Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify.
Canada is at a pivotal moment. Against a backdrop of geopolitical upheaval, the reorganization of supply chains and increased competition, ports are no longer merely infrastructure; they are platforms for resilience and instruments of economic sovereignty.
The Port of Montreal, like all other Canadian ports, does not operate in isolation. Our role is to provide local businesses with reliable, competitive and predictable options for accessing global trade via maritime transport. This is what we do every day; goods worth over $400 million pass through the Port of Montreal, and we support nearly 600,000 jobs. From Germany to India, China, or Morocco, current and future economic agreements are at the heart of what we do.
However, we do not operate in an environment where we are on a level playing field with our American competitors.
Internationally, the picture is clear: The ports that stand out as leaders are fully integrated; they manage logistics hubs, they develop intermodal platforms and they offer licensed services. For example, the Port of New York—New Jersey alone handles more containers than all Canadian port authorities combined. Its revenue streams are diversified, deriving notably from toll bridges and real estate assets. It has investment capacity supported by simpler, more predictable and faster regulatory processes.
In short, global leaders do not just build docks; they build ecosystems that generate and capture greater value while offering businesses a smoother experience.
An article in The Globe and Mail recently pointed out that a large proportion of our fruit and vegetables, as well as other foodstuffs, even if they come from abroad, pass through U.S. ports. This is a strategic vulnerability that exposes us to the decisions of the Washington administration, which on its own has the power to slow down, impose surcharges on, or halt essential flows.
The same logic applies to many manufacturing inputs, which cost more because U.S. wholesalers must pay international customs duties.
On the U.S. east coast, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 600,000 containers destined for Canada currently pass through a U.S. port rather than Canadian infrastructure. Uncertainty surrounding labour disputes, combined with the strong performance of U.S. ports, is a major factor in this trade diversion. Whether to repatriate these goods or to meet Canada’s ambition to double exports outside the U.S., local businesses need capacity.
Let me be clear: the Port of Montreal is ready to meet the challenge. Last year, our growth exceeded the average for the U.S. east coast. The competition is fierce, and maintaining century-old infrastructure whilst adopting new technologies or adapting to climate change is a daily challenge.
In 2025, we reached a utilization rate of 72.4%. If the trend continues, we will reach 86% by 2030. Above 85%, costs rise, the carbon footprint increases and business opportunities are lost.
No vacancy is not an option.
The expansion project in Contrecœur is therefore coming at just the right time. After more than a decade of preparations, 50 consultations and 388 conditions for implementation, preparatory work has begun.
As North America’s first low-carbon container handling terminal, Contrecœur will offer a clear competitive advantage: its location will reduce the carbon footprint of trucking and rail transport compared to other options, notably the nearest alternative, which is the Port of New York.
I want to return to an important point: there is the Port of Montreal, but also the model we have for the port of the future.
Last year, as of December 31, it was estimated that seven out of 10 container ships worldwide could enter the waters of the St. Lawrence. Of the 600 container ships that have been built and ordered for 2025, the segment experiencing the strongest growth is precisely that of container ships capable of calling at the Port of Montreal, namely 6,500-TEU container ships. We are talking about growth of over 500%.
Of course, we must mention mega-ships. These mega-ships essentially shuttle between Asia and Pacific ports, or to ports such as Halifax or Saint John, with which we collaborate and work.
In short, there is a future for inland waterway transport, but to ensure an even brighter future, I would like to make three recommendations.
Firstly, the Port of Montreal, like all other Canadian ports, needs to be able to act as a genuine economic development agency. We need to be more agile and make targeted amendments to our letters patent to enable us to generate additional revenue, but also to respond more quickly to market fluctuations and business demands.
Next, we need a national supply chain strategy that is consistent with port operations, but above all focused on bringing food and goods intended for Canadian businesses back into the country.
Finally, we must treat ports, but above all corridors, as systems. The reality is that trade and food security do not depend on one port or another; they depend, in particular, on intermodality between rail, trucking and warehouses. Ports that work together will, of course, benefit greatly from having not only physical infrastructure but also digital infrastructure. Digital corridor projects enable us to make better decisions and, above all, to offer greater predictability and competitiveness to the businesses that use our services.
I will stop there. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.