Evidence of meeting #126 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was infrastructure.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Murad Al-Katib  President and Chief Executive Officer, AGT Food and Ingredients Inc.
Matt Belliveau  Executive Director, Northwest Territories and Nunavut Construction Association
Yves Robillard  Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Lib.
Yvonne Jones  Labrador, Lib.
Barry Prentice  Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual
Paul Gruner  President and Chief Executive Officer, Det'on Cho Corporation
Paul Betsina  Business Development Manager, Det'on Cho Corporation

4:25 p.m.

Executive Director, Northwest Territories and Nunavut Construction Association

Matt Belliveau

My comments before.... I don't have a position on this. The association has not discussed this issue specifically. We're a non-partisan organization and we're in a non-partisan jurisdiction, so we try to stay out of these debates. I'm not saying I'm for or against the carbon tax or pollution pricing, whichever way you want to say it. It's really not something I've consulted our membership on. We've received just a few comments that, yes, prices are going to go up. That is the point. I'm not saying one way or another whether you should be doing that.

4:25 p.m.

Labrador, Lib.

Yvonne Jones

Okay. Thank you.

4:25 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, AGT Food and Ingredients Inc.

Murad Al-Katib

From my perspective, you know I mentioned the effects of climate change and how that is changing the dynamic of ice thickness and what that will mean in terms of deploying icebreakers, but there's no doubt that the effects of climate change are being seen on the Arctic.

I've been a strong advocate of innovation versus taxation on this issue. I think the value of gains that we need to show in this area.... Certainly, as you're saying, put a value on that pollution, but instead of applying it as a tax straight across the board, provide the incentives to those who are innovating and reducing.

I'm in a sector of agriculture where we're practising three crop rotations, including lentils, which is my main business, that naturally fix nitrogen in the soil, which dramatically reduces the greenhouse gas footprints. I think we should be investing more in those types of technologies.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

We've run out of time on this panel.

I want to thank you for taking the time to participate with us and answer our questions.

Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

We'll take a short break and then move into the second panel.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

Okay, let's get going.

We are thrilled to have you here.

This is the second part of our committee hearing. The way it will work is that you'll have up to 10 minutes to present, and I'll try to give you a signal when you're getting close. After that, the other presenter will do their 10 minutes, after which we'll go into rounds of questioning from members of Parliament.

We're going to start with Dr. Barry Prentice, professor, supply chain management, from the University of Manitoba. Welcome, Barry.

4:35 p.m.

Dr. Barry Prentice Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Thank you very much.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

It's nice to have you here. You can begin any time that you're ready.

4:35 p.m.

Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Barry Prentice

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen.

There are a few materials in my presentation, which may go beyond 10 minutes. I respectfully ask that I might be able to go a few minutes beyond, if you find it interesting, but I'll try to be rapid.

The second page to turn to is a famous statement by William Lyon Mackenzie King, who said, “If some countries have too much history, we have too much geography.” This really points to the problem of connectivity and regional disparity. If you look at the map of Canada, the red line depicts where the roads and railways stop, and the circle beyond that is where the regional disparities are the greatest.

We certainly have lots of stuff there that we'd like to get out. It's a treasure chest of minerals and deposits that we could mine economically, but we simply cannot get to them economically. They're stranded.

We have communities, as we have heard, that suffer from very high food prices, bad housing and many other illnesses, social and otherwise, that come with that isolation.

Beyond that, of course, we have sovereignty being threatened. Although it's well and fine to have the ice melting and more transportation access to the north, it also opens us up to more threats from the outside to our sovereignty, which need to be addressed.

Of course, beyond that, the ice roads are melting progressively, and we can see the day coming when they may not be around.

There is a need for a new technology. I always say that if we could do this with what we have, it would be no problem. We would have already solved it. We need to move on to look for something new, and in this case the solution, I believe, is the airships.

If you turn to the next page, I'd submit to you that airships could do for the north what the railway did for western Canada 125 years ago. Before the railways, we had a stone fort and the fur trade, and that was about it. Within 40 years of the railway, Winnipeg was the third-largest city in Canada and a bustling community, and this spread development throughout the west.

I will not try to tell you that we're going to plant wheat in the Arctic. That's not the case, but certainly we can move a long way from where we are, because today we have impassible land masses and very bad poverty conditions. With airships, we can open up mineral developments and other developments in the north.

I'll turn to the next page. You can see that there are quite a number of airship designs. Most of these are conceptual, although some have been built and tested. I would submit to you that the majority of these are not suitable for Arctic conditions. The only two that would be are the one that's been designed in Canada, at the very bottom—the red one—and the Russian airship, which is the second one from the top on the left. Other than that, these airships have not been designed for Arctic conditions, and certainly the inflatable ones would not work.

Flip over again and you'll see the next page. We're suggesting that what we need is a rigid airship. The rigid airship does not change its shape when the temperature changes. That's a great advantage. Of course, it can be built much bigger to carry much larger loads. Going back 80 years, they built airships that would carry 70 tonnes and travel at 80 miles an hour, or 145 kilometres an hour, and cross oceans.

That was 80 years ago. We can match that and do much better today, and do it with materials that already exist. We're not going to reinvent propellers and engines. These things are all certified and available, and we could do that today and do it much better.

Look at the next page, please. If you're going to have an airship carrying cargo, you must have a way of getting the cargo on and off safely and quickly.

Most airships you'll probably envision as being tied to a mast and a weather vane—if the wind changes, they're going to move. You had to have a way of controlling them. Airships are also somewhat unstable in pitch, so they're going up and down as well as moving sideways when the wind is coming. That doesn't mean they're uncontrollable. As you'll see on the bottom left, that is the Zeppelin airship landing under control with nobody on the ground holding ropes, and passengers will be getting on that airship.

Today, with modern equipment, computers and engines, we can control exactly where the airship is, but you still have to land it. There's an unfortunate landing on the one with the one-point landing. Also, at the mast, if a gust comes along and lifts it up, you're going to spill your coffee, so that's not so good.

Go to the next page, please. You can see the giant Zeppelin and its handling system.

They were aware of this. They had problems even just putting fuel on, so the Germans built a railway track. It had the radius of the airship's length. The airship was about 800 feet long, so that track was roughly a mile in length. It worked very well, because the railway car tied to the last fin would hold the airship down and reduce its speed in turning with the wind. However, it's impractical for the north. Finding a square mile of flat land and moving railway track and a rail car there is simply not a feasible solution for us, so we have to look for something different.

If you go to the next page, you'll see that our solution—an old idea put forward in the 1920s, although not built—is to land the airship on a turntable. The airship would come along and hold steady over a turntable with its engines, direct into the wind, to the turntable and to its docking system. A line would drop, and basically you would winch the airship down to the turntable deck, much like you land a helicopter on a destroyer. Once it hits the deck, obviously, clamps would grab it; then you power down and you can now control it. If anybody is on the turntable and the airship moves, they're safe—or they move with it, which is the idea.

Turntables, by the way, are very old technology. They've been around a long time, and there are some very big ones. Any revolving restaurant, essentially, is a turntable. That size would be what we'd need.

On the next page, you can see they are essentially built in pieces, which is very nice because you can bring pieces in and assemble them at a spot. It's not as though you'd have to bring it all at once. By the way, we call this a buoyant aircraft rotating terminal, a BART. What we envision is a main supply base that the airship would leave from—essentially, wherever the roads stop. In Manitoba, a place like Thompson, where the roads stop, would be the supply base. You'd truck to there, then you'd go on by airship from that point. You'd have BARTs in the various communities outside and go from there.

On the next slide, we can see the impacts of an airship. We refer to this as an electric airship. We're looking at electric motors, as opposed to engines. They're much more reliable in the cold. In fact, we're looking at an airship that we'd power eventually with hydrogen, an airship powered by fuel cells with zero carbon emissions. We're going to be one of the few who will be immune to any of these pollution charges, because we won't have any.

What can we see in terms of the impacts? In terms of northern food security, $4.99 for a kilogram of bananas was the price just this past spring in St. Theresa Point. It's only 200 kilometres north of Winnipeg, but because it's beyond the roads, the prices are high.

It's certainly an opportunity for sustainable development, new employment in manufacturing, national security, improved health. If you're poor and you're in a place with high food prices, the best bang for your buck is sugar and fat. If you live on that long enough, you'll have diabetes, and that's a problem we see in much of the north, and of course with the ice roads.

Moving on to the general benefits of the airship, we think this could be a $10-billion increase in the Canadian economy. It would come from various places—certainly from mining. Just a 5% increase in the mining capacity would be a big part of that. We could see reduced government subsidies for the north. It would make anything done in the north less expensive, because the costs would be lower. It would improve our sovereignty. It would add investment and export sales and new opportunities for transport of things such as wind turbine blades, which you cannot move now with any other means because they're so long.

Finally, of course, there's climate change—

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

Barry, I'm sorry. As you may have noticed, there are lights blinking. That means we're being called to Parliament for a vote.

4:45 p.m.

Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Barry Prentice

Oh, my goodness.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

How inconvenient. I know.

4:45 p.m.

Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Barry Prentice

It's more important. It's more important than me, maybe.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

Wayne, go ahead.

October 31st, 2018 / 4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

We have 29 minutes, so why don't we let him finish?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

I was wondering, if we have 29 minutes, if we could have five to 10 minutes from our second presenters, because we're not going to be back for any questions. We could then submit written questions.

4:45 p.m.

Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Barry Prentice

Sure, I'd be happy to do that.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

We all apologize.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

Yes, of course.

Are we saying that we're going to do both presentations?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Ten minutes of the second, and that's—

4:45 p.m.

Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Barry Prentice

Could I just go to one slide first?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

Only one, Barry.

4:45 p.m.

Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Barry Prentice

It's the one that shows what I think is really—

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

Could we have quiet, please?

4:45 p.m.

Professor, Supply Chain Management, Universitiy of Manitoba, As an Individual

Dr. Barry Prentice

This is the one that has the lower-cost unique capabilities for the north. This is the one that you have here. The workhorse for the north right now is the Cessna Caravan, which will carry about one and a half tonnes, and the charges are about $2 a kilogram. We think that with even a small airship of 15 tonnes, we can lower those costs to $1 a kilogram and we can carry all sorts of things that you can't carry now. You can't get a pickup truck into a Cessna, nor a large piece of timber for construction, as well as food products. Things like Cheerios and eggs are very expensive. If I can give you one takeaway—

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk

Okay.