Public Safety Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[David Rivest]

As for your point with regard to the containers, if we ship full-load containers out to destination, the empties have to come back to the point of origin to then be what we call “restuffed”. There has to be balanced trade. That would be impossible to do without the screening capabilities. Hence, the cargo of empty containers would have to go through an area like Baltimore, potentially, or east coast U.S. At that point in time, the shipper would completely deroute and not utilize a Canadian-based facility for their resupply operations.

There has to be balanced trade. You need to have the capability not only to export but also to import.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Lloyd.

MP Acan, you have the floor for six minutes, please.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all for joining us today on such an important study at our committee.

We recognize that the private sector leadership from our major shipping firms and terminal operators is the engine of our maritime economy. The government's goal is to ensure that CBSA services and infrastructure projects like Contrecoeur act as a strategic tailwind for the investments made by the companies across the corridor.

Mr. Rivest, your sector serves as the primary guardian of our Arctic supply chains, and the current CBSA footprint at the Valleyfield intermodal site provides a strategic foundation. How can we further align the agency's modernization plans with the leadership of major transporters to ensure that these secondary ports become gold standard gateways for northern sovereignty?

[David Rivest]

First, our group and other maritime Canadian organizations have been pioneers in developing and resupplying Arctic regions. We have unique capabilities. We have unique assets in terms of ships and in terms of lightering operations in the Arctic. We have that expertise.

International organizations are now turning to us to help them develop international resource sector operations. That is quite flattering and quite unique, but it is limited today by not having the ability to receive containers from international origins, as we talked about before, and such an agreement. We need flexibility, in terms of CBSA, to come on call when required in order to scan containers upon reception. That flexibility is key, as is the agility.

There are ways to do that. It's up to the CBSA to look at the operational model. Up to today, they've been very limited in terms of looking at different types of alternatives other than applying the current recipe, which is major gateway terminals' handling millions of TEUs per year.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you.

As someone who manages complex vessel rotations, I'm certain you value productivity, as well as flexibility in everything else. Doesn't the government's commitment to digitalizing and streamlining the CBSA's examination process present the most significant step forward in providing the operational certainty that the leading transporters need in order to thrive?

[David Rivest]

I think there was a speaker in the prior session who mentioned that there may be opportunities to do better pre-screening and utilize data that exists today in terms of electronic bills of lading. I believe there are elements in terms of technology that can be put in place to help CBSA to identify potential risks and to scope and deploy their assets accordingly.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bellisle, last year at the committee on international trade, you specified in your testimony the importance of expanding maritime infrastructure to “boost productivity”, with the “fluidity of goods” opening Canada's “access to new markets”. The terminal operations sector has been a visionary in driving the fluidity of the goods through private investments. With the government's massive expansion at Contrecoeur adding 60% more capacity, how does this public sector scale provide the necessary high tide that will lift all inland terminal operations along the seaway?

[Robert Bellisle]

I think there are two things. One is that we have to look at major container volumes that are going to come off the lines, and then there are add-on volumes, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, which are usually on other types of ships—smaller ships.

The ones on the major lines are more like scheduled clockwork rotations. The other vessels have a wider span of arrival times, and therefore you need that flexibility. Having the ability to take in vessels in some other ports will allow those major ports to become very efficient and reduce dwell times.

I was in the U.S. this week. The port of Long Beach in California turns trucks inside of 40 minutes. The delays, I guarantee you, are not that on our side of the border. If we help the larger ports in not having to deal with [Inaudible—Editor] on other volumes, then we would bring that fluidity faster.

For Contrecœur, of course, there's been a lot of work to be able to take in larger ships, but that doesn't make the depth of the St. Lawrence any deeper. That's why the Port of Quebec's project is to lighten up and top off these types of volumes and then to support that type of growth as well.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

I will continue with you for my second question. We know that the U.S. ports on the Great Lakes have historically held a clearance advantage. Wouldn't you agree that the government's current focus on multiplying Canadian import gateways is the most effective way to stop economic leakage and ensure that the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System becomes the dominant trade route in North America?

[Robert Bellisle]

I mentioned in my opening comments that there are four gateways to North America—the east coast, the west coast, the Gulf of Mexico and the St. Lawrence. We're privileged to have one of the key four gateways to North America right here in our country. Of course, we have the east coast and west coast as well.

All three gates are important, but one of the problems we have on the east coast is, as mentioned, water depth. Quebec helps subsidize this issue of being able to take in larger ships, or at least having ships come in at capacity, and then there's the wealth of volumes that can come in through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.

Remember, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, if you take it as a whole, is the third-largest economy in the world. Definitely, having multiple ports being able to unload an amount of containers that would not necessarily be on dedicated container ships will help the economic growth of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Acan.

I'm sorry, but we need to move to Madame DeBellefeuille for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses for their testimony.

Mr. Rivest, I like to use vivid language to help us understand better.

We know that your company is well known. Desgagnés Transarctik is very well known internationally, particularly in Arctic transportation, as you mentioned.

When you went to Greenland to pick up a load of ore a few weeks ago, you stopped in Nunavut, I believe, to deliver or pick up containers. However, all of a sudden, even though it was Canadian equipment, the Canada Border Services Agency still asked you to go and clear the shipment at the Port of Montreal.

Can you quickly explain why they asked you to do that, since those containers came from Canada? That doesn't make sense to us. In any case, I don't think it does, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[David Rivest]

I'll give you a bit of background.

This was during last season, when we were doing a resupply in the Canadian Arctic. Of course, we serve over 40 communities across the Canadian Arctic. On a return trip, to optimize the seaway, the client asked us to go and get a shipment from Greenland, in a completely uninhabited place. It was basically a place where old mining equipment was being recovered to be brought back to Valleyfield, where it would then be processed. We're talking about a small volume.

When the ship returned to Canada, we were required to go to Montreal to unload the cargo of international origin. It was genuinely of international origin, yes. If we had had the capacity to do it at the Port of Valleyfield, we would have done so. However, we had to unload about 10 containers in Montreal. We reloaded the ship in Montreal. Afterward, the ship headed to Valleyfield to unload the rest of the cargo. That's when the Canada Border Services Agency said that, to ensure good risk management, it might be appropriate to clear the entire shipment, even though it was of Canadian origin.

In such a context, what would need to happen? There would have to be flexibility on the part of CBSA officers. If you have to unload and reload 10 containers or so, that's inefficient for the Port of Montreal. That doesn't help the efficiency and flow of supply chains. There would also have to be support in more complex supply chains to make it possible to fully understand and absorb what's being done, in order to make everything easier.

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

These aren't frequent shipments. Still, you asked the Canada Border Services Agency for an exception and flexibility to prevent the Port of Montreal from getting congested with about 10 containers.

Did you feel that the agency was flexible and open to the idea of helping you under the circumstances, especially to relieve congestion at the Port of Montreal?

[David Rivest]

I would say that, so far, the focus has been largely on the exclusive use of these five ports of entry. It's very limiting in that regard, because we're forced to use these sites. If we had more flexibility, it would definitely boost productivity, and not just for ships. Earlier, Mr. Lloyd talked about Arctic resupply. There's a cost associated with that. If we make it more efficient by reducing the number of days per ship, that will translate directly into lower costs.

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

I think I may be a great-grandmother by the time the agency can have border services officers who provide services at all ports, so we already know that that's impossible.

In these circumstances, what flexible, creative or innovative measures could we ask the agency to implement to think outside the box? Do you have any ideas? How could the agency modernize and adopt a more innovative approach to relieve congestion in the current circuit of the seaway and the Great Lakes?

[David Rivest]

I could give you an example related to port security. After the events that took place in 2001, the agency enhanced security protocols at port sites, and that's still the case today. That means there are officers who handle security, security plans are in place, and regulations have to be followed by both the port authority and the operators.

Could a decentralized approach be implemented? For example, could certified operators and port authorities delegate certain aspects of on-site presence? I think that could be an avenue to consider.

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

For example, we know that the Port of Valleyfield isn't in competition with the Port of Montreal, which has a vision of a continuum and co-operation.

Valleyfield is in a strategic position. It isn't far from Montreal; it's barely 50 kilometres away. It isn't far from the Lacolle border crossing either.

Do you think an option would be to ask Transport Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency to propose a pilot project to try to be more efficient and innovative?

[David Rivest]

Absolutely. The context of a pilot project would lend itself very well to this. All the parameters are in place. As of today, the Port of Valleyfield is a multimodal port. It's also a proven gateway to the Canadian Arctic and the international Arctic, and it already has capacity and know-how. Shipping lines are still using the port for supply services from Europe for delivery to Valleyfield. It's a proven model. Historically, the port received containers of goods from abroad. Why not repeat that and try something again in a way where not only is the risk managed, of course, but the model is also more flexible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much.

MP Au, you have five minutes, please.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Thank you.

My first question is for Mr. Polo.

You mentioned a very interesting and inspiring point. If I heard you correctly, you mentioned in your opening remarks that some ports are operating at less than 50% of their capacity. You went on to say that it's not because of a lack of infrastructure; it's because of a structural problem.

You mentioned a CBSA monopoly on clearance. Are you implying that there could be some alternatives, such as using private service providers for clearance, instead of relying on a CBSA monopoly?

[Saul Polo]

As an industry spokesperson, I'd say that our position is to outline and identify the stumbling blocks and obstacles to unlock the full capacity or full potential of the Canadian economy. Our position with some industry partners has also been to engage with the CBSA. Our position is to work with CBSA, Canadian authorities and Canadian departments to find the best possible solutions.

I don't think it's up to our association to dictate whether it should be a public or a private service. We're saying that we need more flexibility and more collaboration from the departments, specifically the CBSA. So far, they have applied a one-size-fits-all model. We need a more tailor-made model to adapt to different secondary ports and to support regional economic development. We also need more involvement of Canadian domestic shipowners to unlock the full capacity and potential of the Canadian economy for more economic benefits for all Canadians and for Quebeckers as well.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

In all your presentations, you have been asking for the same thing for quite some time: tailor-made and flexible services from the CBSA.

What did the CBSA say to you? Why are they maintaining their current position? What's the justification for not catering to your request?

[Saul Polo]

Mr. Chair, it is very difficult to answer the MP's question.

We've brought some numbers. We've put forward some studies. We've shown that we're also willing to invest, from a private perspective, and no matter the different solutions that we've put on the table, we haven't been able to come to a solution that satisfies different industry members.

We're asking for better collaboration, to work side by side, not in opposition. So far, we feel that we've been working with a very firm and closed position from the CBSA, and we're asking for better flexibility and collaboration.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

I'll go back to the first question. Have you seen any other models that work in the situation you described? Are there other jurisdictions using private operators to do the clearance and other kinds of inspections, and does it work for them?