Transport Committee on March 9th, 2026

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who are here with their expertise.

Back in March 2023, this committee did a national study on large port infrastructure. In fact, the Port of Montreal was our first stop. Thank you for hosting us.

From that, we made 12 recommendations in terms of competitiveness, streamlining approval processes and strengthening financial flexibility. The Government of Canada at the time responded to say that this was a priority, yet we're three years on and we're still talking about some of the same issues.

My question comes in two parts.

First, in the last three years, have you seen any tangible removal of bottlenecks or reforms by the federal government to get out of the way, let you expand the port and let you do your job?

Second, can you amplify why it's so important that we can't talk for three more years and that we need to have action and actually get things done? We're losing economic opportunities around the world.

[Julien Baudry]

Very pragmatically, there is no doubt in our minds that our designation by the Major Projects Office is something that allows us to move forward, since we also benefit from the office's unique expertise. I want to emphasize that there are no acceleration measures. However, being on the fast track when you have to work with multiple departments and services helps us, but it also helps the private sector. A vote of confidence on a project also makes it easier to mobilize private capital. There would be legislative aspects to amend, as we've already discussed, so that the Port of Montreal would be able to work more with other ports in Canada, as it wants to do. However, the reality is that the executive aspect of such a message is also important to us.

There is certainly an international appetite for trade diversification. It's not just in Canada. Last year, as many German companies visited the Port of Montreal as in the previous five years. Why? It's because not only Canada, but the entire global economy wants to diversify to be less dependent on our neighbour to the south.

Signals are certainly important, but so are decisions. We talked about the trade corridors diversification fund. Timely decision-making will also allow us to put in place projects and mechanisms that can create beneficial effects. I want to emphasize that the benefits go beyond the economy. When we work quickly, we can put environmental compensation measures in place more quickly.

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

This question is directed first at the Port of Saguenay, but the Port of Montreal may want to weigh in as well.

One thing we have heard consistently—a few years ago when we did the study and ever since—was the need for financial flexibility. There were limitations on port authorities in terms of borrowing and their ability to access capital to make these expansions happen. As a smaller port authority, the Port of Saguenay may be constrained by the limitations on financial flexibility.

There was Bill C-33, which didn't go far enough and was underwhelming. It died on the Order Paper when Prime Minister Carney called the election. Even the insufficient reforms of financial flexibility and giving more financial tools were cast to the side.

Maybe you can talk a bit more about how it's important for you to have flexibility.

[Carl Laberge]

It's very important for us to have access to capital to be able to carry out our projects. You said it right at the outset. Our organization is smaller than, for example, the Port of Montreal. However, building a wharf costs us the same as it costs the Port of Montreal for a wharf of a similar size. We need funding instruments that are potentially adapted to smaller ports such as ours, which has had to face significant costs. That has to be reflected in the infrastructure programs and it has to be in place. The national trade corridors fund has done a good job of that. We need to have enough capital for it. In our specific case, however, we need greater financial flexibility and different funding levers.

For example, we built a $110 million conveyor project. For that, we received financial assistance from the governments of Quebec and Canada, but we also needed some of the funding in the form of loans. Given our size, our current borrowing limit did not give us access to that funding in a traditional way. Therefore, the Government of Quebec, through Investissement Québec, lent us the money. It's a bit paradoxical in our case, given that we are a Canadian port authority and, as such, we manage assets that belong to the federal government. However, there were no tools at the federal level, so the Quebec government stepped up to help us. Right now, we're very hopeful that the Canada Infrastructure Bank will be able to play that role in our case as well, in terms of loans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laberge.

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.

Ms. O'Rourke, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses who are with us this morning. Their testimony is extremely useful.

We saw this during the COVID‑19 pandemic, just as we saw afterwards when a ship remained stuck in the Suez Canal: Events like these caused a lot of problems in global supply chains, and we saw the impact on prices.

How can strengthened Canadian port infrastructure help ensure the resilience of domestic supply chains in future disruptions?

Mr. Baudry, you quickly raised the idea of climate change. How should ports adapt to future climate change?

I'll ask Mr. Laberge the question as well.

[Julien Baudry]

Maybe I'll let Mr. Laberge answer that first.

[Carl Laberge]

Yes, no problem.

To answer the first part of the question, I would say that, in our case, the role we can play is definitely to have infrastructure available when we need it. As I was saying earlier, it takes a long time to develop port infrastructure. It's expensive. We can't build infrastructure when events occur, as we saw last week. You have to plan well in advance. We have to have a certain capacity in front of us to be able to respond to events. That's what we can do, and that's what we're about to do. All Canadian port authorities have that mandate in mind, I believe. It's about being ready when the time comes. That's one of the things we can do on our side here in Canada in terms of capacity.

When we talk about climate resilience, it really depends on infrastructure. We're not all in the same position. We have to make sure that, whatever events occur, we will once again be able to have available infrastructure. It could involve raising the level of the wharf or draining our infrastructure to deal with extreme events while also ensuring respect for the environment when new events occur. It's important to be able to adapt to that. The port infrastructure was built many years ago, for the most part, so there are adaptation needs and investment needs for that, which are indeed significant.

[Julien Baudry]

As my colleague Mr. Laberge said, our infrastructure is aging. We need to maintain it, create new infrastructure and make technological changes at the same time.

Certainly, port authorities need diversified revenue streams. Just as an example, the port of New York-New Jersey generates $27 million a day from tolls on a bridge that was built to help the port of New York. That is not at all our situation when it comes to revenue.

I want to emphasize that, if we also want to improve resilience, we need to repatriate supply chains to Canada. When your supply of fruits and vegetables goes through Philadelphia, for example, between Philadelphia and consumer centres, be it Toronto, Montreal or any other region in Canada, others can make decisions that will increase costs.

Why aren't we repatriating supply chains right now? It's because we prefer to pay a little more to have more resilience or better performance.

I want to emphasize that. For example, the state of Georgia alone has invested $4.2 billion U.S. in its port infrastructure, and it's not a coincidence that it has been able to develop a significant manufacturing industry. Why is that? It's because there's less risk in the system.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Let me follow up on something you touched on, Mr. Baudry, about food going through the United States.

In an opinion piece published in November, Professor Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University, my former neighbour, explained that the new trade corridor diversification fund was really an investment to improve supply chains, which could lead to a reduction in food costs.

Do you share that opinion?

What other infrastructure investments would be essential to reduce food and other costs?

You also said that, when a product is more competitive, users are the ones who benefit.

[Julien Baudry]

Thank you for the question.

In the case of the food sector, we definitely need capacity to repatriate supply chains, whatever the port, obviously. However, we also have to be able to build real ecosystems not only in the food sector, but also in the advanced manufacturing sector. We need electrical capacity to install what are called reefer, or refrigerated containers. When they run on electricity, it's better for the environment. It also makes some products more competitive. A number of international companies have already chosen to return to the port of Montreal because its connections are now electric and because the international head office has commitments to decarbonize. Without this equipment, these goods will not be coming back here. I do want to address the fact that some American states have set up incentive programs as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Baudry.

Thank you, Ms. O'Rourke.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to follow up with Mr. Baudry.

You have no doubt seen a study by Henri Chevalier and Éric Pineault, commissioned by SNAP Québec, on the economic viability of the expansion project or, at least, its justification. The study essentially states that the Montreal Port Authority's past forecasts for future growth have not materialized and that there is currently no bottleneck at the port.

Given that there are currently no bottlenecks at the Port of Montreal, is it really urgent to build an expansion?

That is my question, but there may be other aspects of the study that might interest you or that you would like to answer.

[Julien Baudry]

We welcome any academic work. In this case, we wrote to the University of Waterloo student and the sociologist who produced the document to inform them that the document unfortunately contained many factual errors. The depth of the river is not right, the size of the vessels is underestimated by 44% and, above all, the economic context and business need are not taken into account.

The Port of Montreal makes its forecasts based on data from the Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada. You're right, the projections we made in 2017 have not come to fruition. We live in a totally different world. In past years, we have unfortunately had some labour disputes. The good news is that we made good use of that time to advance the project's engineering and get a partner in the project.

Now, as for the future, we are here to meet the needs of Canadian businesses, and the message we have from businesses, but also from governments, is that they want—

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

Thank you. I'm going to interrupt you, because I don't have much time left and I'd like to be able to ask a question to the representative from the Port of Saguenay before my time is up.

Mr. Laberge, as you mentioned earlier, your project focuses a lot on mineral extraction and proximity to mines.

First, how do you see the possibility of doing not only extraction, but also processing on our territory? To what extent is that part of your vision? What's the way to get there?

Second, how can this development be reconciled with the presence of belugas in the Saguenay?

[Carl Laberge]

Thank you very much for the question.

That's exactly what we're developing here at the Port of Saguenay. We have the opportunity not only to export minerals, but also to process them. To be able to process them, we need enough space to accommodate the industries. We also need access to all kinds of other things: energy supplies, such as electricity and natural gas; labour; expertise and so on. Those are all things that we have here, in Saguenay, and that we can offer.

That's really what we're aiming for: to have projects where mining activities are concentrated in the north to reduce volumes and, once the time has come to ship to markets, to try to do one or two additional processing steps here, at the port site, to create jobs at home and grow the economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laberge.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next we have Mr. Albas.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I would like to direct my questions to Mr. Laberge.

Welcome, Mr. Laberge.

You said that the opportunity for your port was enormous. I discussed the same thing with the dynamic member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. This is absolutely a fantastic opportunity for Canada, and particularly for Quebec and Saguenay.

Can you explain that opportunity to us again, please?

[Carl Laberge]

Yes. Thank you very much for the question.

As I said, we're actually currently developing infrastructure here to be able to do that, but there's another interesting thing. We're going to have the capacity. It's very big, so we'll be able to develop projects over a number of years. Right now, we're well connected to northern Quebec and Chibougamau by rail. However, there's also a way to improve those rail connections in a very prolific mining sector that stretches from northern Quebec to northern Ontario. A west-east railway would help us facilitate the transport of minerals—even from northern Ontario, across all of Quebec, right to the Port of Saguenay—to ship raw materials or do additional processing.

This is something unique that we have to offer right now. It's a huge opportunity for Canada. It's based on existing infrastructure and existing planning that's already well under way in the communities concerned.

We hope that governments, including the Government of Canada, will work with the region and northern communities to improve this infrastructure so that mining projects can be carried out and our markets can be diversified.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Your port is in a strategic location, particularly given the geopolitical situation. My leader went to Germany to promote natural resources, such as liquefied natural gas, and discuss reserves of critical and strategic minerals. It seems to me that your port could play a huge role in that. However, the federal government has shut down your efforts. For example, I'm thinking of the liquefied natural gas project you proposed in 2022, which is a very important project, particularly for our allies.

Do you agree with me about the strategic nature of your port?

[Carl Laberge]

Yes, we very much agree on that. As I said earlier, it's quite exceptional to have a port site around which it's immediately possible to develop major industrial activities.

We did have a liquefied natural gas project, which had been proposed for a number of years and was rejected by the governments of Quebec and Canada in 2022.

I would say that we're really looking at all the opportunities that come our way right now. There are many of them that have to do with critical and strategic minerals. However, there's also great potential for other types of industrial projects, such as energy projects. It's something that has a lot of long-term value, so it's worth investing in this kind of infrastructure. It's something the world is going to need for a long time. It's perfectly in line with the strategies we currently have in Canada.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

It's important to address the over-regulation of ports, as well as the funding issue that you have talked about in committee.

Perhaps you can reinforce your message to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure regarding the opportunity you mentioned, which the dynamic member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord also spoke to me about.

[Carl Laberge]

Indeed, as I said earlier, it's important to invest in port infrastructure. A program for that has been announced, and we hope we'll be able to make full use of it. However, for us to develop our industrial infrastructure and benefit from mining projects, we have to take that a little further. We have to make access roads, for example. We need certain basic infrastructure, such as railways and other things, that can accommodate projects like that and help us develop industrial capacity.

For a port authority like ours, it's definitely extremely important to have access to additional financial levers and programs that go a bit further so we can access capital and take risks that we're unable to take. I'm referring to things like the involvement of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laberge.

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

Finally for this panel, we have Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Kelloway, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and hello, everyone.

I think what we've established here today is that the government is working to diversify trade and ensure that exporters can access markets around the world. We know that modern and efficient ports are critical to making this possible. All the witnesses have talked about that.

I'm wondering if you can tell us, from your perspective, how important the federal investments in port infrastructure are, including the trade corridor programs, in ensuring that Canadian exports can reach international markets and make Canada more globally competitive.

I think you can look at this from both of these perspectives: You can look at the $4.2 billion that was invested in the diversification corridors fund. I believe that $847 million of that $4.2 billion in the NCTF was spent in Quebec. You can talk about the monies that were allocated or the new monies, the $6 billion in the new diversification corridors fund. How is this going to make us more competitive?

I wonder if you can boil it down to maybe three or four points. We can start with Mr. Laberge to kick us off.