Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2026

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Tod. It's very interesting.

My question is for Mr. Paquet.

Mr. Paquet, you were here for the previous presentation. I was trying to understand the economic analysis Transport Canada was undertaking. The details I got showed a logistical analysis and a technical analysis. I didn't understand the technical analysis.

Perhaps you understood it better and can unpack what the officials from Transport Canada told us. In your opinion, what type of technical analysis is Transport Canada doing?

[Mathieu Paquet]

You would have to ask the officials from Transport Canada. We didn't talk about it when we met.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

They were critical of your analysis. Would you like to respond to them?

[Mathieu Paquet]

Yes, I was a bit taken aback.

If you read our study, you will see that it has a lot of details on methodology. We were very transparent. We're open to working with them. We can redo some modelling if they wish.

I would say that in all the methodology choices in the report, we were consistently within the minimum threshold. We made extremely cautious choices at all times.

Assuming the six projects are undertaken and we meet again in five years' time, are we going to see similar results as those in the study? I think we'll have more striking results because our methodology choices were very cautious.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Just so I get this right, can you tell me whether your analysis took the economic development of the regions around the port into consideration?

[Mathieu Paquet]

No. All the impact levers like the ones you refer to were excluded from the analysis. In fact, the stakeholders we spoke with said that if the projects go forward, they would be more willing to invest and to increase economic activity. This could therefore contribute to the gross domestic product and tax revenue. However, this was excluded from the analysis because we did not want to speculate. We wanted to make cautious assumptions. I would even add that all additional investment expenditures were not taken into consideration. We were extremely cautious.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

I don't want you to speculate here, but nevertheless, I'm going to ask you the following question: Do I have any reason to believe that this economic development could result in higher numbers than the numbers you came up with?

[Mathieu Paquet]

You would be correct to assume that if other variables that were not factored into the equation were taken into consideration, the results would be higher.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Tell us about your findings.

[Mathieu Paquet]

In terms of added value, meaning gross domestic product, on an annual basis, the impacts from productivity gains from the six ports are as follows: The Quebec City project would add approximately $60 million to the real GDP, the Valleyfield project $5.2 million, the Picton project $26.9 million, the Hamilton project $10 million, the Windsor project $24.6 million and the Goderich project $4.5 million. We're therefore looking at recurrent impacts of approximately $130 million a year on real GDP just from productivity gains. I believe the impact on federal government tax revenues would be approximately $79 million.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

That's for six ports.

[Mathieu Paquet]

Yes.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

How many ports in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region could benefit from the measures you referenced in your study?

[Mathieu Paquet]

That's a good question. I'm sure other ports may be interested, but the study only focused on the six ports that took part in the study.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Okay. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Don't I get the rest of his time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Well—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

I was joking.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. Paquet, I was a bit uncomfortable earlier during the testimony from Transport Canada. I felt as though they were passing judgment about the depth of your study. You do represent a well-known firm. I think you're working on the economic benefits of Alto, which means you are well known within the government.

I would therefore ask you the following question: Do you think your economic study is pessimistic, realistic or optimistic?

[Mathieu Paquet]

I would certainly say that it's a very cautious study, for the reasons I started to list earlier. If we look at the time scale for the projected impacts, we're certainly on the conservative, more cautious side of the time scale. We included it in the study. We were very transparent when we spoke about the more technical elasticity factors. For example, the literature gave us two numbers, namely, 0.6 and more than 2.0. We could have taken the median value or the higher value, and that would have been fine, but we chose the lowest value, which gives slightly lower results. As I said, we were extremely cautious.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Perfect.

Could you explain something for me? Earlier, in my discussion with Transport Canada, I tried to bring up the fact that the Port of Valleyfield is close to, and complements, the Port of Montreal. Can you tell us about this?

[Mathieu Paquet]

I listened in and I think you gave a very good example. As part of the response, I would say that the Port of Montreal is a high-volume port, and I think the Contrecœur expansion backs that up. However, there are also benefits to using specialized ports. The Port of Valleyfield is one example of these specialized ports that have specialized infrastructure and vessels, which means that cargo that used to be handled in Valleyfield up to 2023 could be processed in a way that expedited the flow of the logistics cycle. The question would have to be put to the Port of Montreal, but I think the fact that it has to process goods that require a certain amount of attention as well as a high volume of goods requires special attention, and that may cause additional delay. That would have to be confirmed with the Port of Montreal.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Can you tell me how your findings about the Port of Valleyfield have taken your estimated costs of mobile screening services into consideration?

[Mathieu Paquet]

That's a good question.

I would say barely, for one simple reason. The study includes an annex that describes how we arrived at $54,000 in costs for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. Among others, it refers to $2.1 million for the federal government and $5.2 million in impact on the GDP. Even if we were mistaken and the annual costs for the CBSA were 10 times higher, at $544,000 instead of $54,000, when we look at the ratio of costs for the government within the CBSA against tax revenues, it's still an excellent ratio. Furthermore, an analysis of the GDP ratio is also excellent.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

CBSA has often told us that it's not optimal for it to invest in the Port of Valleyfield. There is such a high demand for officers that mobilizing two officers for a few hours a month is not a good investment for the agency. However, your study indicates something entirely different.