THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to transport and communications generally.
Senator Larry W. Smith ( Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Colleagues, before we begin, please take a moment to review the cards placed on the tables in the committee room to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for preventing incidents related to sound feedback.
[English]
Please keep your earphones away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphones. Their activation and deactivation will be controlled by the console operator.
Finally, avoid handling your earphones when the microphone is activated. Earphones must remain in your ears or be placed on the sticker provided for this purpose at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
My name is Larry Smith. I’m a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Good morning. Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Mohamed: Good morning. Farah Mohamed, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick as well.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us today as well as those listening to us online on the Senate’s website, sencanada.ca.
We are meeting today with government officials to receive an update on Canada’s critical transportation infrastructure. Specifically, we will discuss the recommendations made during the Forty-fourth Parliament in the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications entitled Urgent: Building Climate Resilience Across Canada’s Critical Transportation Infrastructure.
With that, I would like to introduce, from Transport Canada, Paul Sandhar-Cruz, Director General, Strategic Policy; from Public Safety Canada, Ryan Schwartz, Director, Critical Infrastructure Policy and Analysis; and from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Jeff MacDonald, Director General, Climate Change Adaptation.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz is also accompanied by a few other officials from Transport Canada. They are here to assist in answering any technical questions. Should any of the officials be called to the table to answer questions, please state your name and title before you begin speaking. Thank you to all for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. I would ask you to respect that amount of time, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I now invite Mr. Sandhar-Cruz to give his opening remarks.
Paul Sandhar-Cruz, Director General, Strategic Policy, Transport Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in relation to your report entitled Urgent: Building Climate Resilience Across Canada’s Critical Transportation Infrastructure.
Canada’s economic prosperity and connectivity depend on a transportation system that moves people and goods efficiently and reliably. Your report highlights how climate change and extreme weather events, including wildfires and flooding, are increasingly disrupting trade flows, isolating communities and adding costs. Transport Canada works with provinces, territories, Indigenous partners and industry to improve system performance, enhance visibility across key transportation corridors and better anticipate and respond to disruptions.
Through this work, we engage and coordinate with Public Safety Canada and other key federal partners to identify, prioritize and protect Canada’s critical transportation infrastructure. Our all-hazards approach ensures that climate risks, such as flooding, wildfires, permafrost thaw, coastal erosion and extreme precipitation, are integrated into our risk assessments and infrastructure planning, and that these efforts align with our responsibilities under the Emergency Management Act and the Federal Emergency Response Plan.
Additionally, Transport Canada has analyzed the economic and supply chain impacts of major climate events, including the 2021 British Columbia atmospheric river, the 2022 Vancouver winter storms and the wildfires in British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories between 2021 and 2024. These analyses help identify vulnerable corridors and assets to inform strategic investment decisions.
Transport Canada has delivered targeted adaptation programs, including the Transportation Assets Risk Assessment Program, the Northern Transportation Adaptation Initiative Program and the Rail Climate Change Adaptation Program. These initiatives have laid the groundwork for strengthening climate resilience across all transportation modes. Climate risk assessments have also been embedded in project evaluation to ensure that infrastructure investments are durable and adaptable.
Through the National Trade Corridors Fund, we have invested $4.1 billion in 214 projects nationally, including projects that address climate-related vulnerabilities.
We are now building on those efforts through major new transportation infrastructure funding programs announced in Budget 2025. This includes the $5-billion trade diversification corridors fund and the $1-billion Arctic infrastructure fund. These investments provide an opportunity to enhance the efficiency and reliability of Canada’s transportation system while ensuring it is climate resilient.
This is particularly urgent in Canada’s Arctic, which is warming nearly four times faster than the global average and faces unique transportation challenges, including permafrost thaw, coastal erosion and shorter winter road seasons.
The National Trade Corridors Fund has invested in 33 projects in the Arctic and the North, totalling $932.6 million in federal contributions and leveraging $1.6 billion in total investments from multiple partners.
Building on this record, the new Arctic infrastructure fund will focus on dual-use transportation infrastructure that is particularly vulnerable to climate change. They are combining scientific expertise with local and Indigenous knowledge to ensure projects reflect regional realities and adaptation needs.
Climate risk assessments aligned with international standards are embedded in project delivery to ensure that infrastructure can withstand extreme weather and long-term climate impacts.
Additionally, northern and Indigenous communities understand the risks they face daily. Their knowledge is essential to designing practical, locally grounded solutions that address permafrost thaw, flooding, wildfires and coastal erosion. Transport Canada’s role is to support and scale those local solutions through funding, technical guidance and collaboration with federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners so that infrastructure investments strengthen resilience, durability and long-term socio-economic benefits for Canadians.
[Translation]
Thank you. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sandhar-Cruz. I now invite Mr. Schwartz to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Ryan Schwartz, Director, Critical Infrastructure Policy and Analysis, Public Safety Canada: Honourable senators, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the Government of Canada’s approach to critical infrastructure security and resilience.
[English]
I am pleased to be back at this committee for such an important topic. And I thank you for the report entitled Urgent: Building Climate Resilience Across Canada’s Critical Transportation Infrastructure.
I would begin by noting that Canada defines critical infrastructure, or CI, very broadly to include the processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets and services essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians and the effective functioning of government.
This definition is from the 2009 National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure, which also established 10 CI sectors, including transportation. Taken together, the definition and sectors created a framework wherein virtually anything in the Canadian economy could be considered critical depending on the nature of disruptions, their impacts and the perspectives of stakeholders.
Further, the strategy recognized that these 10 sectors are interconnected and that interdependencies create the risk of cascading failures. For example, a disruption to a major bridge, port or rail line will create supply chain impacts in other sectors, such as manufacturing.
The strategy also established voluntary, collaborative approaches to enhancing CI security and resilience in recognition that it is a shared responsibility. As such, the strategy focused on building partnerships, all-hazards risk management and information sharing.
Legislatively, the Emergency Management Act stipulates that ministers accountable to Parliament are to identify risks within or related to their area of responsibility, including CI, and prepare emergency management plans in response to those risks.
Importantly, the Emergency Management Act does not identify — or, therefore, legally designate — the infrastructure that warrants protection. Rather, Canada relies on legislation applicable to individual sectors as well as other statutes of general application, including the Criminal Code, to protect CI.
Other federal departments and agencies work with industry on CI security and resilience through sector networks or other fora. These line up as you would expect, such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the food sector and Natural Resources Canada for the energy and utilities sector.
Transport Canada leads the transportation sector and partners with its stakeholders on issues of concern to enhance the resilience and reliability of our critical transportation infrastructure.
Part of Public Safety Canada’s role is to make connections between CI sectors and ensure risks, actions and lessons learned are shared within the Government of Canada, consistent with the Minister of Public Safety’s role of exercising national leadership on this topic.
CI is a high-value target for threat actors, as disruptions can impact the economy and destabilize society. Risks to CI can be of a cyber or physical nature. Copper wire theft is an example of a physical threat that this committee has focused its attention on. Others include blockades, sabotage and extreme weather.
The challenge of safeguarding CI is growing more complex, particularly in Canada’s northern and Arctic regions as the climate and geopolitical contexts continue to rapidly transform.
To this end, Public Safety Canada has been leading federal efforts to strengthen the security and resilience of Canada’s CI against all threats and hazards. These efforts have raised awareness within the interdepartmental community on the importance of this issue.
The Government of Canada’s Emergency Management Strategy and National Adaptation Strategy also highlight the importance of — and include measures related to — resilient infrastructure.
In addition, CI is an undercurrent in other important initiatives, including Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy, the defence policy update and Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy released last week. Indeed, resilient CI is foundational for our sovereignty and security.
[Translation]
I will stop here by saying that the subject of critical infrastructure is vast and complex. These systems are interdependent, and disruptions can cause cascading impacts and failures.
All levels of government and industry have a vital role to play in protecting the critical infrastructure on which Canadians depend. Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. Now I invite Mr. MacDonald to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Jeff MacDonald, Director General, Climate Change Adaptation, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature to discuss the committee’s twelfth report. The committee’s report clearly underscores a reality we are already experiencing across the country.
Climate change is no longer a future risk to transportation infrastructure. It is a present and growing challenge that affects safety, economic competitiveness and the resilience of our supply chains.
I would like to emphasize that the Government of Canada shares the committee’s sense of urgency. We agree that building climate resilience into transportation and critical infrastructure must be a national priority.
[English]
I am pleased to report that the government is advancing the core recommendations of this report through coordinated, whole-of-government action under Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy. This strategy was launched in 2023 and provides a comprehensive framework for reducing climate risks, protecting communities and strengthening the resilience of critical systems, including transportation.
Importantly, the strategy recognizes that adaptation is not the responsibility of any single department or level of government. Instead, it requires sustained collaboration across jurisdictions and sectors. A central focus of the strategy is the integration of climate resilience into infrastructure planning, design and standards.
In direct alignment with these recommendations from the committee, the strategy does include a commitment to incorporate climate change considerations into national codes and standards — for example, the recent Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code that was designed for this year, 2026.
This work will also help ensure that new and rehabilitated infrastructure is designed to withstand future climate conditions rather than past ones.
[Translation]
The National Adaptation Strategy is also supported by targeted federal investments that are already strengthening the resilience of critical transportation corridors. Through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, which received expanded funding under the National Adaptation Strategy, the Government is supporting large-scale projects that reduce climate risks and protect supply chains.
A notable example is the government’s March 2025 commitment of $325 million through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund toward the Chignecto Isthmus resiliency project.
This investment directly supports the committee’s recommendation to determine a path forward for protecting this vital transportation corridor from increasing flood risk. It also reflects the importance of safeguarding infrastructure that is essential to regional and national connectivity.
[English]
Recognizing that much of Canada’s transportation infrastructure is owned and maintained at the municipal level, the National Adaptation Strategy also includes significant support for local leadership.
The Local Leadership for Climate Adaptation initiative, administered under the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund, provides $530 million in stable, multi‑year funding through 2031 to help municipalities integrate climate resilience into local infrastructure decisions.
In particular, the initiative’s Financing Adaptation stream advances long-term funding solutions by testing innovative financing models and leveraging private sector investment. This directly aligns with the committee’s recommendation that both governments and the private sector play a role in future climate‑resilient infrastructure.
[Translation]
Beyond the National Adaptation Strategy, Environment and Climate Change Canada continues to support evidence-based decision making through the Canadian Centre for Climate Services. The centre provides climate data, tools and guidance to infrastructure owners and planners.
It places a particular focus on northern and remote regions where climate impacts are often more severe and where adaptation capacity can be more limited.
[English]
In closing, Mr. Chair, we welcome the committee’s report and view it as a strong complement to the actions already under way. While we recognize that significant work remains, progress is being made to embed climate resilience into transportation infrastructure across the country.
We look forward to your questions and to continuing this important discussion.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to questions from senators. I would like to advise senators that they have five minutes for the first round of questions and answers. There will be a second round of questions if time permits. Should you wish to ask a question of our witnesses, please alert our clerk who will add your name to the list of questioners. I now invite our deputy chair, Senator Dasko, to ask the first question.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today, and thank you for your presentations and for describing the initiatives that you’re undertaking.
With respect to our report, we have 10 recommendations. I wonder if we could get into that a little bit. Were any of the recommendations new to you? Did you find any of them surprising? Which of the recommendations might have stood out to you in terms of the initiatives of the department? I would like to get a sense of how you responded to them and which ones you might have seen as the most critical from your point of view. Thank you.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: I will start. I think generally the recommendations speak to the urgency of the issue and the impacts. From a transportation perspective, it’s not surprising to me that transportation projects figure predominantly in the report. From our perspective, it’s taking the recommendations and the principles behind them and incorporating them into the programming that we are finalizing and that we are delivering and the next generation of infrastructure programs and collaborative work that we’re doing with our provincial and territorial partners. For the Arctic, it will be increasingly important that we engage with the Department of National Defence and other partners on the dual-use infrastructure.
That is a tremendous opportunity for the people who live in the North, for protecting Canada’s sovereignty and for working within a new collaborative approach.
Senator Dasko: Did anything stand out in particular in the recommendations that we made which caught your attention?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: The hope that we would produce a list of priority infrastructure caught my attention. We are doing that. We have been working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners on trade-enabling infrastructure in a transportation context that aligns with our mandate. The government has signalled its desire to double our non-U.S. exports and diversify our trade, so there’s an increasing importance.
There’s an alignment between trade-enabling transportation infrastructure and the vulnerability aspects to climate change. Our western corridor is a key export gateway for Canadian trade, so there is overlap. From my perspective, it’s about making sure that we’re targeting all of the right measures and programs to strengthen the resiliency.
Senator Dasko: Thank you very much. I would like to focus and just probe the comments about support for municipalities. Municipalities own 60% of Canada’s public infrastructure, and we know that it is threatened by climate change. You mentioned one initiative. Could you describe in a little more detail the municipal initiatives that you undertake to assist municipalities?
They are always broke — oh, I have a mayor here. They don’t have enough money to pay for all of this, and that’s just one of the problems they have. Could you describe in a little more detail what initiatives you have for municipalities? Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald: Sure, thank you for the question. The $530 million that was added to the Green Municipal Fund under the National Adaptation Strategy has started to become implemented. It’s a top-up to the foundation. As a result, a program called Local Leadership for Climate Adaptation was launched by the Green Municipal Fund, and it is open to municipalities across the country.
It’s interesting to note that emphasis is put on supporting proposals where municipalities work together. This is very key in the context of infrastructure planning and transportation. Obviously, it’s not just limited to one particular locale, but it has three particular aspects.
First of all, there’s the first phase where it’s intended to provide support to municipalities for developing adaptation strategies for all of their operations, not just infrastructure but in general, in order to have a plan for how to adapt to the climate that is changing in their communities.
The second one is to support some projects that can demonstrate the usefulness of taking proactive action to address climate impacts before they happen.
Finally, as I mentioned in my remarks, there is the third one that is currently under development for Financing Adaptation. It’s really trying to find new ways to support investment in infrastructure projects that are deemed a priority in some of the strategies that are funded in the first phase. That can bring in private sector funding and the support of outside investors as well as through government.
It is true that all levels of government say there is not enough money for infrastructure. One of the major goals of the first National Adaptation Strategy is to mainstream the integration of the future climate and understanding the coming impacts of climate change into the regular business of the maintenance and construction of infrastructure as well as other activities.
Having a proper strategy and supporting that through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund was seen as a good way of getting started in terms of supporting municipalities that don’t necessarily have the capacity to hire the planning staff or to hire people on their own to help with some of this initial planning. That’s really where that fund is directed.
Senator Lewis: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today. Climate change is far from an exact science. As your department looks at new regulations and requirements, is there a process in place? You talk about private industry wanting to invest, and we always hear about the regulatory burden and those kinds of things. Is there opportunity for private companies that are investing who can also say that certain regulations are cumbersome or don’t make sense? Is there a good line of communication as we go forward with these new requirements and regulations, where they will listen to what is being done on the ground in a practical sense? Sometimes we don’t get the regulations right the first time. Is there opportunity for good, practical solutions for projects of national interest? You talk about the speed at which some of these have to be done, and it’s always an argument that the speed of business is not the speed of the regulator. I would just like you to make comments on that, please.
Mr. Schwartz: Perhaps I can start. Thank you for the question. This is ultimately a question about stakeholder engagement and the importance of engaging with the private sector partners in all of these projects, whether it’s existing infrastructure or new infrastructure.
The federal government prioritizes engagement with a number of partners, particularly in the case of critical infrastructure. The private sector is, in addition to municipalities, the majority of owners and operators of critical infrastructure in Canada across the majority of our main critical infrastructure, or CI, sectors.
We have had a number of very good stakeholder engagement mechanisms through, as I mentioned, some of the sector networks that exist, whereby we bring together provinces, territories, individual companies and industry associations to talk about issues of concern related to critical infrastructure and the services that they provide to Canadians. That could be in a pandemic context. That could be in a convoy blockade context or other sorts of disruptions.
In terms of the legislative and regulatory-making processes, we are mindful of the speed at which infrastructure needs to be built and the regulatory burden that is placed upon industry. Throughout that legislative development process, through consultations and successive rounds of reviews within both chambers, there are opportunities to improve that process.
One example I would give currently is Bill C-8, enacting the critical cyber systems protection act, which has been reintroduced. That would look at imposing cybersecurity obligations on four of our most critical sectors, and that has been vetted a number of times with industry stakeholders. We have continuous mechanisms to engage. It’s quite a positive example of how we in government are working with private sector and industry.
Senator Wilson: My questions today will focus primarily on specific infrastructure across the country. I feel good about what I’ve heard in terms of the work that is happening at a strategic level.
As we look to diversify trade and protect our sovereignty, I don’t think there’s anything more critical or core to that than protecting Canada’s national supply chains.
Several years ago — and you mentioned this, Mr. Sandhar-Cruz, in your remarks — we had a terrible flood in British Columbia. In particular, it was significantly damaging and impactful in the Fraser Valley. More recently, we have seen more recurrences of floods, although they haven’t knocked out the rail lines this time or the highway. We have seen recurring flooding, and it’s obviously going to continue. I’m concerned that I haven’t seen anything material in terms of what is happening to harden the infrastructure within the Fraser Valley. In particular, since the major flood in 2021 originated in the United States, it is outside of our sovereign control. The committee’s report didn’t look specifically at that. It talked about the marine port and airport in Vancouver, but to me, this is a key piece of national infrastructure, and I’m curious what work is being done, specifically looking at the Fraser Valley.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for your question.
I would say two things in terms of the work. One is around the emergency response, the monitoring of the supply chains and the lessons learned from it. There’s a multi-departmental effort around monitoring those impacts and looking at what could be done to mitigate in real time and to minimize the impacts.
The second is around the transportation network itself. We’re doing an analysis of our capacity to support current and projected trade levels, the pinch points, the bottlenecks and the vulnerability to climate and flooding. I know you were talking about the Fraser Valley, but the Chignecto Isthmus on the East Coast was also mentioned in the report. That’s very top of mind for our analysis and program design for future infrastructure needs.
I think the committee would benefit from also speaking with Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which has new programming on its community side and infrastructure programs in relation to waste water and other municipal elements.
I think our ultimate objective is to be strategic in how we invest across federal departments to protect the infrastructure that’s there and to bolster our capacity to support trade.
Senator Wilson: In terms of working across government, the kinds of improvements we’re talking about today are in the billions of dollars. Some of the numbers I’ve heard you throw out and I’ve heard the government announce are in the hundreds of millions of dollars across the country.
Do you believe there’s work to identify more funding for this kind of infrastructure than what we’ve heard today?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question.
I think there’s always an opportunity to continue to work with provinces and territories to identify needs. Through our own Transport Canada tables at the federal-provincial-territorial level, we are looking to understand future needs that transcend some of the things that I’ve talked about in climate change adaptation. Vulnerability to climate is one of those lenses. We would then work with Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada and any federal department that’s done some work that would help complement the knowledge and the data that we have, and then we would use that to prioritize the investments that we would be making.
Also, the last thing I would add is: On the transportation side — it’s been mentioned already — there’s a mix of public and private assets, so you also have to ensure that everybody is doing their part so that the system isn’t exposed to a vulnerability because there’s one aspect that is beyond the reach or control of one jurisdiction.
Senator Simons: I want to thank all our witnesses for being here.
This report just dated longer than an elephant. I was reminding myself, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Sandhar-Cruz, that you actually testified at this committee on this report almost exactly four years ago. Then the report came out at the end of 2024, so it’s been a while. Welcome back.
I’m trying to recall your testimony from four years ago, but I don’t believe at that time you told us explicitly that there were these lists and these funds. Mr. Sandhar-Cruz, I was quite cheered up by your opening testimony. Could you tell us when exactly these things started to fall into place?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question.
There were specific adaptation programs. There were several. I mentioned them in my opening remarks. They’ve since sunset, but we also used the National Trade Corridors Fund to fund projects that look at the impacts of climate change on highway infrastructure in the territories as well as bridges. There’s been some work in the Arctic for loading ramps. We’ve used the suite of programming that we’ve had available and the tools that we’ve had to understand climate change risks and to look at the ways of mitigating them. We used those lessons learned as part of future investments on the engineering side and the next phases of infrastructure.
Senator Simons: At what point do we move from studying the problem, which we now all know is the problem, to actually fixing the infrastructure? Some of the recommendations we made, for example, specifically in the North, included investment in all-season roads, investment in port construction that is resilient to climate change — port construction in the Canadian Arctic specifically — and investment in northern airport infrastructure to modernize it, especially where we all know there’s permafrost heave.
I’m wondering if you could tell us if any of those projects or if projects of that nature have been funded or if there’s a methodology to get to the point where we are actually building the highways, building the ports and fixing the runways.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: I can highlight a few that were funded by the National Trade Corridors Fund. There was a climate change resilience study for the highway from Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk.
Senator Simons: That was just a study.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Yes, that one was a study. There was also funding provided for the North Klondike Highway, a 100‑kilometre stretch between Whitehorse and Dawson City. There was an early study phase and then construction.
Senator Simons: Has construction on that begun?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Phase 1 was announced in 2019.
Senator Simons: Has it been built?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: I will confirm that for you.
Senator Simons: Okay. Obviously, I’m not pooh-poohing studies; we’ve just done one. Studies are the necessary precursors, but once we’re seized with the idea that this is a problem, I guess I’m wondering if there’s money in the kitty for all-season roads in the Northwest Territories or for runway reconstruction. When the permafrost melts, the runways crack. I’m wondering if there’s investment for port construction in the North, which is not so much for export as it is for bringing goods and services in to the people of the North.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Yes, there are projects that have been announced and are under way, such as airport and road projects. Yes, airports and roads would be a priority, not only for the Arctic infrastructure fund but also for the trade diversification corridors fund.
The calculus around Canada’s sovereignty and Canada meeting its NATO commitments will also result in significant defence spending in that region. I think something that has changed from four years ago since we last testified is that we know there will be significant investments in the North and in the Arctic related to our defence infrastructure, so there is a strategic opportunity to look at dual-use infrastructure that benefits local communities as well as strengthens our defence capabilities.
That is a priority that will happen. I think for us, there’s an opportunity to ensure that there’s alignment there. It would allow for accelerated development, and it would be something that benefits the community and allows us to strengthen the transportation network.
Senator Simons: The Vancouver airport is built on an island: Sea Island. I was there last week. Great airport. Our report gave me concerns that it faces the risk of — I kept saying it’s sinking into the sea, but my husband said it’s not sinking; the water is rising. It’s being inundated. It’s not the same thing.
What we heard in our study is that the maintenance of the dike works falls to the City of Richmond, a small urban municipality in Metro Vancouver, which, frankly, doesn’t have the resources to rebuild a dike work sufficient to protect one of Canada’s most critical airports. I wonder if anyone at the table can tell us if there are plans afoot to assist in bolstering the dike works around this critical piece of infrastructure.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: In 2021, there was $38.4 million from Transport Canada’s Airport Critical Infrastructure Program that did go to the airport for dike reinforcement.
Senator Simons: That was five years ago. Anything since?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Just additional funding for the runway and safety area.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, folks, for being here this morning. I want to touch a little bit on the East, the North and the seaway.
I want to pick up on what Senator Simons just talked about with respect to the dikes and how important they are to the airport. I understand you have been involved in a tabletop exercise down in the area of the Chignecto Isthmus, which my colleagues are probably tired of me talking about.
I have a couple of quick questions, Mr. Sandhar-Cruz. You talked about the importance of Vancouver in terms of doubling our exports, et cetera. How important is the Port of Halifax to our strategy in diversifying trade lanes, exports, partnerships, et cetera? How important is that port?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: That’s a great question. If Canada is going to meet its trade ambitions, we have to leverage all the gateways, corridors and assets that we have. I view the East Coast as an important opportunity to support diversified trade and provide access to markets that Canada traditionally hasn’t had in the past.
Senator Quinn: I understand the tabletop exercise focused on some of the risks associated with the isthmus. Can you talk a little bit about that? What are those risks, and what are your concerns with the trade corridor that goes through there?
Mr. Schwartz: Thank you, senator, for the question and comments. Public Safety Canada, through our Atlantic Regional Office, did help coordinate a tabletop exercise, or TTX, as we like to call it, with funding from Defence Research and Development Canada, or DRDC. That was a multi-stakeholder exercise that looked at some of the transportation and supply chain risks for the Chignecto Isthmus which, as you are well aware, is one of the most vulnerable points in the country to the impacts of climate change principally as well as sea level rise and being cut off, which would have a supply chain impact.
We have seen other examples around the country, whether it was the 2021 atmospheric rivers or any other sort of rail or port disruptions and the impact that can have, which I think makes it increasingly important for a broadly resilient critical transportation infrastructure system with redundancy built into it, as my colleague from Transport Canada was saying.
The importance of the tabletop exercise highlighted some key issues in terms of specific roles and responsibilities, recognizing that it is multi-jurisdictional. There are private sector and different levels of governments, including Indigenous governments, that play a role in the Chignecto Isthmus in particular. And that is one area where, by conducting tabletop exercises and highlighting or daylighting some of the issues, we can focus on specific problems that need to be resolved through funding or further engagement or other measures that may be in place.
Senator Quinn: With respect to the resiliency of our trade corridors, would you agree that governments would be well advised to have a coordinated approach and get it under way as soon as possible, given the effects of climate change and the increasing frequencies of storms in that area?
Mr. Schwartz: Sorry, coordinator for —
Senator Quinn: We should take a more immediate approach to addressing the dikes, the aboiteaux and the related works to get that addressed sooner rather than later.
Mr. Schwartz: Again, thank you for the question. By virtue of the number of departments and agencies that are involved in this issue — going back to Senator Simons’ question about when things started coming together — climate change impacts and adaptation are something that certainly the Government of Canada has been a leader in for a number of decades. While those of us who work within the field of impacts and adaptation can bemoan the differences in funding that we have invested in climate change mitigation versus impacts and adaptation, I would argue the more urgent need in terms of resilience is the funding for impacts and adaptation, where I think the Government of Canada has, over the past 15 to 20 years, demonstrated some significant — but maybe not enough — investments in climate change, including in Atlantic Canada. I think we all recognize that more needs to be done in the spirit of continuous improvement.
Senator Quinn: Just concluding on that part of the country, it’s probably a good thing that the government has identified funding for the particular area that I’ve been questioning about, and that’s the isthmus.
The Chair: One more question, senator, because we’re running out of time.
Senator Quinn: I understand. We had discussions on short-sea shipping and the benefits of short-sea shipping in terms of highway congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and things like that. Is it a real possibility to reduce highway congestion and the movement of cargoes along the seaway by using short-sea shipping and getting trucks off the roads and all the things that go with that, such as less maintenance on the roads? What are your thoughts on short-sea shipping specifically in that area?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question. I think it’s Transport Canada’s view that short-sea shipping does provide an opportunity to unlock new trade corridors and export opportunities in addition to reducing emissions.
The St. Lawrence Seaway is a good example. That is something that we take into consideration in our design in how we want to implement our programs, and we’ve had different funding programs to support it, but generally, the short answer is, yes, we’re supportive.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My first question is about the Chignecto Isthmus. I think it could be for Mr. Schwartz.
You mentioned collaboration between the federal government, provinces and territories. I’d like to hear more specific details about the federal government’s expectations in terms of its collaboration with the impacted communities and provinces in this region. I am thinking in particular of the Acadian community. Aboiteaux were built in this region. What are your expectations in terms of expertise, involvement and commitment from the private sector, for example, in these provinces? What can you tell us about the federal government’s specific expectations to counter the increasing likelihood of flooding?
Mr. Schwartz: Thank you very much for the question, senator. I’ll answer in English, if you don’t mind — it’s easier for me.
[English]
I think the federal government’s expectations are that it would respect the jurisdiction and the roles and responsibilities of other stakeholders in the region. And I don’t say that to sound dismissive in any way. What I mean is that I think the federal government expects to meaningfully engage with the private sector communities in the region, recognizing that climate change impacts and adaptation and critical infrastructure resilience, including in the transportation sector, are very much a shared responsibility, given the division of authorities and responsibilities.
I think the expectation is that the Government of Canada, through various departments and agencies, including Public Safety Canada, Transport Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and others, is very much a strong federal family, if I could say that, when it comes to the issues of critical infrastructure resilience and climate change impacts and adaptation. The expectation is that we work together and we work closely with stakeholders to provide information —
Senator Cormier: Excuse me for interrupting, but I have a few items. Do we have specific expertise coming from those provinces and from the private sector so that we can be assured that they’ll be involved in this important project? I don’t know if you have any more information on that.
Mr. Schwartz: I’ll check with my colleagues. Mr. MacDonald, is there anybody on the climate side in Atlantic Canada? No? I’m not aware of anyone specifically, although more broadly speaking, we would work with regional stakeholders, including the provinces and territories. I know that’s a very high-level answer, but it depends on the specific nature of the issue.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you. My question is for you, but for all the other witnesses too. Considering the Official Languages Act’s stipulation that legal obligations regarding official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies, how do Environment and Climate Change Canada and Public Safety Canada ensure that they fulfill their official language obligations?
We know that at one point in time, there were some fairly significant communication issues in emergency situations, such as during the pandemic. So how are these official language considerations taken into account by your departments? I’m thinking of the mitigation fund, among other things.
Mr. MacDonald: I can speak on behalf of my department and particularly the Meteorological Service of Canada. The warning system has undergone several updates in recent years to ensure that all warnings are published in both official languages, either in direct communications to cellphones or by other means of issuing warnings to the public. The Meteorological Service of Canada provides all that information in both official languages.
Senator Cormier: Are you able to assess its effectiveness? We received comments about difficulties obtaining such services.
Mr. MacDonald: I don’t want to speak for my colleague at Public Safety Canada, which manages the entire emergency system. I don’t work in that part of the department, but I do know that the Meteorological Service of Canada is involved in that regular review of the system’s operation and effectiveness.
Senator Cormier: Mr. Schwartz?
[English]
Mr. Schwartz: Thank you so much. Here again, I acknowledge the issue and the challenges faced therein, and oftentimes in emergencies, there is a natural tendency to expedite the provision of information, even if it’s in one official language versus respecting some legislative official languages obligations.
There have been improvements, and this is specific to your question on Canada’s National Public Alerting System, or NPAS. The NPAS warns of disasters and imminent extreme weather, which can provide advance warning so that people can flee an area if their safety is at risk. The Government of Canada makes sure that people receive these NPAS warnings. Budget 2025 proposed $55 million over four years, starting this fiscal year, to support a new NPAS model, ensuring that Canadians continue to receive AMBER Alerts, extreme weather warnings, imminent natural disaster warnings and related security threat alerts so that they can take action.
One element related to this is another program that is relevant to this committee and to the issue of critical transportation infrastructure resilience, which is the Earthquake Early Warning, or EEW, system that is administered by Natural Resources Canada. Public Safety Canada and Natural Resources Canada work together with industry and critical infrastructure stakeholders to locate seismic sensors on critical infrastructure to provide advance warning so that transportation infrastructure such as rail lines could be stopped in advance of an earthquake.
There are, again, official languages considerations there as well, ensuring that Canadians receive messaging and alerts that protect their safety and security in both official languages. So I would just close on that question, senator, by saying that the NPAS does fully recognize Canada’s two official languages.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. I have a question about marine shipping, but over short distances. Is it really feasible and cost-effective, or is it something we’ll be discussing for years? In terms of the cost of the required infrastructure, could you expand a little on what that would entail? I have many, many questions about this.
[English]
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: From the Transport Canada perspective, we’re looking at all modes of transportation and all ways of moving goods and people. From the short-sea shipping or maritime perspective, we’re open to supporting new models and ways of supporting those activities. We support it through the way we administer and deliver our programs and also through governance, creating the conditions to allow these activities to happen. So for us, it’s facilitating and enabling it and letting the market find a model that works.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Are there any further comments on that? No.
With respect to Northern Canada and infrastructure, we talked about permafrost, among other things, and how climate change is affecting transportation in Northern Canada. Is the current situation with Greenland and the United States affecting the pace of progress and the money that will be invested in Northern Canada? I’m thinking of ports that could be as far away as Churchill, but also ones closer to Greenland. What’s happening there to structure or strengthen existing infrastructure?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: It’s really a competitive environment.
[English]
We have to ensure that Canadian assets and gateways are competitive and then create the conditions to invite the investment that is needed to support our trade.
We’ve done exercises where we’ve mapped the trade-enabling infrastructure. We’ve also done it in partnership with the U.S. on our border crossings, so it’s something we’re very attentive to, and it’s front and centre for us in looking at how we’re going to deliver the next generation of infrastructure funding.
Mr. MacDonald: I would like to add with regard to the question about permafrost thaw. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the Canadian Centre for Climate Services. We work very closely with other science-based departments, especially Natural Resources Canada, which is providing us with information in terms of the dynamics of permafrost thaw and how we can use that to develop tools to support investments in either the dual-use infrastructure that my colleague mentioned or other investments at the Department of National Defence, maybe envisioning it in that part of the country.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There was a recommendation in your report:
Recognizing that marine transportation is currently the least polluting mode of transportation and that the Government of Canada relax regulations so that the ports of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence can work together to improve their capacity and resilience.
Actually, it came from our study. We observed that many regulations specifically prevented ports from working together.
When they do work together, they are accused of hurting competition and violating competition laws. It’s a bit of a vicious circle. I was given a rather interesting example: to dredge the St. Lawrence — because it fills up — ports are unable to coordinate their efforts.
What did you do? Since our report was published over a year ago, have you worked on this issue, so that the St. Lawrence Seaway and Lake Ontario can more effectively join forces to combat climate change?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Of course. Thank you for the question. The issue is always to facilitate collaboration.
[English]
We are looking at how the different governance structures that are in place interplay with each other. It’s something that we are mindful of in the policy work that we’re doing, understanding if there are barriers and how we could unlock that to allow for that type of collaboration.
The business model is there for them to demonstrate their capacity. I think there is an opportunity with the trade diversification priority and focus to look at how you can accelerate and bring into focus the collaboration to tap into new markets and new opportunities.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s pretty vague, but maybe that’s where you can go.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn started discussing that. Marine transportation has also generated a lot of interest as a mode of transportation that emits fewer greenhouse gases.
Since this report was published, have you conducted any studies to see what each of you could do to promote marine transportation? What concrete action have you taken — not only to reduce greenhouse gases in other infrastructure, but, in this case, to make greater use of marine transportation in order to reduce air pollution?
[English]
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: We are studying it. We have been studying and looking at the opportunities. It’s something that we are looking to release in 2026.
I know I was being a little bit cryptic, but the intermodal from the trade perspective and from the resiliency and redundancy standpoint is important. It gives you an alternative to transportation that can serve our needs, both as an ambitious trade agenda and also in emergencies. We recognize the importance of looking at all of the different ways that we can help unlock that, and we will do that.
At the end of the day, it’s still largely a private sector initiative, and they have to play a role in demonstrating the commercial viability of it. We would look at using any tools that we have in our tool kit to help support it, whether it’s dedicated program funding on decarbonization or whether it’s in the maritime sector or whether it’s infrastructure investments that can be made that kind of take a holistic supply chain approach. Rather than a single project, we are looking at groups of projects that would work together, and this would be something that short-sea shipping on the St. Lawrence Seaway and other avenues would benefit from.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here today.
I would like to begin by just thanking you for bringing up the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Green Municipal Fund and topping it up. When funding can go directly to municipalities from the federal government, it’s great. Municipalities and communities are where the floods and fires happen, and they know what’s happening on the ground, so kudos for that. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is a really great organization, and they do an excellent job.
I will now pick up the mantle of Senator Quinn on the Chignecto Isthmus. You have talked about it being one of the most vulnerable points in Canada and that we need a more immediate approach. You have had your TTX — I like that — which is the tabletop exercise. You mentioned all the different people involved.
Where can I find out if there is a timeline and where the action is? What are the next steps? Is there a place that I can point citizens to, for example, so that they know? Can we get any sort of tangible deadlines on anything around that?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question.
I would invite Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which is providing funding under their Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund for that project, to provide information as to the status and the key next steps.
Senator Simons: My questions are for Mr. Schwartz.
The ninth recommendation of our report deals with what you might call emergency preparedness, which I know is a slightly different thing than public safety. I was keen; I shared the report. I gave my last hard copy to Minister Olszewski a week after she was made a minister. I gave her that for homework.
As an Albertan, we’ve faced a number of catastrophic disasters in our province: the evacuation of the city of Fort McMurray, the evacuation of Jasper, and the one that didn’t get as much media attention but was every bit as dire was the evacuation of the Little Red River Cree Nation in the high north of Alberta. In each case, there were huge problems with transportation corridor limitations and getting people out safely.
From the Public Safety Canada perspective, could you engage with the ninth recommendation, which calls for the Government of Canada to work with provinces, territories, municipalities and Indigenous communities to ensure that emergency plans and supplies are in place in the event of extreme weather events? That could be not just forest fire evacuations but also other extreme weather events. A theme that came up again and again in our study is that we were not prepared within communities to deal with sudden catastrophic events, whether those are floods or fires. Climate change is not earthquakes.
Mr. Schwartz: They could be, depending on the city.
Senator Simons: Well, if they are caused by fracking, I suppose indirectly.
Could you talk to us a little bit about the ninth recommendation and whether you think the government is doing enough to meet that recommendation, as well as what you are doing and how you’re liaising with other orders of government?
Mr. Schwartz: Sure. Thank you very much, Senator Simons, for the question.
Obviously, there are a number of good recommendations here, and at the outset, Madam Deputy Chair asked which ones stood out. This was one for me, given the role that we have at Public Safety Canada to demonstrate national leadership on emergency management. Your point about the Jasper and Little Red River Cree Nation evacuations are well taken.
Within the Government of Canada and within Public Safety Canada, we have something that’s known as the Government Operations Centre, or GOC. You may very well know of that. The Government Operations Centre is responsible for federal coordination during emergency situations, be it a pandemic, a wildfire or a flood. The GOC activates on an annual basis to coordinate with departments and agencies within the Government of Canada but also with the provincial and territorial emergency operations centres. There is coordination in terms of emergency responses and briefing up. Federally, this would brief up into the Incident Response Group cabinet committee.
Senator Simons: I have great respect for the work of the Government Operations Centre. I was a journalist during the Fort McMurray wildfire. I covered that story. But our recommendation speaks to preparedness in advance, if I can put it that way.
Mr. Schwartz: That is one of the core pillars. To get more quickly to your question, I suppose, without all the surroundings, preparedness is a core pillar of Canada’s emergency management system. It’s prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. On the preparedness side, as we have all mentioned today, we take an all-hazards risk management approach. Section 6 of the Emergency Management Act states that all ministers responsible for reporting to Parliament must have emergency management plans in place. That’s departmental and federal.
We also work through the Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management, or SOREM, committee which is a federal-provincial-territorial, or FPT, senior-level committee responsible for coordinating on emergencies and disaster management.
I would say that more work needs to be done here, and this is part and parcel of Public Safety Canada’s work on what we’re calling EM modernization. This is something that we’re doing in response to the recognized threat of the growing impacts of wildfires, floods and other climate impacts and natural disasters and natural hazards to better prepare for these types of events and to have those emergency plans in place, recognizing that, again, it is multi-jurisdictional. Municipalities need to have them. Provinces and territories have them. And then the federal government activates its plans through the Federal Emergency Response Plan, or FERP.
I would say that the private sector also has a very important role to play here in terms of planning and response, as do non‑governmental organizations. The Red Cross is one.
The humanitarian workforce is something else that Public Safety Canada has been working on. That’s more on the response and recovery side. On the planning and prevention side, I’ll give you one example of a provincial initiative that has been set up.
It’s called Ontario Corps. Ontario has created an emergency preparedness and response mechanism whereby they partner with industry and private sector stakeholders. Most recently, Labatt Breweries signed on to Ontario Corps to provide its logistics and supply chain expertise as well as its warehousing capacity such that we are prepared in advance.
Of course, related to this are things like the National Emergency Strategic Stockpile, or NESS, all of which contribute to being better prepared nationally. But I would say, generally speaking, given the size of the country and the scope of the challenge that we face, we need to be better prepared, and we need to work toward being better prepared.
Senator Simons: It’s good to know there will be beer for Canadians in times of crisis.
Mr. Schwartz: Beer and hockey. It’s a top priority. We’re on it.
Senator Simons: Mr. Sandhar-Cruz, I referenced the Little Red River Cree Nation, which wasn’t part of our study. It’s far enough north in Alberta that it’s kind of the North. Because they were cut off by road, they had to evacuate a sizable community. It’s one of the largest First Nations in the province. They evacuated by canoe, and they evacuated by barge, and then they got some small planes in. It was a miracle, frankly, that they were able to get everybody out safely. Evacuating 1,000-plus people by canoe and barge takes a long time, and it’s a credit to the nation that they got people out in time.
But it really drove home to me the vulnerability in many of our more isolated communities and, frankly, even in the city of Fort McMurray where there was one major highway south. It’s not just a question of emergency preparedness. It’s a question of having the transportation infrastructure in place in a time of crisis so that people can get out of the way. I don’t know to what extent Transport Canada is looking at those issues.
You mentioned — and I found this a little bit unsettling — the way we might get roads and ports in the North is under the penumbra of defence spending. But surely defending the safety of Canadians should be as big a priority as defending the sovereignty of the North.
The Chair: We need to move forward, so a quick comment, please.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: The dual use of Arctic infrastructure is one tool in the tool kit. We have many others in broader transportation infrastructure and programs for airports, and all of that is part of the consideration of the remote access in connecting communities and the vulnerabilities.
Senator Simons: Thanks very much.
Senator Quinn: I have just a short question, I hope, on the Arctic. The Port of Churchill has been a point of discussion for decades. Now it’s considered a major project under the new government approach and has great potential. What are the biggest concerns that you may have from Transport Canada’s point of view on emergency planning for that in particular, both from the land side and sea side?
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question. The Port of Churchill corridor project has been referred to the Major Projects Office, and Transport Canada is supporting their analysis and work in that. That will include an assessment of what the infrastructure needs are to bring it to par. There will be an examination of the longer-term needs —
Senator Quinn: I understand that. I know it has been a topic for many years in Transport Canada. I was part of it. What are some of those concerns in today’s particular situation? I know it’s going to the Major Projects Office, but it is something that has been on the “rost,” if you will, of Transport Canada for a long time.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: There will have to be an assessment on the commercial viability. The port itself will have to attract and get the business. For safety and resilience, there will be considerations around the safety of the route and the ability to deal with oil spills or emergency response. That will all be part of the work that we do.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I apologize. I missed the first few minutes, so if I’m having you repeat anything, please let me know.
In 2023, the Government of Canada released its National Adaptation Strategy. Can you explain what the measurable goals are in the short, medium and long term for public and private infrastructure resilience?
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you for the question.
[English]
With regard to the National Adaptation Strategy, there are targets, objectives and goals for each of the systems in the National Adaptation Strategy. I can pull it up here, but I can also provide a copy of the strategy to the committee.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Maybe you have to give us a few highlights that would stick with our study.
Mr. MacDonald: The way that the strategy is designed — and it is one that was taken through the best practices from other countries — is really based on systems.
There are five systems identified in the National Adaptation Strategy. There is disaster resilience. We have talked today about a lot of the goals and objectives there. There is infrastructure itself. I will get to that in a moment. There is also health and well-being, as well as nature and biodiversity, and finally there’s economy and workers.
Each of those five themes, in terms of how the Government of Canada has organized itself, is led by a specific department. In the case of infrastructure, it’s Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. But being a lead for a system means coordinating with other departments and agencies for the goals, objectives and targets in the National Adaptation Strategy.
The overall goal in terms of improving the resilience of infrastructure in Canada is, as I was mentioning earlier, about mainstreaming the integration of how the climate is changing into the design and construction of housing and infrastructure in Canada. There were some short-term targets that were there. In my remarks, I mentioned specifically about codes for bridges and their design. That’s an example of a target that has been met under the National Adaptation Strategy, at least in the first phase.
With regard to other aspects of it, as we have mentioned as well, some of the work is interdepartmental, but it’s also intersystem when it comes to some of the questions. We consider infrastructure from disaster resilience and the redundancy for evacuation purposes, but similarly it’s for the economic reasons as well.
With our colleagues at Natural Resources Canada — and this is getting way back to one of the questions that Senator Lewis asked earlier about regulation versus design and those types of questions — we have done a lot of work with the engineering community and the architectural community, both through direct consultation with them as well as through supporting mid-career development training for engineers and architects to help them integrate climate considerations into their work in considering the duty of care they have in terms of providing their services to governments and, obviously, the private sector when it comes to investment in infrastructure.
Some provincial governments — notably the Government of British Columbia — have made this kind of resilient design a part of their tendering process. They did go out of their way to ensure that there was a capacity and an ability to respond to those requirements in tendering processes such that you can build resilient infrastructure, and the services would be there to provide that.
I can provide more examples to the committee in terms of the targets and objectives as it relates to infrastructure, but just to give you an idea of how we approached that, the overall goal of this phase of the strategy is how to mainstream this. With regard to climate services, my own department as well as our colleagues at Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada also provide services directly to the infrastructure community in terms of how to design that and in terms of how to understand how the climate is changing and how to integrate that into these questions.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. I’m sorry I had to make you repeat somewhat.
Mr. MacDonald: No problem at all.
Senator Wilson: My question is specifically about some infrastructure in the Port of Vancouver. Mr. Sandhar-Cruz, when we were talking about the Fraser Valley, you referred to the fact that some of the assets are owned by private sector players.
The two pieces of critical infrastructure in the Port of Vancouver that I wanted to ask about are the New Westminster Rail Bridge, which was built when Canada was only 35 years old and still operates today, and the North Shore rail bridge over which a lot of Saskatchewan and Prairie grain and potash traverses in order to get to the North Shore terminals. It’s the only access point to those North Shore terminals, particularly since CN is decommissioning the northern line up north of Squamish.
Without question, those are two critical assets. We know that replacing them will cost billions of dollars. We also know that because one is owned by Public Works and operated by CN, and the other one is owned by CN, the railways — as good as they are at building infrastructure and repairing things after disasters — like to sweat the assets. Both of those assets, I think, have sweated enough.
I would be interested to know if there is actually concrete work under way to plan for the replacements to the degree that we actually know what it would cost. You can hear around the room that we are all concerned there isn’t enough money going into this critical infrastructure, but for some of these things, we actually need to know what we’re going to build — and some of them are very complex, like the New Westminster Rail Bridge — in order to figure out how much it’s going to cost so that we can then start to figure out how to pay for it. I don’t think the railways are going to do that for us.
Mr. Sandhar-Cruz: Thank you for the question. Yes, the North Shore is very key to supporting Canada’s trade ambitions. The short answer is, yes, there is work in understanding the future costs and rebuild options. The Canada Infrastructure Bank just concluded a study on the New Westminster Rail Bridge. They funded the study. There are multi-partners involved in it. There is work that is being done to look at what the options are in how to address the replacement or rebuild.
As I mentioned earlier in response to one of the questions, we’re doing work around our capacity and capacity constraints. The bulk and bulk exports through the North Shore and understanding where those potential pinch points are is part of that analysis, and, hopefully, it will inform the future investments that governments make.
Senator Wilson: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you for indulging me with a third question.
I want to circle back to where Senator Dasko began. Our number one recommendation grew out of our finding that current efforts are scattered, and there is no national coordination, no concrete plan and no predictable funding. Yet there is an urgent need to take action.
Our first recommendation was that we have a list of the country’s most critical transportation infrastructure, and our second recommendation was that we have a concrete plan of action to protect that infrastructure. Despite all of the encouraging words we’ve heard from you today, I’m not clear that either of those things have happened, and maybe we are being idealistic. I don’t want to say “naive.” We’re too old to be naive.
In assuming that there is some sort of command and control at the top that can say, “All right, here’s a map of Canada. This, this, this and this are our greatest vulnerabilities and our top priorities.”
Is there any kind of central planning that is doing that kind of strategic look at where our most vulnerable points are and what is the risk-benefit analysis? If the Chignecto Isthmus is inundated, Nova Scotia becomes an island. That’s a huge risk.
I’m just trying to get a sense of whether there’s somebody sitting in a chair with a map and a spreadsheet figuring out where we need to go first.
Mr. Schwartz: Thank you, Senator Simons, for the question. I’ll start with that, and I appreciate you bringing up where we started with the recommendations. Public Safety Canada has the overall federal policy lead role for critical infrastructure protection, and in that context, through the National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure, it organizes federal efforts through all the behind-the-scenes nuts and bolts stuff, such as interdepartmental committees at various levels and cabinet proposals, memoranda to cabinet, et cetera.
I can say that in the intervening years since I was here almost four years ago, there has been a lot of work behind the scenes to show for that. Some we can’t speak about because it never made it to the light of day, but if I made, in my opening remarks, a comment about how we’ve raised awareness to mainstream these issues across these departments and agencies, then that’s what I was referencing, specifically related to the question of the most important critical transportation infrastructure and the most important infrastructure writ large.
I think that person would be me with a map and a spreadsheet. We have had maps and spreadsheets in the past, and I would point back to the Vital Points Program, which I always mess up and call the “Vital Pints Program” as my critical infrastructure, or CI, beer club. That Vital Points Program was something that Canada operated throughout the post-world war years and throughout the 20th century to maintain lists of Canada’s most important infrastructure — vital infrastructure — that needed to be protected.
In the context of the mid to late 20th century, this was very focused on physical security — guards, gates and guns — and it became very onerous and very expensive to send security agents from the RCMP or the Canadian Armed Forces to our major ports and bridges and airports to protect. Hence, we shifted away from that point-specific approach to an all-hazards approach that looked at shared responsibilities between different jurisdictions, and that is where we find ourselves now.
I think we lost visibility on what our most important critical infrastructure is in the late 1990s when that program ended, and we are now in recovery mode. I think we overcorrected when we said, “No, we don’t need to keep tabs and keep lists,” and there were 7,000-plus assets at the time on 22 different lists across the federal government. I think we lost a lot of insight and visibility on our most important CI, and we recognized over the last 10 to 15 years in particular that we need to gain that visibility back.
We see some of this come up through different disruption events. Convoy blockades were a great example. What’s the most important infrastructure we need to protect, and do we have the legislative tools in order to protect that?
We are internally looking at re-establishing insight, visibility and knowledge on what CI is most important based on its general level of criticality or how important it is vis-à-vis other pieces of infrastructure, noting that redundancy is a key point of resilience.
Also, we need to know who owns some of this infrastructure. As I mentioned, in the private sector, it’s not always Canadian companies, so there are inherent national security risks related to ownership of some of our critical infrastructure.
A lot of that we can’t unwind, but as we look at investing in the North or investing in new infrastructure through major projects — and we’re looking at foreign investment in some of these projects — we will be ensuring that we use the tools we have through the Investment Canada Act and other mechanisms to ensure that these investments are protected for the most important infrastructure that we have.
Long story short, Senator Simons, I would say that, yes, we recognize the need to make lists. Some of that work is happening internally to the Government of Canada, and it’s generally on a sector-by-sector basis, led by those departments and agencies that have the mandate, authority and expertise on what they might consider to be the most important critical infrastructure in their sector. Collectively, we take that together, and there’s a person in a chair with a spreadsheet and a map looking at the picture, and this is what we need to protect. I believe that in order to protect our CI, we need to identify what it is.
Senator Simons: That’s a really interesting answer. You’re saying there was like a Cold War paradigm where we were protecting infrastructure against invasions or protestors or what have you. But now we really need to shift our understanding that the threats are also from natural phenomena to an extent that we didn’t imagine in the post-war period.
Mr. Schwartz: Yes, all hazards, all threats.
The Chair: I’d like to ask the committee whether there are any other questions you’d like to ask. We’ve had a pretty thorough discussion over the last hour and a half. Are there any other questions you’d like to ask our witnesses on this subject?
I have just one little thought. I know it’s hard for an old guy like myself to think about it. I went through our report that was drafted and that we reviewed from 2024. I thought it was a fascinating report. There is so much complexity in the areas that you study.
But there’s one paragraph in the conclusion where I thought if there’s any messaging we can leave this meeting with, perhaps you can assist us — and I know it’s complex. The conclusion states:
Given the urgent nature of this issue, the committee has recommended, among other things, that the federal government create a list —
— and this supports some of the points that have been brought up by our members —
— of the most important transportation infrastructure, as well as a concrete plan to protect it, while highlighting the need for stable long-term funding from governments and the private sector.
I recognize that there’s so much complexity in this paragraph. The question is: How do we get through the maze in identifying the national projects of critical importance to the future of our country?
This was, I think, the idea of having the study and providing the study to you folks, but it would be really interesting to see: How do you get through the maze? That answer would probably take another 35 minutes, which we don’t want to do, but I would leave that question with you, knowing that in good faith you’re able to put some pieces together.
One of the things we noticed is: Given the whole shifting paradigm of the world economy and given what is going on with the United States and with various countries, we have to be able to prioritize what the top three or four projects are that we need to get moving on, with shovels in the ground, people working and getting things done so that we can actually say that we are proactive in maintaining our sovereignty, but more importantly, we’re proactive in maintaining some of the issues that are so critical to the infrastructure of this country, which will only help us move forward.
That is just a thought which could be deemed a question. If there’s any way that you’d like to come back to us with a one‑pager — and I know doing a one-pager on an issue that would probably take 1,000 pages may not necessarily be doable. Could the three of you put your heads together and write what are the top three or four issues that we need to look at in this country in terms of getting solutions? I’m not trying to be hard on you at all. I thought it was a fascinating discussion. But having worked in business and sport most of my life, there always have to be answers to questions, and prioritizing is sometimes very difficult. I recognize the maze that you have to go through to get to that point.
Could you give us a simple idea of where we are going, and how do we get through to the end zone to get the results? Does that make sense?
Mr. Schwartz: We’d be pleased to follow up with this committee. I think your conclusion and your first recommendation are bang on. I would point out that it aligns with one of the recommendations from the Public Order Emergency Commission’s report that was released following the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which is to identify our critical trade and transportation infrastructure.
Collectively, we can certainly come back to you. All that thinking has been done. It’s a matter, as you say, Mr. Chair, of synthesizing it down into a one-pager.
But I would agree with your comment on complexity and about the maze. It is a maze, and I think the way through the maze is consultation and engagement with the various stakeholders, which I know that all of our departments have done and will continue to do in order to find those solutions where there is common ground. We can leverage those different powers and orders of responsibility, which we’ve shown that we can do in other areas. I believe that we can do it here as well, and we’ll continue to work on that.
The Chair: Could you get back to us by the middle of March? Would that be possible?
Mr. Schwartz: I think it would be possible. As long as it’s not Friday, we can do it.
The Chair: Do we have a date that we could give to our witnesses in terms of when we’d like them to get back to us? What is a good day? What’s your best day of the week?
Mr. Schwartz: Is Tuesday, March 17 okay? Senator Quinn is laughing. How about March 17? It’s smack dab in the middle of the week and St. Patrick’s Day.
The Chair: That’s fantastic. On that note, if we’re all in agreement, let’s adjourn the meeting. We thank you very much for your testimony and your input.
(The committee adjourned.)