critical pieces of infrastructure.
Senator Quinn: The other witnesses, if you could just identify an area that’s of particular concern to you.
Mr. Sauchyn: Yes, as I mentioned, the most vulnerable communities are in the North and in the Prairies, in particular, in northern Manitoba. The remote Indigenous communities depend on a cold winter — and we’re losing the cold winter — because so much of the transportation occurs in the winter, when it’s much easier to move especially large volumes of goods, or you can more easily transport them over frozen lakes, frozen tundra and frozen bogs.
Mr. Ness: I would echo Dr. Sauchyn. There are a number of remote communities in the North that we and others can help identify which are dependent on winter roads or on single all‑weather roads — usually gravel roads that are under threat from thawing permafrost — which only have one way in and one way out. I would be happy to help identify those offline.
Senator Quinn: Or if you could send them to the clerk, that would be helpful too. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I want to double-dip, I guess, as it were, because I’m just concluding a Senate inquiry into municipal-federal relations, and I was very struck by what Professor Weissenberger and Dr. Sauchyn had to say about the fact that much of this infrastructure is the responsibility of municipalities to maintain. The description of the highways in Alberta and Saskatchewan is particularly apt because these have been downloaded to rural municipalities that may not have the resources to do the climate mitigation work. How do you think the municipal and federal governments ought to work together, sometimes in the absence of cooperation from the provincial sphere, to make sure that the infrastructure is not left — whether it be dikes in British Columbia, roads in Saskatchewan or road networks on the Gaspé Peninsula — for municipalities that don’t have the necessary resources to do that maintenance and upkeep?
Mr. Sauchyn: Well, that is probably a policy question that I’m not sure I have the expertise to address because it’s largely the responsibility of the provincial governments to support the rural municipalities, in particular, which lack resources —
Senator Simons: Yes, it is. I know you are from Alberta, and I know you know why I’m laughing.
Mr. Sauchyn: Actually, I’m in Saskatchewan.
Senator Simons: But you are from Alberta, and so I claim you as ours.
Mr. Sauchyn: That’s right. It’s a critical problem. I don’t know if you have ever attended a ratepayers’ meeting or been in a small town hall in a small community on the Prairies. I get invited to talk about climate change, but the discussion is all about culverts, bridges and road bands. They really struggle to maintain the grid road network, which is so extensive.
Mr. Weissenberger: I was probably oversimplifying in my short presentation because obviously some roads are a provincial responsibility, some roads are municipal, others are federal responsibility, and some are even in the private domain if you talk about train tracks, which is a complicated issue. But in general terms, adaptation really relies on communities and municipalities that bear the brunt of adaptation. Coastal zones, however, are mostly of the provincial responsibility.
One thing that we see in the research projects is that participants would like to have a more integrated approach to climate change adaptation that brings together the different levels of government and also the different departments in government, because the transport ministry will look at culverts and some technical issues, but the whole issue of roads is about where roads lead and why people need roads, and that’s the whole way that we develop our territories and especially territories which are vulnerable to climate change. So definitely, we need a broader and more global view on those issues and a long-term strategy, as well, that is not just about repairing things once they get broken but about really thinking 10, 20 or 30 years ahead.
Senator Simons: Mr. Ness, I’m also the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. We are doing a soil study and had some witnesses come before us who are experts in permafrost who froze my blood by pointing out that permafrost is a huge carbon sink and that once the permafrost melts, the amount of carbon that will be released will have a catastrophic impact on climate change. I don’t know if you would have the same perspective, because we’re talking here about the inconvenience of the runways having holes in them or the roads sinking. What would be the impact on climate change in general, from your perspective, if that permafrost really does all melt by the end of this century?
Mr. Ness: It’s not specifically my area of expertise, but I understand there is the potential for, as you say, a massive release of stored carbon as permafrost thaws in Canada, and, as I said, our modelling and others suggest that virtually all permafrost in Canada will be gone within a century.
The amount of carbon that will be released I think is still highly uncertain, but the potential that contributes in a significant manner to global climate change is real. We shouldn’t underestimate, though, the significance that this has for the North and for northerners. Literally entire communities and infrastructure systems are built on what previously was this frozen ground that was relatively stable. All of that infrastructure — sewer pipes, water systems, roads, bridges, buildings — that is built on that foundation will no longer be stable and, in most cases, cannot be saved in place and will have to be completely rebuilt or moved or transitioned to another kind of infrastructure, as I said, which will be a massive burden for northern communities and governments.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s all rather depressing. My first question is fairly pragmatic and is for Mr. Weissenberger and Mr. Ness. What can we do about all this? You mentioned asphalt, which seems to me to be a lower-cost solution than changing an entire road. Are there already places in Canada where builders are using a type of asphalt that can better withstand water, I imagine, or major storms? Is prevention already being done to that effect?
If roads can no longer be built on permafrost and it’s difficult for air traffic, does that mean — and I think that’s already happening — that everything will have to go through waterways? Is this the only way to get supplies to the north? Some northern communities don’t have access to waterways, either, and will be stranded.
Let’s start with asphalt.
Mr. Weissenberger: Thank you, senator. That’s a very good question to which I don’t have an answer. I’ll try to find out if certain types of asphalt are more resistant to flooding, as we often see roads that are physically very damaged. It’s also often due to erosion of the substrate below the road — unconsolidated cliffs. This is a problem. Certain roads in New Brunswick, for example, have had to be moved entirely because of coastal erosion. Obviously, just changing the asphalt won’t solve the problem. I’ll look into it. Thank you very much for your question.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Ness?
Mr. Ness: Thank you for your question. I will answer it in English.
[English]
There are small examples of some municipalities that are looking forward to the future climate conditions and building that into their road maintenance programs, as was pointed out by Dr. Sauchyn. I believe much of the challenge here is in ensuring that building codes and standards reflect the fact that the climate is changing. And direct infrastructure owners and operators, like municipalities and others who build and operate roads, are looking forward to the conditions of the future and investing in what some cases is a marginal amount more in maintenance and rehabilitation that occur regularly so that what is built can withstand climate 10, 20, 30 years into the future, and the road continues to be there and experience those conditions.
As the previous witness mentioned, for catastrophic impacts like flooding, there is relatively little that can be done to build roads that will withstand coastal erosion or major floods. But for the slow-onset changes that are creeping up on and eating away at our infrastructure, there are many things that can be done.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Weissenberger, would the only solution be to use bypass roads? Given how slowly roads are built — in the Gaspé Peninsula, for example, I’m thinking of Highway 20, which is still dragging a bit — should bypass roads be considered right now? After all, it’s not once we’re faced with a catastrophic climate situation that we need to start building roads. Or are we in an impossible situation?
Mr. Weissenberger: The two options, as you say, are stabilizing existing roads or building roads further inland, so in less exposed areas. This could help the population. Other modes of transport could also be developed, but we’d have to think about what those other modes might be. Indeed, pretty heavy investments are involved.
When it comes to infrastructure, building or moving roads comes with costs for public authorities. An attempt could also be made to make people more self-reliant during times of crisis, reducing the impact of being cut off from transport routes for two, three or four days. If remote communities were more self‑reliant, the impact would be reduced. Acting on communities rather than on infrastructure per se would be another solution.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: People should get huge refrigerators.
Mr. Weissenberger: Refrigerators and electric batteries that last several days, because often the problem for more isolated communities is the lack of power for a few days, and the lack of drinking water and essentials. A number of mayors have told us that these are solutions they’d like to see implemented, so that their communities would be resilient in the face of this kind of an event. I know we’re not talking about electrical infrastructure, but it’s somewhat the same problem.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.
I would like to follow up on Professor Sauchyn’s comments on winter roads. Winter roads are seasonal roads only usable during the winter, often running over frozen bodies of water. I’m from Manitoba, and we have approximately 22 winter roads that go to Indigenous, First Nations and remote communities in northern Manitoba. The winter road season typically is January to March, but that season over the last years has gotten shorter and shorter. The winter roads are essential to some of these communities to haul freight, supplies and provide access for those residents to be able to travel out of the province.
Professor Sauchyn, perhaps I’ll start with you and then open it up to the other witnesses. For these communities, can you elaborate on the adaptation measures currently in place, and can you suggest other adaptation measures that should be considered?
Mr. Sauchyn: Senator, you have captured the problem quite nicely, and it’s especially acute in northern Manitoba. The major adaptation strategy is to construct all-weather roads, which, of course, is difficult and expensive because they have to extend over long distances. But that is the ultimate solution. In the near term, there is much more dependence on flying in goods and people. Of course, it’s a critical problem if there is a need for health care in the winter and people can’t access adequate or necessary health care because they are isolated.
I have been in the northern forest and spoken to Indigenous people, and they much prefer winter, despite how the rest of Canadians hate winter. They really appreciate winter because it’s a season in which they can get around.
Senator Osler: Professor Sauchyn, if you can comment, some communities are dependent on ice roads, where they’re dependent on having that big frozen piece of ice. I’m wondering if you can comment on how best to look after those communities.
Mr. Sauchyn: Well, in the case of the all-weather roads, it necessitates bridges, of course, which adds to the expense. So when we talk about winter roads, largely, they are built on crossing of large lakes and wetlands, bogs and fens, which cannot be used the rest of the year. As I said, the solution is to construct all-weather roads which to a large extent would require bridges and a lot of fill in order to elevate these roads above the wet ground.
The Chair: Does anybody else have any comment on that? Dr. Carter?
Ms. Carter: Thank you.
Yes, to add to this idea of making communities more autonomous and the adaptation measures that are in place and being considered, certainly, Arctic communities are conducting their own monitoring of local conditions, ice conditions, and they’re installing weather forecast stations. Through research that I’m working on currently, we have identified a number of infrastructure needs that will help them to become more autonomous, to travel safely and harvest during these times when they are cut off and at all other times. These include providing more tide information, needing more weather stations, creating forecast products that are easy to interpret, increasing the number of VHF repeaters and cell towers in order to communicate outside of cell service, needing more real-time weather information, faster and more affordable internet and more accurate short-term forecasts, as well as making ice charts and satellite images simpler to use.
In this way, they could be autonomous, go out and travel safely to harvest their own food and materials needed to help sustain their own communities and not rely at any time, but especially during emergencies, quite so much on products coming from the South, from outside of their communities.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I’m a member of the Senate National Defence Committee, and we have recently been studying Arctic security with a number of developments there. Canada is, of course, rolling off the docks at Irving several Arctic-ready ships that we have contracted for. A contract is about to be put out for submarines that Canada will be buying, so there is expected to be more submarine activity, not to mention the fact that there is foreign submarine activity. We learned on our trip to the North that there is vastly increased Coast Guard activity. This is all under the topic of national security, broadly speaking.
Professor Carter, how are these developments being taken into consideration in your analysis of shipping corridors? In your view, how do they all fit together? It’s obvious that the Arctic is opening up in so many ways, and I wonder if you have given any thought to these kinds of developments and how they fit in with the work that you are doing. Thank you.
Ms. Carter: Thank you for this question, Senator Dasko. Yes, absolutely, this topic of security and sovereignty comes up many times in our research speaking with Inuit and also with other representatives involved in shipping. Certainly, with this concept of the Low-Impact Shipping Corridors, having those lines on a map helps to designate that this is under Canadian jurisdiction. It sends a message in that regard.
Certainly, we are hearing from community members about concerns related to shipping, not knowing who is coming through, why they are there or what’s happening. We know that even during bans, a small boat came through the Northwest Passage. They speak about having seen submarines. Certainly, the Canadian Rangers and the Guardians programs are deeply involved, as well as the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary. Inuit say repeatedly, “Canadians first and first Canadians.” They are very much invested in being the eyes and ears of what’s happening within their marine areas.
The Chair: Would anybody else like to weigh in on that? Senator Dasko, do you have any further questions?
Senator Dasko: No.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you to all the witnesses who have come before us.
Mr. Weissenberger, I have a couple of questions about two different situations in Quebec. One, as you mentioned, the road around the Gaspé Peninsula has been down from time to time. Can you tell us a bit more about how that happened? Is it because the road is close to the water level, or have there been other problems in that area?
The other area I keep thinking about is Highway 40 going into Montreal around the Lake of Two Mountains. Looking on a map here, on Île aux Tourtes, just west of the bridge, there is a section of maybe a kilometre that is close to water level. A couple of years ago, when the water level was high, it was only protected by a bunch of sandbags. That is a major highway going into Montreal.
Whose responsibility would it be to deal with that piece of highway?
Mr. Weissenberger: Immediately to your second question, I don’t know. I’ll do research. I suppose it’s the provincial government, since it’s major transport infrastructure, but I’ll inquire into that.
Senator Cardozo: It’s the Trans-Canada Highway.
Mr. Weissenberger: It might also be a federal issue. I don’t know. That’s a very good question. I’ll try to put that in a brief if I can find the information.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Weissenberger: As for the Gaspé Peninsula, this road, like many coastal roads, is often very close to water, so it can be submerged. There can be debris on it from high winds, for example, such as trees, branches, et cetera. There can be landslides that bring debris onto the roads, and sometimes even strong waves can cause quick erosion, and some of the roads physically fall into the water. There are many ways that this road can become impassable. Some are easier to alleviate than others. Cleaning up debris usually happens in a day or two, but other damage can be much longer to fix.
Senator Cardozo: Yes, I would imagine some would be harder to fix, which would mean that certain villages or towns could be out of reach for a period of time.
Mr. Weissenberger: Yes, or with limited reach if you have to reduce the road to one lane where certain heavy trucks would not be able to pass any longer, and that causes problems with providing goods and services to those villages. One could go around the other way, but that’s many hours of detour.
Senator Cardozo: My other question is to Ms. Carter about the Far North, the Arctic. You have talked about a lot of the mitigating factors that you are looking at, but the way I’m thinking about it is at what point we keep doing mitigating, and at what point the area changes so much due to climate change and global warming that it becomes an impossible area to fix over time.
Ms. Carter: That’s a very complex question, which in some ways is beyond my area of expertise. I would say what I have learned in my past seven years of learning from and working with Inuit is that they are incredibly adaptable and have been for 4,000 years. If they can have the infrastructure in place to be able to give them the information and safe travel and communication that they need, I firmly believe that they will continue to adapt within this changing climate as much as possible.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Carter: Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all our witnesses for appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
We are now pleased to have before us John Gradek, Faculty Lecturer, School of Continuing Studies, McGill University; and, via video conference, Barry Prentice, Director of the University of Manitoba Transport Institute and Professor at the University of Manitoba Supply Chain Management Department.
Welcome to both of you and welcome to our committee and our study. Each of you will have five minutes for opening statements, and then I will turn it over to my colleagues for Q & A. Mr. Gradek, you have the floor.
John Gradek, Faculty Lecturer, School of Continuing Studies, McGill University, as an individual: I would like to thank the Senate committee for extending to me the invitation to be with you this morning to present my thoughts and observations regarding the motion to study recent issues related to critical transportation infrastructure as impacted by climate change.
As the committee invitation noted, I come to you today with close to 50 years’ worth of experience in both air and rail infrastructure and operations in Canada. While my parents thought it best for me to develop my academic and professional credentials as an electrical engineer, my career path can best be characterized as one of serendipity, where opportunities presented themselves that piqued my curiosity and my sense of wonder.
My air transportation experience started about 50 years ago, enabling me to understand the importance of a well-integrated community of stakeholders working together to achieve service levels that attract travellers and shippers. My air experience has also allowed me to observe the behaviours of stakeholders in the environment when faced with disruption and how these stakeholders established mitigating practices to minimize the impact of such disruption. A thorough understanding of air infrastructure was very much a key competency of mine.
My rail experience followed my aviation experience and was focused on introducing life-cycle asset management into a corporate culture that wasn’t used to life-cycle asset management. Along with a business process re-engineering undertaking of transportation, I had the responsibility for the redesign of the motive power fleet and subsequently introduced service by design, again focusing on right-sizing the railway infrastructure.
In my academic activities, I have put my knowledge of air and rail modes to good use in the study of supply chain practices, gaining insights in opportunities for improvement as well as identifying bottlenecks affecting supply chain performance. While COVID-19 has taken the limelight in bringing supply chain shortcomings to the forefront of public discussions, climate change has a far greater influence on the state of Canada’s transportation networks.
Let’s start with air. Weather patterns are changing in Canada, and such disruption has already been affecting the ability of the air service to maintain its operational integrity. Precipitation has become heavier, more volatile and more impactful on airports and airlines. Atmospheric winds, turbulence and surface temperatures all impact on aviation operating parameters. A warmer climate in Canada’s North is disrupting the airport infrastructure, turning runways and airport aprons into areas of greater operating risk. Only 10 of the country’s 120 airports in the North can be considered to be hardened and less subject to climate change disruption.
The commercial aviation business model has been operating on a user-pay basis for the last 30 years. The COVID-19 pandemic has turned this model onto itself, with air travel restricted by government and health edicts for over 18 months. Airport authorities continued to operate with little to no user-pay revenues. Airports turned to debt to cover this revenue shortfall, imperiling the fragile balance sheets and their ability to fund much-needed upgrades. User-pay needs to be revisited.
The impact of climate change is being felt across Canada’s 26 airports in the National Airports System, or NAS, as well. The aging infrastructure of many of these airports impacts their ability to operate sustainably, both in emissions and energy. Substantial capital funding is required to bring these airports into current best practices, and there is very little airport authorities can do in terms of having funding capacity in place to do those upgrades. It is estimated that between $50 billion and $70 billion is needed within the next 10 years across the NAS airports to get them to an acceptable standard. It is my contention that the governance model currently in place needs to be urgently redesigned to allow new funding models to be in place. The Airport Critical Infrastructure Program and the Airports Capital Assistance Program are insufficient to address the capital requirements of Canada’s NAS airports.
The rail infrastructure in Canada is not immune to the impact of climate change. Canada has seen rail services interrupted by flooding along key rail lines in the Fraser River canyons, forest fires burning out of control along lines in Ontario and Quebec and widespread coastal destruction from hurricanes and extratropical storms affecting key rail linkages in the Maritime provinces.
These interruptions of a vital transportation service require mitigating actions to be undertaken sooner than later to protect the integrity of Canada’s supply network. The 2022 National Supply Chain Task Force clearly identified the fragility of Canada’s rail system and actions needed to be taken promptly to address increased disruption due to climate change.
The issues I have highlighted before you, dear senators, require an urgent review of how Canadians need to view key transportation infrastructure. I clearly remember my early days in rail when I was reminded on several occasions that the railway built this country. I also know how Canadians value the ability to cross this vast and rugged country rapidly with air services. I firmly believe that a safe, reliable and economically sound transportation network is an inalienable Canadian human right.
I have spent the last decade in university academia, examining the strengths and weaknesses of Canada’s supply and transportation networks, and I have been vocal in describing situations where the actors in both air and rail services have not been performing in an integrated cost-effective and service-focused manner. I sincerely hope that our conversations this morning will provide you with the evidence that critical transportation infrastructure in Canada needs immediate and urgent attention.
Thank you once again for the invitation to appear before you this morning, and I look forward to our further dialogue.
The Chair: Thank you.
Professor Prentice, you have the floor, sir.
Barry Prentice, Director, University of Manitoba Transport Institute, and Professor, Supply Chain Management Department, University of Manitoba, as an individual: Honourable chair, deputy chair, members of the Transport and Communications Committee, thank you for the invitation. My name is Barry Prentice. I am a professor at the I.H. Asper School of Business, Department of Supply Chain Management, and Director of the University of Manitoba Transport Institute.
Surface freight transportation infrastructure is being pushed beyond its design limits by climate change. Average world temperatures are trending higher, sea levels are rising, and weather extremes are becoming more frequent. Global warming is happening even faster in the higher latitudes, like central-northern Canada.
Aside from the Port of Churchill and a new port at Iqaluit, no marine infrastructure exists to be threatened by rising seawater. The problem is land-based transportation infrastructure.
Roads, rail lines and airstrips that are built over permafrost soils are being damaged already. The depth of the active layer of permafrost is increasing. When the permafrost under transportation structures melts, the soil slumps, and they become unusable. The Hudson Bay Railway, or HBR, has received the most attention in this region. Between Gillam and Churchill, Manitoba, the railway line is built over a frozen peat bog. Efforts to stabilize the railbed have been going on for 90 years. The most recent effort involves a system originally developed for crossing desert sand. The success of this experiment is yet to be reported. The only permanent solution may be to relocate the 300-kilometre vulnerable section of the rail line to solid ground farther west.
The failure of the HBR in the spring of 2017 was different. The cause was an unusual snowfall late in the season that melted rapidly. The draining water washed out sections of the track between Churchill and Gillam.
It could be argued that this is not evidence of climate change, only a weather aberration. But the North, which is largely a “frozen desert,” is now experiencing more precipitation. Mayor Michael Spence, who has lived in Churchill his entire life, remarked to me that as a youth he never saw thunderstorms or lightning. Now this is common.
The most pressing problem for northern transportation is the impact of climate change on the winter road network. These temporary roads are built over frozen lakes and muskeg to transport fuel, building materials, vehicles and non-perishable food and groceries. In the past 25 years, their operating season has been cut in half.
Winter roads are becoming less reliable and more dangerous to use. Tractor-trailers require one metre of ice to safely cross a lake. The Province of Manitoba has already introduced truck weight restrictions and lower speed limits, and requires more space between vehicles to increase safety.
A 2022 article by Woolway et al. entitled “Lake Ice Will Be Less Safe for Recreation and Transportation Under Future Warming” has a dire warning of thinning ice. They predict that if global warming reaches 1.5 °C above the base period, winter road trucks will lose 90% of their remaining season. The North now sits at about 1.3 °C of warming.
Another problem for the winter roads is periodic warm spells within their season. A week of winter weather above 0 °C can close the roads and require another week of work to put them back into use again. These events are becoming more frequent and extreme in El Niño years.
The conversion of winter roads into gravel roads is not a viable economic option. Manitoba and northern Ontario build 5,400 kilometres of winter roads each year. The average cost of constructing gravel roads in the Canadian Shield and Arctic is about $3 million to $4 million per kilometre. It is hard to justify over $20 billion in construction costs to serve 40 small remote communities. Moreover, any road built over permafrost would be at risk of climate change, as mentioned earlier.
Air transport works best in the North because it is year-round and has a very small footprint. Airplanes supplement winter road trucks, but they need longer runways to carry heavy or bulky loads; plus, they are expensive and have high carbon emissions. A new generation of rigid airships is emerging that could replace tractor-trailers over winter roads. Such an airship is now floating in a hangar in California. The LTA Research’s Pathfinder 1, funded by Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, has just received approval to undertake test flights. They are already building a bigger airship, Pathfinder 3, at Akron, Ohio, that will carry more than a tractor-trailer.
Airships are a green technology. They require less energy than airplanes because their lift is “free” and can easily use electric propulsion with zero carbon emissions. Airships require some ground infrastructure, but less than airplanes. Just a landing pad and a clear space to transfer cargo quickly and safely to trucks.
In 2023, the Canadian Arctic Innovation Association, or CAIA, released a report entitled Cargo Airship Strategy for Northern Canada. It sets out infrastructure gateways and corridors for airship services to remote communities across Canada. Their recommendation is:
The Government of Canada needs a clear policy statement regarding their support or opposition to the use of cargo airships to serve remote parts of the Canadian Shield and Arctic. Remaining silent creates uncertainty for airship developers and investors. In addition, the government has a role to play in transportation that cannot be delegated. A regulatory framework is needed to certify pilots, mechanics and license aerodromes. There is also a need for public infrastructure to serve transportation needs, like access roads and common use facilities.
A copy of the CAIA report can be downloaded at www.arcticinnovation.ca if desired.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you to both of you for your presentations.
I will quickly launch us into the Q & A. I heard from both of you loud and clear that we have serious problems with climate change, which is here and has been here for a while and is impacting all sectors, particularly air, rail and roads. And I heard in your presentations, in both cases, that, of course, the greatest impact is in rural Canada, in the North and isolated parts of the country.
What are some of the solutions besides just money? Because money is one thing, and we hear all the time from witnesses that government has to invest more, but I would like to hear from both of you where that more would be. If we look at the history of our country and most countries, usually trains, planes and automobiles eventually go where there is economic development, and the truth of the matter is, from my perspective, over the last eight years or so, we have done everything we can to put obstacles in the way of developing our natural resources, mineral and critical resources. So unless we unleash that in order to justify unleashing the billions required to do all the wonderful things that we need to do to respond to climate change, I think it would be difficult to arrive at that particular destination. I know I put a lot into those comments and those questions. I will start with Professor Gradek.
Mr. Gradek: You can’t talk about one solution or one issue, which is mineral development and making sure we have access to those minerals and have them exported, without talking about transportation. One begets the other, chicken and egg. Which do you do first? What we have done in Canada to date has been looking at doing mineral exploitation, mineral development, and using the existing infrastructure, upgraded to a certain degree, and supporting the movement of that mineral product from its source to destination.
We haven’t spent a lot of time and effort to streamline and optimize the transportation system required to support the development of those natural resources that the world so dearly wants from Canada. I think the time is coming where areas such as Ontario’s Ring of Fire, whether it’s the timber operations in Northern and mid-range Canada, whether it’s the agricultural support we have in the Prairies, the breadbasket of the world, there is a need for us to look at the root cause of the issues we have in supporting the development and export of these products.
You’re right; the answer is money to develop it. But I think we need a vision before we need the money. Looking at the work done by the National Supply Chain Task Force last year, they started to create the embryonic version of that vision and strategy and understanding what the value of transportation is in ensuring we have a globally admired and supported supply chain.
There are a few things we have to do concurrently with investing money, such as visibility, resilience and all those crazy things in supply chains that Professor Prentice and I keep talking about to our students. We talk about how we build a more robust supply chain that has stability and reliability built into it. Yes, that needs vision.
One of the issues we have been talking about is how we, as a Canadian industry, get over the issue we have in terms of data sharing. We are in a digital world. Our supply chains are going digital. We need to look at information sharing and getting everyone to participate properly in a supply chain visibility exercise.
I think our biggest hurdle is understanding how we get enough data into our networks and into our understanding of supply chains to make sure we understand what resilience means. We have to get over the fact that Canadians don’t like sharing competitive data. No one likes sharing competitive data because it’s all about market share, revenues, profits and shareholders looking at return. To me, data is the key driver of getting better performance out of our supply chains, resources and networks. That’s the biggest hurdle.
If you ask me for a solution, I’m not sure there is one just yet. I think we need to have a debate as to how we get ourselves to a point where it’s okay for companies and members of the supply chain to share information and get enough data so that we can build a more robust supply chain.
Mr. Prentice: I’d like to go to your point about the rural areas and the North being the most affected. They certainly are. I would start off by saying that if there were existing technology to solve the problem, we wouldn’t be having this meeting. There wouldn’t be a problem. We would already have a solution. We have to think outside the box. We can’t simply look at what we have done in the past and try to extrapolate, because it doesn’t work. Not only that, but even what we do have is threatened by the future. Looking at anything that’s fixed to the surface is going to be problematic. That’s simply a function of the permafrost.
For the last 25 years, we have been looking at cargo airships as a solution for the North. For the committee’s benefit, these are the old Zeppelins. These are airships that would cross the oceans. They would fly at 80 miles an hour and carry up to 100 tonnes of cargo. This was 85 years ago. At that time, the cutting-edge vehicle was a Ford Model A. Today we have Teslas and we have huge advances in the aviation supply chain. Virtually everything needed to build modern airships exists.
We can do this. There are quite a few people around the world working on this — not just Mr. Brin in California. Flying Whales has a subsidiary here in Canada. They are trying to bring forward a cargo airship solution.
The benefits of the airship are that you get year-round transportation; you can carry heavy loads; it is less expensive, maybe a quarter of the cost of air — in fact, anything over 30 tonnes, our analysis suggests, will compete with tractor‑trailers over ice roads. So there is an economic solution.
I would point out to the committee that most Canadians don’t really understand how big this country is. Geographically, the centre of this country is Baker Lake. We just talked about 5,000 plus kilometres of ice roads in Ontario and Manitoba. Trying to build roads everywhere in Northern Canada would be an impossible feat and one that wouldn’t last long.
We talk about the need for financing. Nothing is inexpensive, and change costs money. Interestingly, the airships are not a very expensive proposition. If we talk about $20 billion to build those roads, for 5% of that you can have an airship solution for the entire country. People are ready to invest and do it themselves, but what has been seriously lacking is any effort or recognition by the Government of Canada that this technology is a possible solution.
We have been talking about it for 25 years. There is no policy for airships in Canada. Not only that, but this country has no regulations to permit it. You cannot become an airship pilot in Canada. There are no regulations. You can’t become a mechanic to work on an airship. Of course, there are no guidelines as to how to build them here.
The topic has been left in abeyance. I’m not sure why. I’m not sure why as soon as you talk about airships, people think you have two heads. I’m not sure what the problem is, but we need to take this topic seriously.
Senator Osler: Thank you to both witnesses for appearing today. I’m going to direct my first question to Professor Prentice. Welcome. It is nice to see a fellow Manitoban appearing today.
My last question to the previous panel was on winter roads. You have provided more information on that. I would like to give you the opportunity to expand on the challenges of northern communities in Manitoba and any other recommendations as to how to make those communities more climate-resilient.
Mr. Prentice: The issue of climate change comes down to the depth and thickness of the ice. When we get below one metre of ice, tractor-trailers aren’t safe. You can still use cars and small trucks over those lakes, and people will do that because they want to travel between their communities. That is important for the people who live there.
In terms of bringing in heavy goods — building materials, fuel and non-perishable items — you need to bring those in in bigger vehicles. An airplane can only take what you can get through the door. The ice roads are critical for many products, and building materials is a key one. The remote communities have a terrible housing shortage. Overcrowding is chronic, as well as sky-high food prices, which we know about, and food insecurity. We need a better year-round transportation system.
One of the problems with housing is that you have a short season in which to build houses because you can only bring in materials during the four- to six-week ice road period. Then things sit in the snowbank, and wood is exposed. Sometimes houses are built with wood that is already moulding before it is put in place. Mould is a huge problem in the North and in these communities.
We see that something has to be different. The airships are an opportunity. We’ve looked at this for 25 years. I have been talking about this for a long time, and I don’t have anybody tap me on the shoulder and say, “Dr. Prentice, forget those airships. I’ve got something better.” In fact, the closest anyone has come is when one of my friends jokingly said, “We just need a giant catapult that will fling things into the North because that’s about as close as we’re going to get.”
Mr. Gradek: I’m a big fan of LTAs, or lighter-than-air vehicles, as Dr. Prentice knows. I think that housing is probably the one basic need that has to be addressed in northern communities where ships like the LTAs that Barry has been talking about make a lot of sense. We need to bring housing to the North.
Prefab housing is one of Canada’s specialties. We know how to build prefab housing. They weigh a lot, and tractor-trailers only have four to six weeks a year to move across those ice roads. I believe we need heavy-lift capability. We have the C-17 Globemasters that our friends in defence have. Can those carry housing? Sure. They can bring housing up North. They can’t land anywhere, though. They can only land in one or two airports up North. We need another vehicle, another way to bring that basic human right of housing to the northern communities because our current infrastructure, road network and air support network don’t do it.
Senator Simons: I have always been obsessed with airships — with respect to Dr. Prentice — but I’m going to focus on Professor Gradek today.
We’re coming up to the anniversary of last Christmas’s terrible weather which socked in the airports in both Toronto and Vancouver. Because of Canada’s hub model, we are uniquely vulnerable to weather systems that hit our major airports.
I just toured the Vancouver airport two weeks ago. They are ripping out a whole runway to build a new one to be more climate-resilient. What do airports and airlines need to do to make sure that we don’t have people trapped on planes, at airports for days? What does that mean for our cargo system, which also relies on airports more than a lot of Canadians understand?
Mr. Gradek: What has been happening over the last 18 months in the aviation domain in Canada has been interesting. It’s what I call a trial run of what the future of Canadian climate change is going to look like and how our airport and aviation infrastructure are preparing for it. Yes, I would say last summer, last winter they got a failing grade. They would not have passed any one of my courses on any of that stuff, because they really did not do a good job of preparing for it.
I have been fairly vocal in terms of trying to figure out and explain to people that the industry has shot itself in the foot in terms of capabilities of the infrastructure to support the volume of flights that were being put into those airports. It really was a question of the airlines, primarily, being very ambitious and very proactive in trying to recoup as much of their lost revenues from the pandemic as they possibly could and to fly those airplanes as fast and frequently as they could.
They overtaxed the system. The system wasn’t ready. It takes a while for the system to be able to support the levels of frequency and services that were being demanded of it by the airlines. What Air Canada did, what WestJet did, what happened to Sunwing, it really was a question of the carriers being overly ambitious. If I look at what happened this summer, it was much better. The airlines learned their lesson, the airports learned their lesson, and we did not have the mess we had last summer, this summer.
The question is what winter is going to look like. My crystal ball isn’t working very well these days. I can’t forecast the winter weather as much as The Weather Network would like me to forecast it. What are the odds of another bad winter? Define “bad.” If I look at last year and say that’s the new normal — I hate using the term “new” — I’m not sure if the airports and airlines in Canada recognize that you need to be able to really understand the weather forecasts and react to those forecasts before they actually happen.
Don’t cut back your flights the morning you see 20 centimetres of snow in Vancouver. You know that snow is coming three or four days ahead of time anywhere in Canada. We’re not living in a vacuum. That’s why we have weather forecasters. That’s why we pay the people at Environment Canada the money that we pay them to do those forecasts. React to those forecasts and don’t just wait until the morning of to say, “Oops, we have to cancel half of our flights because there is too much snow on the ground.” We have to be able to do that.
Senator Simons: We have built our largest airport, Pearson, right on a lake which has complicated weather patterns. To rebuild our airport infrastructure would be a colossal and perhaps impossible undertaking. What do we do? This goes for the Montréal-Trudeau International Airport as well, but I think Pearson and Vancouver, because they are right on the water, are more vulnerable, I’m guessing, to weather extremes.
Mr. Gradek: Welcome to Canada. We like building things around water. We love water, yes. Pity Edmonton and Calgary. We love to be able to say that we have pretty airports around pretty landscapes. We also attract a lot of people around that landscape. The airports become very congested with people building around those airports.
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Gradek: The airports being built today around the world are isolated. They are away from residential centres. We have airports being built 50, 60, 70 kilometres away from buildings and infrastructure.
Senator Simons: Edmonton did that in the 1960s. We were very advanced.
Mr. Gradek: When you talk about what it is that we have to do in terms of our airport infrastructure, we know and it’s a fact within the airport community that Trudeau Airport is in trouble space-wise. Pearson is in trouble space-wise. Vancouver is in trouble space-wise if the forecast of the carriers that we have operating holds true.
We will have congestion at those airports. We will have backups. We will have snowstorms snarling those airports at greater frequency than we have ever had before. Yes, we have to figure out a way for us to look at what demands we put on the airports by the airlines and what the airport’s capacity is to handle those flights. We can’t handle the growth that the airlines are putting at the airports today, impossible.
Senator Simons: And Vancouver taking one whole runway out of commission because of climate change, that’s a problem.
Mr. Gradek: That’s what airports have to do. The Trudeau Airport just finished a three-month rehab on one of their runways. They have two more runways to go. The question is whether that is enough. That runway is being conditioned for what type of climate? If it’s the climate we have had over the last five or ten years, not good enough. We may have to go back and revisit it again soon.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Keeping in mind that many of our airport authorities, Professor, are already heavily in debt across the country. They have to manage that aspect as well.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll continue in the same vein as my colleague. If you had to give your opinion on a major airport in Canada that would be an example in terms of preparedness or thinking about climate change, which one would it be? You mentioned congestion, but beyond that, there’s also physical preparation — I imagine it’s the runways. Which airport in Canada do you think is ahead of the rest and could be an interesting example for us on the committee to look at?
Mr. Gradek: That’s a good question. I put this question recently to a number of airport administrators in Canada. We’ve had a hard time finding models for the future of airports in Canada. I would say that Ottawa is an example of an airport where there is room for improvement, to try to adapt to the increased capacity needed to meet the airlines’ future plans. Very few airports in Canada have been designed and built and are operating in the area of operations needed today. With the increases in air traffic that airlines are forecasting for the next 10 or 15 years — Almost all airports in Canada will have difficulty adapting.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: And what about climate change?
Mr. Gradek: It’s impossible to identify or separate the two. Climate change will happen, no doubt about it. The increase in air traffic can be controlled. The airlines can be told to stop because their demands cannot be met. We really need to balance demand with capacity.
I see the airport situation as a physical infrastructure that causes trouble for services delivered in our airports. We’ve experienced this over the past 18 months. In terms of addressing the climate change issue, the worst airports are Montreal-Trudeau, Toronto Pearson and Vancouver; Ottawa is doing much better.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Prentice, I’d like to ask you the same question. You’re based in Manitoba. You talked about the difficulty of remote areas and winter roads. Can you think of a region, small town or village in Manitoba to observe climate change and the problems created in communities?
You seem to know your province, at least very well. Where do you think these climate changes are most evident and most difficult to address?
[English]
Mr. Prentice: Thank you very much. There are several places: certainly, Thompson, Manitoba. It’s a cold-weather testing area, so they have very good records of what’s going on. They would have sensitivity to the changes in the climate there. Churchill is certainly one where we have a research facility, so we could also be a good place to look at. Both locations have paved runways. The one in Thompson has one spot which is always problematic with permafrost, but, generally speaking, those are the two that I would point to that would be the easiest to deal with.
I would like to come back, if I could, though, to the previous conversation. One of the issues we’re worrying about is increasing traffic in airlines. We might look at a future where there is going to be less air traffic. We’re facing a time when the airlines are being forced to move to so-called SAFs, or sustainable aviation fuels. These are double or triple the cost of current fuels for the airplanes, or they have to buy carbon offsets. No matter how you cut it, air cost is going to go up. Air travel is going be more expensive.
The other one I question is air cargo. There has been a great rise in air cargo, but if you think about it, this is in some ways a frivolous use of our resources. Nothing has to travel at 500 miles an hour that’s freight, and we have a lot of air cargo out there doing things. I suspect that as we become more serious about climate change and the cost and the use of fuels, ultimately, the airlines will have to switch over to hydrogen. That seems to be the only reasonable solution. But this will take 15 or 20 years, and in between I think we will see much higher fares, and that’s going to cut back on some of the demand. Maybe our problem won’t be quite as severe as we might think if we just extrapolate the present.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You talked a lot about airships. Obviously, I’m not very familiar with this sector, but it makes us think of all sorts of extraordinary things. Why do you think your crusade for airships is going nowhere? Is it because air transport, as it is conceived, exerts pressure to maintain the status quo? Is it because it’s an extraordinary project that’s difficult to carry out, since people need to see into the future? I’m a bit intrigued by all this.
[English]
Mr. Prentice: It is certainly sometimes difficult for people to see what isn’t there now. Everybody wants to look at a current solution, take no risk and put it into place. There is always risk when you do something new. But in many ways, these risks have been mitigated over a long period of time. We know that the airships flew quite successfully before the Second World War. The reason they disappeared was that the jet airplane came along, which was so much faster and reliable, and there is so much investment into research in airplanes, that they didn’t just kill the airships; they also killed the transcontinental railways and the ocean liners. The jet age is just that. Well, the jet age is ending, and it is ending because the cost of fuel and the pollution make it something we can’t have at the same volume as we had in the past. We need to look for different solutions, certainly for cargo.
The possibility of using airships to take goods across the oceans is quite feasible. Again, we did this 85 years ago, and we have much better materials now. I think we’re going to see a real surge in interest as this new airship that Sergey Brin is building starts having flight trials. For Canada, it’s a really good thing.
Earlier on in your discussions, you talked about defence in the North. Well, the airship is an ideal vehicle for travel in the North. As we look into the future, we will see they won’t be piloted. There will be a pilot on the ground; they will be remotely piloted drones. They won’t be filled with helium. They’ll be filled with hydrogen, which is less expensive and readily available all the time, and they will also be powered by hydrogen. They will fly from a prepared base to a prepared base. We have a very different vision of what this technology can be. Although it is not out in the mainstream yet, it is coming.
Senator Quinn: I want to come back to Mr. Gradek. During your presentation, you talked about an integrated approach, and we have talked about airports in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. These major airports, of course, are centred around big populations, and that tends to be the case across the country. I’ll come back to an exception.
In an integrated approach, as you are looking at airports, shouldn’t we also be considering how we can take better advantage of infrastructure that we have and then bringing new approaches to using that infrastructure? In my area, in New Brunswick, there is the historic argument about how many airports are in New Brunswick. For a small population, one could argue we have way too many airports, but we also have billions of dollars invested in highway systems. You can drive from one side of New Brunswick to the other in five hours. Most Canadians in large centres are looking at an hour or more to get to an airport, yet they live with that. Shouldn’t we have an integrated approach to taking advantage of infrastructure that is in the roadside or the rail side? Shouldn’t we be investing in that such as we hear in the arguments around the Windsor-Quebec corridor? Isn’t that at least part of the solution that should be considered?
Mr. Gradek: I think you are right. One of the things that we have to look at is we have only so much money to spend on transportation infrastructure. The question is getting the biggest bang for the buck that we’re spending. You look at the different modes of transportation that we shouldn’t be investing in to support the economic growth and needs of the population in those communities. There have to be some choices that we’re making in terms of some modes of transportation. With road transportation, rail transportation and air transportation, there is a trade-off that has to happen in terms of the infrastructure needed to support those three modes.
For the life of me, I have been worried about things like Montreal-Toronto, the largest air corridor we have in Canada, 500 kilometres. Is air the right mode to support that type of movement and that type of population shift? I remember my days at Air Canada looking at that service and saying, “I can’t believe that of all the places in the world that Air Canada is making all that money it is on one of the shortest routes in the world.” Because there is volume and no alternative. The question is developing an infrastructure that is an alternative mode of transportation that is most cost-effective for that marketplace. We look at Europe. We look at China, where they have taken rail structure and brought in rail as the ideal or better mode of transportation for shorter-haul traffic.
We haven’t crossed the Rubicon on that one yet. We have a view that we have high-frequency rail that we want to do in Canada with VIA Rail, but that’s probably a short-term solution. We need to look at investing in and building rail infrastructure that can eliminate the need for us to spend a lot of infrastructure dollars on air serving those short-haul markets. Whether it is Calgary-Edmonton, Montreal-Toronto or Ottawa-Toronto, there has to be a way that we can look at to find the best mode of transportation we should be investing in to serve those small markets. New Brunswick is a prime example of looking at the services that we have in New Brunswick. Air services could probably be supplemented by better-quality rail services.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that. My other question is for Professor Prentice.
I led the Central & Arctic Region Coast Guard back in the mid-1990s, and deteriorating ice roads were an issue then, as was permafrost degradation. And here we are today underscoring how much more it has advanced. You mentioned the 40 communities in Manitoba, and they were an issue back then as well. The reality is that some of these communities may be at risk of disappearance because when the roads go, the other infrastructure is not really there to support those communities. There is only so much time a community can survive without the proper connections to essential services and supplies.
You mentioned airships, and I do recall back in that day that airships were one of the things being considered. However, it died a natural death, I think, so it’s good to hear that they are being looked at again. I asked a previous witness a question about whether there is a recommendation that the government look at the regulatory framework to allow these industries to be seriously considered and developed here in Canada to support the North.
Mr. Prentice: I would say yes, absolutely. We don’t have a regulatory framework right now to even allow airships to operate in Canada. Therefore, that has to be looked at. There has to be a policy. The big problem is that transportation is a shared responsibility of the private sector and the public sector. But if the public sector is mute — says nothing — this creates great uncertainty for anybody in the private sector to invest in a new technology. Will the government do its job?
It is also, of course, a question of the risk. The private sector will take risks, but the public has the ability to take more risks because it represents the whole of the country. If you think about the North, what investor in their right mind would invest millions and millions of dollars to serve a population of a couple hundred thousand people? The public has to invest in this. The North today is very much like the West was in Sir John A. Macdonald’s time. It’s sitting there, and it’s a resource. We know it. We can’t really get to it. The solution was to build a transportation system to the West, and railway was the one, and the area bloomed after it had transportation. I believe the airships can do the same thing for the North that the railways did for the West.
To go back to the previous conversation with the issue of mining, there’s one mine called Torngat, which is in northern Quebec, on the border of Labrador and Quebec. It’s about 250 kilometres from Schefferville. They are on the record. They will take the first airship that comes because they have rare earth minerals they want to get out, and there is no way they can afford to build a road to get there. The one advantage of mining in the North is that a lot more goods are coming south from mines than going north. Therefore, if we actually had airships bringing out concentrates from the North, there would be a backhaul rate to take all the goods back into the North. This would change the economics of living there.
To your point about depopulation, when I talk to people in the North today, they say things are much worse than they were 20 years ago. Things are not getting better, and we’re already spending a huge amount of money to sustain populations. The Nutrition North Canada program is — I don’t know for sure — $130 million a year now. That’s just to subsidize the cost of transporting food to the North. So we’re already spending a huge amount of money, but we’re just not getting any results that are progressive. We have to look at new technology to do this.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Prentice.
Senator Cardozo: I would like to come back to the issue of how we pay for this. One view says we should unleash oil and gas exploration so we have more money in the system to pay for the negative effects of climate change. The other view says that we need to reduce and eventually cap exploration so there are fewer negative effects of climate change to begin with.
I observe that almost all witnesses who come before us at the Senate are calling for some level of large increase of federal government expenditures. It’s everything from investing in national defence to investing in cancer, yet no one talks about deficit spending. I really would like people to have a more open discussion about whether they feel we should be engaging in deficit spending for these huge projects.
I would like your thoughts on how we make all this work. On the airships, I’ll say that perhaps if we started with domestic airship traffic, it might be easier to convince the public that it works rather than talk about the transatlantic or trans-Pacific traffic.
I’ll ask Professor Gradek to start.
Mr. Gradek: That’s a 900-pound gorilla in the room. How do we pay for all this? Airports can’t pay for any of that upgrade. They’re ceiling their debt. There’s no way there is any money left. Money has to come from someplace. The traditional answer is that we go to the feds and the provinces and get money from them. There is always a third option, which is really going out to public markets and talking about the governance structure that we have for our airports and asking if there is room for public partnerships in this effort. My answer to that is yes. We have Canadian sovereign funds today investing billions of dollars in international airports. The biggest shareholder you have in the London City Airport is Toronto teachers. They are a principal shareholder, and they have invested billions of dollars to support the growth of the London airport — not London, Ontario, but London, England.
To me, that is a proof positive that we have Canadian resources — Canadian funding agencies — that have an interest in supporting the air infrastructure, as an example. So let’s open it up. Let’s see if we can change our governance model for our airports and get Canadian sovereign funds, as an example, to look at investing in our Canadian infrastructure rather than investing in infrastructure in the U.K., Dubai, Singapore or Hong Kong. I think that’s probably the easiest way to feed this 900‑pound gorilla.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Prentice: Professor Gradek has certainly identified one area, and that is more private-sector investment. We can certainly stimulate more private sector investment if we create the right climate to do that. I’m not so sure about the privatizing of the airports. That model is somewhat questionable. There is evidence out of Australia and other places that there may be downsides we haven’t really considered.
I would come back to your point about oil exploration. We all know that we can’t get off oil or hydrocarbons for at least 25 years. This situation is going to get worse before it gets better. Whether opening up the North and opening up more for exploration is the right idea, I’m not sure. However, I can say that we certainly have a problem that’s going to grow and not shrink.
In terms of the finances of the government, I’ll return to saying that we’re already spending fortunes on the North just to keep those people in a rather miserable condition. We’re spending a huge amount of money, and the problem is that we don’t have any trade with them. If you don’t have trade, you can’t have jobs. There is 80% unemployment in these communities, and they are all living on welfare, essentially. If we could take that money and use it more productively — again, I’ll come back to the transportation of the airships because transportation is the key to development — no transportation, no trade; no trade, no jobs; no jobs, no income. You have poverty. Poverty basically starts in Canada where the roads stop. We need to do something to change that.
We don’t have to spend huge amounts of government money. Again, the way it works is that the public sector provides the infrastructure, and the private sector provides the mobile parts. They provide the trucks, airplanes and ships. In the case of the airships, the government would provide the landing bases and maybe a hangar, and the private sector would provide the airships and do the service. However, you have to have a policy to make this go forward. You have to get behind it and actually want it to happen. You can’t just wait for another billionaire to come along and solve all our problems.
Senator Cardozo: You are talking about private sector investment but not privatization —
The Chair: Place your question, Senator Cardozo, if you have a final question.
Senator Cardozo: Just a final question. Are they both suggesting private sector investment as opposed to privatization of the airports?
Mr. Gradek: I’m talking about private investment, not privatization.
Senator Cardozo: I think Professor Prentice said the same thing.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for a very interesting discussion about infrastructure and all of the problems that we’re facing.
I have a couple of questions for Professor Prentice about the airships. We’re not the only northern country in the world. There is Russia, Greenland, Finland, Sweden and so on. Are any other countries using these airships? I think, in particular, of Russia because Russia has a larger population in its North than we do in our North. Surely, all of these countries are facing the same problems that we are with the erosion of infrastructure because of climate change.
Is anyone using these airships, Professor Prentice? I have another question as well.
Mr. Prentice: In the case of Russia, they have quite a substantial research program in airships. The fellow in charge of that decamped to Israel, and that’s where they are located. The company is called Atlas and they still want to build an airship there. They have small airships and aerostats — that’s their business now — but they want to build a big airship. Russia has been interested for a long time.
The problem in general is that most of the places that have had airship developments, Europe and the U.S., don’t really need airships. They have roads everywhere. It is places like Canada that need them, but we have never gotten involved in this. It is happening. The Chinese are involved in some fashion, but we’re not exactly sure what.
One of the big holdbacks has been helium. Helium is a rare gas. It’s very expensive, and people have been afraid of using hydrogen. But things are changing. We’re using hydrogen everywhere these days: in forklift trucks and buses and in airplanes soon. We’re looking at it for fuel and fuel cells. People know more about it, but we also have sensors that can detect it, whereas 85 years ago, it was just a dangerous gas that no one could taste, smell or see. It created a lot of paranoia. Today, we know how to handle it and we will go back to hydrogen. There’s no question about that.
Senator Dasko: Is anybody using these airships in the North to deal with the problems of climate change? Surely, they are having the same problems with road infrastructure, in particular, as you said. The seasons are short and so on. Are the other countries using airships?
Mr. Prentice: Finland has a small group. They have developed a hydrogen-based drone airship and they’re flying it in Finland to look at the hydro lines and to do inspections. This is an industry or a technology that scales up very well, but you have to remember there is a big barrier to entry. In the first place, you need a building bigger than an airship to build the airship. An airship is the size of an ocean liner. These are big expenses to start out with. The ability to raise funds has always been the holdup for the airship industry.
There have been false starts as well. If we can put a man on the moon and a vehicle on Mars, surely we can get an airship to Baker Lake. That’s all we’re talking about.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. I have another question. This is related to airships, but the question was raised earlier about resource development in the North. I would like to ask both witnesses, Professor Prentice in particular, whether the airships might be used or are amenable to helping develop resources in the North. How would that work?
Also, Professor Gradek, what is the answer? Is there an answer to how we deal with resource development given the climate change issues and the erosion of the infrastructure we have? What are the optimal ways to do this, or do we leave resource development in the North and continue with resource development in the South — or not, as the case may be? Either witness or both, please. Thank you.
Mr. Prentice: I will start by simply saying that one of the companies, Torngat, is at the point where they want to use the airships. They are preparing rare earth. They are already on board. You have an airship; they are ready for it.
Any base metal would be a candidate. We have some mining in the North — St. Mary’s River steel, but that’s, again, on the coast. There is one in northern Quebec, again on the coast.
If you want to be inland, the problem is the cost of the infrastructure to get to these locations. The airships could do that. We prepare a concentrate, so you are not taking out just rock, and you only move the goods from the mine to the first railhead or the first road. You transship there. That’s what they have in mind. Certainly, it would open up a huge number of places.
Lots of mineral deposits are well known, but we can’t afford to get to them because of the access.
Mr. Gradek: I think that Barry has a good point in terms of looking at the options we have to mineral development. Infrastructure and transportation are key. Road, rail and air are very expensive.
Most of the mines are set up around water. If we’re talking about inland development, where most of the minerals are, we need an alternative method of transportation. I think LTAs need public policy. We need the government to make a strong statement that we are serious about going about lighter-than-air ships. We have no regulation around airships. How do you build and manage them? How do you certify a pilot and a mechanic? We need that infrastructure. That’s probably the first step in recognizing we need a transportation infrastructure that’s different than what we have today.
Senator Dasko: This is a serious option for resource development?
Mr. Gradek: Yes, very much.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses. As you saw, we went over our allotted time. I think we could have gone on and on. It was very insightful and helpful. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)