Transport Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 22 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, December 11, 2025, the committee is beginning its study on supporting, diversifying and modernizing Quebec and Canada's ports.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Those participating by video conference on Zoom, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. Those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Colleagues, I'd now like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour today.

We have, from the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, Ms. Larissa Fenn, vice-president of corporate affairs. From the Nanaimo Port Authority, we have Ian Marr, president and chief executive officer, who is here by video conference. From the Québec Port Authority, we have Olga Farman, chief executive officer, who is here by video conference as well.

Welcome to you all. Thank you all for taking the time to join us today.

We'll begin with opening remarks.

I will turn the floor over to you, Ms. Fenn. You have five minutes, please.

[Larissa Fenn, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority]

Thank you very much.

Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

We welcome the essential question this committee is pursuing: How do we as Canadians do more than simply protect what we have? How do we build something more resilient, more diversified and more ambitious?

HOPA operates a port network on the Great Lakes. With your indulgence, that's where I will be focusing my remarks today.

HOPA operates ports and marine facilities in Hamilton, Oshawa and Niagara and, coming soon, a public port in Sault Ste. Marie, where we're building, in partnership with the City of Sault Ste. Marie, a corridor that connects northern Ontario's minerals and forest products with steel processors and manufacturers in Ontario's south and with overseas markets beyond.

The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system is Canada's industrial heartland, home of steelmakers, grain farmers, miners of critical minerals, energy producers and manufacturers of products shipped around the world. This region is at the heart of our shared mission to increase and diversify our trade, but the catch is this: If we are successful in our trade diversification goals, we don't have the port capacity we need to make it work.

We believe port authorities are uniquely positioned to help Canada meet this moment, but ambition requires capacity, and capacity requires a systems approach. With that context, let me turn to some specific actions this committee may consider in its work.

The first of these is treating the capacity as a national system issue. In addition to coastal gateways, Canada needs inland and regional capacity that relieves pressure on those gateways and moves goods closer to where they are produced and consumed. Better corridor integration creates efficient flows of raw and semi-processed materials, reduces long-haul trucking and builds the sovereign supply chains Canada is now urgently seeking.

Second, invest in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway network. The ports and marine facilities in this system already serve Canada's industrial heartland. With a systems approach to investment, they can drive our “Canada Strong” goals for domestic supply chains, for export growth, and for Canada's industrial capacity and competitiveness. The good news is that it's not all brand new infrastructure. It builds on a seaway that's already in place and that has capacity to spare in terms of the number of ships that can transit the system.

Third, ensure that system enablers are in place. Extending the Great Lakes shipping season is critical. We know that our colleagues at the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway are working on this. Enhanced icebreaking capacity will be necessary. We are pleased to see Canada rapidly investing in new icebreaking.

Fourth, sustain the commitment to Great Lakes containerization. We were thrilled to see that the recent federal budget recognized Hamilton, alongside our colleagues in Quebec City, as an emerging container-capable port. Hamilton is advancing an inland rail terminal as a first step, moving imports and exports of containers by rail, connecting the big market of the GTHA to ports like Quebec, Montreal and Halifax. Our next step is to support marine container shipments—imports and exports—directly into the Great Lakes to provide system resilience and market flexibility. This is the kind of novel offering needed to build modernized and diversified trade relationships.

Fifth, focus on Canada's reliability and competitiveness as a trading partner. Labour disruptions, congestion, system costs and productivity challenges have had a cumulative impact on our reputation and on our supply chains. These issues don't stay at ports and waterfronts; they impact productivity in manufacturing, agriculture and other sectors. The disruptions we've seen in the past few years have damaged Canada's brand as a place to do business. The committee has an opportunity to signal that Canada is serious about being a dependable, competitive trading partner.

Finally, there is governance flexibility. Canada's ports have a solid track record of financial self-sufficiency and stewardship of federal assets. To meet our ambitious goals as a country, port authorities can be better empowered as active instruments of Canadian trade policy, as well as responsible stewards of infrastructure. The current borrowing limits and the capitalization structure of subsidiaries are a good place to start looking at how to maximize port authorities' agility in the market.

Again, we believe port authorities are in a unique position to be proactive instruments of an assertive national trade policy. We are ready to work with you to deliver on behalf of Canadians.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fenn.

Next, we'll turn the floor over to Mr. Marr.

Mr. Marr, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, sir.

[Ian Marr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nanaimo Port Authority]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the invitation to contribute to your study today.

My name is Ian Marr. I'm the president and CEO of the Nanaimo Port Authority.

The objective of supporting, diversifying and modernizing Quebec's and Canada's ports should consider the many touchpoints of ports—harbours, rail, roads and communities—and how every port can contribute to diversifying Canada's ability to find and support trade with new markets.

There is a need to diversify and fully utilize Canada's current port properties and maximize individual capacities, creating a resilient, diverse system supported by short-sea shipping, rail or road. There is major pressure on our current system with port backups, road and rail congestion, industrial land scarcity, climate events and labour uncertainty. Developing ports on the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes and the west coast outside current heavily urbanized regions would significantly increase capacity for containerized and non-containerized cargo.

Canada's objective of expanding trading markets requires consideration of where and how an infrastructure investment is made. Investment decisions should benefit exports, imports and communities, not only at ports but also along the internal trade routes I previously mentioned. Consideration should be given to the new trade patterns and to providing complementarity within our port frameworks. If growth and diversification are the objective, we can no longer rely on “the first to the line with the most money wins” when it comes to investment decisions.

The government should establish the capabilities, possibilities and strengths within its port system to build required infrastructure and create funding streams that allow it to meet the needs of new trading markets and a diversification strategy. Infrastructure funding should create capacity at different contact points along ocean, river and road networks. Funding must consider the benefits of reducing congestion and overall environmental impact while increasing the capacity and throughput of the system.

Ports require some regulatory and legislative changes to their current act, which has been largely unmodified for 27 years. Ports require flexibility through subsidiary capitalization review, allowing them to create partnerships that encourage third party investment and release the value of their balance sheets.

Modernization of ports requires integration of existing technologies and the development of new technologies to increase the capacity and security of our ports and waterways. Modernization should flow across the entire transportation system, not in isolation to any single component, to ensure fluidity and increased value to Canadian industry and consumers.

A key component of modernization integrates technology with education and development of the workforce. Labour must be engaged to achieve mutual long-term goals to maintain employment benefits in port regions and increase the reliability in our national port system.

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Marr, for your opening remarks.

Ms. Farman, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Olga Farman, Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Port Authority]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I also want to acknowledge my colleagues from the ports of Hamilton and Nanaimo, whose remarks accurately reflect the concerns we are having in Quebec.

Your work today is focused directly on Canada's competitiveness and the ambition to double exports in 10 years. To achieve that, one key condition is the reliability of our existing infrastructure. Without that, there is no predictability, no growth and no sustainable diversification. Over the past year at the head of the Port of Québec, I have been assessing the importance of the public infrastructure we manage to serve the Canadian economy and supply chains. Modernizing that infrastructure is not just about maintaining a public good, but about protecting a lever for competitiveness and economic sovereignty.

The Port of Québec is the oldest port in the country and an essential link in the St. Lawrence corridor. We handle 28 million tonnes of goods annually worth $15 billion. We welcome close to 1,000 vessels, and we support 12,000 jobs. As the last deep-water port in the St. Lawrence, our direct connection to the heart of the continent enables us to accommodate large vessels and offer economies of scale that result in lower costs for businesses and, ultimately, better affordability for Canadians. In 2025, our revenues exceeded $70 million, making ours the fourth-largest port in the country. However, this performance relies on wharves, nearly half of which will be over 100 years old by 2040.

This past January, we had a concrete reminder: 60 metres of our wharf 25 collapsed. No one was injured and the area was closed, but the incident illustrates what happens when 100-year-old infrastructure reaches the end of its life, and it especially reminds us of what awaits if we delay action: a loss of capacity, additional costs and increased vulnerability in supply chains.

In November 2025, we launched the largest investment plan in our history, which we estimate to be $1.7 billion over 10 years, to rebuild our critical infrastructure. Our goal is clear: secure our gains, build resilience and position ourselves for the future. To deliver the first phase of this plan, over the next four years, we are seeking a federal contribution of between $340 million and $380 million—approximately half the cost. This plan is supported at the municipal, provincial and regional levels, as well as by Minister Lightbound. Private investments of $220 million have already been confirmed for this first phase. The 10‑year impact is significant: close to $1.8 billion toward the Canadian GDP and $1.1 billion in tax revenue. This is a project that will protect our port capacity in Quebec City and create tangible economic value for our country. These benefits are consistent with the St. Lawrence corridor, where each port plays a complementary role: Montreal opens, Quebec consolidates, Trois-Rivières ensures fluidity, Saguenay and Sept‑Îles support strategic sectors. We can't diversify our markets if the infrastructure isn't resilient, and we can't support growth without some redundancy in the corridor. This complementarity rooted in each region is the network's strength.

The container terminal project led by QSL is directly based on this complementarity. Developed on existing facilities, without encroaching on the river and without dredging, it will add needed capacity to the corridor and reduce logistical costs for eastern Quebec. It's not a volume-movement project. It's a project that will strengthen the entire corridor. The latest federal budget also identified Quebec City and Hamilton as ports for the export of containers, which confirms that direction.

Ensuring the resilience of the corridor also means reviewing our tools. Maintaining multi-generational public infrastructure has a real cost, and the current mechanisms don't always reflect that. The time has come to modernize the legislative framework that applies to port authorities to carefully diversify our levers and align our governance model with the strategic scope of the assets we manage.

The direction is clear. If we truly want to diversify our markets and reduce our vulnerabilities in a highly volatile global economic and political environment, we must first ensure that our wharves and facilities are sustainable. These are the foundations that enable trade to take place and, above all, to grow every day. If we want them to continue to play their role over the next few decades, we need to modernize them now, while we still have control over them and before they end up at the bottom of the river, like our wharf 25. We have a coherent network, engaged partners, a clear vision and ready projects. We must now consolidate our achievements so that the next 50 years will live up to Canada's ambitions.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Farman.

Before we begin our line of questioning, I have, for the benefit of our witnesses, a yellow card and a red card. The yellow card means you should wrap up, and the red card means your time has expired and I will be passing the floor on to another member.

With that, we'll start our line of questioning today with Mr. Muys.

Mr. Muys, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses from coast to coast.

My question will be for Ms. Fenn mostly, because as a proud MP from the Hamilton area I've seen the success of HOPA on many levels.

You talked about Hamilton, Oshawa and Niagara, because this is about the Great Lakes, not just the Hamilton port. I'm encouraged to hear now about Sault Ste. Marie, because of course the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway are Canada's fourth coast, which we always forget about, yet it means billions of dollars for the southern Ontario economy.

In the budget, there was an announcement of the CBSA facility that, after many years, is finally going to happen. Despite that, as a very simple and small ask, I'd suggest that HOPA has actually been successful in spite of the federal government, and here is why I think that. We had the national supply chain task force summit back in 2022, which had on it leading experts from across the country. The final report of that supply chain task force had eight immediate recommendations and 13 medium-term recommendations. Not all of those are done, and it's been some years now. Then, of course, we had Bill C-33, the strengthening ports bill, which was introduced in 2022 by a minister now five times removed. It died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister called the election in 2025. Perhaps that's a good thing, because frankly the bill was woefully inadequate. We've had some discussions on that at this committee. What preceded that bill were seven years of consultation.

As well, this committee did a study on port infrastructure. We visited ports from coast to coast and tabled a report. In fact, we were in Hamilton to see the great works there.

There have been at least five years of talking and good intentions, but nothing to show for it. Is it fair to say that there's been a lot of talk and really no action?

[Larissa Fenn]

We certainly have not, at the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, been waiting to act in terms of growing our relationships with business, growing the impact that we can have on the economy and growing our port network. That's one of those things that I think came up through the course of those many consultations.

We think there is probably work that can be done in partnership with government, but in the meantime, we have really found the ability to reach into new communities throughout the Great Lakes seaway. In Niagara, we have been working with private sector partners to undertake new models of managing working waterfronts in Port Colborne and Thorold, for example, and we have looked at other ways to see where we can bring into our portfolio lands that might be surplus within the federal portfolio. We have been working forward in partnership with Transport Canada on that.

We really see the work that HOPA has done as proof positive of the positive impact that port authorities can make. Our infrastructure investments usually yield a 4:1 impact in terms of their ability to attract private sector investment. We see that as one of the ways in which port authorities can really strengthen not just the supply chains, but also the communities where we do business. We also see the impact of integrating port assets around the Great Lakes. Our partnership with Oshawa is a really great example—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

I'm sorry. I want to interject at this point.

Certainly, you talked about a lot of the actions in your opening statement. Frankly, all those actions have been talked about for years. I would suggest that the time for talk is over. We need results. Our economy depends on it, as you've pointed out.

Let me refer to a point made by the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Ian Hamilton, your colleague, is a past chair of that organization. They've said that there is a need for “streamlined project reviews” to make major infrastructure happen more quickly.

From HOPA's perspective, are federal approval processes still slowing down port expansion or modernization projects?

[Larissa Fenn]

Certainly, the faster the projects can be advanced, the faster they can be producing positive economic impacts for Canadians. I think it's particularly important at this moment, when we are talking about, potentially, a $200-million investment in Sault Ste. Marie for a new public port. That's one of those places where an accelerated project approval and implementation timeline would be extremely helpful.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Let me get one more question in before we get the red card.

Again, these are great things that are happening, and that's because of HOPA's leadership, your leadership and Hamilton's leadership. I don't think the federal government has really been a great contributor to that, so I'd ask you this: From your perspective, has the federal government done anything really meaningful to help reduce the bottleneck that we're seeing at Canadian ports?

[Larissa Fenn]

Well, certainly—to give credit where it is due—we have worked with the national trade corridors fund on a couple of occasions in the past. As I mentioned, back in 2017, I think there was a $17-million investment through the national trade corridors fund into base infrastructure. We matched that money.

This spring, we are going to announce the biggest sugar refinery in the country, a $150-million investment in Hamilton. The genesis of that was supported by a contribution from the national trade corridors fund. I think being able to illustrate that and expand the impact of those kinds of things throughout a bigger port network would be extremely helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fenn.

Our eyes lit up as you mentioned the opening of a sugar refinery. We very much appreciated that.

We'll turn the floor to Mr. Kelloway for six minutes.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

We go from sugar to me.

I really appreciate all the witnesses here today.

This is, again, an important study with regard to where we need to go as a country, as an economy. Prime Minister Carney has been very much focused on how one gateway to diversify our economy, to strengthen our supply chains and to be ambitious with our supply chains is ports. Each of you talked about the specific challenges that ports face every single day, such as turnaround times and infrastructure capacity. The adoption of modern technology, I think, was another one.

I'll start with Ms. Fenn and then go around the horn.

If we were to triage this.... They're all very important, and I totally understand that we have to focus on solutions from a systems-based approach, but I'm wondering if we can isolate the biggest barriers right now in terms of exceeding what ports can do—existing ports, secondary ports. How do we strengthen the supply chain, and how do we grow the economy through ports?

[Larissa Fenn]

Certainly, infrastructure investment is at the top of the list if we want to modernize and enable ports to do what they are capable of doing. There is a significant infrastructure deficit across the whole federal portfolio, and that is true for Hamilton as well.

We have also had challenges with the speed with which CBSA support has come forward, so one thing would be making sure that the approvals of terminals are matched with the speed with which we want to set up trade capacity.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

That's very helpful.

Mr. Marr, can you chime in with respect to some of the key structural barriers holding us back?

[Ian Marr]

When I think about our port out here in Nanaimo, we look at the overall impact of what we do. We've had significant benefits from the trade corridors fund and working in that capacity.

Really, the restriction for us is the ability to get to a railhead and to be moving things by rail across the country. We've recently established our container terminal, a $105-million project that took five years to get through the bureaucracy and get approved. The value of that in the five years went from $105 million up to about $160 million, which definitely doesn't help development and partnerships with other parties. However, in establishing short-sea shipping, which we really believe is needed out on the west coast—and we have further expansion available—we see that as being a definite hindrance, in that you need to provide that access so that things can move more easily, particularly across the Lower Mainland.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thank you.

Ms. Farman, what are your thoughts on that?

[Olga Farman]

Thank you for your question.

Beyond what my colleagues have said, I think the trade diversification corridors fund announced in the latest budget is becoming fundamental for the Port of Québec and for all my colleagues across the country. We need the program to be implemented quickly. The eligibility criteria must also include the rebuilding of assets, and not just the creation of new ones.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thanks to the three of you for answering that question. I wanted to frame it as the challenges. Now we'll go to the solutions.

If we look at this budget, which has yet to be passed, there is some obstruction going on with respect to the budget and putting funds in place for the Arctic sovereignty fund and the trade diversification corridors fund. How key is it to moving forward in a substantial way?

It was brought up here today that these are mere concepts and we have to put things into practice. Okay, let's take that argument. Let's take moving concept to practice. The bottom line is that the way we move forward on making investments is passing $6 billion in funds for ports to allow them to do their thing.

I want to go into the future. If these funds are not passed, where do we find ourselves in terms of the things that you each want to do with your respective ports in your respective regions for this country to drive the economy forward, have more jobs in place and strengthen the supply chain? If we don't vote on this, or if we vote on it and it doesn't pass, what will that do to your operations?

We'll start with Ms. Fenn.

[Larissa Fenn]

Certainly, we know the country's ambitions to increase non-U.S. trade and to increase diversified overseas trade are not possible without increased port capacity. We don't have the port capacity, if we are successful, to make those trade ambitions come true.

At the local level, the need for port infrastructure investment in Sault Ste. Marie, for example, is essential to activate a public port there, which would employ 2,000 people in a community that's quite challenged at this moment. It means that the issue around containerization in the Great Lakes remains unresolved, and there is essential maintenance work to be done throughout the network in Hamilton, Oshawa, Niagara and elsewhere.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thank you very much.

I have a red card. Does that mean I have 10 seconds, or is that it? Okay. I thought I would try.

I'd be interested to hear from the other two witnesses, if they could provide some thoughts in writing to this committee on the last question I asked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll turn to you, Ms. Farman. Welcome to the committee, even though you are appearing virtually.

I have a first question for you. In your presentation, you mentioned that 50% of your facilities are over 100 years old, and that they require an investment plan of $1.6 billion over 10 years. How did the situation get to that point? Is it due to a lack of federal government investment, local mismanagement, other phenomena, or a combination of all those things? Can you shed some light on that?