Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
Vigie citoyenne port de Contrecœur is a group of citizens concerned about the environmental, social and economic effects of the Contrecœur port project.
Let's talk about the economic aspect first.
Recently, on CBC News's The National, Professor Jean‑Paul Rodrigue, a marine traffic specialist at Texas A&M University, said that the Contrecœur port project should have been built 20 years ago, but that it's no longer relevant. He explains that this is because new container ships are getting bigger and bigger and can't navigate to Contrecœur or Montreal because of the shallow draft of about 11 metres. Mr. Rodrigue believes that this $2.3 billion expansion would not open up new markets but would cannibalize the existing one in Montreal. In his view, the future lies with deepwater ports starting from Quebec City.
A recent academic study by Éric Pineault of the Institut des sciences de l'environnement at the Université du Québec à Montréal also concludes that the port of Contrecœur is at risk of being underutilized, unprofitable and a financial burden for Canadian taxpayers. The study explains that the Port of Montreal, far from being saturated, is already missing its traffic targets and fails to account for climate change, which is lowering the river's water level, threatening the viability of a terminal that is already unable to accommodate the majority of the global fleet. The Port of Montreal handled 1.5 million containers in 2025, the same volume as in 2014.
On the environmental side, the destruction of an exceptional ecosystem on the banks of the St. Lawrence, adjacent to the Îles‑de‑Contrecœur national wildlife area, would be an invaluable loss.
It would never occur to members that a port in Stanley Park would cut down 13,000 trees and pave over hundreds of acres.
Preserving Contrecœur's 100‑year-old forest is just as essential, because it serves as a natural lung next to an already very heavy industrial area.
Air quality is at stake, as the port would also contribute to greenhouse gases and polluting emissions from its machinery, ships at dock burning fuel oil around the clock, and the 1,200 trucks per day expected to use the facility. We are concerned for the health of citizens, as a public health report has already noted a higher rate of lung disease and cancer in the region.
The health of the river is also at risk, as the shorelines are suffering from massive erosion due mainly to the wake of commercial vessels, which would be greatly increased by the project.
We are concerned about water quality because the port construction will take place on land that is designated by the City of Contreœur's regulations as contaminated due to the presence of many metals and petroleum products. However, the Port of Montreal won't comply with the permits required for construction, and the mayor says she's going to have to yield to the port's demand to negotiate financial compensation behind closed doors instead.
We are asking the committee for its assistance in ensuring that the port complies with the City of Contrecœur's regulations, as the contaminants present could pollute the river and the Contrecœur drinking water treatment plant, located five kilometres downstream.
This failure to comply with city regulations is also cause for concern because the port has awarded DP World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, a 40-year contract for land-based operations and the management of the Port of Contrecœur. Recently, however, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec suspended its investments with DP World due to its CEO's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. In the United States, Congress has opposed DP World's investments in several ports on national security grounds. We are calling for a review by the Office of the Inspector General for National Security and Intelligence Activities regarding the consequences of handing over control of the Port of Contrecœur to DP World for 40 years.
For all these reasons, we are calling for a moratorium on the Contrecœur port project so that independent experts can reassess its viability, given that its $2.3 billion cost, including $580 million in subsidies, and the fact that it does not seem to be an effective solution for diversifying our markets and reducing our dependence on the United States.
Thank you very much for listening. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.