THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:48 p.m. [ET] to study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
[English]
I now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Richards: Senator Richards from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Senator Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar, LaSalle, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: This evening, we continue our study of the impacts 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 am pleased to welcome by video conference Mayor Andrea Horwath from Hamilton, Ontario; Sylvain Ouellet, City Councillor from Montreal, Quebec; Mayor Bill Steele from Port Colborne, Ontario; and Mayor Ken Boshcoff from Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Each of our witnesses will have five minutes for opening statements. After that, we will turn it over to senators for questions.
We will start with Mayor Horwath. Mayor Horwath, you have the floor.
Andrea Horwath, Mayor, City of Hamilton: Thank you very much. Good evening, honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and my municipal colleagues from Montreal, Port Colborne and Thunder Bay. I’m pleased to be here on behalf of the City of Hamilton.
Hamilton is a city that is deeply invested in the future of municipal and maritime infrastructure for marine transportation, and we are committed to working with the Government of Canada on mitigating the impact that climate change has on transportation infrastructure in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. I truly appreciate the opportunity to provide some of our insights with you this evening.
I want to start by sharing with you the remarkable growth and advancements of the Port of Hamilton, which stands as the busiest among all ports on the Canadian Great Lakes. In 2023, the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority witnessed a remarkable 9% surge in cargo, exceeding 11.2 million metric tons. It’s a staggering increase and underscores the port’s pivotal role in the region’s goods movement ecosystem.
It is clear that there is a significant environmental advantage achieved by short sea shipping. A single marine vessel can accommodate cargo equivalent to 963 transport trucks while emitting significantly lower carbon emissions. This presents a strong case for modal alternatives, especially considering the over 12,000 truck trips per week between southern Ontario and U.S. Great Lakes ports, all carrying non-perishable commodities that are ideal candidates for marine service to transport.
We have heard from businesses experiencing significant growth, such as Parrish & Heimbecker and Sucro Can, here in our community. They focus on using port services and vessels, which shows their commitment to efficiency, cleanliness and sustainability in the movement of goods. We also know that the expansion of rail and containerized service not only enhances efficiency, but contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating hundreds of trucks from local roads daily.
As part of its ongoing development, the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority is set to introduce a new 20,000-square-foot transload facility. This new facility will augment the movement of steel products through marine and rail services. These initiatives are examples of progressive strides toward a more robust, environmentally conscious and efficient port infrastructure, ready to meet the demands of tomorrow’s trade and goods movement landscape.
As Mayor of Hamilton, I am deeply aware of the challenges posed by climate change and welcome the opportunity for adaptation and innovation, particularly in the area of transportation. Transportation emissions from on-road vehicles constitute a significant portion of our city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Our 2022 Hamilton Climate Change Impact Adaptation Plan, which we can send you if you’re interested, was informed by global and regional climate modelling. It predicts an increase in flooding incidents both in terms of frequency and intensity, which poses a severe threat to our infrastructure. We’ve already witnessed devastating flooding events in the city of Hamilton. To address some of those challenges, we’ve sought support from the federal government’s Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, securing crucial funding for shoreline protection and resilience projects. As these incidents increase, so will our need for financial assistance from other orders of government.
When it comes to the emissions themselves, federal participation in initiatives like the international Green Shipping Challenge and commitments to zero-emission shipping are also important steps toward mitigating maritime emissions. We all appreciate, however, that more opportunities exist, and we have to make a commitment in that regard. A good example is the recent introduction of electric tugboats in the Vancouver harbour.
I will return to speaking about Hamilton. Hamilton’s port stands as a vital hub for maritime trade on the Great Lakes, experiencing significant growth in cargo volume in recent years, as I’ve noted. Short sea shipping offers a sustainable alternative to road transport, significantly reducing carbon emissions while efficiently moving goods across our region.
It is important to note another piece of infrastructure that is needed to maximize emission reduction opportunities at Hamilton’s port, and that is additional Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, support for customs clearances. Enhanced CBSA support would significantly expand our capacity and assist in moving goods closer to their final destination, reducing the number of trucks on our highways as well as greenhouse gases.
Projects like the new Hamilton Container Terminal rail service and the expansion of Toronto Tank Lines — which is in Hamilton — operations at our Pier 25 demonstrate our commitment to enhancing supply chain efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We know that investment in infrastructure of all kinds plays a crucial role in realizing the potential of maritime transportation, and we know that when it comes to adaptation and protecting our infrastructure, municipalities can’t go it alone.
In conclusion, as we navigate the challenges of climate change and strive for sustainable economic development, the importance of investing in municipal and maritime infrastructure — including the softer services, like CBSA infrastructure — cannot be overstated. By prioritizing adaptation and mitigation measures and leveraging innovative solutions, we can build a resilient transportation network that serves both our economic needs and our environmental goals. That is something the City of Hamilton, with its new dedicated climate change office, is very much committed to.
Thank you so much for your attention and for the invitation. I’m sure there will be presentations that are much more technical, but certainly we have a significant commitment here in the City of Hamilton in terms recognizing and being committed to our role in climate change and climate adaptation, particularly the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly, our continued collaboration in advancing the future of transportation in Canada is a priority.
The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Horwath.
[Translation]
Sylvain Ouellet, City Councillor, City of Montreal: Hello. I’m Sylvain Ouellet, a city councillor for the City of Montreal, and today I’m representing Mayor Valérie Plante.
First of all, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this important topic, which directly affects the city of Montreal and the greater metropolitan region.
Because of its strategic positioning, Montreal has always been the point of convergence for international maritime routes from overseas and domestic maritime routes from the Great Lakes.
The Lachine Rapids are an impassable area that create a barrier to shipping and have generated the need to build numerous major logistics infrastructures. Montreal has benefited from those infrastructures throughout its history. Today, Montreal boasts a major port, the largest rail hub in Eastern Canada, and the St. Lawrence Seaway has its first locks in Montreal, replacing the old Lachine Canal that was the birthplace of Canadian industrialization.
The Port of Montreal is currently the largest container port in Eastern Canada and is directly tied to the economic vitality of Greater Montreal as well as the entire Canadian economy, particularly for Ontario and Quebec.
Contrary to what one might think, the Port of Montreal remains operational throughout the winter, thanks to the Canadian Coast Guard’s fleet of icebreakers.
With the upcoming expansion of the Port of Montreal in Contrecœur and the seaway operating at about half capacity, new economic opportunities are opening up for us in the shipping business, particularly in an attempt to avoid heavy trucking on our roads. However, climate change poses a significant risk to shipping operations.
Shipowners at overseas ports are already planning their cargoes based on navigation conditions in the St. Lawrence. Extreme episodes of low or high water levels will complicate navigation by affecting draft in the St. Lawrence Seaway channel and air draft under bridges at Quebec City and Trois-Rivières.
Low water levels in the Great Lakes will also cause operating difficulties in the St. Lawrence River’s maritime bay, while high water levels and increased current speed will affect navigation safety if more water needs to be released from Lake Ontario.
Lake Ontario water level management planning is therefore central to concerns about addressing climate change in the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes system.
For the Greater Montreal Area, optimizing the management of Lake Ontario outflows must also take into account the fact that there are land use and occupation conflicts. For example, we must consider protecting drinking water sources, maintaining biodiversity as well as the impacts in terms of flooding and shoreline erosion.
In 2017, Montreal suffered a record flood in which 1,100 homes were inundated after an old dike in a neighbouring town was breached. Thousands of citizens had to be evacuated, dozens were permanently displaced and our emergency services were under pressure for weeks. The army was called in to help, and our municipal employees worked for months to dismantle the temporary dikes and clean up the damage once the flood had passed. Our riverside parks also suffered accelerated erosion, and their rehabilitation is being hampered by numerous regulations and a highly complex division of powers between Quebec City and Ottawa, making any work on the shoreline extremely time consuming and costly.
The current tax system makes it very difficult for towns and cities to provide funding for riverbank protection and development, whether to protect against flooding, protect natural environments or give citizens access to the river even though they live on an island.
As the majority of shorelines are privately owned, it is an extremely complex process to build collective protective structures that can be used for a variety of purposes.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River offer exceptional economic opportunities, but major investments will be required to guard against climate change, both to ensure marine navigation and to protect the many riverside municipalities — and these investments can hardly come from the cities.
Finally, the cities of the 21st century can no longer just rely on logistical infrastructures to ensure their success; they must also offer a quality of life to their citizens in order to attract and retain the best talent, and what better way than by showcasing Montreal’s exceptional archipelago? Investments will therefore also be needed to decontaminate former industrial sectors often located on the waterfront, create new riverside parks, preserve exceptional natural environments and convert them into nature parks and perhaps even create new beaches and a network of river shuttles, as Montreal has done in recent years.
As we’re seeing right now in Toronto with Waterfront Toronto, direct contribution from the federal government — which often owns vast tracts of waterfront land — is essential to setting up these vast urban revitalization projects that have immense benefits for communities.
Thank you for listening. I’m ready to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Bill Steele, Mayor, City of Port Colborne: Good evening, honourable members of the Senate committee. As the Mayor of Port Colborne, on the north side of Lake Erie and the southern terminus of the Welland Canal, I will attend the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway on Friday morning, as we welcome the first downbound ship of 2024. The opening ceremony is held because the Welland Canal shuts down for about three months each year for repairs and maintenance during the winter lay‑down, when the ice traditionally covers the waterways of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway connects the fresh water of the five Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River to salt water and the world.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region, comprising two provinces and eight states, boasts an economic prowess that rivals some of the largest economies globally. If we were a country, we would have the third-largest economy in the world. Marine transport has shaped this region, from facilitating trade and commerce from Indigenous communities, to navigating the lakes and rivers, to constructing the Lachine, Erie and Welland canals 200 years ago, to the Canadian and American governments working together to create the St. Lawrence Seaway in the 1950s.
However, we face critical challenges that demand immediate attention and strategic investment. Once the lifeblood of our region’s commerce, the St. Lawrence Seaway now operates at 50% capacity, while our highways are congested with truck and auto traffic. Yet the data reveals a promising opportunity for us. Diminished ice coverage on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River compared to when the seaway was built could enable year-round navigation on many of the lakes and rivers.
As we witness the impacts of climate change, with droughts in the west and increased flood events and dramatic erosion in the east, we must seize the moment to invest in the next generation of infrastructure. Our infrastructure must capitalize on this opportunity to expand passenger and goods shipments to more communities, reducing roadway congestion and fostering economic growth.
We stand united as municipal leaders, from Montreal to Thunder Bay, representing the breadth of economic potential along our freshwater seaway. Regions across the globe rely heavily on maritime transport to sustain their economies. Unlike goods moved by toll-free roads, rail and marine transport still need to handle the total cost of infrastructure. Local governments need help to build the shipping and passenger infrastructure required to rejuvenate passenger or multimodal container-based shipping. Imagine the possibilities of shifting more goods from congested highways to our underutilized waterways. Picture the movement of goods like new car batteries, microprocessors, or crates of tomatoes or paper towels traversing the region year-round, revitalizing existing industries and supporting new businesses and technologies.
We have the opportunity to reshape our region’s economic landscape, harnessing the potential of our freshwater resources to foster sustainable growth and innovation. Our collaboration is vital for the prosperity of our communities and essential for protecting the 20% of the world’s fresh water that flows through our basin.
Let us embrace this moment of opportunity, leveraging the combined efforts of all levels of government, industry and stakeholders to build a resilient and prosperous future for our region. With strategic investment and collective action, we can ensure our freshwater marine commerce continues to thrive, supporting the livelihoods of millions and safeguarding our most precious resource for generations to come. Next year, the seaway may open a month earlier, in February, and in a few years, it may be open year-round.
Just a little bit about Port Colborne — we own our port here and have strong ties with Thunder Bay, Hamilton and Montreal, as all our members have said here today.
Quite frankly, everything that flows through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River has to pass through Port Colborne. As I said, we have particularly strong ties with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority and through grain coming in from Thunder Bay, and we have had discussions with the Port of Montreal with regard to using Port Colborne as a small container port. As we bring in large ocean-going boats, they can reduce down to canal-size boats that bring containers into the Port Colborne terminal, and then they can go out either by rail or other shipping from there.
Last year, Port Colborne led the Great Lakes in the cruise industry. We had 82 stops here in Port Colborne, and that was the highest next to Cleveland, which had around 42 stops. The Great Lakes are one of the fastest growing cruising areas in the world, and a number of shipping companies are building specific ships to cruise the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, coming in from the East Coast.
With that, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Ken Boshcoff, Mayor, City of Thunder Bay: Thank you.
Thunder Bay was formerly known as Port Arthur and Fort William. Some still call it the Lakehead. I can’t tell you how excited I am here to be with senators and my colleagues, having the federal government look at fresh water.
The Port of Thunder Bay is the western Canadian terminus of the St. Lawrence Seaway system, the largest inland waterway in the world. It is also the highest-volume export port on the seaway system. As the gateway to the west, the opportunities are largely determined by the port’s strategic role as it relates to the seaway corridor. The port was built to provide access to European markets for Western Canadian grain producers through the longest grain supply chain in the world. Again, my colleague Bill has reason to be proud of his community as a port. We will have 20 stops by international cruise ships, primarily going around Lake Superior, of course. That has been an amazing shot in the arm financially during the summer months.
When we talk about municipal transportation infrastructure, it’s impossible not to talk about climate change and the likelihood of extreme weather events that can damage our infrastructure and reduce infrastructural lifespans. We are already facing some considerable infrastructure deficits already. We’ve experienced some damage to infrastructure by flooding and an extreme rain event of 70 millimetres over two hours. It overwhelmed our waste water treatment plant. As acting mayor at the time, I had to declare a state of emergency for the city.
A few years ago, and last winter, we had record snowmelt. This year, there was virtually no snow for the Ontario Winter Games. We had to do all sorts of things to make up for the skiing and jumping events.
So these potential climate impacts on Thunder Bay — these severe weather events — can severely damage port infrastructure, such as our gargantuan breakwall and the deepwater docks. The increased variability in Lake Superior water levels increases the need for dredging. Ice storms, snowstorms, washouts and other severe events temporarily close infrastructural pathways. Along with the damage to the supporting roads, bridges and culverts, the stormwater flows affect all our municipalities through drainage infrastructure and overland flooding.
These impacts add to an already significant transportation infrastructure deficit. Even limiting to core infrastructure within roads, bridges and culverts, there is an estimated annual deficit of $5.4 million in Thunder Bay. It’s estimated that climate change, without adaptation, will increase transportation infrastructure costs by over 11% by 2030 and 32% by 2100.
So without targeted federal support for adaptation, municipalities will struggle to reduce these deficits.
By way of local response, we are working to address these challenges to our transportation infrastructure through an asset management program, which conducts climate risk assessments, identifying impacts and adaptation measures.
The federal government can assist by expanding and funding existing programs to address these challenges, including the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund. A lower dollar threshold could also support more diverse projects being eligible for assistance. Second, there is the National Disaster Mitigation Program, or NDMP; and third, the climate adaptation programs through the Green Municipal Fund with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
In addition, non-direct support can come from increased federal investment in technical standards and guidance to support climate-resilient transportation infrastructure, as well as increased climate services resources through the Canadian Centre for Climate Services and the implementation of actions found in the National Adaptation Strategy.
It is imperative for municipalities that the federal government work directly with communities that host federal transportation assets to address these concerns.
For us as a regional hub, the significance is that we are providing service to all of northwestern Ontario, an area larger than many countries. We host Thunder Bay’s third-busiest airport. We are also relied upon for supports, including evacuation hosting, when other communities experience climate events. This year, I’ve had to declare three climate emergencies to receive visitors and host communities from northwestern Ontario. So these impacts, combined with forest fires and flooding, greatly affect our surrounding communities. Therefore, additional investments in hosting capacity for evacuees due to climate change are desperately needed in all orders of government.
I have a summary of our requests. First, consider municipalities that frequently host Indigenous community evacuations and fund investments in infrastructure to better support those activities. Second, increase supports for Indigenous communities in their local adaptation investments and infrastructure, reducing the need for evacuation. Third, expand the connections, such as the fact that we have the world’s largest undefended border. That is an international treasure.
The things we have to be proud of, senators, really make us quite keen to work with our colleagues in all orders of government, especially now, when I see my colleagues from Quebec and Ontario here today. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Boshcoff. We’ll begin the questions.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, witnesses, for being here this evening and for the excellent presentations. You have given us a great overview of the importance of what truly is a system, the St. Lawrence Seaway.
It’s great to see the collaborative approaches that you folks are taking among the cities. I know you have those close relationships with various ports.
We’re looking at critical infrastructure and climate change — the decades-long challenge with fluctuating water levels and dealing with the depth restrictions and all of those types of challenges that face the shipping industry. Taking advantage of the seaway, putting it to much greater work — and with greater capacity — that’s one of the best things that we can do, given that it is a key linchpin in our economic well-being as a country.
Given this collaborative approach and looking at critical infrastructure, what do you see as the most pressing critical infrastructure pieces that we are facing today and in the future?
Could each of you comment on that? We are trying to zero in on what the state is today and what it will be like in the future with respect to that critical infrastructure.
Mr. Steele: If you don’t mind, I will start. Thank you to my colleagues. Thank you, senator, for the question.
Two weeks ago, I was able to represent the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative in Washington, where we met with a number of congressmen and senators and the Deputy Director for Climate and Environment for the President of the United States.
With that, one thing the Canadian mayors looked at and spoke to those congressmen and senators about, along with our partners in the U.S. — the mayors of the U.S. Great Lakes cities — one thing they do really well is that they really earmark money toward the Great Lakes. The one program they have is the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. We were asking for an appropriation of a full $5 million a year to be used for that.
With Canada and our own provinces, as a partnership, “a third, a third, a third” type funding for shoreline resilience, port reconstruction, port work — now with the Ontario government bringing out their marine initiative last fall, which I was able to help with through the manager of the Windsor Port Authority. He led the charge with that, but a number of mayors along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence worked on that initiative.
The funding needs to go directly toward the Great Lakes itself. One thing we learned is that there’s not a wall in the middle of each lake where the border is, with their water and our water; it’s all the same water. We all have the same issues with storm surge and the raising and lowering of the lakes each year. Shoreline resilience is key — having ongoing funding each year that the municipalities can tie into, as I said, both with federal and provincial help.
Along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, right up through, it is imperative to us to have that specific funding on an annual basis so that we know we’re not just going out, putting in applications and crossing our fingers that we’re going to get money.
I think the government needs to take a strong stance on the Great Lakes and, quite frankly, follow some of the things that the U.S. is doing, which have been very good to this day.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. Mayor Horwath?
Ms. Horwath: Thank you very much. I echo what the previous speaker just said, particularly focusing on the need for predictability in terms of the funding model, if you will. We are dealing with infrastructure needs all the way around in terms of our city. Most cities, I would say, are in the same situation as our infrastructure ages out, and we don’t have municipal capacity to deal with any of our infrastructure.
When it comes to the potential of our port in Hamilton, for example, it can’t be realized if we don’t have the ability to make those investments and then ensure that we are showing the public the value of those investments. We can’t set aside infrastructure dollars for marine activity or our port and the infrastructure that supports it without knowing that we have a partner that will help us to do that. Other priorities take over.
There has been some good work done in my city — I’m grateful for that — in terms of Hamilton Harbour and it being an identified area of significant interest when it comes to the contamination that’s existed because of the industrial legacy of our city. I know the federal government worked very hard to help us address that, and it’s no longer being classified the way it used to be.
The benefit of that is we’re taking that land that’s been made available through the capping and the process that was undertaken to deal with the Randle Reef contamination and re‑utilizing it. We’re bringing that land back into use, and that’s a positive thing. It will increase our economic capacity, but again, that’s relative to making sure that we’re able to make those investments necessary to maximize the transportation opportunities that we have.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
[Translation]
Would you like to comment, Mr. Ouellet?
Mr. Ouellet: Of course, for Montreal, there’s the expansion of the Port of Montreal at Contrecœur, which is in the final stages of analysis right now. I agree with my colleagues: We’ll need recurring financial programs for everything involved in shoreline intervention, particularly at the municipal level, whether it’s building dikes or rehabilitating them. Current regulations are very complex. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is also a lot of federal land, sometimes in the heart of municipalities, that could be of interest. Toronto has done it and even Montreal, in some respects, in order to open doors. Recurring funding would help cities enormously.
[English]
Mr. Boshcoff: This year will also bring something entirely different for every one of us through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. This winter, there was virtually no snow in northwestern Ontario and the surrounding areas. We have no idea how severe of an impact that will make. Our snow removal budget was virtually intact, which means that the ground sourcing of water throughout the watershed for Lake Superior — if that hasn’t been replenished, then it’s the same for everybody else downstream. It’s just one more thing that we have to worry about, senators.
I think we will see that happen shortly as the ships start moving.
Senator Simons: Mayor Boshcoff, you raised something that I don’t think anybody has spoken to us about before. A lot of people have said they need more federal money, but you made a point about needing new federal regulations, and I wanted to give you a chance to expand on that. Federal regulations in what area — and how do you think that would be helpful to mitigate the effects of climate change?
Mr. Boshcoff: I think if we had the supports necessary in terms of maintaining water levels, in view of climate changes — and this year will certainly be dramatic, senator — even in terms of the technical standards. On one side of the border, Minnesota and Michigan, we are in pretty heavy competition should the lithium proceed from northwestern Ontario. We’re not really competing with other Canadian ports. We’re basically competing with American infrastructure.
If there are alternative methods of transportation, what we would have relied on as a source of huge revenue for the nation and the provinces may not stay in Canada. These are things that are now in radar that have to be contended with.
Senator Simons: I don’t quite understand. Are you saying that we need to harmonize our regulations with the American ones so that we can compete? What does this have to do with protecting our infrastructure?
Mr. Boshcoff: Basically, senator, it is a readiness issue involving the consolidation of forces and realizing that we’re really not competing with Sudbury for mining. We’re competing with foreign interests for lithium plants and things of that nature.
When we look at the seaway and its cross-jurisdictional existence, it means that we need a coordinated federal approach to make sure that we can compete. I hope that makes sense.
Senator Simons: It’s not to do with infrastructure, then. I wonder if we could focus on the infrastructure question, because that’s the purpose of this study.
Mr. Boshcoff: Sure.
Senator Simons: Mr. Ouellet, what are the biggest threats to the Port of Montreal? We heard earlier in our study from people at the Port of Vancouver who are very worried about flooding inundation of the port, because, of course, ports are at sea level.
Could you talk a bit about what are, say, the three biggest threats to the structural integrity of the port facility in Montreal?
[Translation]
Mr. Ouellet: Thank you, senator.
First, there’s the port expansion in Contrecœur, which is still awaiting final authorization. This expansion will be used mainly for containers; it’s really for the future of the port.
In terms of resilience, there have always been variations in water levels, but the variations are much more intense and unpredictable. The Port of Montreal could better describe the issue, but the gist of it is that if water levels are very high or very low, there need to be docks that are adapted to work with both extremes.
There are bridges in Quebec City and Trois-Rivières, downstream from Montreal. If the water level is very high, some boats won’t be able to pass under them. Will they have to be raised? Maybe yes, maybe no. If the levels are very high, dredging may be required. Then there is the whole environmental aspect of dredging operations.
What scares me most is the conflicts of use, which is not as much of an issue in Montreal. If the Port of Montreal wants more water from Lake Ontario and water levels are too low, there will be conflicts, on both the Canadian and American sides.
Sometimes, it might be easier to play with water levels so that everyone’s happy — if that didn’t result in flooding so many people. We’ll need dikes we didn’t need before.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I will begin with questions for Mayor Horwath and Mayor Boshcoff. First, Mayor Horwath, it’s good to see you here. As an Ontario senator, I want to thank you for your long service to the Province of Ontario as the leader of a major party, including being Leader of the Official Opposition. It’s wonderful to see you in this role and functioning as mayor as if you had been there for the 13 years you were at Queen’s Park. I suppose many of the issues are ones you’ve dealt with before, but it’s really nice to see you.
Ken Boshcoff, we had the opportunity, when you were an MP, to talk extensively about parliamentary decorum, a problem which might have gotten worse in the other place, but I would encourage you to come and check out the Senate. Parliamentary decorum in our chamber is much better than in the other place. I’ll talk to you about why that is some other time, because I have some views about that which are controversial around this table.
My question to both mayors is simply this: What part of the supply chain in your region is most vulnerable to climate change? You’ve talked about this, but I wonder if you can hone in on one thing.
Ms. Horwath: Thank you, senator, and I appreciate your remarks. It’s nice to be home — I can tell you that — using my passion for the interests of my city.
For us, it is twofold. First, we are seeing a massive expansion of the agricultural economy in our city, as well as other parts of our economy, but it when it comes to goods movement, the ability to get those agricultural products to market is extremely important, and we’re very happy to see the growth in agriculture.
We need to make sure that we have the capacity to move those goods in tandem with the growth in that sector. On the opposite side of the equation, really, is protecting that sector from the impacts of climate change.
Agriculture gives us a view into the two extremes, if you will: mitigating climate change, getting to a place where we can stop the wild weather events that will impact one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy, but also, as that sector continues to grow, no pun, making sure that we have the capacity to get those goods to market. It’s something that we’re keeping our eye on.
We’re lucky: We have the deepwater port. We have a significant rail system. We have good highways. We have an excellent airport. Certainly, transportation networks are something that we really brag about and that attract investment in our community, but I suspect the vulnerability would be agriculture. This is my opinion. I’m sure our staff could provide a more in-depth response.
Because of the way that the climate situation is impacting our community, people don’t think of Hamilton as an agricultural hub. They think of Hamilton as a steel city, and we’re still doing a lot of steel, but a significant portion of our economy is, in fact, agriculture.
Senator Cardozo: Would that be beyond the city of Hamilton and over to Niagara and the Niagara Peninsula as well?
Ms. Horwath: Yes, absolutely. Our city went through an amalgamation in the year 2000. A lot of our rural communities that ring the old city of Hamilton have become part of the city of Hamilton. That agricultural footprint, if you will, is now part of the city of Hamilton and has been for about 24 years now. We have significant agricultural assets not only in Hamilton but in the surrounding region, and our ability to be a port that can meet that demand in terms of the agricultural sector is extremely important for not just us but surrounding areas as well.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Boshcoff: Thank you, senator. The issue is getting the grain to port, which means that the rail systems have to be strong and effective, and they seem to be. There has been considerable investment here in terms of grain capacity.
Labour is now one of those issues that we never before thought we’d have. There are far fewer people working, but it’s also a consideration of who wants to do that job even though it’s quite well paying.
We toured the sites a few weeks ago with a few of the MPs and cabinet ministers, and there is no doubt about the efficiency that they’ve evolved. However, our concerns are ensuring that there is a strong national railway that will get the grain here safely and dependably, and that dredging the approaches to the locks and in those ports will not be haphazard but continuous and committed, so that deeper ocean ships can come through and leave and the lakers that are moving won’t be impeded.
The third factor, when talking to the operators, is finding ships’ crewmen. There are certainly some problematic issues there. I wouldn’t call it a crisis, but it’s something to keep on the radar.
In general, they seem to be moving in and out of Thunder Bay. The connectivity is very impressive in terms of the new technology. It’s actually something we can be proud of as Canadians, the innovations in getting the cars in here, the boats loaded and off they go.
There is both good and bad, senator. I’m anticipating that both the port authority here and the grain companies know what to do in terms of addressing the labour components and the infrastructural aspects.
Senator Clement: Hello, mayors. I’m the former mayor of Cornwall, Ontario, located on the shores of the mighty St. Lawrence River. I always find mayors to be most compelling witnesses. You are experts on infrastructure but also get the connection to community.
I’ll ask my questions. I have one for Mayor Horwath and one for Mr. Ouellet.
Mayor Horwath, you spoke of your 2022 climate adaptation plan. Could you speak more fully on that? I’m concerned about the lack of a relationship or collaboration between the federal government and municipalities, and how that amplifies the impacts of climate change on infrastructure.
Could you comment on your climate adaptation plan and what role the federal government is called upon to play in that, as well as the relationship between the municipality and the federal government?
[Translation]
Mr. Ouellet, you mentioned the floods and the fact that cooperation between the federal government and municipalities has been difficult. Can you tell us what the federal government needs to do to improve the situation?
[English]
Ms. Horwath: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it.
Our plan was put together over a number of initiatives that fed into what we needed to do to address the climate crisis that we face as a city. One of the things that became clear in that work — and I’ll send you a link to that plan — is that the various initiatives that we’ve identified that need work all take resources. Specifically, the lack of financial capacity at the municipal order of government was something that is always top of mind. For example, we have a combined sewer and stormwater system in the city of Hamilton. When we have those massive flooding events — and I think this is something that Mayor Boshcoff also referred to in terms of Thunder Bay and something they went through — we end up contaminating the harbour that we’ve been working hard to try to clean. So we went backward.
One of the things we’re forced to do, because we don’t have the financial or physical capacity to separate our storm system from our waste water system, is do our best with combined sewer overflow tanks and other changes to our waste water treatment plant, to try to take the contaminants out downstream. That’s more expensive than if we could actually separate our systems, but we don’t have the financial capacity to do that. The goal would be to actually separate the waste water and stormwater systems in our entire city. Some of the newer areas of our city, of course, are not combined, but because we’re such an old city, I think we have the second or third oldest underground waste water system in the entire country. Some of our catch basins are still made of wood.
The goal is to try to deal with that infrastructure. The capacity is not there. We are looking at other ways of raising revenues through, for example, a stormwater fee. We’re trying to encourage the implementation of on-site stormwater capture for larger sites, such as big parking lots and things like that, of major industries and commercial enterprises like malls.
One of the challenges that has been laid bare by our adaptation plan is that, while we have some really great ideas, we don’t have the financial capacity to see them all through. We continue to work hard and not only undertake specific initiatives, but also pilot programs to see whether those programs are going to be the ones that will make the most significant impacts compared to the investment necessary.
As I said, I’ll send that plan over to you. It’s informed by our climate science report, which relied upon significant scientific evidence and inputs from a number of sources.
To summarize, it’s the enormity of the adaptive changes that we need to make against the financial capacity to be able to do that work.
[Translation]
Mr. Ouellet: Thank you for your question, senator.
I should point out that, during the major flooding of 2017, we had support from the federal government, particularly through the army. I’d like to thank them again. More specifically, they evacuated a town in the middle of the night when a dike broke north of Montreal. We were able to benefit from the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, or DMAF, and the City of Montreal thanks the federal government for that.
That said, shoreline and riverbank regulations are very complex, because one part falls under the provincial government’s responsibility and the other part under the federal government’s responsibility. In certain cases, the process has taken so long that some shorelines have been impacted. The process started and it took so long that in 2019, when there was flooding almost as intense as in 2017, we didn’t have time to set up any protections. It would be good to speed things up and carry out projects that will also benefit the environment, because this is often a factor that stalls the process. They say we need to study the situation and avoid environmental damage, and I totally agree, but if a flood arrives quickly and completely destroys the riverbank — and these are often important natural environments — nobody wins. We need to find a way to speed up the regulatory review process.
When it comes to Montreal in particular, you have to remember that it’s surrounded by water; it’s an island. We have no direct control over the water that reaches us. I imagine the same applies to all municipalities. We have no direct control over what happens to us, and often perhaps better decisions could be made in terms of the watershed. However, the watershed is rarely the responsibility of the municipalities or the provincial government. Agreements do exist, and some have even been signed with the United States, but we have to be able to look at the watershed. Sometimes, for dikes or expropriations in urban areas that would be extremely costly to protect against disasters — On the whole, even if the federal government is involved in this kind of thing, and even if it’s done far away from the cities, it could be of equal benefit to cities. We have to look at the watershed and see where money could be invested to best benefit Canadians. It’s not necessarily where the flooding is.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. Mr. Ouellet, you essentially answered my question. I’ll ask Mayor Boshcoff this too.
I’m wondering about the erosion of the Great Lakes shorelines, the consistent level of the shifts from year to year and how that’s going to create a problem with respect to transportation in, let’s say, the next decade or decade and a half. If you have any idea about that, are you coordinating any response with the U.S. lake cities and municipalities about this — a single response to what’s happening?
Mr. Boshcoff: Thank you, senator.
When I was mayor in a previous lifetime, the cities of Duluth and Thunder Bay became sister cities, and we had a great deal of coordination and cooperation, not just on the social side of things but from a business standpoint. Their issues are our issues.
When you’re talking about a lake that size and you could visibly see the shoreline drying — it was before — you know that something dramatic is happening.
We often work in concert, but we have not formalized anything at this point in terms of the twin cities on this part of the lake. I appreciate that idea. I’ll add it to the list.
Senator Richards: [Technical difficulties] idea if there was some kind of coordination between the two countries over this matter?
Mr. Boshcoff: I also believe that Ontario and Minnesota have a pretty strong relationship. There is a lot of cooperation. I could see it taking some further steps. I’d like to take it upon myself to get you a better answer in six months as to how some outreach was made to those entities.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Senator Quinn, you get the final three minutes.
Senator Quinn: I’ll be very short. It’s a follow-up, in a broader sense, to what Senator Richards is asking.
We know that the St. Lawrence Seaway is an integrated system. It’s very dependent upon both countries, including the provinces and states. There are organizations that look at some aspects of this system. The International Joint Commission looks at water flow, for example. But if we’re going to look at this as a system in a serious way, does there need to be greater cooperation, or some type of organization that brings the marine and infrastructure folks together to look at what those critical points are that need to be addressed?
What happens on one side happens on the other. As you said, there is no wall down the lake.
Is there some recommendation that we can make to the federal government to spur discussion with our colleagues south of the border and have the provincial governments get involved with the states to bring folks together?
Mr. Steele: I’ll step in and add to what Ken said. One thing our organization has been doing both in Ottawa and Washington recently is promoting the idea of the Canadian government getting involved in the Army Corps of Engineers Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study. As we’ve all said and agree on here, the water is the water and the shoreline is the shoreline for all of us. Everything that impacts Canada impacts the States. Get both governments on board.
The Army Corps of Engineers is world-renowned. They’re well respected. If we can get in on that program and put our dollars toward it to help on our side of the lake while working in conjunction of the Army Corps — I know that can be difficult when we’re doing things.
With Andrea becoming Mayor of Hamilton, that is a much harder job than she had before, being a mayor, when you’re with everybody. As the four municipal leaders sitting here today, the cooperation that we can have with each other is pretty good and pretty easy, but when it comes to federal-to-federal cooperation between Canada and the U.S., sometimes it gets bogged down and takes too long. As I said to the President of the United States, “You get your guy, let me get my guy, and let’s get them in a room and agree to this.” It can be as simple as that — getting the Army Corps of Engineers doing a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River study. Don’t do half the lakes. That helps us, but we really need the whole story. I think that study is going to be the start of what is affecting us in climate change, what’s affecting us at our ports and shoreline resilience. I think we really need to get on board with that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. I think I’m out of time, but I will conclude by saying congratulations to Mayor Horwath and your colleagues at the port for really pressing on short sea shipping. You’re right, it will take an immense amount of traffic off the roads, so continue. Build on it.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing and sharing their views with us tonight.
For our second panel this evening, I am pleased to welcome Reg Niganobe, Grand Council Chief of the Anishinabek Nation. Thank you for joining us. We will begin with opening remarks of five minutes and will follow that with Q & A.
Reg Niganobe, Grand Council Chief, Anishinabek Nation: [Indigenous language spoken].
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Anishinabek Nation’s view on the effects of climate change on transportation and communications.
The Anishinabek Nation is a political and territorial organization and represents 39 First Nations throughout Ontario. Our community stretches as far south as Sarnia and as far north as Thunder Bay, with a number of semi-remote communities in between, all the way out to almost here in Ottawa.
Some of the topics that I would like to discuss are the effects on the Anishinabek Nation. We do have remote communities. Some of these remote communities are ferry access only, so we have to worry constantly about wharf infrastructure and increasing and decreasing water levels. There are always consistent upgrades to those wharves. There are increased costs to maintain ferries, and weather variables carry a higher risk of damage to ferry infrastructure. Infrastructure inaccessibility due to consistent inclement weather conditions has increased due to climate change — for example, the shutdown of operations due to unsafe or hazardous conditions. This cuts people off from public transportation, food supply, emergency care, education, et cetera.
Some of our communities have single rural road access, which is susceptible, of course, to washouts and flooding. Potholes have been seen in Munsee-Delaware First Nation and other communities where the main road has washed out. Munsee-Delaware is beside London, Ontario. It’s not that far north or remote. These are impacts we sometimes face as First Nations, even close to urban areas.
Another example of that is closer to North Bay, where we have Dokis First Nation. It has one road in and it’s surrounded by forest. In the event of a forest fire occurring on the main route — the First Nation would have to come up with some inventive ways of escaping the community should they become isolated in that way.
We have some communities with no road access; they are boat access only. Namaygoosisagagun does not have road access. I was there last spring. You have to travel in from Thunder Bay, three hours down a logging road that luckily happens to be conveniently beside the lake where they are. You have to hike down to the lake carrying your bags, jump in a boat and then boat across to there. Otherwise, you have to come in by train, and that’s how they receive a lot of their products. But, of course, trains are often delayed while delivering supplies, and for them that includes drinking water, which in some instances comes to about $90 per gallon for them.
Of course, with climate change also comes a lack of ice roads. Georgina Island First Nation and Beausoleil First Nation used to be able to have ice roads in and out of their communities. They have not been able to utilize their winter road access for the last four years due to climate change. It is now unsafe, of course, because their people fully rely on ferries and airboat hovercraft to get to and from the mainland.
Georgina Island has announced interest in a causeway from the mainland to the island as a solution, restricting access to traditional territory and sometimes emergency measures, if required, such as hospitals and specialists, as well as equal access to education for them on the islands.
Climate change is driving up the cost of infrastructure across the Anishinabek Nation. The increase in precipitation and earlier thaw along with other factors have increased the cost of road and equipment maintenance and decreased the capacity to manage and maintain roads in the communities, which are consistently underfunded. There are increased maintenance costs for vehicles used to access services and equal education opportunities, as I mentioned.
We have an issue with basin communities. Disruption to the hydrological cycle of the water in communities that are within the basin of the major bodies and waterways such as the Great Lakes, Lake Simcoe and the St. Lawrence River. High temperatures in the summer months can cause increased evaporation, reduce ice cover in winter and alter precipitation patterns. It impacts the annual thaw date, causing changes outside the average water levels, with consistent changes between lower and higher.
There are the transportation infrastructure disruptions that I mentioned. We even have worries about emergency management, as climate change is increasing the frequency of severe storms, and when emergencies arise, the ability to effectively communicate without broadband or cellular coverage — which exist in some of our communities, that are, as I mentioned, close to rural cities, municipalities and other places like that. Sometimes they don’t have access to the communications. Even the ability of emergency vehicles to travel on community roads is a major concern for the Anishinabek Nation. There are more frequent extreme weather events. Major thunderstorms and snowstorms have shut down major highways, affecting access for our citizens who travel for employment and essential services, and decreasing food security.
We do have flood studies. Climate change is impacting our First Nations’ ability to access good roads and, as I mentioned, proper housing, hydro and communication infrastructure. Some of them have been interrupted in short- and long-term scenarios. Our infrastructure is not flood-resistant. There are communities that flood frequently. Some First Nations have measures in place, and some do not. The Anishinabek Nation is trying to build capacity for the First Nations through education, awareness, outreach, technical support and providing expertise. More capacity is needed, as emergencies are about more than the incident itself. They have widespread impacts in other areas too, as previously mentioned.
Finally, we have inflation too. Climate change is impacting the Anishinabek First Nations. The increasing price of fuel is driving up the cost of delivering essential services to communities. As I mentioned, some of them are remote, so that has a very large impact on them. First Nations are not ready to transition to electric cars at this time — and that may be required — because it requires supporting infrastructure, and I can guarantee they will not be ready by 2035 at this rate.
Family vehicles are the main mode of transportation in our Anishinabek Nation territories, especially in rural and isolated communities. They are also very expensive and costly to maintain on our rural roads.
We have the capacity to engage in climate mitigation strategies, though we always question whether the grid is capable of supporting the increased power requirements. Of course, this has wide-ranging impacts on us in that regard.
There is the lack of public transportation, broadband infrastructure, as I mentioned, and the shift to a greener economy.
We are seeing scientific reports that salt and sand runoff is impacting our environment, affecting streams’ water quality and invertebrates, and we are only now beginning to mitigate these impacts.
There’s a further need to protect sensitive ecological areas, especially wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin. The wetlands collectively act as a large carbon storage tank. Sequestering carbon by prioritizing the protection of wetlands is critical in mitigating climate change.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. That was powerful testimony, and I’m really glad you came here to share that with us.
I am from Alberta. I don’t know your territory. Could you talk to me about ferries and hovercraft and how important they are to your communities? Also, what impacts are the ferries and hovercraft facing because of climate change?
Mr. Niganobe: A lot of it is older infrastructure for our ferries and hovercraft. It’s very expensive to maintain both of those avenues of transportation. Some of our communities are in their traditional territory on islands set in large bodies of water, one in Georgian Bay and another in Lake Simcoe. Their only access to the mainland is through those ferries or hovercraft. Of course, they are very costly to maintain as fuel prices go up and the cost of repairs in general goes up in those areas. That’s having an impact.
I had heard during the last testimony a question around the rising and lowering water levels of the Great Lakes. For Georgian Bay, that greatly impacts the community there. I’m not sure how much they might have to adjust the wharf from year to year, or even whether they have ice damage. It’s too unpredictable at this point now, with ice or no ice. As I said, in the past four years, they were usually able to get in by ice road during the winter, but that’s not an option anymore at all, or even close to happening.
Senator Simons: As part of our study earlier, we heard from people in the High Arctic that even there they can’t maintain ice roads. In my home province of Alberta, northern communities and Indigenous communities were terribly impacted by the fact that they couldn’t have proper ice roads this year.
You talked about the need to build a causeway as a potential solution. How many people would that causeway serve? That sounds like an expensive engineering undertaking. Who would be responsible for funding that?
Mr. Niganobe: I think the provinces and the federal government would probably both equally have to foot a lot of the bill for it. I imagine some of the First Nations might be able to find some creative ways to help with that sort of endeavour. However, it is very much a need, because in emergency situations and access to health — diabetes and all sorts of detriments to health are impacting our communities. Anything short of bringing in their own medical facility there — that would be an option, but that’s also not very feasible in some ways.
Senator Simons: I don’t know the geography. Where would the causeway be? Where would one end be and where would the other end be, and how many people would be served by that?
Mr. Niganobe: That would be on the mainland, and it would be serving out into Georgian Bay, which is Lake Huron. That would be serving the population of the First Nation there.
Senator Simons: Is it 100, 1,000, 3,000?
Mr. Niganobe: I would say around 1,000.
Senator Simons: That’s a decent-sized community, and right now their only way is by boat?
Mr. Niganobe: Yes.
Senator Simons: Wow.
Mr. Niganobe: I’m sorry. It’s a smaller community, but in terms of both the community itself going back and forth and non-Natives on the mainland being able to access the community, it would be very helpful.
Senator Simons: Thank you. You have painted a really vivid picture of the challenges of very unique communities. Thank you very much for being with us tonight.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, chief, for being here tonight. It’s an honour to have you in this room.
That was quite a descriptive outline of the challenges you face across a broad, broad geographic area. We are looking at critical infrastructure and climate change. As you said at the end, that was just a sampling of some of the challenges you have.
But what is the single biggest thing with respect to infrastructure and how to address that infrastructure? Can you talk about what that biggest single thing would be if we were to say, “That’s what we’re going to fix; that’s how we need to fix something”? It’s such a large area, and you’ve outlined so many issues. Is there any one thing in particular, or is it a whole myriad of things?
Mr. Niganobe: I think you could say it’s a whole myriad, but just that access, to be able to make that connection to the municipal or urban centres, is important. As I said, not having the access to emergency vehicles, or having to wait for a ferry to come get you if you’re in an emergency situation, isn’t ideal.
For some communities, the one road in and out is a huge issue. Generally, those roads aren’t paved either. They are really rough gravel roads in a lot of instances. I guess that’s just the way things unfolded at one time, when there was no need or desire to get to the First Nations. So they were left kind of abandoned at some point in time, with one road in and out and no access to them whatsoever.
I would say that sort of access is the most important thing at this time.
Senator Quinn: So land and water access, because the winter roads are rapidly disappearing — if they even exist anymore, quite frankly.
So you need those land and water linkages to allow people to have access to the services they require.
Mr. Niganobe: Absolutely.
Senator Quinn: Okay.
I just wanted to get a better feel for it because it was such a wide-ranging challenge.
Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Grand Chief, thank you very much for being here and sharing the information you have so far.
Could you talk to us a little about the interactions and former relationships you had with ports and railways in your territory and how those worked?
Mr. Niganobe: I think the past interaction for most of our communities has been non-inclusion within those discussions as they were building the infrastructure and constructing those sorts of things. Now, of course, there is consultation that takes place. I know there is information and collaboration that goes on back and forth for some of our communities, so that is definitely improving.
Our communities are willing to participate in those discussions. I know, for example, in one of our communities in Garden River — which is right inside Sault Ste. Marie — they collaborated with the port in Sault Ste. Marie for transportation of the steel that was coming out of the mill there. They actually signed an agreement with them and Batchewana, who were willing to work together to facilitate some of those discussions.
Senator Cardozo: Are there many other signed agreements between your nation or particular nations and either the railways or — are there ports within your area?
Mr. Niganobe: There are some. Of course, there’s Thunder Bay and Fort William, and then, of course, you have Sault Ste. Marie and a few others.
Senator Cardozo: Do you know if there are formally signed —
Mr. Niganobe: For some of them, there are, yes, absolutely. It’s dependent upon each First Nation and their level of engagement or whoever is willing to collaborate with them.
Senator Cardozo: The causeway you were talking about — I’m just looking at the map here. I don’t want to say I’m from Ontario and know this area, but I know it a little bit because I’ve been around there. Would the causeway be to Manitoulin Island?
Mr. Niganobe: It’s a little farther south than that, around, I want to say, the Barrie area, but situated a little to the northwest of that.
Manitoulin does have a bridge there, but, of course, it is limited to just that bridge — unless you’re in southern Manitoulin Island, you can jump on the Chi-Cheemaun, which I would recommend you take at least once in your lifetime.
Senator Cardozo: Tell us more about that.
Mr. Niganobe: The Chi-Cheemaun? Actually, that is another thing. That ferry operates between the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island, and is one of the only other access ways to get on to Manitoulin Island — other than the bridge itself, which is an old swing bridge.
It’s both good and bad. That ferry access down in the south is opening sooner each year and exiting later each year, but that’s not a good sign in terms of the actual ice coverage and when they should and shouldn’t be operating.
Senator Cardozo: Has the Chi-Cheemaun been around for a long time?
Mr. Niganobe: It’s been around for a while — at least 20 years or more.
Senator Cardozo: It’s possible I’ve been on it. I’ve taken a ferry and come by the bridge from the north end to Manitoulin Island.
Mr. Niganobe: You’d remember the views if you did.
Senator Cardozo: I was a student with a bunch of friends during that trip, so it was memorable in various ways.
Thank you very much for that.
Senator Clement: Welcome. I’m happy to have you and the mayors. You’re always so good at welcoming people to your communities, so I appreciate that.
During the previous panel, the Mayor of Thunder Bay talked about evacuations of communities and his city hosting them. When I was Mayor of Cornwall, we did the same. We had to host evacuees from Kashechewan and Attawapiskat. Could you comment on whether that’s been an experience in your territory?
I would also like you to comment on your relationship with the federal government, whether that’s a good working relationship around climate adaptation and what you are doing specifically with the federal government around that.
Mr. Niganobe: In terms of that, we have been attempting to engage with the federal government. Of course, we hope to engage with them more on the issue.
In terms of the evacuations, fortunately, we haven’t had to have any in our Anishinabek Nation communities. We have been very fortunate in that regard. We did have a few close calls. That’s why we’ve been developing our emergency preparedness for our communities — to help them in that regard.
The community of Pic Mobert was almost evacuated last year, because there was a forest fire along Highway 17 and it was getting closer to their community. Luckily, the winds shifted, they were able to stay within the community and everything was fine. However, should that happen, there is road access for them on either side, and there are partnerships between the communities to be able to help them.
As I mentioned, we do have different emergency services to access in that regard.
Senator Clement: Which communities would be most vulnerable to evacuation?
Mr. Niganobe: For us, I would say the most vulnerable would be our communities north of Parry Sound. I would say they would be most vulnerable. Those are some of the ones with single-road access, unable to get in and out of their territories easily. As I said, Dokis is right beside North Bay on the other side of Lake Nipissing, but they have just that one road that gets them in and out of there. Also, Namaygoosisagagun is way up northeast of Thunder Bay, and it just has that railroad. Otherwise, they have to boat in and out and drive an hour-long dirt logging road.
Senator Clement: You talked about working with the federal government, but that it needs to do better. What needs to be better? What needs to be improved there?
Mr. Niganobe: The investment in the infrastructure for the First Nations and having the roadway access. I mentioned Dokis a lot, but even Wahnapitae First Nation, which is just outside of Sudbury, is finally developing a second roadway to be able to get out of that area. These aren’t places that are very far off the beaten path. They are beside major urban areas and suffering from the same effects.
Senator Clement: Does your council work directly with the federal government?
Mr. Niganobe: We try to, absolutely — as much as we can, along with and in conjunction with the communities. They help guide the conversation because they are the ones who are the experts, having dealt with it for years and years, and they are now trying to address the issue.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, chief, for being here today.
My question straddles both sides of the climate change impact question. I have some familiarity with the Walpole Island First Nation and their port facilities; they run a ferry from Canada to the U.S. I don’t know if that’s in your nation or not.
Mr. Niganobe: I know Walpole Island, yes.
Senator Dasko: Yes, you know them.
I observed their operation. I think the ferry takes eight minutes to go across from Canada to the U.S., and there’s a Canadian immigration office right there when you land in Canada. I can see the prosperity of that operation. It looks quite prosperous, and you might then assume that there would be opportunities like that as a result of climate change.
I’ve asked this kind of question before, and I don’t want to sound like I’m some sort of climate change denier. However, I am probing the idea that there might be opportunities there with climate change on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, is the downside — and the adaptation and mitigation strategies that you have to undertake. I wonder if you could flesh out both sides of that for a moment. Are there opportunities stemming from the climate change process, or is it just all downside: mitigation and shoring up the ice and roads and so on?
Mr. Niganobe: In terms of climate change and maybe some of the opportunities, I think there are opportunities to have discussions on how we’re going to address it. And then there are going to be opportunities to participate and collaborate in seeking solutions for that, which I think will eventually lead to economic opportunity for our First Nations.
I mentioned that we are keenly aware that a lot of resource extraction will probably come from First Nation communities, and we will be looking to participate within that. We are also looking to help find the solutions to address the climate change issue.
As I mentioned, we need to build the infrastructure for electric vehicles if we are going to go that route, but then we are also keenly aware that it’s going to take a lot of power to support the move to electric vehicles, and what does that look like? Sitting down and having discussions about nuclear energy or more hydroelectric energy — all these sorts of discussions will take place, and we are willing to collaborate on those issues, discuss them, flush them out a little further and have in-depth conversations on the subject.
Senator Dasko: So the opportunities are on the mitigation side, working to shore up the infrastructure and those kinds of activities.
What is the main strategy that your nation would want to undertake? Would it be building permanent roads? More ferry services?
Mr. Niganobe: It would be building those permanent roads; support for a ferry service would be nice if that’s the desired route or the only route possible, if a land bridge or something like that can’t be built.
So, yes, it would also be support with respect to ferries, because it is a very costly endeavour for the First Nations to participate in. As I said, in certain situations, they are situated where they are because it’s their traditional territory. In other situations, it’s not a spot that was chosen by them; it was chosen for them.
Senator Dasko: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, if there are no other questions, I will thank, on behalf of the committee, Chief Niganobe for being before us and sharing your views on this important matter.
(The committee adjourned.)