ÍæÔ˲ʼ´Ê±±È·Ö

Table of contents

• Introduction
• Client requirements
• CCG response to clients’ input and fleet deployment plan
• Block commitments
• Atlantic region engagement
  • Engagement sessions
  • List of invitees
  • Introduction and methodology
  • Needs and priorities
• The Great Lakes engagement
  • Engagement sessions
  • List of invitees
  • Introduction and methodology
  • Needs and priorities
• Arctic region engagement
  • Engagement sessions
  • List of invitees
  • Introduction and methodology
  • Needs and priorities
• St. Lawrence region engagement
  • Engagement sessions
  • List of invitees
  • Introduction and methodology
  • Needs and priorities
• Annex 1: Icebreaking Requirements 2023-28 engagement sessions questions

Introduction

The ÍæÔ˲ʼ´Ê±±È·Ö (CCG) has conducted engagement sessions with both Indigenous and industry representatives along Canada’s coast line, where ice is present, to develop the 2023-2028 Client Icebreaking Requirements. Indigenous and Industry engagement is a crucial component for the delivery of icebreaking services. Their input helps guide how icebreaking resources and assets are organized. This is important as the CCG has finite resources that must be efficiently deployed to support navigation through ice covered waters and marine commerce. The Client Icebreaking Requirements compiles information gathered from engagement sessions, provides a CCG response, and contains the CCG block commitments.

The 2017-22 Icebreaker Requirements document outlines the needs and priorities of industry stakeholders and summarizes the ÍæÔ˲ʼ´Ê±±È·Ö’s (CCG) Icebreaking Services’ capacity and planning with regards to these priorities. The document is revisited every five years to reflect changing environmental, economic, and capacity factors. Through 2022 and part of 2023, CCG engaged with both industry representatives and Indigenous communities, to the best of CCG’s abilities, to learn what they wanted from Icebreaking Services. Both groups were able to question, analyze, inform, suggest changes to existing services, and propose new aspects. The input gathered will inform future fleet deployments, in-season fleet organization, and facilitate new and on-going Indigenous and industry engagement.

In the majority of engagement sessions, respondents requested additional icebreaking assets. Other topics of interest were performance reporting transparency, alterations to existing deployment dates, and collaboration with the United States Coast Guard, to name a few. Indigenous communities were included in this process for the first time. During Indigenous engagement sessions, attendees familiarized themselves with the program and its services, and built new relationships. CCG looks forward to working with these groups in the future and learning about their perspectives on icebreaking services. For all of these sessions, CCG produced What We Heard (WWH) documents for each region. Below are summaries of each region’s sessions and the complete WWHs can be found in the annex.

Unfortunately, the Icebreaking Services was not able to engage with Arctic Indigenous communities. For the Arctic region, engagement guidelines require that all engagement requests are brought to regional governance tables before having focused one-on-one meetings with Inuit, First Nation or Métis partners. Due to capacity challenges, none of the regional governance tables were able to be conducted within the timeframe of our engagement for the Icebreaker Requirements. However, the Arctic Region in collaboration with the Ice Office maintains an open line of communication with Indigenous groups in the Arctic and the region and may provide answers or direct feedback when required. CCG is committed to working with Arctic Indigenous communities.

Client requirements

Great Lakes sector

Greater icebreaking resources were requested for the Great Lakes. Engagement partners view two CCG icebreakers as insufficient. Industry made their concerns clear, explaining the compounding effects of vessel traffic delays on the Canadian economy. Concern for the age of the two icebreakers was also expressed. CCG was informed that clients are delaying their request for icebreaking support as they anticipated icebreakers would be unavailable at that time. Industry representatives urged the CCG to devote icebreaking assets to break ice exclusively, rather than divert an icebreaker to attend to marine infrastructure, such as aids to navigation.

Concerns were raised over the non-aligned service standards and metrics used by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the CCG. Industry encouraged the two organizations to work together on these fronts. General interest in re-examining or introducing new performance measures was brought forward, particularly on crew changes, work performed by icebreaking assets that was not escorting vessels, and refining existing performance measures. Indigenous groups were consulted and they requested more information on icebreaking services so that they could become better acquainted with this service.

Overall, engagement partners were pleased with the improvements in the availability of ice information, daily ice calls, ice office response times, and helicopter support. Some engagement partners were grateful for the CCG’s efforts to engage and continue with the requirements document.

St. Lawrence River, Saguenay, and Gulf

Partners informed CCG that vessel traffic is increasing and the composition of the traffic is changing with larger vessels entering Canada’s waterways. It is anticipated that winter cruises are also on the horizon. Several ports are expanding their facilities to meet these factors.

The major concern raised by this region was that there was not enough icebreaking assets available and its negative effects on the Canadian economy. Several members expressed the need for greater CCG icebreaking capacity, and for a clear schedule for the introduction of newly built or acquired CCG icebreakers.

In regards to requests made to the CCG, industry sought a yearly icebreaking performance metrics review along with a year-end recap where CCG, industry, and Indigenous groups can discuss what practices were effective or ineffective. Industry partners requested more frequent performance metrics released during the season. Additionally, while industry acknowledged that there were improvements in the delivery of ice chart information, there were concerns that, at times, CCG could be faster responding to ice information requests.

Indigenous partners requested that vessels’ progress through Canadian waterways would be available on the Enhanced Marine Situational Awareness (EMSA). Otherwise, Indigenous groups used engagement sessions as an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Icebreaking Services and how they can contact the CCG.

Atlantic

The Atlantic stakeholders were generally happy with the overall level of information and statistics they received annually, but felt that the information could be disseminated more widely. They also suggested that bi-weekly performance reporting would be helpful. There were discussions on the expanding of icebreaking seasons in particular areas, as well.

Two Indigenous engagement sessions were held. In both sessions, the members took the opportunity to learn about Icebreaking Services, pose questions about the program’s operations, and discussed how they could make use of the program’s services.

Arctic

Overall, Industry was content with existing services provided, ice information shared, and the degree of communication from CCG. As seen from other regions feedback, there was a desire to have more icebreaking assets available in the Arctic as vessel traffic is forecasted to increase due to the combinations of growing community populations, mine expansion projects, climate change causing inclement weather patterns, and increased use of the Arctic as a shipping route. In particular, the importance of reliable icebreaking was stressed in relation to its role in Arctic community resupply. Gaps in icebreaking availability in a difficult ice year would have negative impacts on the quality of life in these communities.

CCG response to clients’ input and fleet deployment plan

CCG’s Icebreaking Services thanks all those who participated in our engagement sessions. We see our partnerships with both industry and Indigenous communities as integral to ensuring that Icebreaking Services operations are provided efficiently and as safely as possible.

The Government of Canada is committed to the construction and acquisition of new icebreakers as well as vessel life extension operations to sustain the existing fleet. Recently, the CCG delivered several retrofitted icebreakers to its fleet. This will enable the CCG to better manage anticipated increases in Canadian vessel traffic and be well positioned to manage future CCG vessel life extension projects. Construction of a new heavy icebreaker is ongoing as is the vessel life extension program for other icebreakers.

Moving forward, CCG will not be committing specific classes of icebreaking vessels to an icebreaking service zone. This will enable CCG to be better positioned to dynamically adjust its fleet to address vessel traffic patterns and the changing ice conditions. In the Block Commitment section below, a table explains the icebreaking fleet planned coverage by area and vessel presence duration. Please note, this table is a guideline that describes where icebreakers are planned to be during the icebreaking seasons. Vessel traffic, client needs, and ice conditions will be considered throughout the icebreaking season and the fleet placement will be adjusted accordingly to provide the best service possible.

Many of our partners requested that performance reporting be made more available to users. Currently, CCG only produces icebreaking performance reporting in the Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s annual Departmental Results Report. CCG is in favour of publishing its icebreaking performance analysis every two weeks after an icebreaking season commences on the on the e-Navigation portal. CCG is always striving to improve its performance measurements and is concerned to learn that vessels are withholding requests for services. This practice has a negative impact on CCG’s ability to accurately measure its own performance as no request was received and can not be recorded. The fee remission policy is an incentive for mariners to place a request for service. If CCG is late, industry will be reimbursed a portion of their contribution to the icebreaking fee and CCG will gather accurate data on its services. Furthermore, CCG acknowledges the request from clients that alignment with the USCG is needed. Work is underway with the USCG to develop means to better align resources and performance measurements.

Industry requested that during the winter season, icebreakers focus exclusively on icebreaking services and should not be reassigned to maintain navigational infrastructure. The CCG is mandated to maintain navigation infrastructure throughout the year. Icebreakers will still be required to perform a variety of services for mariners, which includes search and rescue, environmental response, icebreaking, and aids to navigation maintenance.

The Indigenous engagement sessions were viewed as beneficial as CCG made new partnerships and those partners learned about Icebreaking Services. CCG looks forward to meeting with these groups in the future and how they will help shape the program’s operations.

Block commitments

Atlantic region engagement

Icebreaking, Marine Navigation Services

Engagement sessions

• April 6, 2022, Shipping Federation of Canada
• April 8, 2022, FedNav
• May 26, 2022, Woodward
• September 7, 2022, Confederation of Mainland Mi’Kmaq
• October 19, 2022, Labrador Innu
• January 11, 2023, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union

List of invitees

• Association of Canadian Port Authorities
• Atlantic Pilotage Authority
• Chamber of Marine Commerce
• Confederation of Mainland Mi’Kmaq
• FedNav
• Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
• Labrador Innu
• Marine Atlantic
• Provincial Ferries
• Shipping Federation of Canada
• Transport Canada
• Woodward

Introduction and methodology

In order to capture the current and emerging needs and priorities of our diverse stakeholders, the CCG held one-on-one engagement sessions with key stakeholder groups. CCG also engaged with Indigenous groups and communities adjacent to waters where icebreaking operations are provided to ensure their perspectives and needs were reflected. In total, 21 engagement sessions were conducted from April 2022 to February 2023. The sessions were in an interview format, starting with a service overview and then interview questions followed. Session questions are found in Annex 1.

This report outlines what we heard in the Atlantic engagement sessions. The input that we received is divided into the following themes: icebreaking assets and capacity, and icebreaking operations, response times, block commitments, regional specific topics, provision of ice information, anticipated user changes, and communication and Indigenous engagement.

Needs and priorities

Icebreaking assets and capacity

First and foremost, stakeholders emphasized the need for more icebreakers and greater icebreaking capacity. While there have been some delays in receiving services in recent years, generally, however, these have been infrequent and are within reasonable expectations for icebreaking users. The primary concern is the Atlantic has experienced low levels of ice in recent years. This could change and with its current fleet, Icebreaking Services would be severely under capacity in a difficult ice year.

Icebreaking operations

We received consistent feedback, in Atlantic region and others, that despite the perceived lack of CCG resources, Coast Guard personnel do an excellent job of carrying out operations and communicating with stakeholders.

Response times

Generally, participants support the standard icebreaking response times in the Atlantic, with a few exceptions.

The Shipping Federation of Canada noted that, given the weekly cargo ship transit into Corner Brook, the existing twelve hour response time for the west coast of Newfoundland might impede their operations. However, given the long distances involved in that area, CCG explained that it may not be feasible to significantly shorten the 12 hour response time benchmark.

Woodward asked about response times for fishing harbour breakouts, and CCG explained that response times are not designated for specific types of icebreaking operations, such as fishing harbour breakouts. Instead, response times refer only to the time between a request for service is placed and the arrival of the icebreaker at the requested location. However, the Icebreaking Levels of Service does set cascading priorities for different types of operations.

Block commitments

For planning purposes, participants reviewed CCG’s existing block commitments included in the 2017-22 Icebreaker Requirements document, which outline when and where icebreakers are anticipated to be.

The CCG uses block commitments as a planning tool and is not a static set of dates for when an icebreaking assets will be in a zone. For example, if severe ice conditions persist in a zone beyond the usual dates, icebreaking will continue to service that zone. FedNav agrees that block commitments are not static, and instead establish deployment schedules on an annual basis. The National Marine Advisory Board Marine Navigation sub-committee was suggested as an appropriate venue for this review.

CCG received the following input on block commitments from the Atlantic engagement sessions:

• Newfoundland and Labrador
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada noted that it has been helpful to divide the Strait of Belle Isle zone up into two parts.
  • Woodwards suggested that the Goose Bay zone should start earlier, from May 15th to May 1st.
  • It was noted that the northeast coast of Labrador occasionally sees ice persisting past the block commitment date of June 1st, but this happens infrequently enough that June 1st remains a reliable benchmark.
• Maritimes
  • As ice is fairly rare in the Halifax areas, there was support to drop this as a block commitment zone and instead providing the service when needed.

Strait of Belle Isle

The Strait of Belle Isle lies between Labrador and the northern tip of Newfoundland and is the closest point between the island of Newfoundland and mainland Canada. It is traversed by multiple shipping companies and ferries. Due to its alignment and geographical location, it is affected by Arctic ice drifting southerly. The narrowing effect means the strait is subject to extreme ice conditions from February to as late as May, making unassisted transit impossible for almost all ships.

The Shipping Federation of Canada would like advance notice from the CCG on the opening dates for the Strait of Belle Isle channel in an effort to help industry save time and fuel.

Due to the unpredictability of the ice in that sector, it is difficult for the CCG to provide advanced notice of when the channel is anticipated to close. Icebreaking Services will investigate methods to convey advanced notification prior to the closing.

Provision of ice information

Participants gave the Icebreaking Services’ Ice Office and its provision of ice information positive reviews. They saw this as a significant improvement over previous years. In particular, participants appreciated the accessibility of the Ice Office through daily ice calls and the usefulness of the Omnicast 2.0 webcam system expansion.

Communication and engagement

Participants expressed their appreciation for Icebreaking Services’ transparency and commitment to open communication, in particular through its daily ice calls and engagement sessions.

Generally, participants were happy with the overall level of information and statistics they received annually, but felt that the information could be disseminated more widely. In this regard, it was suggested that bi-weekly icebreaking operations data reports could be posted online along with end of season reports, and relevant sections of Icebreaking Services’ annual report.

Indigenous engagement

Two engagement sessions were held, one with the Confederation of Mainland Mi’kmaq and the other with representatives of Labrador Innu. In both sessions, the members had several questions about CCG’s services and how they might benefit from the use of icebreaking. The sessions served to familiarize the communities with our services and open future lines of communication.

The Great Lakes engagement

Icebreaking, Marine Navigation Services

Engagement sessions

• April 6, 2022, Shipping Federation of Canada
• April 6, 2022, Chamber of Marine Commerce
• April 8, 2022, Algoma
• May 2, 2022, Lake Carriers Association
• May 26, 2022, Canadian Steamship Lines
• June 13, 2022, Indigenous Groups: Michipicoten, Saugeen Ojibway, Chippewas of Nawash, Anishinabek Nation, M’chiggeng, Wasauksing, Niagara Region Métis Council
• October 6, 2022, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority

List of invitees

• Algoma
• Association of Canadian Port Authorities
• Canadian Steamship Lines
• Chamber of Marine Commerce
• Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
• Indigenous Groups: Michipocoten, Saugeen Ojibway, Chippewas of Nawash, Anishinabek Nation, M’chiggeng, Wasauksing, Niagara Region Métis Council
• McKeil Marine
• Port of Goderich
• Port of Thunder Bay
• Lake Carriers Association
• Lower Lakes Shipping
• Shipping Federation of Canada

Introduction and methodology

The Icebreaker Requirements outlines the needs and priorities of industry stakeholders and summarizes the ÍæÔ˲ʼ´Ê±±È·Ö’s (CCG) Icebreaking Services’ capacity and planning with regard to these priorities. The document is revisited every five years to reflect changing environmental, economic, and capacity factors.

In order to capture the current and emerging needs and priorities of our diverse stakeholders, the CCG held one-on-one engagement sessions with key stakeholder groups. CCG also engaged with Indigenous groups and communities adjacent to waters where icebreaking operations are provided to ensure their perspectives and needs were reflected. In total, 21 engagement sessions were conducted from April 2022 to February 2023. The sessions were in an interview format, starting with a service overview and then interview questions followed. Session questions are found in Annex 1.

This report outlines what we heard in our Great Lakes engagement sessions. The input that we received is divided into the following themes: icebreaking assets and capacity, and icebreaking operations, response times, block commitments, regional specific topics, provision of ice information, anticipated user changes, and communication and Indigenous engagement.

Needs and priorities

Icebreaking assets and capacity

Industry members highlighted the need for greater icebreaker coverage in the Great Lakes to avoid major shipping delays. Two icebreakers is deemed inadequate given the large zone. Concerns were raised regarding the current icebreakers condition, age, and risk of service interruptions. Participants noted a declining trend in the overall number of icebreakers servicing the Great Lakes since the 1970s. Industry representatives stressed the negative effects of service interruptions and how delays of shipping commodities have compounding effects on the overall Canadian economy.

The Great Lakes area is a difficult icebreaking zone, given the large area and highly variable ice patterns. Although the last few years have been comparatively mild in terms of ice levels, many felt that an extreme ice year would be especially damaging given the current planned icebreaker coverage in the area.

Concerns were also raised over CCG’s prioritization. In particular, Canadian Steamship Lines (CSL), Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, Algoma, and Lake Carriers Association (LCA) prefer CCG to prioritize icebreaking-capable vessels for icebreaking instead of other programs. Many prefer using Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) over buoys and therefore do not consider buoy maintenance a high priority. In addition to larger ships, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority saw a benefit in the use of smaller vessels, such as mid-shore patrol vessels to conduct non-icebreaking operations, and would like to see more of them.

Icebreaking operations

Given the perceived lack of icebreaking assets, stakeholders were impressed with the level of support CCG offered and praised staff for their efforts and the strong personal relationships they maintained.

Response times

In general, members agreed with the current response time marker of 8 hours in the Great Lakes. Some considered 8 hours to be unrealistically low considering the number of resources and distances to cover in the region. Some shipping companies may in practice delay their requests for service as they anticipate that icebreaker support will not be available and since a request is not made. Fee remissions were cited as a possible incentive to place calls regardless of icebreaker availability to provide more accurate metrics on response times.

Block commitments

Participants reviewed CCG’s block commitments (2017-22), which outline when and where within the region icebreakers are anticipated to be deployed. Few changes were suggested for the Great Lakes block commitments. It was noted that April 15 was too early of an end date in 2022 for Thunder Bay.

Some participants felt the block commitments should not be governed by dates but instead by conditions. Several industry participants expressed the need to align dates with the St. Lawrence Seaway closing and opening dates and to streamline with the Soo locks. The St. Mary’s commitments were focused on the closing of the Soo Locks but it was noted it should include the opening as well. In Lake Huron, Algoma suggested pushing the end of the season from March 15 to March 30.

Harbour breakouts

The Lake Carriers Association (LCA) highlighted the issue of tug companies requiring icebreaker assistance to break them out and suggested that CCG icebreakers focus on clearing transit ways and leave the industry to ensure the docks are cleared.

Service standards in shared waterways

Several shipping companies indicated a need for greater alignment between the service standards and metrics provided by the CCG and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on the Great Lakes. There are concerns about the USCG’s ability to work at night and the smaller USCG ships.

The LCA noted that the current metrics used by both organizations appear to favour Canadian ports over American ones and there is the sense that CCG resources prioritize Canadian ports, while US icebreaking resources cover shared waterways. Some members expressed frustration with the USCG’s tiered icebreaking system, which is perceived to have resulted in a reduction of services.

Provision of ice information

In general, stakeholders were pleased with the current provision of ice information and felt that CCG has made a concerted effort to improve communication with its stakeholders. Respondents were pleased with the daily ice calls as a venue to raise any specific concerns and they felt they could contact the Ice Operations Office and receive prompt and considered responses to their questions or concerns. The new ice webcam monitoring systems are being used extensively by several companies and the helicopter imagery, when available, was considered to be of exceptional quality and detail.

Anticipated user changes

Shipping companies anticipate that their operational season will be extended given the trends of lower ice coverage and a longer season will require more icebreaking support. There was concern that the construction of USCG polar icebreakers would draw USCG crew away from USCG Great Lakes icebreakers, further exacerbating delays.

Communication and engagement

Several participants expressed appreciation that their needs are being heard and noted the importance of one-on-one sessions to speak openly on a variety of topics. It was suggested to meet at the end of the season with the USCG to review the icebreaking season.

The Chamber of Marine Commerce expressed the need for better metrics and data collection to support the best fleet mix which would lead to more supply arrangements or interim vessels in lieu of new icebreakers. They also requested more statistics on crew changes. By carefully following these statistics, CCG might find ways to carry out crew changes more efficiently. The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority requested more accessible statistics on commissioning and decommissioning buoys to better plan for decommissioned buoys. Some members asked for exact response times and average wait times to be recorded, and shared with Industry. These metrics are currently recorded and shared with industry at the annual Great Lakes Marine Advisory Board and Great Lakes Icebreaking meetings. The Canadian Marine Advisory Council and Marine Advisory Board were noted as useful venues to receive information from the CCG, as well.

Indigenous engagement

The CCG met with some Indigenous groups in the Great Lakes area collectively as part of an information session to provide input on their common needs and priorities with regard to icebreaking. The session helped to increase familiarity with CCG’s Icebreaking Services, inform how Indigenous groups can request services, and obtain ice information. In particular, we discussed the inquiry of icebreaking support for a new ferry in Michipicoten Island and the possibility of breaking out the ice bridge there to prevent coyotes crossing from the mainland to the island.

Arctic region engagement

Icebreaking, Marine Navigation Services

Engagement sessions

• April 6, 2022, Shipping Federation of Canada
• April 8, 2022, FedNav
• May 26, 2022, Woodward
• July 6, 2022, Arctic Ice Pilots
• October 14, 2022, Desgagnés (PetroNav)
• January 13, 2023, Desgagnés (Transarctik)
• February 15, 2023, Fathom Marine
• February 20, 2023, Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping

List of invitees

• Arctic Ice Pilots
• Association of Canadian Port Authorities
• Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators
• Desgagnés (PetroNav)
• Desgagnés (Transarctik)
• Fathom Marine
• FedNav
• Government of Northwest Territories
• Government of Nunavut
• McKeil Marine
• Nunavut Planning Commission
• Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping
• Shipping Federation of Canada
• Transport Canada
• Western Arctic Territorial Transportation Authority
• Woodward

Introduction and methodology

The ÍæÔ˲ʼ´Ê±±È·Ö’s (CCG’s) 2017-22 Icebreaker Requirements document outlines the needs and priorities of industry stakeholders and summarizes the CCG’s Icebreaking Services’ capacity and planning with regard to these priorities. The document is revisited every five years to reflect changing environmental, economic and capacity factors.

In order to capture the current and emerging needs and priorities of our diverse stakeholders, the CCG held one-on-one engagement sessions with key stakeholder groups. CCG also engaged with Indigenous groups and communities adjacent to waters where icebreaking operations are provided to ensure their perspectives and needs were reflected. In total, 21 engagement sessions were conducted from April 2022 to February 2023. The sessions were in an interview format, starting with a service overview and then interview questions followed. Session questions are found in Annex 1.

This report outlines what we heard in our Arctic engagement sessions. The input received is divided into the following themes: icebreaking assets, capacity, icebreaking operations, response times, block commitments, community resupply, the northwest passage, provision of ice information, any anticipated changes in client activity, and on Coast Guard’s communication and engagement with our partners and service users.

Needs and priorities

Icebreaking assets and capacity

The Arctic region, in particular, has experienced a large increase in traffic in the last twenty years and many industry members felt that the current CCG icebreaking fleet has not kept pace with this growth. This growth is mainly attributed to both increasing populations in Arctic communities and increasing mine expansion and exploration. Participants felt that CCG seems more focused on renewing its fleet when it should be strategizing for growth. However, it was noted that icebreaker response times have improved over the past decade.

Some participants sought clarification on how icebreaking requests are prioritized. Fathom Marine raised the case of an icebreaker being diverted to rescue a single sailboat. While CCG’s priorities remain emergency and rescue operations, it may be more appropriate for the CCG auxiliary to respond in such cases.

Multiple stakeholders identified the usefulness of a medium icebreaker with a helicopter on-board in Arctic waters. Transarctik identified the need to replace the large icebreaker that currently operates in the Arctic.

Icebreaking operations

As with all regions, the consensus was that the Coast Guard performs well despite limited available assets.

FedNav noted that crew change frequency increasing from six to four weeks has caused some difficulties, but they appreciate the need for a higher frequency to reduce the length of voyages for crew members.

Response times

All respondents agreed that the current response time of 10 hours throughout the Arctic is an unrealistic benchmark. There was unanimous support for the proposed increase to a 24 hours response time to reflect the vastness of the area.

Block commitments

Participants reviewed CCG’s block commitments, which outline when and where within the region icebreakers are anticipated to be deployed. CCG uses block commitments as a planning tool and do not provide rigid dates for when Icebreaking will be present. For example, if severe ice conditions persist in a zone beyond the usual dates, icebreaking will continue to service that zone.

Woodward expects to conduct community resupply in Pond Inlet as early as July 9, however the current block commitment date is set at August 10. The opening will have to respect the requests of communities in the area that prohibit shipping until ice conditions are below 3/10 in concentration.

Several participants made suggested changes to the opening and closing of the Arctic icebreaking season. Fathom Marine noted that the current closing date of October 20 is too early for the Cambridge Bay area as their operations continue as late as October 20. Other participants suggested that the start of operations in Hudson Bay should begin July 1st. The end of the Foxe Basin operations should be moved from September 15 to September 31. It was requested that the start of Hudson Strait operations should begin earlier than the current date of June 22. Transarctik noted that if they can start earlier in this area then they could finish their operations earlier. Icebreaking Services usually maintains assets in the area during that time, and will facilitate operations when community and weather conditions call for it.

Community resupply

Several stakeholders raised the issue of accelerated population growth in Arctic communities, which is expected to continue at an exponential rate, and thereby increasing the demand for resupply shipments. In general, there are not many plans to increase the infrastructure in these communities, so the ships themselves will likely not be increasing in size.

Community resupply was flagged as one of the key reasons why it is important for CCG’s icebreaking fleet to keep pace with growth in the Arctic. It was emphasized that missing a shipment of fuel, food, or other essential supplies could be disastrous for communities.

Northwest passage

Desgagnés (Petronav) has noted that transits through the Northwest Passage have become much more common in the last fifteen years. In addition, it is predicted that cruise ship traffic will increase in the coming years and thus the concern that limited CCG assets in Arctic waters will be prioritized for search and rescue purposes and not icebreaking.

Provision of ice information

Overall, members were impressed with the current level of ice information services. In particular, stakeholders appreciated the openness and commitment to transparency on the part of CCG.

A common issue raised was the delay in time between when the ice charts are made available and when the satellite images are actually taken. On average, stakeholders said they received the data about twenty-four hours after the images are taken, within which time ice conditions can change dramatically, especially when there are heavy winds. However, respondents noted that when there is a specific operation and the ice specialist has a more focused area to monitor, the information received is very accurate. FedNav, however, noted that it would be useful to have more detailed images for the zone between Pond Inlet and Milne Inlet. CCG explained that the observed delay is due to the need to manually revise the satellite images to be useful however CCG is looking into machine learning to speed up this process.

Anticipated user changes

With increased mining activity and international shipping demand, and the growth of Arctic communities, it is predicted that overall traffic will increase significantly in the Arctic. Further, warming conditions in the Arctic due to climate change, as well as increased fuel prices, have raised international interest in Arctic transits. With these considerations in mind, Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic is predicted to become a growing concern.

Communication and engagement

Stakeholders felt the icebreaking performance reporting available is open and transparent. This is an important concern because they feel transparent reporting will show the need for more CCG icebreaking assets.

Indigenous engagement

The CCG was not able to meet with Arctic Indigenous communities. The Ice Office and the Arctic Engagement Team, however, maintains an open line of communication with several Indigenous communities in the Arctic and is ready to respond to any concerns they wish to raise. Furthermore, the Arctic Marine Advisory Board is a venue where we communicate regularly with Indigenous communities. CCG is committed to continue to work with our Arctic partners to ensure services are provided effectively and are aligned to Arctic Indigenous needs.

St. Lawrence region engagement

Icebreaking, Marine Navigation Services

Engagement sessions

• April 6, 2022, Shipping Federation of Canada
• April 6, 2022, Chamber of Marine Commerce
• April 8, 2022, Algoma
• April 8, 2022, FedNav
• May 26, 2022, Canadian Steamship Lines
• June 8, 2022 and June 17, 2022, Indigenous groups: Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Mi’Kmaw Maliseet, Micmac de Gespeg, Mi’gmawei Mawiomi, Essipit Innu, Pessamit Innu, and Waban-aki
• September 22, 2022, St. Lawrence Economic Development Council (SODES)
• October 7, 2022, Laurentian Pilotage Authority
• October 14, 2022, Desgagnés (PetroNav)
• November 8, 2022, Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway

List of invitees

• Association of Canadian Port Authorities
• Algoma
• Canadian Steamship Lines
• Chamber of Marine Commerce
• Corporation des pilotes de Bas St. Laurent
• CTMA
• Desgagnés (PetroNav)
• FedNav
• Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway
• Indigenous groups: Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Mi’Kmaw Maliseet, Micmac de Gespeg, Mi’gmawei Mawiomi, Essipit Innu, Pessamit Innu, and Waban-aki
• Laurentian Pilotage Authority
• Montreal Port Authority
• Port Saguenay
• Société des traversiers de Québec
• Shipping Federation of Canada
• St. Lawrence Economic Development Council (SODES)
• Transport Canada

Introduction and methodology

The 2017-22 Icebreaker Requirements outlines the needs and priorities of industry stakeholders and summarizes the ÍæÔ˲ʼ´Ê±±È·Ö’s (CCG) Icebreaking Services’ capacity and planning with regards to these priorities. The document is revisited every 5 years to reflect changing environmental, economic and capacity factors.

In order to capture the current and emerging needs and priorities of our diverse stakeholders, the CCG held one-on-one engagement sessions with key stakeholder groups. CCG also engaged with Indigenous groups and communities adjacent to waters where icebreaking operations are provided to ensure their perspectives and needs were reflected. In total, 21 engagement sessions were conducted from April 2022 to February 2023. The sessions were in an interview format, starting with a service overview and then interview questions followed. Session questions are found in Annex 1.

This report outlines what we heard during our engagement sessions with stakeholders and Indigenous groups in the St. Lawrence sector. The input that we received is divided into the following themes: icebreaking assets and capacity, and icebreaking operations including response times, block commitments, ice operational offices and regional operations centers, St. Lawrence International Waterway, private contracts, and all-season buoys. Additionally, this report will discuss the provision of ice information, anticipated user changes, and communication and engagement.

Needs and priorities

Icebreaking assets and capacity

As with other regions, many groups highlighted the need for more icebreakers and icebreaking coverage in the St. Lawrence sector. There were also concerns with the condition and age of the current CCG icebreaker fleet. Companies stressed the compounding effects on the overall Canadian economy as a result of shipping delays.

With this in mind, several members expressed the need for a greater icebreaking budget for the CCG and a clear schedule for the introduction of newly built or acquired CCG icebreakers, to allow for better overall planning and accountability. They also stressed the importance of carefully selecting the shipyards to build future icebreakers.

Icebreaking operations

Given the perceived lack of icebreaking assets, stakeholders were impressed with the level of support CCG offered and praised staff for their efforts and the strong personal relationships they maintained.

Response times

In general, respondents were in agreement with CCG's icebreaker response times. As with the Great Lakes, it was noted that some companies/groups may in practice delay their request as they anticipate that icebreaker support will not be available. Fee remissions were cited as a possible incentive for users to request services regardless of icebreaker availability to provide more accurate metrics on response time success rates.

The St. Lawrence Economic Development Council (SODES) noted that they would benefit from shorter response times in the St. Lawrence, but given the current asset level within CCG Icebreaking, this would not be realistic. They hope that the CCG Fleet Renewal Plan will improve response times.

Block commitments

Block commitments are a planning tool and do not provide rigid dates for when icebreaking will be present. For example, if severe ice conditions persist in a zone beyond the usual dates, Icebreaking Services will continue to service that zone.

Several industry members expressed the need to align the icebreaking season with the St. Lawrence Seaway’s closing and opening dates. The opening is seen as especially critical for shipping. Industry members are anticipating an alignment of the Montreal / Lake Ontario Section (MLO) and Welland Canal on January 7 in the future. It is currently December 31.

Ice Operational Offices and Regional Operations Centres

The Laurentian Pilotage Authority raised concerns with the overall operational level of expertise and structure within CCG icebreaking operations. They felt that the Ice Operations Office disseminates information, but does not control operations, which creates too much reliance on the individual captains, particularly on Lac St. Pierre. They felt that going through Regional Operations Centres slows overall reaction time when ice conditions in the St. Lawrence are very dynamic and require a quick response.

St. Lawrence international waterway

FedNav noted that, as an international waterway, reputation is extremely important for the St. Lawrence River and therefore it is important to avoid major delays due to ice. Any problems will have repercussions for several years. For example, the blockage that occurred in 1993 still affects perceptions of how open the waterway is during the winter.

Private contracts

FedNav was happy with the agreement in place with Groupe Océan to help with port access. They felt that so far any gaps have been adequately filled through this relationship.

All-season buoys

The Laurentian Pilotage Authority noted that all-season buoys are helpful and have become even more useful since pilots implemented 24/7 navigation in winter. The availability of these buoys has a large impact on pilotage fees.

Provision of ice information

In general, stakeholders were pleased with the current provision of ice information and felt that CCG has made a concerted effort to improve communication with its stakeholders.

Respondents were pleased with the daily ice calls as a venue to raise any specific concerns and felt they could contact the Ice Operations Office and receive prompt and considered responses to their questions or concerns. Furthermore, many members appreciated the availability of new ice-webcam monitoring systems and made extensive use of these for their operations. Industry representatives were very pleased with the service from Ice Specialists in 2022 and found the weather routing to be outstanding.

Anticipated user changes

Industry members noted that trends show increasing traffic, emphasizing the need for more icebreaking assets. The Laurentian Pilotage Authority, for example, has been recording new traffic records each year. In addition to an increased number of ships, ship size is also continuously increasing.

Some members believed that traffic patterns could change as a result of the changing global political situation. Winter cruise ships in St. Lawrence and Saguenay Rivers might be coming in the future. In response to anticipated vessel traffic characteristics, the Port of Montreal will be expanding to a new terminal at Contrecœur. The Port of Trois-Rivieres is also expanding. Saguenay / Rio Tinto are opening new routes with Europe.

Communication and engagement

Several participants expressed their appreciation that their needs are being heard in this way and noted the importance of one-on-one sessions where they could speak openly on a variety of topics. Participants also acknowledges that the Canadian Marine Advisory Council and Marine Advisory Board were useful venues for receiving information.

The Chamber of Marine Commerce expressed the need for better metrics and data collection to support the best fleet mix which would lead to more supply arrangements or interim vessels in lieu of new icebreakers. They requested more statistics on crew changes. By carefully following these statistics, CCG might find ways to carry out crew changes more efficiently. The Shipping Federation of Canada raised the idea of posting bi-weekly Icebreaking Operations Data Information System (IODIS) reports for industry to review.

Indigenous engagement

There was a request about whether information related to vessel traffic could be shared with Indigenous communities along the St. Lawrence.

Indigenous groups were consulted together in group sessions, one in French and one in English. In this format, groups could share their common needs and priorities with regards to icebreaking and the sessions were useful to increase familiarity with CCG icebreaking services, inform how Indigenous groups can request services and obtain ice information.

Annex 1: Icebreaking Requirements 2023-28 engagement sessions questions

Tell us about yourself

• Who are you representing today?
• What are your operations?
• When/where do you operate?
• What are some general impression of CCG? Icebreaking?
• What are your impressions of Canadian Ice Service services offered through CCG? (Ice charting, daily briefs, specific routing)

Block commitments

• Are your operations currently covered by these commitments?
• What changes do you anticipate in the next 5 years?
• What changes do you anticipate long-term?
• What if anything would you like to see changed for the block commitments?
• For discussion: Marintel

Other levels of service issues

• Do you have any issues to raise with regards to CCG Levels of Service?
• How do you feel about how CCG reports back to industry? How could this be improved?

Any final questions / concerns?