THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators.
My name is Leo Housakos, I am a Quebec senator and I am chair of this committee.
[English]
I invite my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I’m Senator Paula Simons, from Alberta, from Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Good morning. Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Today we continue our study on the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector and the study of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.
For our first panel, I’m pleased to welcome Claude Deschambault, Director, Environment, and Julien Baudry, Director of Public Affairs, for the Montreal Port Authority. We’re also pleased to have before us Maguessa Morel-Laforce, Senior Director of Government and Stakeholder Relations, and Mr. Paul Topping, Senior Director of Regulatory and Environmental Affairs, for the Chamber of Marine Commerce. Each group will have five minutes to deliver opening remarks.
[Translation]
Following that, we will proceed with questions from my colleagues.
For opening remarks, we’ll begin with Mr. Baudry, followed by Mr. Morel-Laforce and Mr. Topping.
Mr. Baudry, you have the floor.
Julien Baudry, Director, Public Affairs, Montreal Port Authority: Thank you very much, senator, for this opportunity to share our views on a subject that deeply affects us.
First of all, it’s important to understand that talking about the Port of Montreal and climate resilience, and also climate change, means talking not just about the resilience of a port, but about the resilience of the entire Canadian economy.
The Port of Montreal serves Quebec, of course, but it also serves Ontario. In fact, we serve two thirds of Canada’s population, as well as 75% of the country’s manufacturing capacity, with over 70% of economic trade with Europe passing through the Port of Montreal. In economic terms, the Port of Montreal supports over 600,000 jobs. That’s 10% of Quebec’s GDP, and 3.5% of Canada’s. When we talk about climate resilience at the Port of Montreal, we’re also talking about the resilience of our entire economy, both in terms of imports and exports.
Of course, we have operations on Montreal Island, but also in Contrecœur, where we are planning to develop a new container terminal. So, you’ll understand that we’re assuming our responsibilities to reduce the carbon footprint, but also to manage the risks in adapting to climate change.
Claude Deschambault, Director, Environment, Montreal Port Authority: Our resilience in dealing with climate change is essential. Through Transport Canada’s Transportation Resource Risk Assessment program, the Port of Montreal and its business partners participated in a comprehensive study by Claude Comtois and Brian Slack, as part of a project called Resilience of the Port of Montreal’s transportation and logistics infrastructure: Compilation, analysis and decision support options in the context of climate change.
As you know, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The study separated the chain into three segments: assets, port operations and supply chains. Two climate scenarios built and analyzed by Ouranos in Montreal and in Contrecœur were considered for a timeline up to 2100. Seventeen climate indicators were selected.
The study shows that interactions between the main markers of port assets, including the shipping channel, docks, roads, rail, silos, power grids and climate indicators represent no risk, or a low risk of 87%. The figure is 89% for port operations such as berthing, pilotage, handling and storage, and 86% for supply chains such as containers, oil and grain. While these percentages may seem high, the risk is present — we’re talking 10% to 15% higher risk. That is not negligible.
Among the likely range of changes to climate parameters, we can state that the Montreal port system’s vulnerability will be exacerbated by rising temperatures, increasing heat waves, increased freeze-thaw cycles, more intense precipitation and variations in hydrological conditions.
The study also reveals that increasing the resilience of the Montreal port system relies primarily on the adaptation of three components: the shipping or navigable channel, the reliability of its electrical and communications network, and handling and storage spaces.
Our location, at the heart of the Laurentian system, seems to protect us from certain extreme conditions, but we can’t afford to sit back: our efficiency, predictability and competitiveness depend on it. Actions on the ground have already been deployed for a long time, such as our strategy of redundancy in the power supply and communications network, increasing the power of electrical substations to meet the growing need for electrification of docks and equipment, and modifying our weather and rain load assumptions for the design of surface water drainage.
Mr. Baudry: Serving all Canadian supply chains is an honour, but above all it’s our responsibility. To meet it, there’s no secret: We need financial resources not only to build infrastructure, but more importantly to build it better. We also harbour the dream of achieving this in collaboration with other ports.
Currently, the possibilities for collaboration with other port authorities are limited by the legislative framework. We would like to be able to combine certain actions and infrastructure with other ports, always with the same goal in mind: to make not only the ports, but also the Canadian economy more resilient in the face of climate change.
Thank you.
Maguessa Morel-Laforce, Senior Director, Government and Stakeholder Relations, Chamber of Marine Commerce: Thank you very much.
Climate change is affecting supply chains, bringing a raft of unpredictability, risk and adversity that concerns our members. These are ship operators, port authorities and operators. We represent these players operating in the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, on the country’s east coast as well as in the Canadian Arctic.
This colossal challenge has prompted many players in the marine community, as well as members of the Chamber of Marine Commerce, to reduce their carbon footprint, supporting the federal government in its quest for carbon neutrality by 2050, and joining various initiatives, including that of Green Marine.
It goes without saying that the task of decarbonizing the marine industry cannot be done in silos. Assistance from all levels of government is required to foster a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to the transition to green energy. For example, the federal government can do more today by promoting the use of biofuel, a fuel that can reduce the industry’s carbon footprint by up to 80%; more funding in its programs, such as green corridors, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions today and foster research and development for tomorrow’s energy.
[English]
We know that climate change can elevate risks of marine shipping, but it also brings opportunities in certain contexts. On risks, extreme world temperatures provoke more severe weather events that can impact shipping by increasing water levels beyond safe navigation limits. Water levels need to be maintained in a safe navigation range, as too little water reduces the maximum cargo that can be carried while water levels that are too high makes for rough and dangerous navigation conditions.
The frequency of changing weather pattern is set to increase, which can cause sudden cold-weather episodes that cause ice buildup in the water and on the lock gates of the seaways. The severity of those events are expected to increase over time, thus increasing risks and the likelihood of supply chain disruptions.
In this context, the International Joint Commission, or IJC, established in 1909 to manage shared bodies of water between Canada and the U.S., needs to realign its decision-making process according to its three founding principals, the access to potable water for municipalities, the production of hydroelectricity and commercial navigation. The marine industry is concerned that the next high-water-level event is around the corner and that the IJC Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Board does not have the needed expertise in navigation to entertain the risks and impacts of its decisions during a crisis.
Severe weather events can damage infrastructure and create delays in delivering crucial cargo to industry and customers. As you know, over 90% of goods are transported via the marine mode at one point or another during their lifespans.
To ensure operations continue despite the increasing risks, the marine industry needs navigational aids such as buoys, enough ice breaking capacity, investments in the seaway locks to better adapt to extreme operating conditions as well as port equipment such as cargo loading systems able to sustain increasing impacts of severe weather events. Changes in weather patterns impact weather predictions, making major weather events more challenging to predict. As an industry that relies on weather forecasting for safe and efficient operations, this also has effects on us.
On opportunities, climate change is generally bringing warmer weather to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region. This can support extending growing seasons for crops, many of which are exported by sea. Warmer weather opens the Great Lakes to an extension to the duration of the shipping season.
For the topic of the navigation season extension, the Chamber of Marine Commerce, or CMC, seeks to align the Canadian and U.S. seaways to open on March 22 and remain operational to January 15 for a predictable schedule and greater use of seaway assets. To help achieve this, we will need creative ways to get more Canadian Coast Guard assets to support navigation and more funds for maintenance of the seaways to support extended operations and responses to severe weather.
Over time, we will continue needing upgrades to repair and replace aging seaway infrastructure and realize greater efficiency in the marine transport system.
Paul Topping, Senior Director, Regulatory and Environmental Affairs, Chamber of Marine Commerce: Finally, while we represent the most energy-efficient mode of transport, we are working on reducing our own emissions. This involves collaborative work with Transport Canada on regulations and with the government and other partners on adopting fuels and technologies. We also seek to bring these efforts together under a Green Shipping Corridor Network throughout the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region. This is being led by both seaways, Transport Canada and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Thank you for inviting us to share our views on this crucial study. We are at your disposal if you have any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will launch off the Q&A with Senator Quinn.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, chair, and thank you for being here this morning. There is no question about the importance of the seaway and the Port of Montreal to not only the Canadian economy but also, arguably, the North American economy. My questions focus on critical infrastructure and impacts on climate change.
For the Port of Montreal, what are the three most critical pieces of infrastructure that you have to take into consideration? Have you done a risk assessment? Is there a document that outlines all the risks, and so on, a risk register that we could have as a committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Deschambault: Indeed, senator, there is a study by Claude Comtois and Brian Slack, where they review all the markers, meaning all the aspects of the assets, the aspects of operations and the supply chain.
In summary, in this 350-page study, there are indeed three important elements. The most important infrastructure is the shipping channel; with a drop in water level, there will be a direct impact on the quantity of ship cargo. The second element is our power grid and communications network, and the third element involves the handling and storage spaces that are at risk.
[English]
Senator Quinn: You mentioned all three in your presentation. I was looking for the more operational pieces of that. I know they’re all operational, but are there not cases of wharves that are of critical importance? Do you worry about the locks that the seaway manages in terms of ships coming into and out of the Great Lakes? I talked about a risk register. Do you actually have that document that we could share with the committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Baudry: Of course, this work was done with public partners, so everything is available.
[English]
Senator Quinn: You said you were looking at collaboration, and so on. Given the importance of Montreal and that it’s about moving goods to consumers throughout North America, what discussions have you had with other ports in terms of mitigation strategies and plans that could kick into effect to ensure the ongoing movement of goods? I’ll give an example, without being prejudicial, of the Port of Saint John.
Given our centuries-long history between Saint John and Montreal, are there any discussions with them about what can they do, or what their terminal operators or rail lines can do, to ensure the cargo moves should something shut down the operation of the Port of Montreal because of climate change? That is, other than striking? Are there those discussions?
[Translation]
Mr. Baudry: We have many discussions with the Port of Trois-Rivières and the Port of Quebec, since we have a co‑operation agreement. There are certain conversations we can’t have, both for legal reasons, namely that we can’t delegate responsibilities entrusted to us, but also because the Competition Act applies to Canadian port authorities. Although we do not operate the terminals, we can’t hold discussions that would have an impact on competition in this type of activity. Our discussions are very restricted, even though we are all members of the same network and agents of the Canadian government.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I appreciate that and I’ll leave it for now.
For the chamber, you mentioned about the lengthening of the season. There’s no question that the season closed on January 6 and got under way mid-March this year. What are the big factors of that extended season? Over the last years, the data tells us that the seasons can get longer if there is less ice, warmer conditions and fluctuating water conditions. Do you have concerns about the locks themselves operating on a longer basis?
You mentioned Coast Guard assets. One could argue that the Coast Guard assets are becoming less important in some ways, especially around the Québec Bridge, if the water is getting warmer and the season is extended. How do you balance that and what are those risks that you see in terms of critical infrastructure?
Mr. Topping: Every season, there are consultations leading in with the seaway and the Coast Guard because they’re the operators that ensure there is flow. They operate like a highway and we’re the trucks, to use a road analogy. If there is a massive drop in temperature and sudden ice forming, the issue is the hands-free mooring system in the lock systems can get jammed up, as well as the mechanisms of the lock doors themselves. This requires bringing in extra equipment, which the seaway has arrangements for because we are in Canada and we have winter. We can deal with that, but there are extra costs and it does require forethought and planning to have these contracts in place so they can be drawn up and brought in, in a timely fashion. They need to generate steam to heat the locks to ensure that they can move and that the mechanical parts works.
On the open water, there can be a need for ice breaking. This is probably where the biggest challenges exist because there are only so many icebreakers in the Canadian fleet. They are the true icebreakers as well on the Great Lakes. The U.S. fleet has a bigger fleet. There are about eight icebreakers available, but they are basically tugs on steroids. It’s the Canadian vessels, the big Coast Guard ships, that will bash through heavy ice. They have the capability to do so. They’re designed as icebreakers. The U.S. has only one of those things, the USCGC Mackinaw which is in retrofit, and they’re old. All of the infrastructure of the ships on both the U.S. and the Canadian side are old.
The other element is for the U.S. to reach Thunder Bay, we have to go through the Sault locks. It’s outside the seaway and is administered by the corps of engineers. That’s what we’re trying to align. It’s having these things working throughout. In the winter season, there are daily and sometimes weekly — that is, depending on the severity — ice calls. When there is a severe event, there are daily ice calls to look at where the assets are. People can lobby and say, “We need to have assistance.” There are also calls happening on an operational managed by the Canadian coast guards’ communications network over the radios, where formal requests can be put in whether it’s a planned need or an emergency and something happens. That’s the nutshell overview.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome to our committee, gentlemen.
For the Port of Montreal, I’d like more details and some examples. You spoke generally about risks of around 10% to 15%, including rising temperatures, freezing and thawing and hydrological issues. Can you give us some concrete examples of what these different temperature changes or freezing and thawing could do to the Port of Montreal, so that we fully understand the threat? Where does it lie?
Mr. Deschambault: As an example, senator, we’ve seen in the past that icy conditions can have a very dramatic impact on the power grid. If we had a major ice storm and it affected our power grid, and we didn’t have a plan B, the Port of Montreal would have to shut down for quite a while, as was the case in 1998.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Like the rest of Quebec, for that matter.
Are there specific risks to the Port of Montreal by virtue of being a port in these times of climate change?
Mr. Deschambault: Lower water levels will have a link, because we don’t have that capacity. Water depth is very important. The ships that visit the Port of Montreal are quite specific, so a drop in water levels may be an important factor in the drop in traffic that can use the Port of Montreal. For us, the use of e-navigation and the improvement of e-navigation knowledge are priorities, so we can maximize the water column and continue to maintain the quantity of material transported, despite a drop in water levels.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What does “maximizing the water column” mean?
Mr. Deschambault: That’s the thickness of the water to the bottom. Ships currently use a safety height for the keel to avoid hitting the bottom. Electronic tools allow the keel to approach the bottom a little more closely, so that more equipment can be transported to counteract the problem of falling water levels.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you have other concrete examples for us?
Mr. Deschambault: I’ll give you a vivid example, though it’s not necessarily in the analysis, as it wasn’t a priority item. Are you familiar with bollards?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No, I’m not.
Mr. Deschambault: A bollard is where you tie up a ship. Bollards are important, but as storms and wind levels increase, they can be torn off and the boat can float away. Construction and engineering must take into account the potential increase in windy episodes. That’s just one example, but it’s part of the range of considerations that were analyzed in Claude Comtois’ study of the Transportation Asset Risk Assessment (TARA) program.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are you ready? I visited a few ports across the country and the Port of Montreal isn’t the most modern when it comes to cranes, for one thing. You may disagree with me, but that’s what I saw.
You say you should build infrastructure for climate change. I didn’t quite understand the connection. What are these infrastructures that need building? What are we talking about?
Mr. Baudry: As we face the challenge of climate change, we have two roles to play, the first of which is to reduce our carbon footprint. We must therefore build infrastructure to reduce our carbon footprint. It’s also our responsibility.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can you provide an example?
Mr. Baudry: Here’s an example: We talked about electrical substations. We’d like to offer more dockside connections to ships that come to the Port of Montreal, which would greatly reduce the carbon impact per tonne handled, not to mention other facilities for alternative fuels, for example, in the development of a green corridor. This is infrastructure that we’ll either have to develop or requalify, or we’ll simply have to build new infrastructure to cope with increased demand.
There is also infrastructure that we need to build better. We can no longer build docks the way we did 100 years ago. For example, we hope that when we expand the Port of Montreal at Contrecœur, the project will be electrified, as you can imagine, but it will also have to consider climate change adaptation throughout the engineering process.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Will the Port of Montreal be obsolete compared to Contrecœur? Will everything be moved there?
Mr. Baudry: Port infrastructure is subject to a renewal cycle. We certainly always have this reality of more modern infrastructure paired with others with which we coexist.
We look forward to welcoming you to the Port of Montreal. You’ll see that we have warehouses that are a few years old, but we’re focusing our investments where they’ll make a big difference. Of course, some of the older infrastructure will become obsolete and will need to be replaced.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I don’t know if this is the report Senator Quinn requested, but is the first report you mentioned, the Comtois-Slack report, public? Could you send it to us?
Mr. Deschambault: It’s not public yet. Several aspects of the report pertain to competitiveness. However, many portions of it can easily be shared, such as criticality analysis and risk analysis for infrastructure.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would be wonderful if you could send it to our clerk.
The Chair: We did receive that report and it was sent to all committee members on March 1.
Perhaps not all of you received it?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No, I missed it. I apologize.
The Chair: That rarely happens.
Mr. Deschambault: There will also be a climate change adaptation plan resulting from this study. We’re going to formalize it in an adaptation plan that’s a little easier to read, as this one is more difficult and complex. The climate change adaptation plan, along with a financial analysis, should be available next year.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Very well. Thank you.
Senator Simons: My first question is for Mr. Morel-Laforce.
[English]
I heard you say that there is a challenge that you don’t have the weather forecasting that you need in a timely way, that we maybe don’t have the expertise to respond quickly to the very short-term, rapid climate changes that we see as part of the overall change in climate. Can you talk to us a little bit more about what you and your members need in terms of just-in-time weather forecasting?
Mr. Morel-Laforce: It’s a matter of trying to showcase that the frequency of odd weather patterns will increase. We were talking about the ice formation that can buildup really quickly. The spikes we see will come more quickly and in more fulsome ways. It’s not about not having the weather forecast, but it’s about showing that those odd weather patterns will happen more frequently. It can be ice buildup or the water-level variation that changes quickly. The industry needs just-in-time information for adapting, but it also shows that sometimes it will need to spin around really quickly and make changes to the supply chain that’s established right now.
Senator Simons: Do people rely on Environment Canada for that, or are there private companies that provide that kind of forecasting?
Mr. Topping: Environment Canada’s weather service supplies information, and they’re very good at it. The biggest problem, though, is the climate changes themselves affect their models. They have very complex, very sophisticated, predictive models, but their error rate increases as the climate starts changing and unforeseen things start to happen, and it becomes difficult to predict. We get some more sudden storms, and the best-of-the-best systems at Environment Canada aren’t able to give us the immediate warnings. We generally get our forecasts digitally with maps overlaying our navigation maps. It isn’t just a simple teletype from the days of yore.
Senator Simons: Now you date us all.
Mr. Topping: The captain can actually see where to avoid if there is a storm, and he can do some voyage planning. In order to have that happen, Environment Canada needs to have climate models and weather-prediction models that are kept up to date, and there are costs attached to that. As my colleague alluded to, when we see greater changes in climate, it just creates uncertainty and unpredictability.
Senator Simons: Now you’re making me feel nostalgic for teletype machines.
[Translation]
My question is for Mr. Deschambault. It’s the first time all the witnesses said that the communications system was under threat.
[English]
You spoke to Senator Miville-Dechêne about the risks of the electronics, but can you talk a little bit about the risks to the communications system that you need for the safe operation of the port?
[Translation]
Mr. Deschambault: Thank you. That’s a very good question, senator. In fact, our communications network is just as important as our electrical network. It’s key to avoiding accidents. If there’s no communication, there can be a risk to ships.
It’s a constant exchange of data. The communications network is generally overhead, and it’s just as much at risk as our power grid. It’s really the key, and this aspect has come to the fore, not only for the Montreal Port Authority operations, but also for our terminal operators. They too are key to their communications with the shipping leagues, the trucks that come to visit the port and everything to do with rail transport. So that’s why our communications network is, in short, just as important as our power grid.
Senator Simons: Does it work by radio or cell phone?
Mr. Deschambault: Both. It can be wired communications, but also Internet-based or wireless.
Mr. Baudry: If you’ll allow me to add some information to better understand the volume we’re talking about: the Port of Montreal handles some 1,800 ships a year with which we have to interact. There are also 80 trains a week and 2,500 trucks a day. None of these supply chain partners can enter or leave the port without first communicating with us or our operators, for both safety and efficiency reasons.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
When it comes to the impact of climate change, I think we have heard from you about some of the costs. That is, the costs of infrastructure adjustment, mitigation efforts, and the adaptation that you have to do with respect to climate change, the uncertainty, the vulnerability of the process and other downsides. We also know that there are benefits too in terms of a longer season that you anticipate for clients and so many companies who use them, the system, the port, and so on.
I would like you to comment on the net benefits. Is climate change resulting in more benefits to our operations or net loss? Is there a net benefit from climate change? I would like all of you to comment on that so that we can understand. We know about the downside. It is certainly real, but there is a net benefit for your industry, for your operations?
[Translation]
Mr. Deschambault: It may seem counterintuitive, but one of the advantages is competitiveness. Any port that implements mitigation or decarbonization measures will be competitive or attractive, so one of the possibilities is to implement these measures and be aware of the importance of these climate change adaptation and decarbonization measures. Big companies like IKEA, Walmart, Canadian Tire and others are already starting to consider this, because port emissions are scope 3. For those companies, it’s becoming important across their value chains to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, so we’re part of the solution. The more forward-thinking we are, the more measures we will put in place — and some other ports won’t follow suit. The ports that have measures in place will therefore be attractive to the big companies that call on their services.
[English]
Mr. Morel-Laforce: I think anyone on either the government side or the business side would rather have predictability than the uncertainty that climate change brings. This unpredictability makes decision making more difficult and pushes us to invest in new technologies to decarbonize the industry and new fuels. It also adds a tax on infrastructure which has to be assessed to make sure it can sustain an increasing level of hardship. It is an infrastructure that has been chronically under invested in. The Seaway was built after the Second World War, in the 1950s. It has seen chronic under investment, and we can suffer from this.
To go back to the net benefits, I would take predictability rather than gambling on potential benefits.
Mr. Topping: Pilot work is going on to extend the season on the Welland Canal. We are seeing benefits. When our ship owner members talk to their clients about their availabilities, that goes to the client’s operations because we move the raw materials that oil companies need and all the things produced from these base products that General Motors and other parts of the economy then use. When we are providing that benefit for increased operations to increase supply in the wider economy, some benefits are seen.
We are seeing greater participation. More ships are happening. Initially, it was viewed to be the same number of ships working and carrying the same amount of cargo but having a bit more time. We are now seeing more trips occurring and more cargo is being delivered. That is a big advantage there. We are working on getting Montréal and Lake Ontario on board. That’s a bit more complex because there are First Nations Indigenous communities that the Seaway has an obligation to consult and we have to work out some benefits with them.
[Translation]
Mr. Baudry: There are many benefits to adapting to climate change. Certainly, among our motivations for electrifying more of our facilities is reducing our emissions, but it also allows us to improve air quality, which is an important consideration. Yes, there may be commercial benefits, but you have to understand that the Port of Montreal, like all ports in Canada, is part of a network. If partner ports like Antwerp or the European ports we work with don’t adapt to climate change, the infrastructure won’t be adapted, and we’ll suffer too. There are potential benefits, but for us, the investments required and the expectations of users in terms of predictability outweigh the potential gains at this point in time.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. I’m sorry I was a little late.
Is there any predictability of losing the channel? Are you losing the channel in the St. Lawrence Seaway because of climate change? Is the channel depth the same as it was 10 years ago, in 2014 or in 2001?
Mr. Topping: There is variability year over year because the river floor is dynamic. It is pushing sediments around. It is not so much that we are having a complete shutdown at any one particular time. We don’t see the risk of that. It’s more that there could be an event that creates a temporary blockage. When we are looking at $50 million a day, that’s going to have a knock-on effect in cost if there is an increasing frequency where either a cold spell freezes up the equipment in the winter or if we are actually starting to see a drought and that brings water levels down then there is less cargo capacity. The clients still need the same amount of cargo moved but we may need more ships to move that. That increases the costs and reduces the transport efficiency.
If it is too high and it becomes unsafe for navigation in certain spots, that becomes an issue. More recently, we had issues with the Moses-Saunders Power Dam that people believed was going to regulate water levels. It doesn’t. There are trillions of tonnes of water behind in the Great Lakes system. It’s the largest freshwater reserve in the world. This dam is helping water levels to a certain respect, but it’s mainly there for hydroelectric power. People believed they needed to increase the flows for this dam which resulted in a shutdown of shipping because there were periods where a lot of water had to be pushed through. That increased the currents, and that made it dangerous for navigation. I believe it was in 2019 that we saw a decision where they delayed the opening to allow for this, and that, again, cut into our planned operations.
Senator Richards: Thank you. What is the depth of the channel, generally? It’s pretty deep, I would imagine, for seagoing freighters.
Mr. Topping: I would have to get back to you on that specifically, but I think it’s around 80 feet — feet, not metres. Metres would be awesome.
Senator Richards: Yes, it would be awesome. You wouldn’t have to worry. I am just wondering because this is unpredictable. That’s what I’m trying to get at. All of this is speculative, in a way, because as sincere as we are about this stuff, we realize we still have limited knowledge about what will happen tomorrow. It’s speculative. There are no longer any freighter ships going along my river, the Miramichi. It has to be re-dredged, but I doubt if it will be because everything has stopped down there. It was last done in the 1980s.
You don’t face that same uncertainty on the St. Lawrence Seaway? You wouldn’t have to dredge in, would you?
Mr. Topping: Not on the St. Lawrence Seaway, but it is a problem on the American side of the Great Lakes where 45% of our business occurs. There is constant pressure on the corps of engineers. We apply it and our friends in the U.S. in the Lake Carriers’ Association continually apply it. They have received in recent years considerable funding from Congress, so the expectation is that they will deliver. There was quite a backlog of dredging to access various ports and terminals in the Great Lakes system.
Senator Richards: So there is an interlinking between you and the Americans that are, at times, not greatly fortuitous for you guys?
Mr. Topping: We do operate in the shared waters. We compete. But at the same time, when it comes to certain issues, yes, we have issues in common.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for being with us this morning. In light of the recent accident in Baltimore, are you just as vulnerable? Does climate change present more danger for the future?
Mr. Baudry: I have no special expertise in bridge engineering, as these are managed by other partners. Any ship that comes to the Port of Montreal, which includes container ships, has to sail under several bridges. Naturally, following that event, we had the opportunity to answer questions from journalists. The engineering of the bridges and the shipping channel to and from the Port of Montreal make an event like the one in Baltimore highly unlikely.
One of the very important things in our industry is risk, which we must always prevent. So, there are health and safety dimensions, but all the mechanisms within the marine industry are very important to prevent such risks. Of course, we don’t rely solely on the strength of bridges to cope with all this.
We don’t currently see any major risks leading us to believe that an event of this kind could be caused by climate change and would result in the Port of Montreal being closed. According to our assessments, that’s not a situation we face.
Senator Cardozo: Are there other structures in the region, aside from bridges?
Mr. Baudry: If we expand the infrastructure circle around the Port of Montreal, we mustn’t forget that while we manage our own infrastructure, any truck that leaves the Port of Montreal will have to travel on a Quebec or Ontario highway, a Montreal city road or rail bridges that are built. We have a great deal of infrastructure in Canada that we haven’t assessed for climate change risk, but we’ll need to invest in it in order to link it up. We serve Quebec and Ontario, but also the Prairies and the American Midwest. If we build corridors to these markets, it’s obvious that some infrastructure will be more vulnerable than others.
[English]
Mr. Topping: In regard to the Baltimore incident, a lot of lessons will be learned from that. We’ve been in touch with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, and the Seaway has actually spoken about the strength of bridges throughout its system. The seaway has defensive structures around the bridges. Some are visible; there is gravel. Some are not visible, but there are concrete abutments underneath the water. They are designed to have the effect that if a ship is out of control, it will hit those abutments and be guided between the pylons. Those are the basic code structures that have existed. The Baltimore bridge was older and didn’t have those defences. That was a big problem.
We will find out exactly what went wrong after the National Transportation Safety Board reports. Clearly, there was a problem with that vessel. We have an excellent safety record with our ships. One suggestion has been fuel, potentially. Something happened to have a total loss of power. Our ships are smaller. Generally, when we have a loss of power, anchoring is the first step, and they are able to bring the ship to a halt most of the time. I just thought I would offer those thoughts.
Senator Cardozo: Is using tugs a part of that defence? Are they guided out by smaller boats so you don’t have the big vessel —
Mr. Topping: We use tugs and pilots. We have our own pilots, but in certain parts of the region, we have to bring on pilots. Tugs are required in some areas to manage risk. That’s determined through risk-management studies.
Senator Cardozo: In terms of climate change then, as you’re building structures near ports and so forth, this would be one of the things you’re looking at for structures that boats may bump into, I suppose?
Mr. Topping: Basically, you want to have those defences. You don’t want to see it happen, but you want the defences there.
Senator Cardozo: To keep these accidents from happening then, an enormous amount of communication happens between all the ships and the docks?
Mr. Topping: Yes, there is an enormous amount. There is also a control system, much like aircraft. The Canadian Coast Guard maintains a navigation system. They don’t direct exactly where the ships go, but they keep track of it. That’s why we also have an automated identification system to the point where anyone in this room can pull out their smart phone and go onto an app and track any ship anywhere. That is utilized to understand where the ships are if an incident occurs. The Coast Guard gets messages out to advise captains that there is an accident ahead. They give the intelligence so the captains can take actions to prevent further risks to safety. It still creates delays to ships and cargo, but it does ensure that everything moves safely.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Richards: It is legally binding, isn’t it, to have your own pilots to navigate the waters when the ship comes in?
Mr. Topping: The need for a pilot is determined through the Pilotage Act, and there is a risk-assessment process where mandatory pilotage areas would be prescribed. There are a number of them around. In those areas, a pilot is required. In the Great Lakes, we work with the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. We have some 300 pilots on our vessels who are employees of our shipowners. They are certified pilots, and they carry out the piloting duties. Once we go outside the Great Lakes into the St. Lawrence River, we need to bring on pilots because the Laurentian Pilot Authority doesn’t recognize a lot of our people. That’s a bone of contention we do have.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: My follow-up questions are not those I had planned because of what has been said. I do want to correct the record on a couple of things. One is this last item on pilotage. The compulsory pilotage areas in the Great Lakes are clear. Captains who do have experience can work for companies and are certified by the pilotage authority, but there are still pilots who come on commercial ships. I just wanted to clarify that. I didn’t want my colleagues to be misunderstanding that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, senator, for your expertise.
Senator Quinn: I want to talk more about water levels because it is such an important feature for the seaway and particularly for the Port of Montreal. We haven’t gotten into that. I think there should be more discussion so my colleagues understand the importance of the water control structures. It is not only the Great Lakes but also the Ottawa Valley and the surrounding drainage basins if you can imagine.
First, you talked about under keel clearance. You don’t use that term, but that is the depth from the bottom of the ship to the ground and while electronics and all that are proven technologies, it is the pilots who determine under-keel clearances. The secret is that the pilotage authority will determine what the under keel clearance is for acceptable pilotage. Whatever that clearance is, unless the pilots say that they are comfortable with the technology, the under keel clearance is the under keel clearance. I wanted to clarify that.
Could you talk about the IJC and its role with the water control structures? That is so important when we talk about climate and the various structures in place throughout a broad geographic area. You talk about the controlled water flow into the St. Lawrence Seaway and into the Port of Montreal? You gentlemen deal with that all the time. It is important that this committee here about its importance and the climate change challenges that system faces.
Mr. Morel-Laforce: The International Joint Commission, established jointly by Canada and the U.S. in 1909 by treaty, manages all shared bodies of water shared by Canada and the U.S. We are on the east side. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence are covered by the International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Board. It is a subcommittee of the IJC. Normally, they need to maintain water levels so that navigation continues, cities can have access to potable water and hydroelectricity can be produced. Basically, that’s their mandate. Six commissioners are appointed — three from Canada and three from the U.S. Over the years, unfortunately, political interests have started to creep into the mandate whereas the commission is not always focusing on its three founding principles. This is worrisome for us.
Senator Quinn: Could you talk more about the actual physical system that controls that in the face of climate change? We know we are getting more droughts. We have had less snow this winter. There will be less drainage and water levels will probably be somewhat under stress this year unless we get a heavy rainfall, which is another problem.
Mr. Morel-Laforce: They are a bit under normal right now, but we have seen it fluctuate a lot. The last high water episode was about four years ago so it can happen.
Senator Quinn: Do you have any concern with the system itself, the structures that control that water flows?
Mr. Morel-Laforce: The main concern — and the IJC will recognize this — is they have limited control on what, realistically, they can do until they start flooding a huge part, for instance, Montréal. There is some degree of control through dams. We talked about the Moses-Saunders Power Dam earlier. We can control it by a few feet here and there. However, if you overcorrect at a certain part of the system, you will flood other parts. That’s where it becomes political. When certain areas of certain states become flooded, then the pressure on the commission to alleviate that becomes strong and then we arrive at a position where the commission has to take decisions.
Senator Quinn: The last thing I want to clarify — and you can certainly correct me — is with respect to the depth of the seaway. I think Senator Richards asked about it. The depth is not 80 feet. We wish it it would be, but it’s not. The Port of Montreal is about 37 feet, give or take.
[Translation]
Mr. Deschambault: In Montreal, it’s 11 metres.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Yes, 11.3 metres.
[Translation]
Mr. Deschambault: That’s right, and little further on, it’s 11.3 metres.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Exactly. I wanted to make sure we didn’t leave my colleagues with the impression that we have 80 feet of water. We don’t. North of Quebec we have about 12.5 metres and then it is lower. Upstream, to the east of Montréal, the seaway — and vessels are designed for this — is about 27 feet, which is 8.2 metres. I want the committee to recognize the limitations.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Senator Quinn, for being a great witness.
Concerning the depth there, does that have to be dredged every so often to ensure that we maintain that depth or is that natural?
Mr. Topping: From time to time, it is required. Typically when you are passing through a lock — that is, the concrete bottom — the clearance is between 1 foot and 1.5 feet. It’s that tight. On each side is a foot. This is why our ships are designed to maximize the size. I think you were alluding to the depth. It is not so much how deep the water is but how much keel clearance there is. In many places, you can get tight clearances. All it takes is if there has been a storm, the sand changes. Every season we have groundings because of that clearance. When it is in soft sand, the captains know how to manage it. There is no damage to the vessel, no cracks or major problems; it just moves on. That’s most groundings. Some groundings do occur. If it ends up being on rock, then you do get some damage. We have been fortunate. The majority has had no pollution and no injuries. Sometimes there’s some damage to the vessel but for the most part, the experienced captains are used to managing this kind of stuff.
[Translation]
Mr. Deschambault: We can already see that determining water levels is very complex. With climate change, it will become even more complex. Ships loading in Europe need to know about a week or two in advance how much cargo they’ll be carrying, to make sure they can get to Montreal without clipping the bottom. They must do their own projections.
The Port of Montreal, for its part, makes projections based on the amount of water allowed, for example, by the Moses-Saunders Dam. There’s a whole mechanism that will become more complex over time. We were talking earlier about communications. This is where communication is very important and where data must be as reliable as possible.
Mr. Baudry: I’d like to respond to another part of the question concerning maintenance in relation to dredging. Maintenance does take place. Obviously, as you approach the docks, for example, some work may be necessary to ensure that the shipping channel reaches the docks. There’s another element that adds to the complexity: We’ve talked a lot about the water column, but there’s also the overhead column — which you mentioned. We also have to deal with the presence of bridges. You can imagine that an overhead clearance is also required. That coexistence between the water column and the air column, so to speak, is also necessary.
[English]
Mr. Topping: If new bridges are being built under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act — in my Transport Canada days, I worked beside the people who did those approvals — they look at the traffic that goes under the water body and regulate where you have to put the bridges and what you have to do to mitigate.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Baudry, Mr. Deschambault, Mr. Morel-Laforce and Mr. Topping, thank you for taking the time to be with us this morning to answer our questions and share your expertise. It’s greatly appreciated.
For our second panel this morning, we are pleased to welcome Catherine Vallières-Roland, Deputy Mayor of Quebec City, accompanied by Charles-Éric Bernier, Environment Director at the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec. We are also joined by Tirupati Bolisetti, professor from the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Windsor.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us.
[English]
We’ll begin with the Deputy Mayor of Quebec City.
[Translation]
You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Catherine Vallières-Roland, Deputy Mayor, Quebec City: Mr. Chair, thank you for having us here today. It’s a great privilege to be able to meet with you.
As deputy mayor of Quebec City and member of the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec Board, I am involved in several bodies dealing with the St. Lawrence River, including the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.
The Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, as a reminder, is made up of 28 municipalities and represents over 820,000 citizens. It is from both a municipal and regional perspective that I am speaking to you today.
First, allow me to make a few introductory remarks. For us, the St. Lawrence is not only an essential transportation route for our development, but also an essential source of water for our population and a unique ecosystem. That’s why it’s so important to approach any issue concerning the St. Lawrence River by recognizing all the uses that characterize it, and by promoting an integrated approach to the way we perceive and manage this waterway. I will address three main aspects today.
First, bank erosion and the effects of shipping.
I’d like to point out that shipping is an important activity in the Greater Quebec City area, both for transporting goods and people. It’s a mode of transportation that we believe is sustainable, especially in the context of climate change. As I mentioned at the outset, if we wish to adopt an integrated vision of maritime transport, we need to approach it from different angles, including the impact of shipping on the riverbanks in the Quebec City region and even beyond.
While much shoreline erosion can be attributed to natural phenomena — namely tides, currents and winds — ship wake can also contribute to accelerating this erosive process.
At present, nearly 40% of the banks of the St. Lawrence in the Quebec City region are man-made, making it possible to stabilize the banks against erosion with protective walls, for example. That said, many of these structures are now aging and damaged. This calls into question their ability to maintain bank stability over the long term. Replacing them is essential, but represents significant costs that are onerous for municipalities and local communities to take on.
The challenges of coastal erosion and shoreline stability will likely increase as a result of climate change, greater fluctuation in water levels, more frequent extreme weather events and changes in ice cover, as Mr. Moretti told your committee. In light of this, proper funding to better address the challenges related to the stability of the St. Lawrence shoreline would help municipalities develop and implement sustainable solutions over time. This would help face these challenges, which will increase. Substantial investments would also mitigate the impact on the public.
Right now, for example, more frequent flooding means that people must incur significant costs, with little in the way of financial compensation programs and measures. In some cases, they must pay higher insurance premiums. People experience these effects on a daily basis, and municipalities must also deal with them.
In addition to shoreline erosion, climate change can also increase the pressure on other maritime and port infrastructure. The port authorities concerned are looking more closely at this infrastructure. We saw some examples this morning. Appropriate measures must be taken to ensure proper funding, in order to maintain, optimize and upgrade this infrastructure. The impact of climate change must be taken into account in maintenance management strategies and in the resilience strategy for this infrastructure. On that note, port authorities are already taking action. Many measures are under way. However, the needs, particularly funding requirements, are considerable.
My second point concerns the development of maritime activity in the St. Lawrence, particularly in the Quebec City area. The area has always been a hub of maritime and port activity. Quebec City is home to the last deep-water port in the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes system, with a water depth of around 15 metres. This makes it possible to accommodate deep-draught vessels.
However, if climate change has a greater impact on fluctuations in river water levels and the depths available for navigation upstream of Quebec City, we anticipate an impact on shipping throughout the network. In terms of the supply chain, we’ve heard in particular about the impact on economic benefits and the many jobs created in our area.
As a result, the Quebec City area’s geographic location in the St. Lawrence maritime system is highly strategic for all players in this ecosystem. The fact that our area can accommodate larger vessels could boost the future competitiveness of the entire St. Lawrence transportation network, provided that substantial investments are made. We owe it to ourselves — and to the network as a whole — to remain attractive.
Quebec City hopes that the area’s role in the St. Lawrence maritime system will develop along these lines in the coming years. The Canadian and Quebec governments must develop a shared vision that takes into account the more limited interests, resources and capacities of municipalities.
To develop this vision, it’s necessary to acquire more knowledge in future planning exercises to better understand our area and the impact of climate change. New trade corridor strategies will need to be developed, such as the continental gateway and Atlantic corridor strategies.
The Chair: I’m sorry, Ms. Vallières-Roland, but you have gone over your five minutes. Please wrap up.
Ms. Vallières-Roland: Absolutely. I’ll finish by talking about the importance of port authorities and climate change adaptation efforts. We’ve heard that some port authorities are heavily invested in and committed to climate change adaptation efforts, in particular through transportation and dock electrification. Once again, the investments seem insufficient to ensure that these authorities can exercise leadership and pursue and achieve the objectives shared by the Canadian government. The City of Quebec works closely with the Port of Québec, which is setting an example when it comes to decarbonization.
Lastly, our various authorities must work together in a complementary manner to address these changes and challenges, which are significant for us and especially for the public.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Professor Bolisetti, you have the floor.
Tirupati Bolisetti, Professor, Faculty of Engineering, University of Windsor, as an individual: Good morning, honourable members of the Senate. Thank you very much for providing me this opportunity. We acknowledge the importance of the Great Lakes with its 20% of the world’s freshwater and serving more than 10 million people in Canada and about a tenth of the U.S. population. It also supports $6 trillion of economy. My co-presenters in the first panel predominantly had a focus on the shipping, but my focus is mostly on what is happening in the Great Lakes Basin and how the climate is changing in the basin and how these changes affect water availability and critical infrastructure and logistics.
My research group has been working on assessing the climate change impacts on water resources and critical infrastructure. One of the pieces of work that we did not long ago was on assessing the climate change impacts and water availability in the Great Lakes Basin all the way from the eastern part of the Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. We analyzed five general circulation models, or GCMs and regional climate models, or RCMs, under two different scenarios: representative concentration pathways, or RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. Instead of going through all the numbers and compressing them into a range that depends upon which scenario you take, for mid century we figured out that the temperature increased by 2.5 degrees Celsius and will increase to as much as 5.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The annual precipitation is also found to be increasing anywhere from 8% to 21% but most predominantly in the eastern part of the Great Lakes Basin. We focused only on the Canadian side. We did not focus on the U.S. side.
Similarly, as a result of these changes in the precipitation, we quantified that if the RCP 4.5 scenario is what is likely to happen, we’re likely to see an increase from 5% to 13% of freshwater yields in our river systems going into the basins, and about 7% to 20% of the increase if it is the RCP 8.5 scenario.
These numbers seem to be good and manageable, or at least they appear as if there are within the manageable level, but the problem is that the amount of rainfall events is reducing, meaning these intensities will increase. Based on the projected curves for the future, we analyzed for the City of Windsor, and what we found was what used to be 100-year rainfall events are now becoming 25-year rainfall events. What used to be 25-year rainfall events in the current historical period are now becoming 5-year rainfall periods. What that means is we have severe consequences of these extreme events, and obviously with flooding, infrastructure facilities will not likely function the way we want. For example, the focus of this committee is transportation and communication, so in the transportation sector, what are we looking at? We’re looking at all of the drainage structures, such as all highways, roads and arteries. These infrastructure facilities have been paralyzed in the past. I won’t go over all the events, but I will talk about three different events between Windsor and Ottawa.
In Toronto, the 2013 flood event had about 126 millimetres of rain in 90 minutes, which paralyzed the railway system — 1,400 people were stuck in the GO trains and 300 people lost power. All these people had to be evacuated using some kind of floatable boats. In 2016 and 2017 in Windsor, within a gap of 11 months, we had severe floods in the eastern part of the city. Again, the city had to declare an emergency. In 2017, the city of Ottawa experienced flooding. If I’m not wrong, about 300‑plus homes were affected.
What this means is that places are changing and times are changing. Some events happen in September. Some events happen in May. Other events happen in July. What that means is the timing and the locations, every place is vulnerable to these events.
Now, coming to the infrastructure facilities, on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes Basin, predominantly Ontario and parts of Quebec — I don’t have the Quebec statistics, but I do want to present the Ontario statistics. About 52% of the infrastructure facilities are predominantly owned by municipalities, about 38% by provinces and 10% by the federal government. The current value of these infrastructure facilities, for provincial as well as municipal, is about $708 billion, of which $330 billion is under the transportation sector.
Besides the transportation sector infrastructure, what is going to impact the transportation sector is the stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater infrastructure plus waste water infrastructure is worth about $124 billion, so any impact on these transportation —
The Chair: I’m reminding you that we only have five minutes allocated to each of our witnesses, so if you could please conclude.
Mr. Bolisetti: I’ll finish in just one minute.
If we don’t make any changes to our system, we’re likely to experience anywhere between $2.3 billion to $3 billion within the century, and by the end of the century, it will be about $10 billion.
In the transportation sector, it’s not just the extreme events; even the smallest to moderate events are going to slow down logistics, which means it will affect the economy. What that means is we need to come up with a sustainable and workable adaptation strategy to reduce the impacts on human life, property and environment. Thank you so much once again for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, professor.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll put my question to the deputy mayor of Quebec City, Catherine Vallières-Roland. In the interest of full disclosure, we worked together at UNESCO a few years ago. However, we didn’t talk about the Port of Québec, so everything’s fine.
Ms. Vallières-Roland, you talked mainly about shorelines. This seems to be a fairly significant issue, which could get worse as a result of climate change. Have you estimated how much it will cost to restore these shorelines? You said that 40% of the shorelines were already artificial, but that they would probably need repairs as well. Does this fall under federal jurisdiction, since it involves an area that doesn’t actually lie in the water, but on the shorelines? Is this a federal responsibility? Can any programs help you?
Ms. Vallières-Roland: Thank you for your question, Senator Miville-Dechêne. It’s good to see you again.
I believe that this is one of the issues that we must address. We need to collect data to get a better idea of the costs involved and to carry out better long-term planning.
Municipalities must face this issue. I’m thinking in particular of Île d’Orléans, which is especially hard hit. In a single year, its shoreline erodes by a number of metres. Under the circumstances, it needs to react, but lacks the capacity and resources for prevention and long-term response planning. We don’t currently have these estimates. We believe that the Canadian government must take action.
The Communauté métropolitaine de Québec is gathering this type of data to identify possible investments. If the Canadian government could add investments through its various programs and measures, this would greatly help municipalities.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My next question is broader. Aside from the shorelines, global warming could obviously have other effects on ports, particularly the Port of Québec. Have you carried out a risk study, as you did for the Port of Montreal? Do you know the risks for Quebec City? You talked about possibilities. I understand that the Port of Québec is 15 metres deep and the Port of Montreal is 11.3 metres deep. You could pick up large boats. However, what are the risks for your infrastructure? Have you assessed them? Are you in the process of mitigating these risks?
Ms. Vallières-Roland: The Port of Québec carried out an impact and risk assessment. It also recently adopted a multi-year strategic plan, specifically to provide for investments that will help to reduce carbon emissions, mitigate the impact of climate change and fight against climate change, in particular through dock electrification.
That said, I must add that the estimated cost of dock electrification is around $45 million for the Port of Québec alone. The investments recently announced by the Canadian government amount to $165 million, as part of the green shipping corridor program. That’s great news. However, you can see the scope of the matter for Quebec City alone. These investments are clearly insufficient.
In Quebec City, we have a fairly clear idea of needs and priorities. Good planning is in place. However, greater synergy, complementarity and investment will be required in the future.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You said that electrification is a challenge. The shorelines are a challenge as well. Do you have a document on this topic? What are your other main challenges in terms of climate change and preparing the Port of Québec?
Ms. Vallières-Roland: I’m joined by Charles-Éric Bernier, the environment director at the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec. He’s our expert in the area. I’ll let him expand on what I said.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Please be brief, because I may have gone over my time.
Charles-Éric Bernier, Environment Director, Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, Quebec City: Coastal erosion and flooding in the area are two major factors. In addition, water levels are falling. River flows resulting from the management of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes system pose a major issue for transportation in the area.
[English]
Senator Simons: I have a question for each of the witnesses. I’m going to start with Professor Bolisetti.
I used to write a column for the Edmonton Journal, and I covered city hall some of the time. People were never very excited to learn about drainage; it’s not sexy. We don’t always think of drainage as part of the transportation system, but you are absolutely right. If everything floods and our drainage systems can’t handle that, it inundates the roads, rails, the ports at its worst. What do we need to do to make sure that the drainage systems for this area are able to handle the sudden, violent downpours of rain and things that we are seeing more and more of these days?
Mr. Bolisetti: Obviously, there is no single solution that will mitigate the entire impact. I think we need to add multiple pieces of the puzzle. Also, the approach should be to handle at individual subcatchment level so that we can delay the occurrence of the peak at the critical locations. What that means is one of the strategies we are looking at, particularly in urban areas, is the low-impact development approaches. What that means is we try to restore to the extent that how do we mimic the predevelopment hydrology in the urban setting? In the rural setting, we need to come up with some kind of storage systems and delay the peak occurrence. Once we stop at the sources, it will have its own effect on the entire network system. I think that is the way to go.
Also, these days we are heading toward what is called nature-based solutions. We are trying to come up with strategies as to how to hold this water at subcatchment levels, catchment level before it is discharged into the receiving water bodies.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
I have another question for Ms. Vallières-Roland. I’m from Alberta. It isn’t exactly the same as Quebec. However, there’s a type of common spirit. The same goes for the municipalities, provinces and federal government. The federal government sometimes finds it quite difficult to do things for municipalities. In our area, Ms. Smith is a bit jealous when it comes to the rights of the provinces. I think that the same is true in Quebec.
What could the municipalities of the City of Quebec do with the federal government — to get federal funding, perhaps, even though the provinces have trouble doing so?
Ms. Vallières-Roland: That’s an excellent question. Thank you. The City of Quebec is involved in various forums and organizations, such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. This gives us the opportunity to discuss issues with each other, but also to make our needs clear to the Canadian government. Through this organization, we have access to the green fund. This fund is significantly and generously endowed. It gives us the chance to access large amounts of money without necessarily having to obtain an order from the department of municipal affairs and housing. That’s one approach.
Of course, we’re also working with the department of municipal affairs to make our needs and priorities known and to ensure that — through the programs and strategies announced by the Government of Canada — the City of Quebec and the metropolitan area can obtain their share of the funding needed to address climate change. Our cities and the government must work closely together to access this funding from the Canadian government. I believe that the process generally runs quite smoothly. The work is done harmoniously.
[English]
Senator Simons: Professor Bolisetti said so much of this infrastructure belongs to the municipalities, and it’s the municipalities that get stuck with the responsibility for maintaining it, often without the resources that they need. Thank you both very much.
Senator Clement: I want to say drainage is a big deal. I have often said publicly when I was Mayor of Cornwall that drainage and our wastewater treatment was the most expensive infrastructure project in the history of the City of Cornwall. So it is sexier than we think; I will agree with Senator Simons.
[Translation]
I would like to follow up on Senator Simons’ questions for the deputy mayor. You talked about the need for close collaboration, but is that happening? Is this how it works among the three levels of government? I have a question about the 820,000 people whom you referred to. Are they consulted or involved in your discussions with the various levels of government?
Ms. Vallières-Roland: This collaboration can always be improved in order to achieve tangible results. We need more money and more investment. The three-way collaboration, meaning dialogue, sometimes lacks a third party. The municipalities mostly talk to the Quebec government.
I believe that, especially in terms port authorities, a dialogue can be established with the federal government. Many of the response measures fall under federal jurisdiction. I’ll give the example of a triangle, if you will. The Quebec government has mandated the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec to map the flood-prone areas of its rivers. We’re currently holding discussions with the Quebec government — the department of municipal affairs — to obtain the necessary funding to map flood-prone areas on the St. Lawrence River. This is vital and necessary in order to identify the specific response measures that we can implement in the coming years in the face of climate change.
These measures will be identified and then funded. We hope so. We haven’t yet had any confirmation of funding from the Quebec government. However, these measures could also be funded by the Canadian government. The structures that I brought up earlier, such as the protective walls, fall under federal jurisdiction. This is a good example of how we could work together on a larger scale on mapping and specific actions. I’m open to this dialogue. That said, it also depends on our other partners.
Senator Clement: What about the role of constituents? Are they aware of the issues? Are they involved? Do you consult them on infrastructure and resilience?
Ms. Vallières-Roland: Absolutely. Our constituents are affected by these events. They’re invited to take part in discussions in our municipal organizations, such as community boards or city council. We’re well aware of their needs. We take these needs into account when identifying the necessary steps.
At the level of the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, I chair the regional round table on the St. Lawrence, which includes watershed organizations. This table brings together a number of environmental organizations, such as regional environmental councils, major economic players and the municipalities most affected by climate change. These forums also provide the opportunity to discuss innovative solutions that take environmental effects into account. Through this type of forum, we receive input from the various players so that we can adopt the most suitable measures possible. The measures will have as few negative effects as possible on the various players, and will above all meet the needs of the public.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dasko: My question is for Professor Bolisetti. I’m just looking for a bit of clarification. If you could go back, you were talking about the distribution, I believe distribution of the ownership of the infrastructure between municipal, provincial and federal governments. Could you just clarify what you were saying and whom it applied to? Was it the Windsor authorities? If you could clarify that, please, and then I have a follow-up question.
Mr. Bolisetti: Thank you very much, senator. These statistics are the infrastructure distribution in the province of Ontario. One assumption I was making is the ratio in the province of Ontario is both the Great Lakes Basin and outside the Great Lakes Basin. I’m assuming the ratio is the same both inside the Great Lakes Basin and outside the Great Lakes Basin. What that means is about 52% is municipal, 38% is provincial and 10% is federal, as reported by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Okay. So when it comes to infrastructure improvements and when major investments have to be made in infrastructure, do these three levels of government pay in terms of their distribution, in terms of the distribution you just outlined? Is that the way it’s done? So every time there is an infrastructure improvement or change, this is how they pay: 52%, 38%, 10%? Or is there some other arrangement? How do they come to decide what needs to be improved? Obviously, every government has stresses on their money and where the money goes. How do they make decisions about this? Do they make these decisions collectively? Or does one level tend to pay more when it comes to making major infrastructure improvements? I’m just trying to understand how it works. Thank you.
Mr. Bolisetti: I’m really sorry, senator. I brought the statistics for the sake of stressing the importance, and my research focus is on the science side of the climate change conditions and how these changes are impacting the infrastructure, quantifying that, and that is my specialization. But the numbers I brought only for the sake of emphasizing how important it is to effect, regardless of who owns or who pays. At the end of the day, Canadian citizens or Canadian businesses are going to be impacted by these impacts. I’m sorry, I don’t know.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Because this distribution is important because, of course, since the municipalities have the largest proportion they usually have the lowest means for raising the money and spending the money. So that’s an important point. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: My question is for the deputy mayor of the City of Quebec.
[English]
I want to follow up a little on the Port of Québec itself, which is a piece of critical transportation infrastructure important to not only Quebec City but also to the province and country. We have heard earlier about the challenges upstream toward Montréal and beyond with respect to water levels, control of water flow et cetera. Do you see that the Port of Québec could play a more direct role or important role in helping to secure the transportation of our cargoes in and out of Canada?
[Translation]
Ms. Vallières-Roland: Thank you for your question.
Yes, by taking action on those things, the Port of Québec can ensure that it remains a true destination and has very attractive facilities. We need to do this precisely to ensure that not only the region, but the entire network remain competitive. As we said earlier, the Port of Québec is working more and more closely with other port authorities, namely Trois-Rivières and Montreal, to try and adopt a strategy that is both complementary and coherent, in order to contribute to the efforts currently being made by other port authorities.
It’s already been mentioned, and I’d be stepping out of my area of expertise and going a little too far, but there are currently legislative and regulatory constraints that could be eased to promote this complementarity and synergy. In Quebec City, I work with the Alliance of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities, in particular with the mayor of Montreal and the Ontario and U.S. cities whose decisions on the Great Lakes have a significant impact on the St. Lawrence River.
We’ve worked hard over the past two years to mobilize Quebec cities to a much greater extent than in the past, and to put forward our issues and those of port authorities as a result. We’ve worked hard to raise awareness and put forward our issues to other municipalities so that we can formulate joint plans together. We know that Canada and the United States have very different systems, models and methods. That said, the future depends on our ability to work together on strategies that affect both our countries, as well as the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. I want you to know that we are very active in this area.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I want to first commend the Province of Quebec for being a leader in developing a marine strategy. I think when that was done it was the first time it was done in Canada by any province that has a significant presence in the marine transportation industry. How active is Quebec City with the Province of Quebec in helping to look at that strategy to maybe look at it in the context of climate change? Are you folks involved in that type of discussion with the provincial government?
[Translation]
Ms. Vallières-Roland: You talked about the maritime strategy. Quebec has been at the forefront of this strategy. It’s currently being revised and updated. It’s one area where Quebec City and other municipalities —
[Technical difficulties]
Mr. Bernier: Would you let me complete Ms. Vallières-Roland’s response in her absence?
The Chair: Absolutely, Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: Thank you. I believe Ms. Vallières-Roland was going to say that we are currently in discussions regarding the maritime strategy, so we’re working on developing and updating the strategy, with the government and all Quebec municipalities mobilizing to update it.
With respect to your second question on updating and data, we are also in discussions with the government, particularly on flood zone modelling, but in the past we also carried out studies on hydroclimatic risk with government partners and Ouranos in Quebec. We systematically put forward that kind of partnership to tackle the issue of climate change in the St. Lawrence River. Ms. Vallières-Roland, I tried to continue on.
Ms. Vallières-Roland: Thank you, Mr. Bernier. I’m sorry, I lost my connection for a few seconds.
Senator Cardozo: My first question is for Ms. Vallières-Roland and it follows up on Senator Quinn’s question. Do you have any long-term plans to expand the Port of Québec?
Ms. Vallières-Roland: We’re currently in discussions with the Port of Québec in the context of that planning. I can tell you that the Port of Québec is currently considering a number of projects. From our point of view, it’s important that we work very closely with the port, because public support for these port projects is at stake. We’ve seen in the past that the subject has raised some concerns. The port is working on a component of its action plan to make what it has done known to the public.
We also need to guide the port to make sure that what it does has no negative impact, for example, on air quality, which is a very sensitive issue, and on animal species. There are all kinds of issues like these that are of great concern to the public. As far as we’re concerned, the port’s future depends on us working together even more closely than we have in the past, to ensure that we get on board and make the right choices that will have a positive impact on our communities, both environmentally and economically. We know just how much potential there is.
Senator Cardozo: I don’t know if we need another bridge or a tunnel, but it’s a very thorny issue. I have a question for Mr. Bolisetti.
[English]
You talked about the issue of drainage, and you touched on the issue of dredging. Is that one of the major issues you are drawing to our attention, that when there is a lot of drainage, that it affects the depth of the area around the ports and that area has to be dredged so often?
Mr. Bolisetti: I’m sorry, senator. I was talking about what happens in the watersheds of the Great Lakes Basin. All I was trying to highlight was how climate conditions changes in terms of temperature and precipitation — how these changes translate into flows into our rivers and how it would affect our road and bridge infrastructure and storm water systems. Some places we have combined sewer systems, in which case storm water and waste water is connected, so how the changes in flows both surface runoff as well as the ground water flows in these streams affect what we see in the rivers. I’m sorry, I did not go up to the dredging levels.
Senator Cardozo: And the basins you are talking about, those are part of the rivers, are they, as opposed to being part of the St. Lawrence Seaway? Are they part of the other rivers that flow into the St. Lawrence Seaway?
Mr. Bolisetti: That’s correct. My main focus was on the drainage areas of Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. I didn’t go up to the St. Lawrence Basin.
Senator Cardozo: Do you have any thoughts as to whether dredging is required from time to time in the St. Lawrence Seaway?
Mr. Bolisetti: Unfortunately, I’m sorry, I cannot comment on that. We didn’t have a partner to work with.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. My other question is with regard to the enormous amount of drainage we get when there is a storm. One of the things we have in our cities is an enormous amount of concrete and asphalt. You touched on this. There are other measures people are starting to use now to have bricks that are more porous, the use of other kinds of areas around roads, to reduce the all-asphalt, all-concrete measures. Can you talk a little bit about that, the kinds of things we have to do to change how we are constructing our roads and open areas?
Mr. Bolisetti: Let’s start with the urbanization. From a planning perspective, we have to accommodate as the development happens. Many people will be there and many buildings, so many structures have to be built. Whatever is left for open areas is reducing. What we are trying to do is to hold the water in the green areas or the porous areas longer than what was previously done. Our previous culture approach was to take the water far away from human settlements as quickly as possible. But now we want to reverse that.
This requires any number of features on the ground, for example, the first starting point the City of Windsor is doing is to disconnect the downspout. That’s first. So instead of having directly connected impervious areas, we are changing it to indirectly connected impervious areas. That means rooftop runoff, we are directing it to green areas. When we cannot have it or cannot avoid, have porous pavements, retention ponds or rain gardens. It is not one part. It is a series of features, ornamental features we want to hold and keep them in urban areas.
Having said that, we are working with the City of Windsor on an important project. We are looking for funding. What happens, for example, this side of southwestern Ontario and the northern part of Essex County, we have clay soils. How far can we accomplish with this pack down in the clay soils? That is a quantification that right now we are going through that. The province has mandated all municipalities to hold 90 percentile rainfall in their catchments before it is released to the sewer systems.
In the case of Windsor, it is about 30 millimetres. How do we hold these 30 millimetres in the catchment so it wouldn’t affect the peak flow in the sewers? That is right now quantification and assessment and how to mitigate a peak flow and volume of runoff so we can increase the groundwater recharge. We can hold it.
On one side I’m saying increase the groundwater recharge. But on the other side I have a difficulty, I don’t want basements to be flooded. So what is the trade-off, the balance between how much can we push based on the soils? How much should we push in order to avoid other kinds of problems? We don’t want to create a new problem to eliminate an existing problem.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Bolisetti: Thank you so much, sir.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Vallières-Roland, Mr. Bernier and Mr. Bolisetti, thank you for being here this morning and answering our questions. We very much appreciate your contribution to our study.
(The committee adjourned.)