Transport Committee on May 8th, 2012

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay.

You're saying that you really can't give me an estimate as to how many days. I know every year would be different, of course, but how would it compare to current air traffic that you would have up there, in terms of number of days that maybe wouldn't be useful or that you couldn't fly? Would be it comparable or better or worse?

[Stuart Russell]

Again, Barry, maybe you could default a bit more to that on the technical side.

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

Go ahead, Guy.

[Guy S. Ginter]

I can give you a practical example. I can tell you that De Beers loses 15 to 25 days annually on fog days. Imagine, if you will, a somewhat similar situation could exist with airships.

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

That's the one case where airships will not be affected. Fog will not affect an airship because you can come in and can sit there and come down vertically.

In one of the recent accidents we saw in northwestern Ontario, an airplane came in, he couldn't find the runway, and he ended up crashing on the lake. That was somewhat weather-related, but also pilot error.

In the case of an airship, you never put down that way because you can always put down vertically wherever you're going to go. So the fog isn't the problem the way it is with other things. Other issues may be more limiting, but our view is that they'd be about as useful as airplanes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Obviously that's a huge advantage with fog.

I can remember my son being in a hockey tournament up in northern B.C. and being stuck up there for several days as a result of fog. So there's a great example of an advantage, for sure.

Compared to air traffic or your other options, like ice roads or whatever other options there might be that could be developed, can you tell me some more advantages there might be to airships, what disadvantages there might be, and why those?

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

The major advantage is that you have year-round transport, and you have year-round transport with big bulky things. By pound or by kilo, one of the most expensive things to move to the north is rigid insulation. You can fill a whole truck full of insulation and have half a tonne. The airship's only restriction is weight, and they're so big. So you could have a big cargo bay and you could move big bulky things and awkward pieces. In the north, bringing in something that's pre-assembled reduces your costs a lot. For instance, you cannot bring in pre-formed rafters for houses today. Even the trucks sometimes wouldn't be big enough to bring that in for a community facility. Those are some of the advantages you'd have.

In terms of disadvantages, the only thing we see as a unique characteristic would be if you get caught in a snow and icing condition. Obviously there's a bit of work that needs to be done on how to make sure that the ice doesn't.... It won't affect the flying, but it makes the airship heavy. If it becomes heavy then it might not be able to carry as much freight or it might be forced to the ground. There are ideas on how to come around that. Again, this is part of the technological development that is required. We don't see it as a game stopper, but we can't just ignore it. It's got to be done.

I would also say something that might not be as obvious. We've talked a lot about the north. I think we should also talk about the south. This is a technology. If we can do it in Canada, we can export it around the world. We're not the only place with these kinds of difficult conditions. Certainly with places like the Amazon, the Congo, Siberia, and the outback, there are many places in the world that need this technology. I see this stimulating the aerospace communities in locations like Montreal and Toronto, and I'd hope Winnipeg, so we actually are building machines and selling them. So there's also something in this for the country beyond just serving the north, which we shouldn't completely ignore.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests for your testimony today. I find it very interesting. It is an area I'm not particularly familiar with, and I've certainly learned a lot today. I guess I have old impressions of what you've been discussing today. When you think of the ice roads up north, of course, then there's the television show. When you talk about airships, respectfully, I think of the Hindenburg, and that's probably not an example you'd want to bring up today. Then I think of the RE/MAX commercial Above the Crowd! with hot air balloons. Mine is a naive and stereotypical impression of the various aspects of the industry.

It's fascinating where you're going. Yours is an old technology that you're now trying to bring forward as a new technology in an interesting kind of way. I'm trying to understand the economics of it, because I heard you say there were 15 to 25 days of fog when De Beers couldn't work as a result. You've now indicated, I believe, Mr. Prentice, that an airship could work in fog.

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

Yes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

When I'm trying to understand the economics of it, with all the mining interests we have up north.... And by the way, I'll exclude the human condition. I think that's an important thing when we talk about various communities up north, but I'm excluding them only for the purpose of this part of the discussion. I'm trying to understand, though, with all the commercial opportunities that seem to exist in our far north, and I guess Alaska—and in the countries on the list you've given us—why this isn't a full-fledged industry today. Why are you talking about it as if it's the next best thing?

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

Your questions are valid. I would use windmills as a comparison. Windmills were used, obviously, in Holland—the old Dutch windmills—and we used small windmills across the prairies and many places to pump water and generate a little electricity up to about 1950, when we put in an electrical grid, and then they were all abandoned. We thought that was the end of them. Then the energy prices went up and all of a sudden we started seeing people investing in them—Denmark, in particular. Now there are wind turbines—a new name branded. It's the very same technology, but with modern materials and modern designs, and they're generating income and benefits all around the world.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Respectfully, I'm not sure that in the province of Ontario, where I'm from, the turbines are getting such good play these days, so I'll hold off on that as being the stellar example.

I just wonder, respectfully, because I think you are on an interesting path, what the business plan is. I've heard all the pros. You've been very candid, by the way. I liked what I heard you say today, that there is a lack of business confidence, that Transport Canada isn't saying anything as well, and that there are regulatory challenges. I get all that. But if there's no business confidence, why should we have confidence?

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

I guess that's a valid question. Maybe that's what the role of government is. Government does create stability. It creates the framework for business to prosper and go forward. Part of the role of government is to make sure the environment is correct so people will make investments and take chances. The last thing I'd like to see is a national airship company owned and operated by the state. We don't need that.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I would absolutely agree with that part.

There seems to be a lot of business acumen out there. I look at the three people here right now, and I think you're fairly scholarly. I think you understand the industry. But if there isn't the business confidence to do this, why should the government do it? I can only imagine, and I fear.... Without a business plan, I just don't see how it would work.

I guess my practical question is, have you created a business plan, and where is it?

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

No, we haven't created a business plan. I'm an academic. We have a small airship we built for research purposes to look at things, and we'll be going on that. We're sort of testing the system and challenging the way the regulations work with that. But setting up an aircraft business is a huge enterprise. It's a huge barrier to entry for anybody to get started—even just the regulations on such things as certification and operating an industry.

To answer your question on why you should care, the truth of the matter is that you're already paying. Money flows out of the treasury every year to maintain all the communities in the north. You're paying all the freight to bring things in, and when the ice roads fail you're paying even more to bring it in by small airplanes.

So we're suggesting that here's an opportunity to actually reduce the burden on government. Yes, there is a need to get started. How many transportation innovations started without any government support? The railways didn't start without any government support. The roads weren't built by the private sector. Certainly there were toll roads, but they were government concessions that allowed toll roads to have a monopoly. How many things in transportation have started without any government support?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there. I'm sorry.

I will allow one more question per party, if you like.

Monsieur Aubin, do you have one question?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I would like to know if you have had any discussions with either the Quebec government or private interests about this immense project that the Charest government is bringing forward, the Plan Nord, which could lead to a consortium of mining companies interested in investing in a project such as this.

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

I'm very interested in this possibility. There's been some indication to me that they'd like to have a meeting some time in August with the people in Quebec. That's still being worked out. I'm certainly aware of the issue in the development of the north. This is clearly a technology that would serve a huge part of Quebec.

Just as in other parts of the country, there's a large hinterland in the north that is not available or accessible by road today, so it makes sense. It makes double sense for Quebec, because you also have the largest aerospace centre in Canada. There would be an industry to employ people to build airships and use them in the north. So there's kind of a double reason why Quebec should be interested.

I met some time ago with people there, but this has been a long process. Even to reach the place where we're speaking to you today has taken ten years of effort to raise this topic and get currency with it. No offence to the raising of the Hindenburg, but that's something that's etched in everybody's brain. They think of airships and they think of the Hindenburg. That was 75 years ago. Cars and airplanes weren't safe 75 years ago. So we can't dismiss an industry or a technology on the basis of one accident a long time ago.

It's a matter of looking at why it hasn't happened, and it really comes down to economics. As long as we can do everything with existing airplanes and other transportation systems, we don't even have to think about this. But times have changed. We cannot get to where we want to go. It is costing us a huge amount of money. And by the way, it isn't just a lost opportunity for resources. We pay dearly in health care costs and out of other pockets to support the people in the north because of the bad transportation that exists there. So we're already paying the money; we're just saying let's do it in a different way to reduce that cost and make it a better world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Madame St-Denis, do you have a question?

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Prentice, you briefly raised an issue on which you didn't elaborate, the environment. What would be the advantages of airships over other modes of transport, such as trucks and airplanes, in terms of the environment?

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

There are several environmental issues that are important. The first one is that you can use alternative fuels, and they don't burn much fuel to begin with, so they should not emit much carbon.

It's quite conceivable to have an airship that would be fueled on hydrogen, because the gas tank is not an issue. They're very, very big already. So air pollution would be one issue.

The second one of course is this issue of building roads through virgin territories and what it does to the wildlife in those areas, and what kind of protest you get from the people who don't want to see you building through a park or natural area or the aboriginal land claims that are existing.

As well, once you punch a road through an area you create an opportunity for predators to move along those arteries—whether they be four-legged or two-legged—and the caribou get affected. We have threatened species where there are plans to build roads right now, and this is a restriction on them.

There are major environmental issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Poilievre, final question and comment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Transport Canada operates with a policy of technological neutrality. It doesn't pick technology and say this one is better than that one, or industry should go here and not there. It creates standard neutral regulations, which allow the best options to succeed and the worst ones to fail.

It's not going to be the role of the transportation department to step forward and urge industry to pursue one option or another. That being said, if there are built-in systematic disadvantages imposed by the absence of a regulatory framework—pilot licensing, cabotage protectionism—then I believe the department could work to solve those problems.

If you could provide it in writing, what we would need in order to make recommendations accordingly is a list of regulations that hinder you; a list of regulations that are needed; what transportation services the federal government purchases that airships could potentially provide; and finally, changes to airport policy that would allow our existing national airports, on a cost-recovery and user-pay basis, to make adjustments to their hangars to accommodate airships.

You don't have to do that now, but if you could provide us succinctly with that information we could potentially endorse it in our final report.

[Dr. Barry Prentice]

Thank you very much.

I just have one comment on that. The airports do not have any hangars, that I know of. All hangars are owned by the private airline companies, and of course none of those are suitable for airships. The airships can certainly operate at an airport—there's no restriction on doing that—and I believe they'd be quite happy to have the extra business.

I don't see the airports as being a restriction in any way.