Public Safety Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Neil Dubord]

Absolutely.

The CBSA does not have the investigative ability to investigate this. It can find and seize, but it doesn't have the investigative ability. That goes over to the RCMP.

The RCMP has had a difficult time doing those investigations. At one point in time, there was what was called the waterfront unit, which was a unit that worked in Vancouver that allowed an integrated approach. It brought municipal officers into an RCMP-controlled and RCMP-managed program in which they worked on investigations together. That program was disbanded for some time and then brought back after the report in 2024 in a limited way. It's still not fully staffed, so the ability for the RCMP to fully investigate all the instances that are out there is impossible.

I can give you a specific example that happened with me. I had the DEA from the U.S.A. come into my office and say, “Can you help us with this investigation? We know it's happening. We know when it's going to happen. We want some assistance, and we can't seem to rally up enough resources from the RCMP to get it done.” However, as it was federal jurisdiction, unfortunately, the Delta police weren't able to assist on that particular file.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

That's very concerning.

I'm going to move on to Professor Rodrigue. You talked about the stagnation of shipping numbers for our east coast ports in particular.

There has been a lot of talk lately about reviving the port of Churchill, and I am certainly very open to this project, but I want to make sure there's a strong business case, especially with the federal government getting involved.

Do you have any thoughts about revitalizing the port of Churchill and how this could impact the greater port infrastructure in Canada?

[Jean-Paul Rodrigue]

I've been asked that question quite a few times recently. I had a piece with the BBC yesterday about that.

The business case for Churchill is very difficult to find, because of, I would say, the accessibility to the major shipping lines. To go there, you need the ships that are certified for Arctic shipping. What can be moved used to be grain, but that's not the case anymore.

In the short term, there is currently a very limited business case that we can find for Churchill, outside maybe something that we are not aware of, maybe a support role as a resupply base for Arctic communities. It does not fit, I would say, the structure of the current container maritime shipping system around the world. Most of the major shipping lines in the world have declined to use the Russian sea route around the Arctic, because it does not fit their business model.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, MP Lloyd, to cut you off.

We're moving to MP Powlowski for five minutes, please.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Auclair, I'm one of the two members of Parliament for Thunder Bay. At one time, one of our claims to fame was the fact that we had the greatest number of grain elevators in the world. Much of the world—Europe and Africa—after the Second World War was fed by Canadian grain going through the port of Thunder Bay, but the nature of cargo has changed in recent years. There's less bulk and there are more things going by containers, yet the Thunder Bay port basically takes almost zero containers.

Now, it would seem to me that this is very low-lying fruit if we want to invest in our infrastructure and diversify trade. I certainly read the report of the Chamber of Marine Commerce, which makes a pretty good business case for the fact that we ought to have CBSA in some of these ports.

At the last meeting, the authors of that report were here, and we asked them questions. Afterwards, interestingly enough, we had Transport Canada here. We asked, “What do you think about their numbers?” They said they couldn't verify that economic analysis because they thought the data was incomplete.

However, having talked to the people who did the study, we know that Transport Canada didn't ask them to provide further data. Transport Canada did not indicate that they were going to do their own economic analysis. You, in working with the seaway, are far more intimately involved with this than I am. Where is Transport Canada going with this? I can't figure it out.

I hope they are going somewhere with it. If what they want is the business case to put Customs facilities in various ports, how are they making that decision? They didn't seem to be accepting the Chamber of Marine Commerce study, and they didn't seem to be doing their own. What's your impression of how they are going to decide where to put these customs facilities?

[Serge Auclair]

On our side, we like to talk to the shippers, those who have the cargo and make decisions on where that cargo should go, and we like to talk to carriers, those who will carry that cargo.

An economist will build a model, and usually it's very well built in the sense that they know everybody is going to challenge them and they don't want to lose their reputation. I'm not challenging the economics model, but when you start having conversations.... Yesterday, there was a meeting with the CMC. There was a lot of conversation from the carriers, who were talking about the potential cargo and what the shippers are telling them.

Some time ago, there were conversations about extending the navigation season at the seaway, and the conversation was about whether there would be cargo if we were to extend the season. Now the conversation is more about how we are being told that there is a lot of cargo that could move, and it's not cargo that should move during the summer but that's going to move in the winter if we extend the navigation season. It's new cargo that will become available.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Rodrigue, what about containers in a port like Thunder Bay? You certainly seem to be advocating for bringing containers to bigger ports like Prince Rupert, and then going to Chicago—which goes right through my riding as well, through Fort Frances—or bringing in really big ships with lots of containers to Halifax.

However, there seems to be profitability in smaller boats going directly from Europe. Spliethoff is currently shipping directly to Cleveland or Duluth, not through Canada. They seem to find it profitable.

There would seem to be a market. There would seem to be opportunities for economic growth there.

In addition, what about transshipment? If you bring in a lot of containers to Halifax, why not put them on a smaller boat? In my understanding, Thunder Bay could take up to 800 to 1,000 TEUs at the port. If you brought three boats a week into Thunder Bay, that's like 3,000 trucks off the Trans-Canada Highway. There are all those savings for the infrastructure. There are certainly environmental benefits in not having trucks on the road, and certainly there are safety concerns. As somebody who drives a lot on the Trans-Canada for hockey tournaments and stuff, there are a lot of transport trucks on there that I'd like to get off of it.

Don't you think there's an economic model to shipping containers through ports like Thunder Bay and other smaller ports on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence? I'm hoping you're going to say yes.

[Jean-Paul Rodrigue]

I can cautiously say there is a niche for everything. However, there's something called supply chain management, which is based upon the principle that you need a constant flow over a long period of time. If you interrupt these flows, you break the business model.

You could run your model and say it works perfectly well when the seaway is open, but as soon as you close it, the cargo needs to go somewhere else. When it goes somewhere else, it gets captured and does not necessarily come back. Otherwise, you would have seen these types of services for a very long period of time. It would have taken place. Containerization left the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system, I would say, 40 years ago. It's coming back in little niches, as we mentioned with Cleveland, but that's a mixed ship.

I'm not too sure how good the business model is, because I talked with a guy at the port of Cleveland and he says it's fine, and they try to grow it, but it's not that easy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, everyone. Unfortunately, we need to finish this first hour.

Fortunately, it's with grateful words of thanks to you, Monsieur Auclair, Monsieur Rodrigue and Monsieur Dubord.

Thank you for participating in this meeting, either in person or remotely. I think all members really appreciated your testimony. I also want to thank you for taking the time to prepare all this. We wish you a good rest of the day.

We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow the witnesses to leave the table and the next witnesses to settle in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will resume the meeting and spend the second hour with new witnesses, whom we are pleased to welcome.

First, we have David Rivest, president and general manager, Desgagnés Transarctik Inc. We also have Robert Bellisle, president and chief executive officer, QSL International, by video conference. Finally, we welcome Saul Polo and Gabrièle Lavallée from St. Lawrence Shipoperators.

Thank you all very much.

We'll start with five-minute opening remarks.

Mr. Rivest, you have the floor for five minutes.

[David Rivest, President and General Manager, Desgagnés Transarctik Inc.]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

I'm here on behalf of Degagnés, a Quebec-based maritime and logistics group with roots dating back to the 19th century. Our operations span the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, the east coast and the Canadian Arctic.

In 2023, our group acquired the Valleyfield operating activities and entered into a long-term arrangement with the port authority to operate the facilities.

Our issue is practical. Valleyfield can receive, and already receives, a range of cargoes. What it does not yet have is a clear, workable CBSA operating model for receiving international containers at the scale of a medium-sized port. We're not asking for a major capital project; we are asking for clarity on the compliant path forward.

The independent Aviseo study prepared by the Chamber of Marine Commerce notes that Valleyfield obtained a C/VESS designation and, since publication, has also secured an SO licence. In simple terms, the C/VESS confirms that the site meets recognized maritime cargo security requirements. The SO licence authorizes the port to operate as a customs-controlled facility for goods under CBSA oversight. In other words, Valleyfield is not starting from zero. The security and customs foundations are already in place.

The same study points to a secured, fenced and continuously monitored facility; recurring past CBSA screening operations; two regular liner services with Europe; and projected annual throughput of roughly 1,500 containers in 2023, before the operations were paused. It also confirms Valleyfield has a significant role in Arctic logistics. This is a real port with a real operating history.

We are already involved in the development of initiatives that include planned voyages to Greenland. This is not hypothetical discussion about future Arctic trade. It reflects real commercial activity now taking shape, with real planning and real cargo potential.

If Canada wants stronger Arctic supply chains, greater redundancy in the St. Lawrence corridor and better access to non-U.S. markets, then leaving a proven port with regulatory uncertainty works against these goals. The policy question should therefore be framed properly. The question is whether the CBSA can apply an existing risk-based approach in a way that is proportional to the operating reality of a medium-sized port.

The CBSA itself has told this very committee that imaging deployment depends on risk, infrastructure and operational requirements; that it already deploys mobile technology; and that it does not intend to install fixed large-scale imaging everywhere.

That points to a practical conclusion: The solution for Valleyfield should be adaptable, risk-based and proportionate to volume.

This is important because containers from international origins must be screened at one of five first ports of arrival, three of which are on the eastern seaboard. At the same time, based on what is publicly available, the Canada-U.S. treaty framework does not appear to contain any clear limitation that would prevent Canada from considering a compliant model for medium-sized ports such as Valleyfield. That suggests the issue is not fundamentally legal; it is operational.

That matters, because containerization is central to modern trade. Containers make freight movement more efficient, secure and scalable across marine, truck and rail networks. They are the standard logistics format that supports resilient supply chains. They should not be treated as exclusive to large terminals.

Aviseo also estimated that under the costliest Valleyfield scenario involving mobile screening, the annual CBSA-related costs would be under $50 per container. Against that, the projected annual benefit is more than $5.2 million in GDP and about $2.13 million in federal revenue. The federal revenue impact would offset the screening costs in roughly nine days.

Our request to this committee is straightforward: Recommend that CBSA undertake a formal implementation assessment for Valleyfield and define the conditions for a compliant, medium-sized solution, including staffing, infrastructure requirements, cost recovery and pilot parameters.

We're not asking Valleyfield to be treated as a major gateway. We're asking CBSA to show how a secure, proportionate, risk-based model can work at a medium-sized port. The asset exists. The demand exists. The rationale exists. What we need now is operational clarity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rivest.

I will now give the floor to Robert Bellisle, who is joining us by video conference.

Mr. Bellisle, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Robert Bellisle, President and Chief Executive Officer, QSL International Ltd.]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, as president and chief executive officer of QSL, thank you for the opportunity to share our point of view on the essential role of marine transportation in the Canadian economy and, specifically, on the role that the Canada Border Services Agency can play in the H2O highway corridor and port clearance practices.

QSL has over 2,000 employees and is a major maritime company based and headquartered in Quebec, with over 65 terminals across North America. In Canada, we're active in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. From this vantage point, we see in real time how global economic shifts translate into both pressure and opportunities for Canada. We can clearly attest that maritime transportation is not just an element; it's a strategic pillar of our economy.

Nearly 80% of Canadian goods use the method of ship at some point in their journey, while only 5% of Canada-U.S. trade is carried by maritime transportation. Maritime shipping accounts for roughly half of Canada's total import-export volume. This includes finished goods, raw materials and critical industrial inputs, each of which are essential for productivity value creation and Canada's economic sovereignty.

Four major gateways structure trade flows to North America: the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, the Gulf of Mexico and the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, also known as Highway H2O. These corridors do more than move goods. They support entire industrial ecosystems across countries, provinces and states.

The recent federal programs to support port infrastructure are welcome. They were long overdue. Policy is going in the right direction. The challenge now lies in implementation, and that implementation needs to accelerate.

However, at present, CBSA has limited clearance of maritime containers at only five Canadian ports—Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Prince Rupert and Vancouver.

Under current requirements, containers arriving in Canada must be inspected by CBSA, including radiation detection. Within QSL's Canadian operations, containers may occasionally be carried as part of general cargo, typically containing complementary components. Prior to 2023, exemptions could be requested, allowing CBSA officers to conduct on-site clearance using mobile radiation units. Since 2023, however, this is no longer possible.

This loss of operational flexibility has resulted in additional costs and significant logistical challenges for cargo owners and operators, with broader economic impact. One concrete example is our Bickerdike terminal, which is a container terminal but for domestic, as well as one of only a few terminals in eastern Canada to have a ro-ro ramp. It was recently forced to turn away a vessel carrying several containers. The cargo ultimately discharged in Baltimore, despite the shipper's preference to use Canada and the fact that the consumers were Canadian. Situations such as these reinforce the perception that Canada's ports lack flexibility and encourage shippers to favour U.S. ports.

Although the November 2025 federal budget mentioned the container terminal project at the Port of Québec, we are also still hoping for an imminent announcement.

The joint application from the Port of Quebec and QSL has been postponed since November. Such delays are concerning given the marine sector's critical role in our economy.

Expanding border services at the Port of Québec to support QSL's container terminal project would create significant economic and security benefits for Canada. Quebec benefits from a strategic positioning. Clearing containers closer to their port of entry and delivery point would help ease pressure on existing ports of entry, reduce congestion, decrease turnaround time and improve supply chain reliability.

To remain competitive, Canada must focus its federal investments on complementary strategic marine infrastructure, speed up approval processes and prioritize projects that generate quick and tangible economic benefits.

In conclusion, the Canada Border Services Agency has a key role to play in accelerating marine infrastructure projects. The agency can directly contribute to the country's prosperity. If we act more quickly, ensure greater consistency across modes of transportation and use the levers already under federal jurisdiction, we can generate immediate and lasting benefits for all Canadians.

Thank you for listening. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bellisle.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Polo for five minutes.

[Saul Polo, President and Chief Executive Officer, St. Lawrence Shipoperators]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Saul Polo, and I'm the president and chief executive officer of St. Lawrence Shipoperators. Our association represents carriers in the Canadian marine sector that operate in the St. Lawrence Seaway, from the Canadian Atlantic to the Great Lakes, not to mention the Arctic. With members ranging from shipowners to ports, terminal operators, ferries and tugboats, the St. Lawrence Shipoperators association is the gold standard for marine transportation in Canada.

To date, our association's members efficiently move dry bulk, liquid bulk and general cargo. However, a key component of our economy's resilience remains out of our reach: container shipping. The St. Lawrence Seaway, that impressive system of locks that connects the Great Lakes to global markets, is currently operating at less than half of its 1979 capacity. That is because the corridor has been unable to pivot to containerization because of the lack of Canada Border Services Agency services.

That delay isn't due to a lack of infrastructure, ships, expertise, port capacity or commercial interest. It's a structural problem. The Canada Border Services Agency is the only federal agency authorized to deliver clearance services, and it systematically rejects requests from private companies and regional ports. However, those stakeholders are prepared to make massive investments, hire staff and provide the required services. This service monopoly, coupled with administrative rejection, is currently depriving Canada of an essential safety valve for reducing congestion at its major ports and cultivating this potential to diversify trade corridors.

In its 2025 study on containers, Aviseo Conseil clearly shows that expanding the Canada Border Services Agency's services to new regional ports, beyond the five currently designated ports, is a national necessity and an economic opportunity to be seized. Canada's productivity growth is currently stagnant, and its ports are lagging behind its G7 peers in efficiency and performance, which is characterized by long vessel wait times and declining container volume. Opening new points of service would make it possible to process over 330,000 additional containers, generating $131 million a year in added economic value.

If ship deliveries take place closer to the final markets, we could decrease road transport volumes, particularly between Ontario and Montreal. For example, containerized trucks make 42% of their trips between Quebec and Ontario while they're empty.

It should be noted that the new tax revenue generated by this initiative would enable the federal government to make the Canada Border Services Agency's operating costs profitable within a few days or months.

The initiative would also help the government achieve its market diversification goals. By expanding trade connections, Canada's ports would forge new commercial ties abroad and unlock new opportunities for Canadian businesses.

We therefore recommend that the Canada Border Services Agency transform its delivery model to gain more agility and flexibility.

The first step is to deploy mobile customs clearance units. The agency should establish mobile units capable of providing flexible and ad hoc coverage at regional ports. That would make it possible to meet demand effectively without needing to build costly, permanent infrastructure.

Second, the agency should allow the transshipment of uncleared containers. The idea would be to allow the transfer of bonded containers from large ocean-going vessels to our vessels in Canada, which would make it possible to ship the goods to secondary ports for final clearance and, as a result, reduce dockside delays at major ports in the country.

In conclusion, the agency's co-operation is necessary to enhance and maximize the use of the short-sea shipping network. We want to build for containers what already exists for bulk cargo: a system that makes it possible to move millions of tonnes of goods while being the most energy efficient and freeing up Canada's road network. To achieve the critical mass needed, access to the agency's services at the ports of Ontario and Quebec is an essential catalyst.

The marine industry is ready. We have the vessels, the ports, the investments and the know-how. Today, we are asking for the Canada Border Services Agency to become a partner in prosperity rather than an administrative obstacle.

Thank you.

I'm available to answer any questions the committee members may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Polo, for those first opening remarks.

Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses who are here.

We're here talking about traditional ports on water. I represent a landlocked area in rural Alberta, and there's been a lot of talk about inland ports.

I want to get some insight from any of you on how inland ports could be used to speed up trade at our regular ports. Has there been any study about that?

[Saul Polo]

Mr. Chair, who is the question for?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You can answer it if you wish.

[Saul Polo]

Perfect.

Our members—our domestic shipowners—are key to the question you're asking. The closer you get to the origin of the production, the more you reduce costs and time, and you unlock the potential for additional exports because you're better at supporting different industries to export to new markets as well.

By unlocking the services of the CBSA to inland ports by relying on additional regional ports, you're basically also using the support of the domestic shipowners to better connect to the additional regional ports, not just in Ontario but also in Quebec.

Basically, by adding four additional ports with the services of the CBSA, with the support of the domestic shipowners you can then connect them to more regional ports as well.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you for that.

To summarize what you're saying, if there's a CBSA presence at an inland port closer to the origin of the production, it can speed up production. It can speed up the clearance of goods, so that when they're shipped to the ports, it's much more efficient.

Is that what you're saying?

[Saul Polo]

What I'm saying is that access to more ports that have this service, as well as greater use of short-sea shipping, would ultimately help reduce transportation. That would reduce both transportation costs and transport time.

It would also support a greater number of Canadian industries and encourage them to export more.

Above all, it would unblock the transportation system, which is currently experiencing a bottleneck, given that only three ports in eastern Canada offer this service. That significantly clogs up rail and road transportation, among other things.

We can do more, and we want to do so.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

This one may be for Monsieur Rivest.

What investments do you think need to be made to small and medium-sized ports so that we can avoid some of the congestion and bottlenecks that have been talked about, particularly given that you're dealing with Arctic shipping and we want to ship within Canada? We know there's a huge increased cost of living in the Arctic, partially because of the shipping costs.

What are ways that we can ease the supply chain so that we can bring costs down for Canadians who are living in the Arctic regions?

[David Rivest]

One aspect is that there's already a network of ports very much in place. A previous speaker, Serge Auclair from the Seaway Management Corporation, mentioned that maybe a first phase is to optimize the use of the existing port infrastructure. Valleyfield is one. There are others within the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes region that can be utilized.

In order to facilitate international trade and international corridors, it's having flexibility in terms of assets with CBSA to support screening at these regional levels. That would definitely facilitate aspects of this.

Valleyfield and others are key Arctic gateways. One of the projects we're working on right now is to develop Greenland. It directly ties into the federal government's incentives right now.

We are a Canadian port with Canadian shipowners and Canadian expertise. A project like Greenland development will be inhibited if we cannot receive containers from international origins. The rationale behind it is that once you've mobilized cargo for the construction and you start doing the resupply of the mine, cargo has to come back to its consolidation point.

Not having the ability to receive those international containers from a place like Greenland will inhibit our involvement.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I think this has been identified. You can send full containers to locations, but if you have to send empty containers back, it's not that profitable for companies. We need to create new connections at the ports or somewhere along the way, so that we can ensure that we're bringing goods back in order to have profitable sea routes.

What sort of trading partners would we be talking about when we're talking about the Arctic?