THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:50 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.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. I’m Senator Leo Housakos from Quebec, chair of the committee. I would like my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, Quebec, specifically Montreal.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: This evening, we’re continuing our study of the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector, and our study on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. For our first panel of witnesses, we’re pleased to welcome Martin Massé, Vice-President of Public Affairs and Vice-President of Sustainability at Aéroports de Montréal. Welcome.
[English]
We are also pleased to welcome via videoconference Todd Ernst, Director, Energy and Environment, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, or GTAA. Welcome, sir.
Each of you will have five minutes for opening statements. After that, I will turn it over to my colleagues for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Massé, the floor is yours.
Martin Massé, Vice-President, Public Affairs and Vice-President, Sustainability, Aéroports de Montréal: Thank you very much, hon. senators. It’s a pleasure to be here today to discuss with you the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure. My name is Martin Massé, and I’m Vice-President of Public Affairs and Vice-President of Sustainability at Aéroports de Montréal, or ADM. ADM is the airport authority responsible for managing and operating YUL Montreal-Trudeau Airport and YMX Mirabel International Airport. Like other Canadian airports, we’re concerned about the impact of climate change on our infrastructure, and particularly on our operations. YUL and YMX are located east of the Great Lakes in the southern part of Quebec, where the climate is continental, which means cold and wet. Now, as you know, we have winter seasons — perhaps not like the last one — but we usually have snowfall and we’re seeing an increase in freezing rain episodes, while our summer seasons are increasingly punctuated by episodes of extreme heat.
Therefore, we recently carried out a climate vulnerability analysis of our facilities. Inspired by ISO 31000 standards on risk management and ISO 14090/14091 standards on adaptation to climate change, the analysis was carried out by experts at Stantec. We analyzed risk scenarios posed by climate hazards on infrastructure and operations up to 2050.
Consequently, we can reasonably expect the advent of climate change to have consequences in two broad categories: First, physical risks, that is to say risks arising from climate change that may be caused by extreme weather events or variations in temperature and weather, including potential impacts on airport operations, personal safety and infrastructure integrity. Second, we have transition risks, namely those arising from initiatives aimed at moving toward a lower-carbon economy, which could involve changes in policy, law, technology and markets, with potential impacts on ADM’s revenue and expenses.
The most notable risks include extreme heat, stormy conditions and lightning, the weather mix and, lastly, heavy bursts of rainfall, so huge downpours. All of those risks except heavy rainfall have a greater impact our operations that on our infrastructure. However, investments will be required to reduce the delays these situations will cause.
For example, more automation will be needed when it comes to handling, in order to reduce downtime due to lightning alerts. In the past, the presence of storm cells at YUL has halted operations for up to six hours. Although our ground maintenance and de-icing crews are among the best in the world at clearing snow, the weather mix and mixed precipitation, snow, ice, sleet and rain bring operational challenges, and investments will also be required in this area to increase capacity, purchase equipment and products and add storage space. These climate hazards are also generating concern about the reliability of the YUL airport sites power supply.
How we manage heavy bursts of rainfall is an important risk to consider. The City of Montreal’s outlets lack the capacity to drain the airport site. ADM must build retention basins at its own expense. As weather events become more intense, they will put further pressure on those drainage systems. Although solutions are being investigated to adapt to this situation with our future developments in mind, the risk of flooding increases with climate change.
With respect to our infrastructure, additional analyses are under way, particularly vis-à-vis the length of our runways. To date, a rise in temperature to 35°C or higher can mean that some long-haul flights have to take off with reduced mass. The results of our initial analyses indicate that the ADM’s level of risk doesn’t reach critical or serious.
ADM is committed to fighting climate change. Last year, we released our first sustainability plan. Our organization has adopted a solid net zero emissions roadmap and aims to achieve this goal by 2040 for emissions from its buildings and vehicles. Several measures are also being taken to support our partners and users in reducing their GHG emissions, such as installing charging stations for ground support vehicles, participating in a consortium on sustainable aviation fuel and building a Réseau express métropolitain train station.
ADM is recognized for its commitment and initiatives, notably with Airport Carbon, a global accreditation in the Level 4 airport environment. Seven of us in North America have this accreditation. YUL has the lowest GHG emissions of all the airports in Canada. It also participates in the Government of Canada’s net-zero challenge. As you can see, our organization is already highly resilient and adapting to climate change. We’ll be sure to keep our climate change adaptation action plan up to date, as this is an issue that evolves and changes with technological advances. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Massé.
[English]
Todd Ernst, Director, Energy and Environment, Greater Toronto Airports Authority: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today as part of the study on the effects of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation sector. My name is Todd Ernst, and I am the Director of Energy and Environment at the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the organization responsible for managing and overseeing the overall functions of Toronto Pearson International Airport.
As Canada’s largest airport, we strive to be a leader in environmental management, recognizing the impact that airport operations have on the environment. Through the GTAA’s environmental strategy, we have put forward a number of climate change initiatives compliant with regulation, employing proper best management practices and fostering innovation in reducing our environmental impact.
Focusing on our greenhouse gas, or GHG, targets, our energy reduction initiatives resulted in Toronto Pearson receiving level 4 in the Airport Carbon Accreditation program. Our goal is to reach net zero in scopes 1 and 2 emissions, not later than 2050.
We also recognize the role that Toronto Pearson plays in protecting natural resources and wildlife habitat surrounding our airport. It is our goal to reduce the airport’s impact on surrounding communities while operating in a safe and secure manner. We’re creating a healthier environment around us by partnering with local businesses and conservation authorities, monitoring air quality and improving the on-property use of electric vehicles. The GTAA also has 15 honeybee hives on our on-site apiary located on airport property. This helps to support food security and sustainable agriculture in the surrounding area, as well as having a wildlife management team on-site.
In respect to our airport infrastructure, the GTAA utilizes the engineering vulnerability assessment protocol in the context of existing and future changes to our climate. We’ve conducted multiple climate change resiliency assessments focused on key infrastructure assets, in addition to study work completed on our other environmental focus areas such as carbon neutrality, emissions and strategic energy use.
Our assessments and future climate modelling has led to key infrastructure investments. These include expansion of our aircraft de-icing storage tanks to contain additional rainfall melt and freezing rain events during the winter season, at a cost of approximately $19 million; expansion of our triple box culvert at the end of runway 05/23 in order to deal with increasing short-duration high-intensity rainfall events, at a cost of $90 million; and ongoing investments in our stormwater management infrastructure, protecting our downstream neighbours and local conservation authorities from the impacts of increased precipitation such as localized flooding. We’ve also made modifications and investment in our central utilities plant to alter our chiller plant in order to address a growing range of temperatures that we’re seeing during peak heating and cooling periods.
Finally, we’re able to achieve energy resiliency through extreme weather events via a $150 million investment in the 117-megawatt cogeneration plant to provide backup power to the airport which is often needed in extreme weather events such as freezing rain or high winds that affect grid stability. The cogeneration plant helps to make us resilient to these extreme weather events but is also our single largest source of greenhouse gases as it burns natural gas, which we must address on our pathway to net zero. Additionally, we have participated in the development of Canada’s Aviation Climate Action Plan, working with federal government agencies, airlines, ground handling groups and other airports.
As extreme weather events become more frequent, we recognize and need to ensure that our infrastructure remains resilient in order to accommodate future passenger numbers. This is why last fall our CEO, Deborah Flint, announced the next stage of our transformative capital plan now dubbed Pearson LIFT, or Long-term Investments in Facilities and Terminals, our ambitious plan to improve and modernize our terminals, facilities, air-filled infrastructure and ground site access. As Canada’s largest airport, these investments will help protect and enhance Canada’s direct air connectivity to global economies and support our supply chains while reducing environmental impacts to advance Canada’s climate goals and energy transition. We will need to continue investing further as we progress on the path to net zero and continually adjust to changes in weather patterns.
We’re committed to working together with our government stakeholders to ensure resiliency and sustainability of our airport infrastructure for many years to come.
Once again, thank you for your invitation to participate in this study. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. I will turn it over to the deputy chair, Senator Miville-Dechêne.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, gentlemen, for explaining things in such great detail. My question is for Mr. Massé.
I know you’ve taken a hard look at what needs to be done, but have you started doing things?
I’m interested in the runways issue. I’m not an expert like you, but you say that as asphalt warms, it will melt or soften. What will happen? You seem to be saying that our planes should be lighter.
Your colleague talked about the investments required. You didn’t mention how much the retention basins will cost or how much must be invested. Do you have the money to do that? I think Aéroports de Montréal has to be self-financing.
Mr. Massé: Thank you very much, senator. Yes, we conduct studies; it’s a continuous improvement process and a constantly evolving science. We’re already planning to repeat the studies every five years. We’re currently drafting the action plan. I’d say the diagnosis is fairly positive as far as infrastructure is concerned. I’ve spoken specifically about retention basins, which are becoming an issue because drainage is already inadequate for airport development. What’s more, we have to anticipate the arrival of the high-frequency train located just south of the airport, which could increase the risks associated with retention basins between the airport and the train station.
We don’t have the exact figure, but the costs are in the tens of millions of dollars. Canadian airports employ a user-pay model. As we speak, the dollars that would be invested in the retention basins are not going into other sustainable development projects, improving services, or adding gates, for example.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Now, what’s happening with the whole storm cells issue? You mentioned six lost hours.
Mr. Massé: Yes. You have to understand that tarmac, ground operations and worker health and safety — and I’m not just talking about ADM workers, but people who work for airlines and their subcontractors — are major issues. That’s our main concern in our sustainability plan. It’s what we’re most focused on. The more electrical storms there are, the greater the number of breakdowns or stoppages. The solution is to automate as many devices as possible.
Technology will bring us these solutions. Of course, we also need to add more boarding gates. You have to bear in mind that boarding a plane by bus or passenger transfer vehicle, which is our specialty in Montreal, involves more manœuvres in the airfield to get passengers to their plane, but there are fewer manœuvres when the plane is docked. This slows down the flow of operations. So these circumstances have an impact on operations, even more so than on infrastructure in Montreal’s case.
I don’t want to forget the runways.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The melting runways.
Mr. Massé: No; actually it depends on the plane. Some heavier aircraft models don’t have the same engine capacity to take off and need longer runways, especially if they are at full passenger capacity, and are also carrying baggage and cargo, because more and more cargo is carried in the hold of passenger aircraft. We have one runway longer than the other. For certain models, on our shorter runway, during episodes of extreme heat, we risk having to do some offloading. These things happen at many airports.
In Montreal, we haven’t had to do that yet. An aircraft type that has to take less weight poses a risk in the airline business model, because it means taking fewer packages, which translates into less revenue, or ultimately fewer passengers. However, we’re not there yet. We have know-how in the air transport sector. In Montreal, we haven’t experienced these situations, but they’re likely to happen in the future.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What does offloading planes have to do with climate change? Is it because it’s going to get hotter and the runways will change?
Mr. Massé: No; it’s a matter of atmospheric pressure and the aircraft’s ability to take off. The aircraft would need a longer runway to taxi before taking off.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for clarifying. I don’t know if I was the only one didn’t understand, but it’s clearer now.
Mr. Massé: My pleasure.
Senator Quinn: Welcome, Mr. Massé and Mr. Ernst. I have several questions that will likely stem from statistics.
[English]
You mentioned analysis and things like that. Does each of the airports have a risk register that looks at what the potential event is, the likelihood of it occurring and what the impact of the event occurring is?
I want to crosswalk that to what the historic data would show us. You mentioned that every five years, and I think in Toronto you have mentioned the viability assessments and things like that. With the increasing frequency of events, the work you did five years ago, how accurate was the prediction of five years ago in terms of today? So risk register type of information, things you can share with the committee to give us an appreciation. But what is the predictive analysis done five years ago? What actually happened and where do you expect it to go with increasing frequencies of events?
Mr. Ernst: Thank you. Definitely there are changes in climate forecasts over time, and we are seeing that now. The early climate forecasts that we had done informed the build-out of, for instance, the stormwater infrastructure that we have today. We did a reforecast recently, and although we still see that as of today that stormwater infrastructure is sufficient to withstand a 1-in-100-year storm, which is our target metric, we are seeing that with the trends in the change in the frequency and intensity — short-duration, high-intensity rainfalls — that what has historically been a 1-in-100-year storm is likely or trending toward becoming closer to a 1-in-30‑year rainstorm. In that case, the triple box culvert, which I mentioned, at the end of runway 05/23 where it is resilient to 1‑in‑100 years now, it won’t be in the coming years.
Therefore, to your point, it is very important to continually update climate forecasts. By doing so every three to five years, we have managed to stay ahead of the game. The forecast changes have not been so dramatic that we have done a reforecast and found that we’re behind. But it is important to continually reforecast.
Senator Quinn: Mr. Massé?
[Translation]
Mr. Massé: To answer your first question, yes, we have a risk register. It includes a number of risks, including the resilience risk associated with climate change. In our governance model, our audit and risk management committee is the mechanism with which we have to report on these risks. There are risk management governance mechanisms, including climate change.
In response to your second question, it’s a new science; I’m not in a position to share with you a study published five years ago, because it doesn’t exist. We did it and, as of right now, what we do know is that by 2050, it’s predicted that we will have four times as many summer days with temperatures reaching 30° and over. I mentioned 35°, which is the threshold where we start to question the shortest runway; that increases the risk of offloading on that short runway.
For example, my colleague talked about an episode of heavy bursts of rain every 100 years or 30 years. We’re expecting more frequent blizzard events, along with a 6% increase in freezing rain episodes between December and February. We will have operational issues resulting from all that.
We’re expecting 10% to 20% more days of high winds; there again, there are operational issues. We also anticipate 7% to 8% more fog events. That’s more about pilot visibility than resilience. What we do know is that from now to 2050, we’ll see more occurrences of these weather events that disrupt operations.
Senator Quinn: How have weather events affected operations, flights and delays?
Mr. Massé: It’s episodic. At times, we’ve had operations grind to a complete halt, but there isn’t enough data to attach any given event to a delay in number of hours. We know that this will happen more often.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Mr. Ernst, do you have statistics that show the events and how they have impacted on operations as well? Can you say that over the last three years or last five years, these events have increased and it has had this effect on your operations with respect to delays, things of that nature, or diversions of flights? Is that kind of statistical information there?
Mr. Ernst: Is that directed to me?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Ernst: The translator cut over. Audio wasn’t so great.
Sorry, do you mind repeating the question?
Senator Quinn: Briefly, just wondering whether you have statistical information that shows events and the results of increasing events over the last number of years that shows how it’s affecting your operation, flight delays, diversion delays, that type of thing. Has it gotten worse because of increasing events that affect operations?
Mr. Ernst: We don’t have data that really correlates the delays to climate change-related activities. We can certainly say that the instances of short-duration, high-intensity rainstorms has increased. We are seeing increases in summer heatwaves that can have effects on the operation, but I don’t have a direct correlation to how that has impacted activity.
Senator Quinn: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I must tell you, as a senator who lives in Edmonton and commutes to Ottawa, I have a great deal of experience transiting through each of your airports. While Mr. Ernst, you may not have statistics, I have plenty of anecdotal experience of being trapped in airplanes on your two runways because of bad weather.
You have talked about the resilience of the physical infrastructure. I want to talk a little bit about the resilience of the airport in dealing with the crises that are caused when people are trapped on airplanes, they have no way to get off, they have no access to water or food or working toilets. It seems to me that we have seen this in airport after airport. When Vancouver came to testify to us, they talked about the lessons they learned after their “snowpocalypse” of 2022, and all the things they have put in place to deal with those emergency measures.
I’m wondering if each of you can tell me at your airports, what you are doing to make sure that passengers who are caught by bad weather — and oftentimes it’s hard to get people out of planes if there is an active lightning storm; I understand that. But at some point in Canada, we are going to have a disaster where somebody is in an airplane and goes into cardiac arrest or has a stroke or goes into labour, and we will not have any method to rescue people who are being held hostage by a lack of ground crew, a lack of gates and bad weather.
Can each of you tell me what your airport is doing to try to minimize the human cost of climate change for passengers?
Mr. Ernst: Thank you for the question. After an extreme weather event, anything that is operationally impactful that causes delays, there are post mortems to assess what happened and what can be done better to prevent or alleviate the issue.
Over time, and certainly coming out of the pandemic, the aviation industry was extremely challenged. Over the course of the last year or so, I am quite proud to say that Toronto Pearson is seeing a significant uptick or increase in passenger volumes, and also a significant increase in performance largely driven by that self-reflection, the post mortems and looking back. In particular, the performance of the airport through the winter break was strong. That is not to say it’s perfect all the time. There are events that need to be managed, but we are looking back.
Senator Simons: It was a very mild Christmas. Everybody did a great job at Christmas because there was no snow. But a month ago, when there was a big snowfall in Toronto, we had colleagues who were trapped on the ground at Pearson for four or five hours and were unable to leave. People in Ottawa on my own flight, a Porter flight from Ottawa to Edmonton, couldn’t leave Ottawa because of all the planes that were grounded here because they couldn’t get to Toronto. Then my aircrew timed out and I spent five hours trapped on an airplane on the Ottawa tarmac because of the problems in Toronto. I wouldn’t pat yourself too hard on the back for doing a great job at Christmas, because there was no snow.
Mr. Massé, maybe you can tell me about what you are doing to help poor customers?
[Translation]
Mr. Massé: Thank you for the question. The logistics chain in an airport is extremely complicated.
Senator Simons: It’s like dominoes.
Mr. Massé: Exactly. Ultimately, once you’re in the plane, what the pilot says goes. Therefore, once the plane is docked and the passengers are on board, or even once the plane leaves the deck and remains on the tarmac, it comes down to the pilot, who is in control.
In Montreal, we have a directive stating that after 90 minutes at the most, we must send crews to open the doors.
Senator Simons: Really?
Mr. Massé: Yes.
Senator Simons: I was on a small plane at your airport for five or six hours with no food or water, nothing at all. I’m healthy so it was no big deal, but it was harder for the others.
Mr. Massé: I understand very well and I’m truly sorry that you and the other passengers had to go through that, but we have a directive that after 90 minutes, we go to the scene and then deal with the airline. We consider that, at one point, it’s our role as the authority protecting the user, the passenger, to intervene and handle things with the airline afterwards.
Senator Simons: I’m happy to hear that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Massé: Unfortunately, I’m not saying it won’t happen again. You’re right: Things went well at Christmas because there wasn’t enough snow — unfortunately — but it’s very complex. I don’t want to blame everything on the airlines, because we all serve passengers together. However, we do have a 90-minute guideline in Montreal.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Welcome, witnesses, and thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Massé, I’m interested in talking about collaboration with respect to climate change, disasters and response.
[English]
It has to be all-hands-on-deck.
[Translation]
That’s the impression I’m getting, based on the testimony we’ve heard so far.
[English]
It is not all-hands-on-deck.
[Translation]
People at different levels of government are working in silos. There’s no collaboration or communication.
You mentioned in your testimony that you’ve done planning out to 2050. Who’s in charge of that planning? Are you talking to the municipalities and the provincial government? Drainage issues involve the provincial, federal and municipal governments. There’s a lot involved. In your view, how is it working? How can collaboration be improved?
Mr. Massé: Thank you very much. Planning to 2050 is really about climate change resilience. I’m not talking about airport planning to 2050. Our climate change resilience planning goes to 2050, and we’ll go through the process again every five years.
For the master plan, which we’re actually in the process of doing in Montreal, everyone has different dates. We have to submit the plan to the minister at the end of 2024. Transport Canada asks us for a 20‑year plan that we revise every 10 years. We’re in the process of doing that right now.
Senator Clement: You, the airport?
Mr. Massé: Yes, for both of our sites, Mirabel and Dorval, because each will have its own plan.
What you said about collaboration is key. Collaboration on the airport site is a complex chain that includes the airport authority, private actors, government agencies, airlines and subcontractors. That makes internal collaboration on site extremely important. Before the pandemic — and this is something we want to reinstate — we established a culture of service within the airport community, even though we all work for different employers.
I’d say we have a very good relationship with each level of government. The Canadian operator model means that we’re community-based non-profit organizations, so we’re accountable to Transport Canada for both the regulations and the lease.
We have a relationship with the other two levels of government because of our role in economic development and, in the Ministry of Transport’s case, airport access prior to arriving at the airport site. Jurisdiction is a factor. If a provincial or municipal government has a dollar to invest, will they invest it in an airport, a park, a road or public transit? There’s competition, obviously. Money is scarce and needs are great.
In Montreal, however, we’re trying to work together. We’ve had our difficulties, but everyone quickly came to the conclusion that because we’re an urban airport in the heart of the city, we need better collaboration and better airport access. Everyone has to play their part. For example, we don’t have jurisdiction over the highways leading to the airport. We don’t have jurisdiction over public transit, apart from a $100 million subsidy for the REM station that we’re paying for in the new public transit system, the new above-ground metro. That would normally be the Government of Quebec’s responsibility.
Senator Clement: That’s complicated.
Mr. Massé: It’s very complicated.
Senator Clement: I still don’t get the impression there’s an easy answer to all this.
[English]
Mr. Ernst, you spoke about engineering vulnerability protocols. Can you explain more about what that is? Is that part of what you do for your strategic planning? I need to understand more about what that beast looks like.
Mr. Ernst: Certainly. The Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee, or PIEVC protocol was developed in Canada for assessing the vulnerability or the risks to infrastructure due to climate change. We use climate modelling to assess the potential risks and impacts to infrastructure due to various types of changes in weather as a result of climate change and plan our actions accordingly.
Senator Clement: Remind me, does everyone use that same standard, or this is just for airports? I’m trying to understand how it works nationally.
Mr. Ernst: I’m not aware that it’s a required standard. To my knowledge, it is quite widely used in the infrastructure industry. It’s not specific to airports, but it is focused on large infrastructure.
Senator Clement: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Massé, would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Massé: Unfortunately, it’s an engineering standard, as Mr. Ernst mentioned, and it’s not specifically related to airports. I’m not in a position to know what standards our consultants use.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the chair and to our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Ernst, can you hear me?
Mr. Ernst: Yes, I can.
Senator Dasko: Mr. Massé, I believe both of you said that your goal is net zero by 2050. Do you have interim goals along the way to reach this? How does that work in terms of your goals?
Do you have an interim goal that is, say, a certain amount in 2030 and then a certain amount of reduction in 2040, and so on? Could you explain whether you have that and how that works, please?
Mr. Ernst: In our case, we have aligned to the UN IPCC and their interim target of 45% reduction versus the 2010 baseline by 2030. That is the nearest term target that we are currently working toward.
Senator Dasko: Guidelines set by whom?
Mr. Ernst: The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, an intergovernmental panel.
Senator Dasko: I see. Mr. Massé, is that the same goal and the same timetable? No?
Mr. Massé: No. In our case what helps is the historic decision of the Province of Quebec to use hydroelectricity in the sixties and the seventies. Thanks to that, our first reductions are easier.
We’re getting closer to the residual ones. Our goal is by 2030 to be at minus 86% and minus 98% by 2040.
Why can’t we go faster? It is really because of wintertime. We need equipment that helps in removing snow. That equipment is not electrified yet. We are also working on new ways of power, either transportation electrification or hydrogen. For now, we’re using either biofuels or renewable natural gas when possible.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. Mr. Ernst, you talked about the actions that you are taking to reduce emissions. Those include things like cogeneration, storm water infrastructure, electric vehicles, and so on. When you think about the carbon emissions of the airplanes that use your airports, it is hard to understand how impactful these kinds of actions can be against those emissions.
Could you describe which of the actions you are taking that are the most impactful ones? Which ones are actually reducing carbon emissions the most?
Also, what kind of investments will you have to make to move this along to reduce carbon emissions? Are you planning to make any investments that will speed this up and truly create an impact?
I am not suggesting that these things don’t lead to an impact in reducing emissions, but I am trying to understand which actions you are taking are the most important and have the most impact on carbon emissions.
Mr. Ernst: Yes. Thank you for the question. It is a good one.
The airports’ owned and operated facilities are basically a small city. While those emissions are significant — that’s what we have our scopes 1 and 2 net zero targets against — when you compare it to the emissions from aviation, it is an entirely different order of magnitude greater than the emissions from the airport, for sure.
That’s why we do work to develop scope 3 emission-reduction initiatives, namely, to help to support the airlines in their efforts to reduce GHGs.
With respect to the most impactful from the airport’s perspective, scope 1 and scope 2, the moves that we’re making now under the Pearson LIFT program are really focused on the near-term. The most impactful single near-term initiative is addressing the GHG emissions associated with natural gas burned for heating facilities. We are converting to heat pump technologies to get off natural gas. That will address what is, basically, one third of our scope 1 and scope 2 total emissions.
That said, the biggest impact, from a total tonnage perspective, is anything that we can do to help our aviation partners reduce their GHGs. We provide, for instance, ground power units and air handling units, as many airports do, for aircraft at the gates so that they are not running their engines. We have initiatives such as airport collaborative decision making to help improve the efficiency of the movement of aircraft in and out of the airport.
Pearson also partnered with NAV Canada on a Required Navigation Performance – Authorization Required, or RNP AR initiative to help to improve the flight paths in and out of the airport. Those have reduced emissions. I do not have the exact number in front of me right now, but it is in the order of magnitude of hundreds of thousands of tonnes which is already greater than the total GHG of Toronto Pearson by itself.
Senator Dasko: That is very interesting. You would describe these as partnerships with the airlines, working with them to reduce their emissions?
Mr. Ernst: Yes. We are also working with them as we build out our electric vehicle, or EV, charging network, for instance, to make electric vehicle chargers available airside. Currently, we have approximately 80 EV chargers for the baggage vehicles that you see on the apron. We call them ground service equipment. As the ground handlers and airlines are moving to electrify that equipment even more, we are working to expand that EV charging network.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. Mr. Massé, would you like to add anything to that in terms of partnership with airlines and how that is —
[Translation]
Mr. Massé: Your observation concerns the impact of scope 3 emissions, compared with scope 1 and 2 emissions. Our biggest impact is definitely on scope 1 and 2 emissions. For scope 3 emissions, there are the aircraft, of course, and the airline industry is committed to net zero by 2050. For us, 40% of scope 3 emissions come from aircraft.
The other big piece is everything to do with getting to and from the airport. That’s why we’ve invested in public transit, so that our passengers and employees can get to the airport via decarbonized transportation. We can also do things like offer an electric rail alternative, such as the Quebec City-Windsor rail project, to reduce flights between Montreal and Toronto. In the future, I don’t see the airport getting back up to 50 daily flights between Montreal and Toronto. As an airport, we’re in favour of the fastest train possible.
Also — and here’s where the federal government has a role to play — we have the Mirabel site, a premier industrial and aerospace site where the most energy-efficient aircraft, the Airbus A220, is assembled. The site offers opportunities to invest in innovation. The Government of Quebec has its innovation zones, and the Government of Canada could also invest in innovation in the airport and airline sectors to develop equipment that can withstand Canadian temperatures and incorporate more automation. That’s where the government could play a role: in airport innovation.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Simons, you have the final word in round two, with three or four minutes.
Senator Simons: I have talked about passengers, but as Mr. Massé mentioned, cargo is also a huge part of the business at both of these airports.
Could you talk regarding the logistics and supply chain questions about what impact severe and unexpected weather is having on the cargo side of your operations, including getting the cargo to and from the planes?
Mr. Ernst: In my case, I don’t have that information at my fingertips. I would be happy to get it for you.
Senator Simons: If you could, that would be great.
[Translation]
Mr. Massé: Mirabel and Dorval are not major players in the Canadian cargo sector. Cargo is more likely to move by truck in places like Hamilton, Ontario. Currently, more cargo goes through Dorval, YUL, in passenger aircraft holds than in cargo planes through Mirabel. It’s not yet an activity of great importance at either site. Intermodality is an issue because the rail line near Dorval is more for passenger transport, and there’s no rail line near Mirabel. That means everything has to be transported by truck.
Senator Simons: Does Mirabel handle only cargo?
Mr. Massé: Passengers don’t go through Mirabel any more. Only cargo planes land at Mirabel. Mirabel is more of an industrial park than an all-cargo airport. Airbus is located there, along with all the associated activity. Mirabel has cargo traffic, which then has to be trucked because the rail line doesn’t go through Mirabel.
[English]
Senator Simons: So the weather is not an issue?
Mr. Massé: The weather is not an issue. With regard to cargo, since it is part of YUL, it is more in the business case of new liaison. From Dorval, we have a liaison to Asia because the airline is able to fill the belly with fresh lobster from Nova Scotia, because Asian people like our lobster.
It is not really about weather; it is more about the facilities.
Senator Simons: Okay.
Mr. Massé: It’s more about the facilities. We do not have railways near the airports.
Senator Simons: I’m more familiar with Edmonton, which has a big cargo operation — and Vancouver as well.
Mr. Massé: No.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Massé, Mr. Ernst, thank you for being here today, for answering our questions and for sharing your experience.
Honorable senators, we’ll continue our study on the impact of climate change on Great Lakes and St. Lawrence transportation infrastructure with our second panel of witnesses. Tonight, we welcome via videoconference Hugues Paris, Vice-President of Sustainability with the Quebec Port Authority.
[English]
We are also joined via videoconference, from the Ontario Trucking Association, Stephen Laskowski, President and Chief Executive Officer; James Steed, Chair; and Geoffrey Wood, Senior Vice-President of Policy. Welcome, and thank you for joining us this evening.
We will start off with five-minute opening statements from Mr. Paris first, and then on behalf of the Ontario Trucking Association, Mr. Wood. Then we will turn it over to my colleagues for questions and answers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paris, you have the floor.
Hugues Paris, Vice-President, Sustainability, Quebec Port Authority: I’d like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee. My name is Hugues Paris, and I’m here today on behalf of the Port of Québec in my capacity as vice-president of sustainable development.
Canada has the longest coastlines in the world. Its inland waterways are also among the largest in the world, due in large part to the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, which provides access to a market of over 100 million consumers in the American Midwest via Canada’s Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto corridor.
We’re in the midst of a major transition toward a decarbonized economy. The St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system and eastern Canada can distinguish themselves from the American eastern seaboard not by the volume of cargo they handle, but by demonstrating greater resilience and accelerating the decarbonization of maritime corridors, which is of growing interest to consumers. Political and social disruptions are likely to intensify, and a more integrated maritime vision of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor is one of the best ways to ensure Canadians’ independence.
The first thing to note is that consumers’ growing sensitivity to the effects of climate change is influencing their behaviour. Consumers are looking for products with the smallest possible integrated carbon footprint. That means factors that are emerging as essential to how we plan our supply chains are optimizing the distance between where goods are produced and where they’re consumed and choosing the most efficient means of transporting products and commodities.
The Port of Québec offers undeniable advantages in this respect. It is the last deepwater port on the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system and the closest one to those 100 million consumers. The Port of Québec is successful thanks to its business model, wherein lakers and ocean-going vessels converge, optimizing both transportation costs and greenhouse gas emissions. This concept of an optimal GHG reduction pathway reflects the emissions avoided by the end user when using a product or service.
We also need to get back to basics with infrastructure. The Port of Québec is one of the oldest in North America. Half of its wharves are now 100 years old. They were built the traditional way using old wooden cribs. The Port of Québec alone will need more than $400 million over the next 10 years just to maintain its current commercial capacity.
In addition to these basic asset maintenance needs, there is a plethora of decarbonization and climate-related imperatives. First among them is managing the accelerated infrastructure degradation caused by climate change.
Second, climate change adaptation requires additional investment. Third, we need new equipment to supply power to berthed ships. Fourth, we need new storage capacity for renewable marine fuels. Last, we need better energy management and, in the future, the capacity to generate our own electricity, which we know is becoming increasingly scarce.
Canada and St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system stakeholders are responsible for developing their own pathway to preserving independence, boosting resilience and maintaining the competitiveness of their supply chains in a world undergoing profound changes. That process must include the following essential elements.
First, we need to identify effective mechanisms to support reinvestment in maintaining maritime and port assets. The many visitors to Quebec City, a UNESCO city, notice the quality of our port infrastructure and the port itself, which is located right in the heart of the city. These assets are all the more important because they also protect communities and biodiversity from the effects of global warming.
We also need to accelerate implementation of specific programs to modernize maritime and port infrastructure to handle the energy transition. The green shipping corridor program, which you’ve no doubt heard of, is a good starting point, but it won’t do enough to overcome the current challenges.
Lastly, we need to leverage the best characteristics and attributes of every supply chain participant to adopt a holistic view and preserve the agility, fluidity and resilience of our supply chains. Elements such as creativity and collaboration will enable us to protect the supply chain for Canadians and ensure we remain attractive internationally.
In conclusion, our supply chains remain critical, and shipping will always play a key role in those supply chains. If we want to stand out from the crowd, we need to invest, but we also need to learn faster, adopt an ambitious vision for our future, and remain extremely agile. The health of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes maritime corridor depends on it.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paris.
[English]
Now I will turn it over to Mr. Geoffrey Wood. You have the floor, sir.
Geoffrey Wood, Senior Vice-President, Policy, Ontario Trucking Association: Thank you, chair. Good evening, everyone. It is a pleasure to be here this evening to speak to the committee on behalf of the Ontario Trucking Association, or OTA.
As noted, my name is Geoff Wood, Senior Vice-President in Policy. I will be providing the opening remarks on the study that the committee is working on, how it intersects with a number of different areas in the trucking industry in Ontario and how our membership is engaged.
I’m also joined by our chair, James Steed of Steed Standard Transport from Stratford, Ontario; and our president, Stephen Laskowski. Once I have concluded my opening remarks, we would be pleased to take questions from the committee.
I will start with a little bit of background on the Ontario Trucking Association. Our membership is comprised of trucking fleets that serve all sectors of the economy in Ontario and operate in all road-connected communities. Our membership is made up of approximately 800 member trucking companies that operate in excess of 50,000 trucks and employ just over 100,000 Ontarians. While our membership’s primary focus is strictly on road freight, we do have a number of members who interact with marine modes via ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway and offer a number of final-mile services to various supply chains in the province of Ontario.
Understanding the focus of the committee is primarily on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the impacts of climate change and unpredictable weather specifically on port operations, we are pleased to offer some insight into the trucking space and how it interacts with the marine modes.
I think from the start, what is important for the committee and for the study is from a modal perspective, it’s important to understand that trucking and the marine sector work very closely together. Where there are opportunities, our members are in the business of moving freight and goods. And when it makes sense to move it by marine or intermodal or when they can work with the port operators and their supply chain partners in the marine space, they are happy to do so and look for opportunities on a constant basis to do that.
Based on the conversations we have had to date with a number of our members with respect to the marine mode, I think that for this, there is no one-size-fits-all situation for how truck and marine work together, but there are a number of opportunities to do so, and we would be happy to give you some examples in the next couple of minutes about how that plays into and how we feel as the OTA, the Ontario Trucking Association, can help the study.
As a group, we did discuss this morning what we felt would be of use to the committee. From a modal shift perspective or business pattern perspective, those are things we thought would be of interest to the committee. To date, we haven’t seen a tremendous shift in freight patterns based on climate or weather patterns. We do think there are some opportunities in the future to address this.
What I will say with respect to the weather pattern piece or the ice piece and what we’re learning about the Seaway system itself and how ice forms is that this is really the first year that there may have been an opportunity to operate the Seaway full time. That’s what we understand from some of our members who are engaged heavily in the port space as well as from speaking to port operators. Therefore, I think the study is timely, and we’re at a period where we can learn on a go-forward basis.
From a weather standpoint, there may be ability — the talk about the warming of the lakes — on the front end or the back end of the shutdown season to address some stuff. We do understand that weather isn’t the only factor that limits the operation of the Seaway. There are what we understand to be maintenance shutdowns over the course of the wintertime, which would prevent vessel traffic from moving and in turn prevent those vessels from entering ports and then interacting with the trucking industry.
We understand that water depth is also a major factor, where there are challenges with water depth or with storms that create challenges for canals that have been dredged. We do understand that trucking can play a role in facilitating where there are surpluses in some areas and shortages in another. Trucking can play a role in assisting the marine sector in delivering to the supply chain. Our members are very engaged in that and very nimble in how they approach the situation.
Another thing we thought would be important is to understand the amount of work that happened specifically in the — let’s call it — transportation planning space within the Province of Ontario, particularly through the Ontario Marine Transportation Strategy, which I think a number of you are familiar with. It has taken a lot of work to sit down with industry stakeholders and municipalities to understand how the intermodal space can work, particularly in the truck-marine mode. That’s an ongoing process, and that will continue. The Ontario Trucking Association will participate in that.
From a highway infrastructure perspective, unpredictability of weather or even warming does provide better road conditions. The milder winters mean less snow and ice on the road. From a trucking perspective, that means more predictability and reliability of the system. That includes the ability to operate what we call Long Combination Vehicles, which are a tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
We have a warming, and we have better road conditions in some instances. In others, it’s a challenge. Where there is unpredictability, a lot of work has been done in the Ontario context to provide real-time information to the supply chain and the motoring public, specifically through the Ontario 511 app. As an example, all snowplows in the province now have a global positioning system, or GPS, through the area maintenance contracts. It provides real-time information and a host of other tools for the supply chain, so it’s very helpful.
To conclude on the winter road maintenance piece, there is work under way through the Privy Council on the interprovincial trade barriers piece. Along with our provincial association partners, we have identified this as something we should look at on a go-forward basis — the premise being that higher winter road maintenance standards mean a more reliable supply chain.
On the infrastructure piece — this is something we understand the committee is also interested in — we’ll give you a couple of examples with respect to extreme weather events or challenges with infrastructure. When there is limited redundancy in certain areas, we have used what we call the U.S. in-transit program in the past. This allows domestic Canadian freight to transit certain parts of the United States on to its final delivery. This worked very successfully, most recently with the B.C. weather events. The Government of Canada worked very closely with the industry and their U.S. counterparts to allow the use of the in-transit program.
From a national highway system perspective, we talked about the need for improved rest areas. Rest areas are used for the truck drivers to get their mandatory breaks during their hours of service periods.
The last one of the other questions that we understand the committee is interested in is with respect to local disruptions and how this would be handled. As we noted earlier, the trucking industry is extremely nimble and certainly prepared to work with the marine sector on the intermodal space where needed. However, we do need to be cognizant of the fact that hours of service regulations do exist for truck drivers. That’s to make sure they get their mandatory off-duty periods. That’s another factor from specific localized impact.
I have covered a host of issues. At this point, Mr. Chair, my remarks are concluded. I would once again like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak. I’m happy to address any questions with my colleagues.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Paris, are critical infrastructure elements like the Port of Québec ready for the impact of climate change? I’m talking about extreme weather events. You said these facilities are aging. Half the wharves need to be replaced, and that’s a $400 million investment. If I understand correctly, the Port of Québec doesn’t currently have the capacity to contemplate a more challenging future because it has to repair aging infrastructure.
My second question is about electricity because that can be affected by weather events. You mentioned producing your own power. This is the first time anyone has mentioned that in the course of this study. What do you mean by that? Let’s start with the aging infrastructure and the fact that it actually looks as though you’re expected to be focusing on preparing for these extreme events.
Mr. Paris: Thank you for the question. I would say that we inherited a major maintenance deficit. As you know, port authorities have been in existence for just over 20 years. Back when the Canada Marine Act was passed, we inherited a maintenance deficit.
You’re somewhat familiar with the port business model. The port must generate its own operating profits. Its operations aren’t subsidized. It’s important for ports to make their own profits. We’re officially a non-profit organization, and we have to reinvest those profits back into our infrastructure. Given the scale of the infrastructure maintenance deficit and the fact that we don’t have enough resources to get it all done, it’s important to plan more flexible programs so we can catch up.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Your deputy mayor explained to us that she would like the federal government to be more generous. We got the message. What preparations are you making, or not making, for what’s to come? I’m talking about more difficult weather conditions, perhaps on the water, but certainly on land. You also mentioned electricity. What additional difficulties do you foresee given what’s to come?
Mr. Paris: The problem we have with older ports…. We carried out a few risk analysis studies through the emergency response planning program, which you may have heard about. We were able to identify the risks associated with our infrastructure, and what we learned, not surprisingly, was that the oldest infrastructure was more vulnerable to climate change. As you can appreciate, rising water levels, waves, freeze-thaw cycles, which will intensify and lead to the presence of more de-icing salt…. De-icing salt causes issues, of course, for the reinforcing steel in port structures. That accelerated deterioration is something we’ve documented. Obviously, it’s not enough. We have to make up that deficit, but we also have to invest in the energy transition. That brings me back to your question about self-generation.
To electrify Quebec City’s docks, we need fairly sizable energy blocks, between 16 and 20 megawatts of power. By the way, we’ve applied for funding through the Green Shipping Corridor Program. Those energy blocks aren’t necessarily available, and we are waiting to see whether there will be availability through the Quebec government. It’s not just about investment. It’s also about building self-sufficiency as far as capacity goes.
Right now, we are testing a number of innovative solutions, including marine turbines, and we’re looking at the tidal potential for generating current-based electricity. We are also exploring solar energy. In Quebec, it’s quite challenging to pursue solar energy on a cost-effective basis. With the energy costs being so low, it would take 15 or 20 years to achieve profitability.
We are trying things out and looking at how we can use these technologies in innovative ways to make sure that we can keep pace with the climate change impacts that are coming. The whole decarbonization effort requires additional investments. I can list numerous examples of the unique challenges facing ports, but that gives you a general idea.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The goal is to go more green, but what we’re looking at in our study is how we can make sure that the Port of Québec is still operating in a few decades, when climate change is even worse. I don’t feel…. I gather that you haven’t made more progress on the issue owing to financial challenges. Am I wrong?
Mr. Paris: No, I think we are prepared. I don’t want to be pessimistic. For example, you may have been told that water levels will drop in certain places along the river. In Quebec City, we are expecting water levels to rise, according to the various climate scenarios.
That’s a forecast, of course. We have to do modelling. Water levels could increase 10 to 70 centimetres by 2100, according to the worst-case scenarios. Through port renewal, we can safeguard against that. By raising the height of our coping walls, we could counter the effect of rising water levels and the increase in storm areas and waves, and ultimately curb flood risks.
The fact that our infrastructure is aging also creates opportunities. In renewing that infrastructure, we’ll be better able to manage those risks. The same goes for freeze-thaw cycles and challenges linked to storm areas. We will be in a position to respond in a manner that is consistent with the possibilities that lie ahead. It’s not all doom and gloom. We are optimistic, but we do need programs or, at the very least, the financial flexibility to meet these challenges facing Canada’s critical infrastructure.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I have a question for both our witnesses. Thank you for being here this evening. I’m going to try to be careful not to become a witness.
I think it’s fair to say that the ports in Canada, the Canadian Port Authorities, or CPAs, are landlord ports. The assets are owned by the federal government and the investments required are plenty. Mr. Paris, I appreciate the description of your wooden structures and whatnot. I dealt with the same issue and it takes a lot of money and takes a lot of years to plan.
Depending on you look at the port in Quebec, if you’re sailing west, it’s the last deepwater port; if you’re coming east, it’s the first deepwater port. How can we take better advantage of that geographic positioning to take actions in a strategic way and work with the government which became able to fund capital projects in 2008? How do we work more strategically to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken now — and it’s a long time in planning — to address what my colleague just talked about in terms of long-term planning, namely, to ensure that we have a Quebec port in 10 or 20 years?
[Translation]
Mr. Paris: Thank you for that complex question. I provided a brief description. Through various opportunities for co‑operation…. Our president and CEO has been pushing co‑operation for nearly 10 years now to ensure that the St. Lawrence River ports work together more and leverage their respective assets to better serve the North American market. Building that resilience is paramount in order to address the climate challenges and social disruption we are experiencing, from strikes to supply chain issues. We’ve seen numerous examples of that in recent years.
What’s important to us is working with our partners. That’s why we work with the Montreal and Trois-Rivières ports. It gives us the ability to work in a more complementary way so we can meet these challenges. We need to expand that approach to the entire St. Lawrence River, including the east coast of Canada, which plays a very important role. That can be done in a number of ways, including by pooling assets and investment risks. Currently, the legislation is designed in such a way that that can be challenging.
[English]
Senator Quinn: This question is about the critical infrastructure represented by the ports along the St. Lawrence and in the St. Lawrence Seaway. You talked about collaboration. Is there another method that needs to be either examined or considered with respect to the long-term sustainability of our critical infrastructure in the face of climate change to ensure that cargo moves up and down that system? Should there be a more strategic discussion? The Province of Quebec has done a great job with their marine strategy. Does there need to be a more concentrated look at the Seaway with respect to the amount of existing infrastructure? How do we take better advantage to make it more efficient where we can concentrate funding to deal with climate change challenges that our infrastructure faces?
[Translation]
Mr. Paris: We are facing this major challenge. We need to rethink our investments according to a systemic approach to strategic infrastructure. The Port of Québec is a deepwater port, but it also provides all the maritime services. You’ve spoken to pilots and various players in the supply chain. There are truckers here today. We need to try to rework how we invest in that supply chain.
You are right to mention all the work the Government of Quebec has done with its Advantage St. Lawrence maritime strategy. Now it’s time to review the strategy, which the Quebec government is currently doing. We are part of that discussion. Better information sharing is the key to everything. It’s about more than just the physical infrastructure. It’s also about the communication and information-sharing infrastructure. That’s the best way to work together, pooling all of those physical and information assets in order to deliver a more resilient supply chain.
[English]
Senator Quinn: This question is for Mr. Wood, if I may. You spoke about the trucking industry’s presence. Your membership represents 50,000 trucks and 100,000 jobs. What is your reaction to initiatives by ports such as the Port of Hamilton who are trying to help reduce emissions by short-sea shipping which takes trucks off the road? Should we be looking at using the marine highway, which is the St. Lawrence system, in a way that would reduce emissions caused by other modes of transportation? Is that something that needs to be more closely examined and understood?
Mr. Wood: That’s a great question. Full disclosure, our members work closely with the Port of Hamilton and the various supply chains that interact there. We did have conversations with them about the short-sea shipping aspect of it. Again, the mindset of our membership is where it makes sense to move by marine, or intermodal, and the supply chain deems that fit, that’s how the situation will get addressed. You may want to consider other factors in terms of transit times or time sensitivity of cargoes, the ability of infrastructure to unload and load. If you’re talking specifically about containerization or in the bulk side of the house, some of the port facilities would be set up for that.
If you’re talking on the international space, Canada Border Services Agency or United States Customs and Border Protection would need to be engaged. I think there have been some preliminary discussions on that. As we move forward, I noted earlier, this is the beginning of the discussion at least from our perspective. I know the ports are well established. But I think what makes sense we can look at, and again, that’s going to be determined by the supply chain and how our members’ customers would like to see the product moved. Hopefully, that answers the question, senator.
Senator Quinn: It does, thank you very much.
Senator Simons: I also have a question for Mr. Wood. When we began this study of the St. Lawrence Seaway, I had assumed that we were going to be talking about ports and locks and ice and water levels. We have talked about those things too. But we have had a couple of witnesses who have come before us who have talked about the issue of erosion and raised concerns about the stability of the roads that are at the top of the bank of the St. Lawrence River, and worrying about whether those roads can sustain through the erosion brought on by intense climate change.
I am wondering if you can speak to us about the actual infrastructure of the roads along the St. Lawrence Seaway and along the St. Lawrence River and how you feel about their long-term health.
Mr. Wood: Thank you, senator. Excellent question. I think if I’m to look at it from a highway perspective or road-building perspective, I think there is a lot of work that goes into that. Certainly, the road authorities, whether it’s municipal, federal or provincial, have looked at that significantly. I think the planning piece, at least from our perspective, is ensuring there is redundancy. If I use Highway 401 as an example, that’s a primary artery, if you want to use that term. But there is also redundancy in that. There are emergency detour routes. That’s all planned out.
From a communications standpoint, the industry is well aware of potential challenges. But certainly, we need to take that into consideration. We need to plan for it.
As I mentioned, the majority of the infrastructure piece rests on the province’s shoulders, and they spend a lot of time, and we spend a lot of time with them on transportation planning. We mentioned their marine strategy, but particularly with their Eastern Ontario or their Greater Golden Horseshoe transportation plan that takes into account — they do address the climate piece. It’s an evolving process and certainly something we need to keep an eye on. Hopefully, that answers the question, senator.
Senator Simons: Not really. I’m wondering if you have heard anecdotal reports from members. I don’t know how familiar you are with those routes yourself. If you have seen evidence of potential for road failure along the banks of the St. Lawrence. If those roads are built in areas that are being eroded from underneath, so the roads may not eventually be traversable.
Mr. Wood: Okay. I understand the question. I don’t have specific information or I’m not an engineer in terms of that. But I know through the Transportation Association of Canada, there are very specific design standards for roads. Again, resting with provincial governments and municipalities in terms of how to deal with that. I can’t give you a specific location of where there could be a failure. That’s outside of my scope of understanding.
Senator Simons: I think in Western Canada, where I’m from, we had a real wake-up call two years ago when the roads and rails around Vancouver washed out completely and Alberta, where I’m from, was completely cut off from the port of the Pacific. I don’t know what the consequences are if there is a failure of that magnitude in Ontario. You’re not on the sea, so it’s not going to be that kind of sudden storm surge, but I do worry because what happens in Ontario has ripple effects across the whole country. If supply chains fail there, they fail for much of Eastern Canada and for Manitoba as well.
Mr. Wood: Would you like me to comment further, senator, on that?
Senator Simons: Sure. You know what I mean. I lived in Ontario for a couple of years. I’ve been stuck on Highway 401 and not found an alternate route, and it’s not pleasant to feel trapped. I was just a regular motorist. I’m sure for your members, it must be intensely frustrating when the roads become backed up. I know what you said about it’s better in the winter because there is less snow and less ice. But in the summer, it must also sometimes be more treacherous than it used to be because of the sudden flash-flood-intensity rainstorms.
Mr. Wood: Understood. Back to the redundancy piece, senator, obviously Highway 401 is a key corridor. There is significant redundancy. It’s not perfect, but there is a lot of attention paid to redundancy through emergency detour routes. There are some areas from a redundancy perspective where we need to pay attention and we are, working with our government partners. Going back to the piece of if there are challenges or there are catastrophic road failures, we look at other mechanisms such as potentially using the in-transit program through the U.S. or New York or Pennsylvania or Ohio, to get around any road failure. It is on our radar. From our perspective, we pay close attention to that, and working with our provincial partners.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Wood. That’s very helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Cardozo: I have a question for both witnesses about the future of their sectors. Are you facing labour shortages today, and will you face them in the coming years? Let’s start with Mr. Paris.
Mr. Paris: Thank you for your question, senator. I’m not an expert on labour at the Port of Québec. In recent years, Quebec City and the Quebec City area have seen the lowest unemployment rates in Canada. Last year, the unemployment rate was 4%. The local labour market is fiercely competitive, and we are competing with a maritime sector where workers are in great demand. More seafarers and longshore workers need to be trained. For the people looking for these kinds of workers, it’s not easy. They face significant challenges. We must continue to keep a very close eye on the situation.
It’s also important to make sure — and I talked about this earlier — that these workers are trained on the issues related to climate change. One thing that comes to mind is the use of new and emerging fuels such as methanol, ammonia and hydrogen. The skills for handling those fuels are much different than the skills required for existing fuels. That’s an important consideration. Workers will have that added responsibility. Not only is it difficult to find workers, but it’s also important to ensure that they are better trained. Those are some of the significant labour challenges facing the maritime sector.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Wood, what kinds of shortages are you facing now and the years ahead?
Mr. Wood: Thank you, senator. Happy to address that. The labour shortage, senator, is sometimes cyclical in our industry. At this point in time, the labour shortage isn’t as intense as it has been in the past.
Saying that, we do have challenges and our focus at least at the Ontario Trucking Association has been ensuring that as we go forward, we plan for it. We use the term securing a professional secure labour source. That involves a host of issues. One is, obviously, attracting individuals to the industry, which we are working on, working with our government partners on that.
The training piece, certainly it takes skill to drive a tractor trailer or a heavy truck, so the training piece is another one. Training costs money. We’re working to ensure that we have what we quote the term “institutionalized funding” to support the training of newly minted truck drivers, and then additional supports that come after the licensing phase that make a truck driver work-ready. There are a host of things happening on the provincial front, and certainly on the federal side, there have been supports, particularly financial, that have come to the industry. It’s something we keep an eye on, and it’s something that is very important to us.
At the direction of our board, recently we have been asked to focus on how the whole commercial training piece works and how it integrates with bringing drivers in, making sure that they are ready to go to work and that when they apply for jobs with our members, they are capable of doing those jobs.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Wood: I hope that answers the question, senator.
Senator Cardozo: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here with us this evening and for sharing their thoughts on our study.
I have a request from Senator Quinn, colleagues, if we could take five minutes to discuss further committee business.
I will let our witnesses go, and we will continue the meeting in camera when we adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)