THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 28, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:47 p.m. [ET] to study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: My name is Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I would like to invite my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Hello, I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Klyne: Good evening, and welcome to our committee. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, senator for Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
This evening, we continue our study of the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector and our study of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.
For our first panel, I’m pleased to welcome with us Jim Athanasiou, Vice-President, Engineering and Technology, St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, or SLSMC. We are also pleased to welcome by video conference Mr. Ian Hamilton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, or HOPA; and Roelof-Jan Steenstra, President and Chief Executive Officer, PortsToronto.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us this evening. Each of you will be allocated five minutes for introductory remarks, starting with Mr. Athanasiou and followed by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Steenstra. After that, we will turn it over to my colleagues for Q & A. Mr. Athanasiou, you have the floor.
Jim Athanasiou, Vice-President, Engineering and Technology, St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the Senate committee for the opportunity to discuss the value of the St. Lawrence Seaway — a key link in the North American supply chain.
[Translation]
The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation is a not-for-profit corporation created in 1998 to operate Canadian assets in the St. Lawrence Seaway, including bridges, locks and other infrastructure. The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation works closely with the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, our American partner in the binational network.
[English]
The St. Lawrence Seaway is part of Canada’s solution to transportation sector impacts on climate change. Our system is environmentally friendly and cost-effective. It has a 99% availability rate and the capacity to double throughput immediately. Continued investment will ensure that the St. Lawrence Seaway continues to meet the challenges of climate change.
One of the measures with respect to transportation sector environmental impacts is fuel efficiency. One St. Lawrence Seaway-sized vessel can carry the equivalent of nearly 1,000 transport trucks or 300 rail cars.
Optimizing the supply chain means using the right mode for the right job. The Canadian and U.S. governments recently announced a plan for a green shipping corridor on the St. Lawrence Seaway. More ships moving essential cargo through our system will reduce congestion on crowded highways and busy rail corridors. Through the use of innovative technologies and hydroelectric power generation, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation has reduced greenhouse gases by 58% from 2005 levels ahead of the 40% to 45% mandated greenhouse gas reduction set by the Government of Canada for 2030.
Reducing the carbon footprint of our system also brings economic benefits. When Quebec trade along the St. Lawrence River is factored in, our shared waterway supports 355,000 jobs. These jobs equal $30 billion in wages. In 2022, 252 million tonnes of goods moved through the St. Lawrence Seaway waterway, generating $66.1 billion in economic activity.
Now let’s turn our attention to the impacts of climate change on our infrastructure. Each year, the SLSMC engages in a comprehensive infrastructure investment program to maintain liability. We invest over $70 million annually to maintain mission-critical assets like locks and bridges, tie-up walls and wharves. We also deploy various strategies to increase our resiliency to climate change. For instance, over the last several years, a project at Welland Canal aimed to optimize the navigation season successfully extended it into the first week of January. This year, we implemented a similar extension in the Montreal/Lake Ontario section. However, the changing climate also brings challenges that will have a major impact on our aging infrastructure, some of which dates back to the 1920s. The need for infrastructure investment will increase in the coming years.
To fully realize the potential of the Green Shipping Corridor Program and to ensure continued resiliency into the future, the seaway needs strong and stable funding. To optimize supply chains, more goods must travel by water. The St. Lawrence Seaway is an essential part of Canada’s solution to climate change impacts in the transportation sector.
I look forward to any questions this committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Athanasiou. I will turn it over to Mr. Hamilton, followed by Mr. Steenstra.
Ian Hamilton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you on this important topic. I’m also the Chairman of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, but today I’ll focus mainly on the impacts of climate change in the Great Lakes region.
I’m presenting this evening alongside my colleagues from the Port of Toronto and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. Together we hope to offer perspective on the impact of climate change on public infrastructure and trade within one of Canada’s most critical trade corridors.
Climate change impacts come in many unexpected ways. One of the big ones is water levels in the Great Lakes, which are a huge concern. As we have seen in recent years in Lake Ontario, the water levels are managed to a certain degree, and we know the IGC protocols were adjusted following the 2017-19 high water season. But we are a system, and anything that affects the system affects us all. When water levels are too high, we see the water overflowing our dock walls’ water levels and eroding our shorelines. When water levels are too low, we are unable to load the vessels to their full capacity.
Unlike some of the popular misnomers, the industry itself wants the same stability that everyone is looking for rather than just high water levels.
Climate change impacts go beyond just that. One of the things I would like to share with you is something I’m dealing with right now, namely that we spent $5 million dredging the entrance into the Port of Oshawa to allow the ships to go in and out at full capacity. That was completed in 2021. In 2022, there was a single severe storm that deposited the equivalent of about five years’ material back into the gateway to Oshawa, and in the spring of this year, we’ll spend another $1 million to clear that out to allow the vessels to travel through. It’s just an example of the types of things we’re having to deal with now as a result of climate change and extreme weather conditions.
More stream waterfalls are overtaxing our stormwater infrastructure systems, which are not designed for those volumes. We’ll need more infrastructure investment to adapt our port infrastructure to better withstand the impacts of climate change and the extreme weather conditions it brings. These are not needs of the future — they exist right now.
One of the other areas we look at is mitigation and what we can do to reduce the impacts of climate change or the actual increasing number of weather situations we’re experiencing from climate change. We certainly work with Scope 1 initiatives, and we’ve changed our fleet over to electric vehicles. We’re moving much more toward net zero and hope to be at net zero by 2025 as a port authority.
We also offer incentives, matching funds of up to $250,000 to support their initiatives, which have included HVAC upgrades, solar panel installations and new electric equipment for material handling.
As my colleague mentioned, the Green Shipping Corridor Program has been hugely interesting in terms of starting conversations on what types of projects are available and what types of initiatives can be taken. It is $165 million, and now the deadline has been delayed until March 11, which is fantastic, but it is clear to me that it’s going to be very oversubscribed. Nonetheless, it is probably creating a wonderful list to look at for future projects and funding opportunities, so it is a great start.
For future infrastructure funding, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities is currently working on a study to try to understand what the overall needs to deal with this climate change are going to be in the next 20 to 40 years. These are going to be at billion-dollar or multi-billion-dollar levels. This is something where, again, these potential investments need to be understood, and provisions made for them, for us to be able to deal with the impact climate change is bringing.
I know Bill C-33 is working its way through the Senate now. It was really supposed to modernize the port system in Canada. It had some very lofty goals, but in many ways, it seems to have fallen short on being able to deliver on these goals.
Remember, the Canadian Port Authorities were established with the aim of being nimble and responding to the market as self-sustaining government business enterprises. We have an excellent track record of delivering trade and economic benefits while being environmentally responsible and responsive to our communities.
Bill C-33 shortens the arm in our arm’s-length relationship, and we would suggest not for the better. It adds a number of administrative tasks requiring reporting back to the federal government even more frequently and on an expanding number of topics. The bill could also be improved by enhancing ports’ flexibility to finance projects with external partners, and these would include some of the critical projects necessary to deal with climate change. We would encourage you to review the bill to enable and encourage ports to just get on with the things that really matter. We agree that climate change is the defining challenge of our time. We are ready to be partners in responding intelligently and urgently to these issues and believe the right approach with respect to Bill C-33 will enable us to do that.
HOPA, like other ports, is keen to do more. We welcome a partnership approach that leverages our unique role in the economy, our relationships with industry and our unique role as stewards of precious waterfront spaces.
Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions during the proceedings.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. I now turn the floor over to Mr. Steenstra.
Roelof-Jan Steenstra, President and Chief Executive Officer, PortsToronto: Thank you very much. Good evening. Thank you for inviting me, along with my colleagues, to speak on the issue of climate change as it relates to transportation infrastructure and the national supply chain. PortsToronto is a federal government business enterprise that owns and operates key transportation infrastructure assets in the city of Toronto, most notably Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and the marine Port of Toronto.
Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is located on Toronto’s waterfront and celebrates 85 years of operation this year. The airport traditionally welcomes just under 3 million passengers per year.
Also located on the waterfront is the marine Port of Toronto, which is a key import facility for the city of Toronto. It traditionally imports more than 2 million metric tons of sugar, salt, aggregate and building materials each year. The location of the port just minutes from downtown Toronto not only supports the business needs of the city but also has a very positive environmental impact in that it eliminates the need for approximately 54,000 trucks that would otherwise travel long distances to reach manufacturers.
There is much I can say about the Port of Toronto, and PortsToronto is the owner and operator, in terms of our commitment to mitigating our operational impact and adopting sustainable approaches. For example, in 2021, PortsToronto launched Canada’s first all-electric passenger ferry. This ferry was a retrofit of an existing diesel ferry, and it now runs silently, without air emissions, between Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and the mainland, reducing our Scope 1 emissions by 530 tonnes each year.
PortsToronto has also powered all of its operations with 100% clean renewable electricity through Bullfrog Power, and it is only the port and airport in Canada to do so.
The Port of Toronto, like many ports in North America, also participates in environmental certification programs, such as the Green Marine program, to measure and improve environmental performance. PortsToronto is innovating in areas like eliminating plastic pollution in our lakes and through its highly effective trash trapping program, which includes Seabins and WasteSharks. These innovations are the first of their kind in Canada. They are a network of static and moving devices that skim the water, removing thousands of pieces of microplastics from our harbour. Imagine a Roomba for a lake. The results of the 2023 program were announced this past Monday and received national media attention for the impact it is having on removing trash and plastics in the Toronto Harbour.
We have also taken the additional step of hiring an internal dedicated resource to lead our sustainability efforts in terms of responding, preparing and developing a road map for future efforts.
These are efforts we take and a commitment we make to ensure we are part of the climate change solution, but the larger challenge in front of us is definitely something we all have to address to ensure that Canadian businesses can protect against and respond to the threat of climate change. According to an RTI International study, which was reviewed by the Environmental Defence Fund, the impacts of climate change on ports alone could cost the global shipping industry up to $10 billion annually by 2050 and up to $25 billion per year by 2100.
Of all the transportation sectors, shipping is one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In terms of the types of climate impacts we have experienced at the Port of Toronto, water levels are one of the most prevalent. We’ve had challenges with low water levels; however, in both 2017 and 2019, Toronto was severely impacted by record-high water levels. Unusually high precipitation combined with snowmelt and decisions by the International Joint Commission caused water levels in Toronto’s harbour to rise to an alarming level. As a result, large-scale flooding took place all along the waterfront and caused disruptions to businesses, including Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and the Port of Toronto. Both the port and the airport were just four inches from flooding, and significant effort and cost went into pumping, sandbagging and diverting to ensuring that operations were not disrupted.
Understanding the risks to our business and the responsibility we have to protect and mitigate, PortsToronto has initiated measures to better identify, understand and prepare for the risks. This includes an audit to assess the current and future risks to our infrastructure. The analysis identified 614 climate infrastructure interaction points under current and future climate conditions. These included, but were not limited to, impacts on floating docks, electricity supply, ferry operations and storm sewers.
Going forward, PortsToronto will also integrate the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, which also forms the basis of many federal reporting requirements around the world, including the Proposed National Instrument 51-107: Disclosure of Climate-related Matters. We also intend to undertake climate scenario analysis that accounts for different factors with respect to temperature patterns, lake levels, climate-related legislation, customer demand and technological developments.
PortsToronto is in the business of making connections and moving people and goods for the benefit of the local, regional and national economies. As the impacts of climate change grow and the likelihood of weather events increases, it will be incumbent upon government and business to work together to identify approaches to mitigation, elimination and protection to ensure the health and efficiency of our transportation infrastructure and networks. This includes a broad-based, multi-year funding program for infrastructure that not only addresses end-of-life infrastructure but will also strengthen the national marine supply chain by providing ports with the funding and ability to prepare for climate change.
It will be critical for this funding program to be multi-year, as building dock walls and other large-scale infrastructure cannot be realistically completed in a single year. Further, the funding should be for critical infrastructure —
The Chair: Mr. Steenstra, I hate to interrupt, but if you can wrap up, please, you’re already over five minutes.
Mr. Steenstra: Absolutely.
Addressing the impacts of climate change is a shared responsibility that will need the commitment of business and government to work together for solutions. It does require us to look at innovations and enhancements, to mitigate operational impacts and make important investments.
I would like to thank the committee for providing my colleagues and me the opportunity to speak to you tonight on an important issue. We applaud all members for your commitment to learning more about climate change and its impacts to the transportation sector. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. For the benefit of our audience, I would like to inform everyone that Senator Andrew Cardozo has also joined our committee this evening.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Mr. Athanasiou regarding the St. Lawrence Seaway, which, as a senator from Quebec, I have a special interest in, of course.
In your presentation, you talked primarily about everything that is going well, not as well, or badly, or could be negatively affected by climate change. I would like you to elaborate on that. You talked about making our infrastructures resilient and about bridges. What needs to be done to strengthen the infrastructure related to the St. Lawrence Seaway?
One witness, the mayor of Saint-Anicet, was devastated by the ever more frequent flooding caused by there being less ice on the St. Lawrence. That is problematic, but not for the ships, I would assume. I do think it is important though when we are talking about the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I would like to hear your thoughts on those two issues.
Mr. Athanasiou: Thank you for your question, senator.
For the first issue, it is a question of always having enough money to do the work and building resilience to deal with variations in water levels and water flow. It always comes down to being better able to build our infrastructures to manage those variations.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are you saying the infrastructures are past their prime now? Are they old and outdated?
Mr. Athanasiou: No, not at all. Since 1998, we have had a program that invests an average of $70 million every year. We have a robust inspection, planning and investment program that ensures that all our infrastructure is safe. We have 99% availability for ship traffic. Our availability is very high, but the investment must continue.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I assume that flooding and water levels in general must have an impact on navigation.
Mr. Athanasiou: As my colleague mentioned, the International Joint Commission (IJC) manages the water flow through the waterway. That has the greatest impact on navigation, community members and all other hydrological services. The commission manages all of that for us.
To answer your question, we have no control over the ice ultimately, whether there is any or not. The commission has to ensure that the ships can navigate safely, and that is managed by the water flow. We work with the IJC, which gives us advice that enables us to make the best decisions on how to regulate the water flow, which is the most important thing for —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The flow through the locks?
Mr. Athanasiou: Yes, but there is more to it than that.
The water level in the Great Lakes is high. That water has to go somewhere and it flows into rivers. Since the ships go through locks and end up in the river, this can affect their operation and their ability to cross the river if the water flow is too high or too low.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In view of climate change, do you think our locks system will still be sufficient and functional? Do you think we will have to profoundly change the way we control the water flow in the St. Lawrence Seaway?
Mr. Athanasiou: Yes, it will still work for ship traffic. The challenge involves changes and variability in water levels, which can be high or low; that affects the tonnage a ship can carry and how ships operate.
We need to invest. There are projects we can invest in to minimize the impact at certain places along the waterway to make it more resilient.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Klyne: I have a question for Mr. Steenstra with a little preamble.
Supply chain stakeholders face enormous challenges related to climate change. If the supply chain is interrupted or paralyzed due to a climate risk, this can have a huge impact on a company’s daily operations and processes, not to mention a negative impact upon the local, regional and national economies.
In your remarks, I heard some references that sounded similar to a business continuity plan. I’m just wondering: Do you have a business continuity plan to increase your sustainability and resiliency in the face of growing climate risks and mitigate the disruption to the supply chain?
Mr. Steenstra: Yes, absolutely. Obviously, as independent business operations, whether it’s the airport or the port, we have to ensure that we’re continually looking at the risks that we face and how we can mitigate against any of those impacts. Obviously, for us, some key attributes are the planning that has to take place. Then there is the support that is required to do that. Better access to capital and a national strategy on transportation are helpful in order to mitigate our challenges when it comes to supply chains and our ability to serve our customers and also the broader market here in Toronto.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Mr. Athanasiou, maybe I won’t ask you whether you have a business continuity plan. In your opinion, to what extent could government authorities help supply chain stakeholders and companies like yours and your colleagues’ to increase their sustainability and resilience in the face of growing climate risks?
Mr. Athanasiou: Thank you for that question. Simply put, I would want government authorities to ensure that we have stable funding to invest in our infrastructure so we can move along as climate change is taking place.
Senator Klyne: Okay. Do you have a business continuity plan?
Mr. Athanasiou: Yes.
Senator Klyne: Can you share that with the committee at a high level — some of the major things you focus on in that regard?
Mr. Athanasiou: I don’t have all the information with me right now. If you would like, I can get someone from my team to work on it.
Senator Klyne: Perfect. Could you send it to the clerk?
Mr. Athanasiou: Absolutely.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Mr. Hamilton, I just love a good case of nominative determinism, and the idea that Mr. Hamilton works for the Port of Hamilton makes me happy on some very childish level. I’m sure you have heard this joke far too many times to think it’s funny again.
You mentioned this quite heartbreaking story of having dredged the port only to have all the goop come back. Yesterday, we heard from two academic experts who talked about the danger that climate change poses with respect to erosion, and not just from wind. They said that if there is a lack of ice, without the ice that protects the banks from erosion, the erosion gets worse.
Was the scenario you described based on a freak storm? To what extent is it a demonstration of the impact of more erosion creating more stuff?
Mr. Hamilton: Thanks for the question. Yes, a few people have noted that my last name is Hamilton and I work at the Port of Hamilton as well.
The huge fluctuations in water levels are probably causing a lot of the erosion and some of the challenges. The situation I described — and it was really just illustrative of the types of things that ports are dealing with — was really down to, as you called it, a freak storm. However, the reality is that these “100-year storms” are arriving every couple of years now.
We have actually done a lot of modelling around this particular situation. There is a solution, which is building groins out into Lake Ontario, which change the way the water flows and where the sediment is actually deposited. The solution to that problem — and this will sound a bit like supporting what Mr. Steenstra and my colleague from the SLSMC have said — is a $20-million to $50-million solution. Unfortunately, it’s going to take investments like these to ensure that we can offer the continuity of service at the ports around the country.
Senator Simons: Mr. Steenstra, it’s lovely to see you again. I know Mr. Steenstra from his time at the Fort McMurray International Airport.
Mr. Steenstra: Yes. It’s nice to see you again, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: We recently heard from witnesses who talked about the vulnerabilities of the Vancouver International Airport because it’s on Sea Island. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that, of course, you are also on an island. Obviously, the lake does not have the same kind of water level rises and storm surges that the Pacific Ocean does, but the scenario you described where you almost flooded sounded pretty grim.
In Vancouver, there has been serious discussion about how long they will be able to sustain an airport in that place. How vulnerable in the medium and long term is Vancouver International Airport to the impact of storm surges that might inundate the island itself?
Mr. Steenstra: Storm surges do happen, but certainly climate change and its consequences are very high on our risk registry and something we pay attention to and look at every quarter in terms of how we can mitigate, talk about it in the right way and ensure that we’re viable.
Certainly, airports have waged a really strong recovery after a lot of difficult years. It’s affecting the industry across the board in terms of weather patterns changing, severe storm patterns coming into our environments and — as in our case — water levels changing. Obviously, severe storms can affect Toronto directly as well. I would imagine it’s something that is very high on the risk registry of every airport across the country. In terms of their business continuity, how do they ensure they can manage through those increasing weather events?
Senator Simons: Wouldn’t being surrounded by water make you more vulnerable than, say, Fort McMurray, Edmonton or Saskatoon, which are never going to flood?
Mr. Steenstra: Well, that’s very true, but, of course, I experienced the 2016 fires in Fort McMurray, which almost burned down the entire airport and, in fact, burned down a good portion of the community there. So it’s a significant challenge all across the country. Certainly in our microenvironment here, we are definitely paying attention to water levels simply because we can’t build enough infrastructure to enable us to get through that process.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Patterson: I have actually been fortunate to go both into the Toronto and Hamilton ports, both obviously on the St. Lawrence Seaway. This is quite interesting.
I was quite struck, Mr. Steenstra, when you talked about the retrofitting of the ferry to make it electric. We are certainly talking about things that are causing elevations and decreases in water levels, but the quality of the water is also quite significant. When you have massive erosion into a lake, especially when you’re talking about that dump into Oshawa, with that comes the pollution and not just the sediment; there are also the consequences of that. It acidifies the water, et cetera.
What I’m curious about regarding the Toronto, Oshawa and Hamilton areas is this: How do you monitor this? It not only causes that acidic erosion but also affects the hulls of ships. Is there anything with respect to that you collect data on? Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Steenstra: Ian, do you want to start?
Mr. Hamilton: Sure. I’ll talk a little about deposits and how we deal with dredgate material. We test all of the dredgate material that we move or take out of the water. If it’s clean, it can be disposed of back into the water. If it has a level of contamination, it is actually brought onto shore and dewatered. Then we find some form of landfill or, in the Port of Hamilton’s case, we use what is called a contained disposal facility, or CDF. We take that material and put it into the disposal facility. That way, we can keep it isolated. Eventually, it’s capped.
There is a wonderful example of that in Hamilton now that is funded by the federal government, the provincial government and industry. That’s addressing what is called Randall Reef, which is a very large deposit of coal tar that existed in the Port of Hamilton, making it the most contaminated spot in Canadian waters at present. They have built a large containment facility, taken the material out from the surrounding bed of the harbour and put it inside the facility, which will now be contained. Then they will cap it on the top.
That addresses one part of your question. I’ll pass it over to Mr. Steenstra for the other part. Certainly, that’s how we manage and deal with the contaminated material that is coming out from the bottom of the harbour bed.
Mr. Steenstra: Thanks, Ian. We would have a similar process for our materials.
But in terms of the ferry, we listen to our community. We are talking about air quality in this particular case. We got feedback around the potential impacts of having the diesel ferry running back and forth between the island and the mainland. So we took immediate action to invest in the ferry and make it fully electric, which has reduced our impacts on air quality in the area remarkably. It has been a terrific success.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much.
This all costs money. It costs money with respect to business continuity for sure.
Do you receive funding for this? These are not necessarily unexpected costs anymore, but they are taking away from your ability to create resiliency within your ports and the seaway. Where does this money come from? How is that impacting your other key lines of business?
Mr. Steenstra: Regarding the ferry, we made that investment through revenues that we generate through the airport and the port. So, yes, you’re right: It does have an impact, because we have to ensure that if that is a priority and an investment we want to make, it takes away from other investments that could be made. We don’t have an infinite amount of money that can be spent on really important infrastructure requirements. We look at it in terms of priorities, and that certainly rose to the top for us in terms of making a strong investment there. We proceeded from that basis.
The Chair: I have a question for any one of our guests tonight. Climate change is obviously having a huge impact on the way you operate. Going forward, we need to adjust accordingly, but has there been any opportunity because of climate change? Have there been any positives that have come out of climate change, for either the seaway or the ports in Canada that we’re looking at today?
Mr. Athanasiou: There is the example I highlighted of the ability to go into one extra week of navigation season in the Welland Canal and in the Montreal/Lake Ontario section — the benefit here is that with more ships travelling, cargo continues to move. It takes a load off other modes of transportation.
So that’s something that can be highlighted. With that comes variability, which has to be dealt with through stable funding. But let’s call that a silver lining in this. At least being able to extend the navigation season does help — with marine being the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation, that is a net benefit.
The Chair: Does anybody else want to weigh in on that?
Mr. Hamilton: I’ll jump in. I can’t imagine there are enough positives to outweigh the negatives; however, one thing we have seen, and it’s not necessarily to do with transportation specifically, but the agricultural growing season has meant that there is an increased productivity of crops for export out of the province of Ontario. Hamilton, in particular, has invested about $500 million in developing these facilities to handle this material. Last year, we carried about 3.5 million metric tons’ worth of agriculture products for export. We see that continuing to grow. Productivity has gone up by 6% to 9%. It’s not all down to a longer growing season, however, but also precision farming and various other techniques.
Again, that’s something where I can’t possibly imagine there are as many positives as there are negatives, but that’s another potential silver lining that we have noted.
The Chair: I do not believe it’s a race of trying to figure out if climate change is positive or negative. We all know that it’s here and happening. Are we doing enough in terms of coordination with our port authorities and seaways as a government to come up with the necessary strategies in order for us to be ready to adapt to climate change that will occur 3, 7 or 15 years from now?
Mr. Steenstra: It’s a great question. We’re pleased to see the commitments in the 2023 budget, specifically the Green Shipping Corridor Program. That’s the result of continued collaboration between government and industry. Thank you for doing that.
One of the challenges we must continue to look at is that there is a tremendous amount of further infrastructure that will be required going forward because of aging, but it’s also about taking advantage of innovation so ports can continue to be enablers.
Access to risk-based capital is very necessary for ports going forward, so we’re pleased to continue that dialogue with the government to ensure there is certainty from that standpoint as well. Thanks for your question.
Mr. Athanasiou: I would just go right along the track that my colleague went. The Green Shipping Corridor Program is definitely a good start. With the variability, you have heard before that the key is to continue to invest properly to make sure we are prepared moving forward. But the Green Shipping Corridor Program is definitely a good effort.
Mr. Hamilton: Thank you. I’ll jump in as well.
We certainly applaud the Green Shipping Corridor Program and, hopefully, during my opening remarks, I illustrated that it will be so oversubscribed that we will see new projects that could be acted upon in the future.
Up until now, the investments that have gone into ports through the National Trade Corridors Fund have been trade-enabling investments, which have been hugely important, particularly coming out of COVID and trying to make sure we have that infrastructure in place. We need to shift our focus now and recognize almost a defensive type of mode in how we ensure that we continue to maintain and build up our assets so we can deal with the climate change that is coming.
One of the areas I tried to address in my opening remarks as well is Bill C-33. We’re hoping to see some changes in Bill C-33 that allow port authorities to find funds in different ways than just grants from the federal or the provincial governments, and try to find better ways we can partner, whether it be with Indigenous communities, industry or financial institutions so that we can make these critical investments and potentially amortize them over long periods of time.
I think we have to look at giving us the tools to make sure we can find third-party investments and investors inside of it. Certainly, our ability to partner with Indigenous communities is quite important because they’ve always shown a keen interest in how to address these climate change issues.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I just want to follow up, Mr. Hamilton, on your comments about Bill C-33, and I ask this of the other witnesses too.
Is there anything in Bill C-33 that relates to climate change or environmental goals? Does it involve any activity or goals that are part of the mandate that you’ll have to live with under Bill C-33? Are there any actions that you’re required to take that have anything to do with the environment? We’ve heard about the bill. We don’t have it here yet, but I know it’s in the other place.
Mr. Hamilton: I’ll start off. Inside the bill, there’s certainly a requirement for more consultation. I think that in itself helps to make sure that the environmental voice gets heard and we can address it that way.
The other area — which, again, is a little more subtle — is the ability for port authorities to access the funds in multiple different ways and create new partnerships. We’d like to see Bill C-33 address some of those areas so that we can make the critical investments we need to address the challenges we’re faced with, and climate change is one of the biggest. That includes everything from ports being able to borrow money on the open markets to being able to partner with third parties and create more creative ways of funding these projects.
Senator Dasko: So are you saying there are aspects of the bill that deal specifically with climate change? Or are you extrapolating a little?
Mr. Hamilton: I’m extrapolating a little. The bill has the potential to give us the tools to deal with climate change.
Senator Dasko: Right. Do any of the other witnesses have any comment on Bill C-33 in connection with the environment?
Mr. Steenstra: I would echo Ian’s comments. There are certain limitations and restrictions that are currently part of Bill C-33 that negatively impact the ability of Canadian ports to prepare and respond to climate change, mostly because it’s hampering the investments and activities that we must make to respond in a business manner to climate change requirements.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Mr. Steenstra, I have some questions for you.
Mr. Steenstra: Yes.
Senator Dasko: I’m a Torontonian. I use the airport at least once a week, so I know it very well — although I have very little knowledge, I have to say, of the port, so that’s a real deficit on my part. I’ll have to come down and see it someday.
Mr. Steenstra: Absolutely.
Senator Dasko: Yes, I’m looking forward to it. You talked about the ferry. Now, with the walkway, nobody I know is using the ferry anymore at all — and you’re going to tell me that all kinds of people are using the ferry, I guess.
Are part of the savings that you’ve had because the ferry isn’t running as much, or is it running as much?
Mr. Steenstra: Oh, no, the ferry is absolutely a key link from the mainland to the island, mostly because of transportation. All of our supplies come over the ferry. You can imagine that the terminal requires food, supplies and fuel. All of those elements come over on the ferry, so it’s absolutely still a very critical transportation link.
As you’ve noted, certainly the tunnel has created another way to get passengers from the mainland to the airport. However, people do still end up on the passenger ferry deck to enjoy that short ride and that view, if they have the time. But really, my point is that it’s still such a critical transportation link for us to get supplies over to the island.
Senator Dasko: Well, there may be a few tourists on the ferry. Is it going as often as it used to?
Mr. Steenstra: It’s reduced a little, obviously, based on need, but it’s on a regular schedule throughout the day during our hours of operation.
Senator Dasko: I understand you are responsible for the environmental issues in the Toronto Harbour. Can I ask you about the involvement of PortsToronto in the development of the Lower Don? To what extent was PortsToronto involved in that? As you know — obviously, you work there — there is a huge development that has taken place.
Mr. Steenstra: Yes.
Senator Dasko: The Don has been diverted, and there seems to be a new river down there. Was PortsToronto involved in that development?
Mr. Steenstra: No, we were not directly involved. As a stakeholder in the area and obviously a key partner on the waterfront, we have a voice in that process, but that was largely led by Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto.
Senator Dasko: Right. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I have a few questions and I arrived here late, so excuse me if you’ve answered these already.
First, I’m interested in the ports that exist. I assume that Hamilton and Oshawa were previously separate ports, and then at some point the management got together. Is there any thought about the three ports linking up to one port authority someday?
I say that in the context of some of the issues we’re talking about from a geography perspective and in terms of the environment, but also in terms of traffic and loading and the economy — you’re all kind of in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, or GTHA.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: Am I treading on some difficult areas here? I don’t want to put either of you out of work or anything.
Mr. Hamilton: Certainly, Transport Canada, through the management regulations, has the ability to amalgamate ports, and that’s what they did between Hamilton and Oshawa about four and a half years ago, almost five years ago now. It was to really ensure the long-term viability of the system. Having the two ports together had a better likelihood of doing that.
Certainly from the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority’s perspective, we believe, be it an amalgamation or through very close cooperation, that the port system is truly that — a system. The more we can work together, ensure that funding goes to the highest and best uses and move cargo via the best destinations and origin points, the more there is an advantage to Canadians.
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Steenstra, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Steenstra: Well, the way we would look at it is if we had a broader, more holistic strategy for Canadian ports nationally, that might be helpful to ensure the sustainability of each port. I understand your point that there could be synergies and efficiencies gained, but we do believe, obviously, there are different markets and customers served by each individual port, so it’s certainly not something we’re in active discussion on in any way. But yes, I certainly understand the point.
Senator Cardozo: Geographically, it seems odd to me that you would have Toronto in the middle and these two ports, Oshawa and Hamilton, on either side, and these two guys are linked up and the one in the middle is separate. Either Toronto should be with one or the other.
I have one other question on the geography. Between Oshawa and Hamilton, there are just the three ports — Hamilton, Toronto and Oshawa in terms of actual ports — right? There are no others there.
Mr. Steenstra: That’s correct.
Mr. Hamilton: Certainly not ones that are federally owned or regulated.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. I’m on the Port of Toronto website, and you’re talking about the amount of cargo you’re taking off the roadways as a result of having the ports linked and more cargo using the waterways.
Is there anything you could add to that in terms of what you’re doing now and what the plans are down the road? How much more do you think you will be able to take off the roadways in that region?
Mr. Steenstra: That’s highly dependent on the business that’s generated. Obviously, customers choose ports for different reasons, but we believe that close-proximity ports, which Toronto has — and depending on the goods that are coming in — would negate the need for long transportation hauls from other areas in order to get products into the city of Toronto, and in particular bulk products, in our case.
For example, aggregate materials that come directly into the Port of Toronto serve the construction industry right in downtown Toronto. That’s a 10-minute drive versus two or three hours or otherwise — on a good day — from other areas in Ontario. So there are certainly efficiencies that can be gained and a decrease in impact over the long term from activities that don’t require, for example, long hauls by truck.
Senator Cardozo: Regarding the congestion that’s happening on the roadways across the GTHA — is there an active movement of goods to the waterways?
Mr. Steenstra: Well, we’d certainly like to see more in that aspect. You’re absolutely right. Congestion is a massive problem that costs $11 billion or so in lost productivity. So whatever we do, we’re certainly a solution to that problem from an import perspective.
Mr. Hamilton: Senator Cardozo, could I jump in as well?
Senator Cardozo: Please.
Mr. Hamilton: I just want to give an idea of the potential. I think the real potential is converting what today is ground or truck transportation to marine. We’ve identified, for example, half a million truckloads per year that move from southern Ontario into the Chicago and Midwest area — in and out. Our goal is to try to develop new marine services that can actually take those trucks off the road. When you have a marine service that produces about one tenth the greenhouse gases as a truck per ton-mile, then you have a real opportunity.
Similarly, there’s no ability to handle uncleared containers — containers coming from foreign shores — at any port in the Great Lakes because we have no sufferance warehouses, which are fundamentally bonded facilities that would allow us to bring those containers in. Therefore, the customer has no alternative but to move them by truck or rail. I think that’s the holy grail that we’re really looking at. We have our natural penetration of the cargo that is most suited to marine today, but now we need to start to look at how we can better utilize our waterways. You talked about how Toronto is one of the most congested areas of all of North America and yet we have 50% capacity available inside the system. Jim can talk about that as well in terms of how much more cargo we potentially could take through Highway H2O and our seaway system.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Mr. Steenstra. I read in the Toronto Star that Ports Toronto is in discussions with Transport Canada to lengthen its runways to make them safer. Where are you going to put those runways? Will you fill in the lake to make the island bigger? Is that compatible with global warming or will it cause destabilization in certain respects?
[English]
Mr. Steenstra: Thank you very much for the question. You are talking about runway end safety areas, or RESAs, that all airports in Canada have to put in place and, in fact, most already have. We are now in discussions with Transport Canada to put a RESA in. It would be an extension of our existing runway in order to comply with that requirement from a safety standpoint. We’re working very hard to ensure that we’re managing that and what impacts positively and/or otherwise are in place. It’s certainly critical, and we have until 2027 to put that in our airport.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay, but my question was a bit more specific. Are you going to go into the water and build some more runways? Are you going to put in landfill? Are you going to go into the lake just to have more of those runways? Sorry, my English is completely —
Mr. Steenstra: No problem. I understand. There are a number of options for us in order to comply, and certainly that’s one of the options we’re contemplating right now.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is it a good idea — really — at this point? We’re talking about water levels going up and all of that. Is it a good idea?
Mr. Steenstra: Well, I guess the simple way to answer the question is that we may not have a choice.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Mr. Steenstra: You’re welcome.
The Chair: I would like to say thank you to all of our witnesses for being here this evening and answering our questions.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, we are continuing our study on the impact of climate change on infrastructure in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence transportation sector. For our second panel this evening, we are pleased to welcome by videoconference Mr. Jason Rimmer, Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, and Marc-Yves Bertin, Chief Executive Officer, Laurentian Pilotage Authority.
[English]
We welcome both of you to our committee. Thank you for joining us. There will be five minutes for opening remarks for each of our witnesses, and then we will turn the floor over to senators for Q & A. We will begin with five minutes for Marc-Yves Bertin.
[Translation]
He will be followed by Jason Rimmer for five more minutes, and we will then proceed to the question and answer period.
Mr. Bertin, you have the floor.
Marc-Yves Bertin, Chief Executive Officer, Laurentian Pilotage Authority: Meegwetch. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about this topic.
My name is Marc-Yves Bertin and I have been the Chief Executive Officer of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority since May 2023. The LPA is a federal Crown corporation responsible for providing pilotage services in the Gulf of St. Lawrence up to the St. Lambert Lock in Montreal. We are responsible for a total of 945 nautical miles of navigable waters that link the third-largest economic region in the world to the global economy. Our pilotage services are provided 24 hours per day, seven days per week, from our dispatch centre in Montreal and through five deployment stations along the waterway.
[English]
On average, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, or LPA, handles nearly 25,000 pilotage missions a year. In addition to linking Canadian traders to global markets, our operations also play an essential economic security function, serving as the main corridor for resupply of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the Canadian Arctic. Of course, this service supports safe navigation, including the safety of the public and marine personnel, but it also serves the protection of human health and property as well as our great natural endowment.
[Translation]
The effect of climate change and the impacts on supply chains are in fact among the daily issues the Laurentian Pilotage Authority is learning to cope with. Climate change affects water temperature, for instance, which in turn shifts marine mammal gestation areas, which are difficult to predict for maritime traffic.
The more extreme variations in atmospheric cycles are also a concern. By the way, I can remember a time when the issue with the water level in the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes was that it was too low. As a result, the ships had to reduce their freight. Now it is the opposite. With higher water levels, there are new challenges for navigation safety, including faster currents and the erosion of banks.
There are also changes in the winter. In the past, there were ice jams along the river nearly every year. I would point out that the last ice jam was in 2019, but there were two, less serious jams in the same season.
[English]
While environmental officials would be better placed to offer considered opinion, I think it’s fair to say that the frequency and intensity of these environmental impacts appear, at least to us, to be augmented.
[Translation]
For the LPA, the need to address these challenges highlights two things. First, we have to better include environmental considerations in everything we do and make the necessary effort to make our operations more environmentally friendly.
Secondly, we must recognize that managing these challenges requires partnerships to enhance the resilience of our corridor, whether for responding to specific crises or more strategically to explore other mitigation and adaptation measures. That is why the LPA has intensified its collaborative efforts. We invest in data and utilize our simulation abilities to better understand the changes in our natural environment.
With the government of Quebec and other partners, we are developing more sophisticated traffic management tools using artificial intelligence to determine the best time for a ship to enter or exit the river, bearing in mind a variety of factors such as tides and ultimately water levels.
More broadly speaking, we work with Canadian and U.S. authorities, ports, the shipping industry and other stakeholders, particularly within the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council at the regional level, but we also take part in departmental shipping initiatives such as the Green Shipping Corridor Network. Our objective in all of that is quite simply to define approaches — which is not that easy — and ultimately to create a shipping corridor that is greener, smarter and more in line with the federal government’s carbon neutrality goals and its efforts relating to supply chain resiliency.
In conclusion, we know that providing reliable and efficient services depends on our ability to understand, anticipate and adapt to the changes in our natural environment. This work will continue to require our internal expertise, but increasingly we will have to align our efforts with those of other organizations in order to establish consistent solutions.
[English]
I am pleased to yield the floor back to you, Mr. Chair, and my colleague Mr. Rimmer.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rimmer, you have the floor.
Jason Rimmer, Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority: Hello, meegwetch. Thank you, honourable members of the committee, for inviting me to speak with you today.
I have been the Chief Executive Officer for the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, or GLPA, since the beginning of February. I appreciate the opportunity to address the critical issue of climate change and our role to help mitigate its profound impacts on our vital transportation infrastructure.
[Translation]
Created in 1972, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority has the mandate to establish, operate, maintain and administer a safe, efficient and cost-effective marine pilotage service within designated Canadian waters.
[English]
The Great Lakes region is vast, with some 250,000 square kilometres of navigable waters. Marine traffic in the Great Lakes is primarily driven by grain, iron ore, oil and gas, bulk products and passenger vessels. Safe and reliable pilotage services ensure the movement of these goods and people, and ensures the economic benefits to Canada. Our services also contribute to fulfilling environmental goals through the safe and efficient transportation of commodities and hazardous materials.
[Translation]
Climate change has resulted in extreme weather conditions in recent years, which are unfortunately more frequent than in the past. These climate changes pose major operational challenges to the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority in terms of its ability to provide cost-effective and efficient pilotage services. Major fluctuations in meteorological conditions can change water currents and levels, which can negatively affect ship traffic in the Great Lakes network.
[English]
To help mitigate the effects of climate change, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority continues to consult with Indigenous communities along the St. Lawrence Seaway to help better understand the impacts of climate change and co-develop, with partners and stakeholders alike, effective tools to ensure the sustainability of this vital waterway.
[Translation]
To help mitigate the effects of climate change on both the environment and the economy, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority provides valuable expertise to the International Joint Commission, which is responsible for monitoring and development strategies relating to water levels in the system.
[English]
The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority is also leveraging its 70 pilots in providing expertise into the Draft Information System. Developed by the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the Draft Information System allows vessels to load to a maximum draft while minimizing the impact to the seaway.
We are also assisting in the development of the Vessel Information System, a tool that uses AI to better predict traffic and improve the fluidity of vessel movements while maximizing efficiency and reducing delays throughout the seaway.
[Translation]
Since 2023, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority has been a member of the Green Shipping Corridor Network and takes part in certain working groups, including one that helps bring the shipping sector in line with the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C, and another one that explores decarbonization strategies and greenhouse gas emissions while pursuing avenues for greater cooperation with our partners.
[English]
Internally, as part of the government’s initiative on the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, the GLPA will be exploring green procurement requirements for all of its contractors, such as its land transportation contracts, as part of its upcoming procurement strategies.
In 2023, the GLPA also completed an assessment of its greenhouse gas emissions under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. All emissions data was tabulated and presented to the organization in early 2024 and is currently being reviewed. The next step will be to determine which action plan will help reduce Great Lakes Pilotage Authority greenhouse gas emissions.
Marine transportation is the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation. The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, in meeting its mandate of a safe, economic and reliable marine pilotage, is providing a vital link, ensuring the marine industry transiting the Great Lakes continues to provide a sustainable service to the economies of both Canada and our partners in the United States.
I want to thank the committee for providing me with a platform to share information on how the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority continues to demonstrate its commitment in providing a safe and sustainable pilotage service for Canadians. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our panel guests. My first question is for Marc-Yves Bertin.
A Montreal Gazette article from February 24 explains some of the challenges that the Laurentian Pilotage Authority faces. I quote:
The environment that LPA operates in is fraught with challenges: lumpy supply chains caused by COVID-19 and global conflict; a drive to achieve greener operations with a goal of net zero by 2050; and the need to replace older, highly skilled pilots and ship captains who are reaching retirement. LPA is also being asked to expand its operating area to the North Shore of Québec . . . .
As a federal Crown corporation, I assume you have stable funding and resources to increase LPA’s sustainability and resilience in the face of growing climate risks. I assume further, as a Crown corporation, you’re expected to have a business continuity plan.
Can you give us some concrete examples of the actions taken by LPA to improve supply chain efficiency and mitigate supply chain disruptions, not only in your operations in the waters of the Laurentian region but also in your plans to expand into the North Shore of Quebec?
Mr. Bertin: Thank you very much for that great question. As you can see, we have a number of great challenges that we get to deal with in our positions at pilotage administrations.
There were a number of questions there. To your first question with respect to financing, under the Pilotage Act, we are required to be financially self-sufficient. That means that we actually ensure our revenue and our financial sustainability through a tariffs structure, which are charged to our users — basically, domestic and international shipowners. From that perspective, we are able to ensure that the service continues to be present, resilient and reliable, as well as, of course, secure and efficient.
With respect to business continuity and the types of things that we’re doing to keep the supply chain resilient, obviously, there are a number of challenges, like for any organization. I heard a question during the previous panel, and you have raised a similar theme of business continuity. Obviously, we’re focused on the continuity of our facilities, our operations, our IT systems and so forth. We track key risks. We identify mitigation and contingency measures, whether these are training or alternative systems and redundancies. All that is to say, business continuity is essential. We have a key mandate in connecting Canada to the rest of the world.
When it comes to the types of things we are doing, there is a range. We have been doing a lot of work under the rubric of research and development to better understand the natural environment. Therefore, we are establishing research programs in conjunction with universities and research centres on a range of challenges to navigation. I can get into some of those, if you’d like. Let me highlight one that I think checks a number of interesting boxes: our optimized pilotage software that we have been developing in conjunction with a number of partners and in collaboration with the provincial government.
What we have been working on is essentially software that enables us to integrate a number of various factors, such as natural environmental factors like water levels and — I’m not sure how you say this in English, when the water comes in and out — tidal factors, air clearances and so forth, along with regulatory dimensions in terms of any applicable regulations with respect to safety operations, as well as the physical dimensions of vessels, to determine the optimal time for them to come in and out of the St. Lawrence Seaway corridor.
When fully complete, our preliminary testing suggests this should not only reduce the time used to effect that transit, but also, therefore, the cost, because of the savings in terms of fuel, and with that, related savings in terms of greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions. It’s a very interesting solution that we have been developing with partners to ostensibly make the system more efficient, more effective and — obviously — have less of an impact from an environmental perspective.
Senator Klyne: Mr. Bertin, I guess you get to look in the rear-view mirror at these frequent weather events. Do you intend to follow through on the request to go into the North Shore of Quebec? If so, what would you be doing — now that you have experienced some of these events — that is key to building that resilience and sustainability in this new version?
Mr. Bertin: That’s a great question. We will go into the Lower North Shore of Quebec, if the Government of Canada, of course, asks us to. We are waiting for that decision. If that decision comes and it’s positive, we are organizing ourselves to be ready.
I think it’s fair to say that we obviously have 50 years of experience in this space as an institution, and we have a remarkable track record. When you think about our efficiency and on-time performance, the delays in the supply chain associated with our operations only account for 0.1% of those delays. I think that speaks for itself in terms of the proficiency that we can bring to bear in establishing and organizing these types of services.
With that said, what is the key to that success? It’s knowing our clients’ needs, our users’ needs. One of the things that we have identified as a practice and which we have offered to stakeholders on the Lower North Shore is to sit down to do two things. First, to better understand their existing systems, because obviously, we’re going from one state to another, so it’s important to be able to understand and plan that transition. We’re also building in an appropriate amount of time so that we can do real-time testing before we take over any service if the government asks us to do that.
Senator Klyne: Are there any lessons learned in the past weather events and critical upsets or disruptions that you would be taking into this venture?
Mr. Bertin: One of the things that we take away from our experience in managing crises, whether that’s ice jams on the river or what have you, is that you must be able to bring the people together quickly so that you can deal with the situation. Crisis management is not something that is alien to us. In fact, ice jams used to be a yearly occurrence, and we have been able to develop that agility and expertise to bring people together and actually manage an orderly shutdown — and a restart if that is what is needed.
Obviously, partnership is going to be key in this ecosystem, and over time, we’re hoping that these partnerships actually yield to more strategic dialogues with respect to looking toward the future and better understanding the evolution of the natural environment we are going to be operating within.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Bertin.
You talked about challenges. Can you be more specific about the kinds of problems you have encountered thus far, such as delays or dangerous conditions caused by climate change, or higher tides or stronger currents?
Have you been able to quantify the losses or the types of incidents you have experienced in your operations as a result of such events?
Mr. Bertin: Thank you very much for your question.
There is the type of challenge — I could talk about ice jams, flooding or strong winds. Those are natural factors that change over time and that have a huge impact on our operations.
That said, let’s take the example of variations in water levels. You probably know that major atmospheric cycles cause variation in the precipitation that feeds into waterways. That precipitation leads to flooding in the spring along Lake Ontario, tributaries and the St. Lawrence River. As a result, speed limits have to be imposed on ships to reduce the impact of waves in sensitive locations. We are of course talking about the impact on the fluidity of navigation and the fluidity of trade, for instance, which poses safety challenges.
So, strategically, apart from managing these issues on a day-to-day basis in our pilot assignment operations, I would say that one of the things we’re doing among the various research initiatives is working with a group of researchers, the Réseau Québec maritime, which is based in Rimouski and involves various research centres and universities — both Canadian and international — to predict the effect of wave heights at sensitive locations based on water levels and ship characteristics. These include hull shape, identification of mitigation measures, optimal speed reduction by vessel type, potential infrastructure or other investments, and regulatory frameworks. These are all elements to be examined and explored.
I would add that the longer-term impact on the seabed and bank erosion still needs to be determined; it’s a form of activity that remains to be specified, but what is clear is that this type of work will have to continue in order to better understand and manage these events.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Let me take you back to the subject of animals; you touched on it briefly at the beginning.
What are the growing problems with fish and cetaceans? Does this have anything to do with climate change? Does this complicate your life or the lives of the poor cetaceans?
Mr. Bertin: Yes, that’s right. I was referring at the very beginning to changes in water temperature, which means that there may be an increased presence of certain types of marine mammals.
Of course, these are not ships with sonar or at least with what we call an AES, or identification technology. This means that it’s difficult to predict and identify their location when pilots are on board a vessel managing a situation. This is the kind of work we are following up on with Transport Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Their mandate is to oversee the protection of these marine mammals.
The impact is therefore regulatory, as speed limits are imposed. For us, this means that a transit that already takes 20 to 24 hours between Les Escoumins and Montreal, for example…. We’re talking about human beings taking charge of these vessels for piloting work periods that are becoming very long. This raises very practical issues in terms of workforce management and, in some cases, it may force us to ensure continuity of service with two pilots rather than a single one. So that’s twice the cost for the fleet.
These are issues that need to be managed, and there are solutions such as this optimized pilotage software, which I mentioned, that allow us to monitor or remedy these environmental, commercial and operational impacts.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. That’s very clear.
Senator Simons: I was also intending to ask a question about animals.
[English]
I won’t ask that now because it’s been asked. Mr. Rimmer, I was surprised when you said there were only 70 pilots working in the Great Lakes, and it made me realize that I don’t think I know what the difference between a pilot and a captain is. If it’s not too basic a question for me — a prairie girl — to ask you, what exactly is the difference? Are the pilots only on the ships for certain times to help them navigate certain tricky areas?
The question I have that relates to climate change is this: Do your pilots have enough training in emergency preparedness and safety protocols to deal with the changing weather conditions on the lakes?
Mr. Rimmer: Thank you for the question, senator. Yes, the Great Lakes Pilot Association runs slightly differently. We employ our pilots. The 70 pilots belong to us. It’s a constant battle between making sure we have enough people and not having too many people for the amount of traffic, which is volatile in the best of years. It’s a bit of a game. Our work with the Chamber of Marine Commerce, the seaway, transporters and shipping agents allows to us somewhat predict the number of pilots and assignments we will need throughout the year. It allows us to base our prognostication, if you will, on that.
The question around the difference between a pilot and a commanding officer, if I had my tongue in cheek, I would have a great answer for you. There are certainly differences in certification requirements. And to a layman, if I can use that term, a layperson, the main difference is a pilot is responsible for a certain jurisdiction or district of water whereas a ship’s commanding officer, or captain, is able to take the ship from place A to place B. These pilots come on board. They are an extra set of eyes and ears with knowledge of a local area that ensures the ship’s safety, and also the environmental safety of the area, for a safe passage. It’s also timely. It reduces loss of time due to incidents, unknowns and so on.
Senator Simons: So you have an expert with respect to that particular area.
Mr. Rimmer: That is correct.
Senator Simons: I was a journalist for many years. I’m never ashamed to admit my own ignorance about things. That was very interesting. To the question that deals with climate change: Do your pilots have the enhanced training they need to deal with the more volatile weather?
Mr. Rimmer: It’s interesting. The short answer is yes. I would also like to point out that because our pilots are so familiar with the area, they are arguably the canaries in the coal mine. They are the ones able to say there are changes. They are the ones who look to the seaway through various committees, working groups and steering groups to let them know what the changes are. We do have that experience, and again, we do know the waters quite well, having plied those waters for years, sometimes for multiple years. The training is there.
There is a refresher in simulators across Canada that we go to, to make sure that the pilots understand what the differences are, where you can modulate and change some of the variables around ship size, water conditions and weather conditions to ensure that the pilot gets the best training possible in the eventuality that the climate or environment changes accordingly.
Senator Simons: Okay.
Senator Patterson: I think this is kind of a follow-up question for Mr. Bertin and probably for you, Mr. Rimmer, as well.
First, Mr. Rimmer, you talked a lot about how one of the benefits of rising water levels is the fact that you can hit maximum draft. Economically, we know that it makes the most sense to have the largest amount of cargo possible, but when you get maximum draft, you get maximum displacement as well.
We talked about trying to collect the science on whether we should reduce speed. I hear that on one hand, we can manage the tides and go faster, but we have fuller, heavier ships with more displacement. Very specifically, I’m talking about the narrower waterways that you’re going through. Your pilots have such good observational powers. As water levels rise, you’re going into shorelines that haven’t been completely washed away or eroded yet, so your speed, of course, as you’re displacing more water, is going to take out more soil and cause more erosion.
Do you follow that science? Do you have data on it? Do you report on it? When you add the extra swirling currents, do you pursue areas of study specifically related to artificial changes in water levels caused by movement of transport?
Mr. Rimmer: Thanks for the question.
I did try to nuance my answer by saying maximum draft to ensure sustainability, so there is the counter to maximum draft, and that is recognized and realized by the St. Lawrence Seaway authority that set the draft level.
Where was I going with that? Sorry, if you could repeat what you said.
Senator Patterson: Yes, it’s more specifically related to your observations or any science that you’re doing, especially through the narrower areas of the seaways and into the Great Lakes and the actual impact of artificial increases through displacement and erosion caused by the movement of very large vessels. Do you track if there is any difference? Do you see anything?
Mr. Rimmer: I don’t think that the GLPA does track that. I know that information is tracked, and we truth check that information through the various Indigenous communities along the shoreline, through some of that local knowledge.
There is also risk management that happens, where we go through an area. It’s on a cyclical event, and we look at the areas to ascertain whether there are changes that need to be made. That information moves to various authorities that are responsible for the speeds and the level of water and what have you.
It’s cyclical, but it’s certainly not something that the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority does on its own. It does it in partnership with the shipping companies and, as I mentioned, with the St. Lawrence Seaway authorities.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Mr. Bertin, do you have anything you would like to add?
Mr. Bertin: Yes. When it comes to understanding the natural environment, we have an interesting and growing research agenda in this space. We work with research institutions and universities to understand a range of factors.
For example, with the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, we are looking at studying and simulating the subaquatic currents to better understand their impacts in the Saguenay region in terms of the manoeuvrability of vessels at a wharf.
Obviously, the last thing we want is a surprise current affecting a very expensive piece of equipment with human beings operating around it and, therefore, it being damaged or lives being threatened. On the one hand, we’re doing work of that nature.
I alluded earlier to our work with Réseau Québec Maritime de Rimouski where we’re looking at the science around waves and wave mitigation to better understand, in sensitive areas along the St. Lawrence River, the impacts of potential attenuating or mitigating measures that could be explored.
Beyond that and more broadly, we’re working with the private sector and expert consultants in the area of sustainability and the environment to do perspective examinations of the effects of climate change on navigation. It’s going to be a longer-term exercise, but as you can see, we have a number of things that we do with respect to research in this space.
Of course, I won’t take all the credit. If this is going to be powerful and useful information, it has to be shared and developed collaboratively, and that’s why we do that.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: For the benefit of the thousands of Canadians watching tonight, this is the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and we are continuing our study on climate change and the impacts on critical infrastructure.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses today.
I have been here for the last couple of sessions, and we have been speaking to spokespeople and experts about the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, including yourselves.
I have concluded — perhaps incorrectly — that the main effect of climate change is to lengthen the navigation season for your industry. First, I’m asking you if you think that is the main impact of climate change on your industry. Given the net issues and problems with it and the net benefit, can we conclude that climate change is, in fact, a net benefit to your industry?
First, is that an accurate conclusion in the first instance, that that’s the main impact? Second, is that a reasonable conclusion to reach?
I ask both of you to comment on that. Thank you.
Mr. Rimmer: I’ll jump in first.
You’re right. The natural tendency is to assume that the season is lengthened and that could be a net benefit to shipping. Though I won’t speak for the St. Lawrence Seaway, obviously, there is a time and maintenance factor that needs to be built into the seaway, and so the seaway is very rigid in times that it stays open or closed for business, and it needs that down time, if you will, to ensure that maintenance is done so that you have no gaps or delays throughout the navigable season.
There are other losses, and it’s not just the navigable season that’s an issue. I think one of the other factors is the transition in weather. There are limits to when vessels can transit through seaways — wind limits and weather limits — and so the variability in the weather causes those delays. Those are the greater impacts, because that means a ship doesn’t make a port at a certain time, and so there are delays in loading and unloading and also further delays down the line.
On the surface, it’s easy to assume that it increases the length of a season, and that’s a net positive. When you start digging down through the layers, you can see the impact with the variability and how quickly things change operationally and with those down times through delays and not having the surge capacity or the ability to move traffic around appropriately.
Thank you.
Mr. Bertin: Along the same lines, I would say that it’s a mixed bag. Yes, more water, but more water means different challenges, and that’s just one factor. We talked about water levels, obviously. I spoke to ice jams.
Something that we have never seen before — in late 2022, there was a period of time when the winds were so significant, so great, that we couldn’t operate for a period of two to three days. We weren’t able to bring pilots safely to vessels because the waves were reaching six-plus metres.
All that is to say that, again, this is never seen. This is a context within which our north star is shifted around, and when it gets shifted, it gets shifted with quite the yank and at times when you don’t expect.
I guess what I’m saying is that there is a lack of predictability in a certain respect. While you might say that, yes, high water is great, because the industry can load more on their vessels, it remains that the St. Lawrence River is actually a very narrow channel that is tricky to navigate, with 70-plus corners, or bends, between Montreal and Trois-Rivières alone.
All that is to say that I think it brings its lot of challenges and is not a windfall.
Senator Dasko: Is it bringing more challenges than opportunities or net benefits?
Mr. Bertin: Time will tell.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I have a geography question. I should know this, but when we talk about the St. Lawrence Seaway, what is the area we’re talking about? Is it from Kingston to Quebec City?
Mr. Rimmer: My area of responsibility is from the south of the northern entrance to the St. Lambert Lock in Montreal, all the way through to Thunder Bay, the entirety of the Great Lakes. Now, that’s not just me because, of course, I share that responsibility with the United States Coast Guard. There is a sharing of districts within that area, but from a Canadian perspective, I’m responsible for the Great Lakes up until St. Lambert Lock, and then my colleague, Mr. Bertin, takes over from there.
Mr. Bertin: Technically speaking, the seaway system is a series of 15 locks, 13 of which are Canadian and 2 of which are American. The first one, from east to west, starts with the St. Lambert Lock in Montreal.
Senator Cardozo: So are there locks along that way from the Montreal area to Quebec City?
Mr. Bertin: No.
Senator Cardozo: Or the other direction?
Mr. Bertin: The other direction. To Thunder Bay and to Duluth, Minnesota, if you’re American.
Senator Cardozo: When we’re talking about building the St. Lawrence Seaway, are we talking about building these locks?
Mr. Bertin: That’s right. I want to say that close to 70 years ago, Canada and the United States developed this strategic asset, which is the seaway system, and it’s a system of locks, in which, interestingly, we’re the majority partner.
Senator Cardozo: And then from Montreal to Quebec City, is it all one level?
Mr. Bertin: That’s right. It’s one level with distinct challenges with respect to the narrowness of the channel because while the river may appear wide, the channel is only a question of metres wide. There is actually quite a narrow channel that is cut in a certain manner in order to reduce the outflow of the water and therefore to protect the water column. That said, from the reverse, in terms of tidal effects, ocean tide affects the St. Lawrence River, and it can be felt all the way to Trois-Rivières. You’re talking about an exit of water and at the same time tidal effects that come into play.
The St. Lawrence River is considered to be one of the more challenging rivers to navigate on the face of the planet.
Senator Cardozo: So when you refer to a channel in a wider river, is that a narrower part that has been dug deeper? Is that what it means?
Mr. Bertin: So it’s a combination of natural attributes due to millions of years of currents, but there is obviously a channel that is man-made, and that was dredged over multiple decades.
Senator Cardozo: I would imagine that has to be constantly re-dredged from time to time.
Mr. Bertin: Yes. The Canadian Coast Guard has the monitoring and dredging mandate for the Government of Canada on the river.
Senator Cardozo: It’s fascinating. When people think about who does all this — I mean, that’s where our tax money goes to some extent. We don’t think about these things, but if they don’t happen, those ships aren’t going to be able to go through.
Mr. Bertin: I agree.
Senator Cardozo: It’s fascinating. So much of what happens in our world we just don’t think about and don’t know.
The Chair: That’s why we have the Senate, so we can shed light on all these things.
Mr. Bertin: And we’re talking about traffic that actually underpins the manufacturing heartland of North America — Canada and the United States — in terms of some of the minerals and iron ore that flow. You’re talking about agricultural commodities at a time when, of course, grain is a dynamic aspect. And that’s not to mention Canadian Tire, Costco and the like that Canadians take for granted. It is an important gateway.
Senator Cardozo: Just in terms of the question we’re really talking about here — climate change — what effect does that have on the channel, for example? Has that changed at all in the last couple of decades?
Mr. Bertin: This is something that we are studying actively with the help of universities and research networks to understand not only wave impacts with high water levels, but eventually we’re going to need to better understand erosion, basically adaptations to the physical attributes of this key corridor. At the end of the day, the key safety aspect around this navigational activity is a deep understanding of the local realities. But with local realities shifting around us, it means that we need to understand these horizontal issues and deal with them collaboratively with others as we continue to adapt to the situation.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you so much.
Mr. Bertin: You’re welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m curious — as is Senator Simons, by the way — and I want to take advantage of your presence, Mr. Bertin, to ask you a question that might seem like a basic one.
You say that pilots board ships to pilot them. However, it seems to me that we sometimes see small ships alongside, escorting them. So what is the difference between that small boat — which I imagine carries another pilot — and those that board the ships? That’s one question.
Mr. Bertin: That is the very essence of what we are doing. We have pilot boats, and we have a captain with sailors on board those boats. These boats shuttle back and forth between, for instance, our station in Les Escoumins…. The pilot is brought to the vessel and the pilot climbs the ladder or steps to board and take control of the vessel. Of course, they have to disembark, and it’s with these pilot boats that we pick them up.
We often see this in the port of Quebec City or Montreal; it’s the pilot’s waltz, because there are a number of ships that will pass each other, and during these passages, we will pick up, transfer and reposition the pilots on board those ships.
There are also tugs. Sometimes, especially when they are brought to the quay, the ships have to be positioned carefully. So from there, it’s a different type of boat, not as small, but still smaller than the larger vessels, so they’re used —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: They’re like beacons.
Mr. Bertin: The pilot will guide and coordinate everything. If you are interested, we would be delighted to have you join us.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: All right, then. I find this absolutely fascinating. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank both our witnesses for sharing your views with us tonight, being generous with your time and answering all the questions of this committee.
(The committee adjourned.)