Transport Committee on March 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 24 of the 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 resuming its study aimed at 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 our witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For 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 would now like to welcome the witnesses.

Today, we have with us a representative from the Montreal Port Authority, Mr. Julien Baudry, chief of staff and vice-president of communications and external relations. We also have a representative from the Saguenay Port Authority, Carl Laberge, president and CEO, who is joining us via video conference.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Beaudry, you have the floor for a five-minute presentation.

[Julien Baudry, Chief of Staff and Vice-President, Communications and External Affairs, Montreal Port Authority]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Beaudry.

Mr. Laberge now has the floor for a five-minute opening statement.

[Carl Laberge, President and Chief Executive Officer, Saguenay Port Authority]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today.

I’m going to give you some information about the Port of Saguenay.

The Port of Saguenay is located on the Saguenay River and forms part of the wider family of St. Lawrence—Saguenay ports. The St. Lawrence is one of the most important shipping routes in North America.

A distinctive feature of the Port of Saguenay is that it was relocated in the early 1980s. Originally situated in the city centre, back when it was part of the former town of Chicoutimi, the port was moved outside the city centre. It is now located away from the city centre, far from residential areas. The move was specifically intended to take advantage of the deep waters of the Saguenay River, which is one of its major benefits. Indeed, Saguenay is capable of accommodating very large ships. We also wanted to encourage industrial development around the port, so that it could act as a catalyst for economic growth.

The port is open all year round. As I said, it can accommodate the largest ships in Quebec. One of the port’s distinguishing features is the size of its land holdings. Currently, the Saguenay Port Authority owns over 1,200 hectares of land directly adjacent to the port, designated as an industrial zone to accommodate large-scale industrial facilities. That’s around 12 square kilometres of land, so it’s very large.

We are currently planning the development of one of the largest port industrial zones in Canada, in collaboration with the Government of Quebec and the City of Saguenay, both of which have announced, alongside us, significant investments in the infrastructure of the port industrial zone. We are currently building a multi-user bulk handling system, at a cost of $110 million, which will be operational from June. We are putting in place infrastructure that will enable us to handle large volumes of bulk cargo efficiently. We have had the support of the provincial and federal governments for this project.

We also stand out because of our location, which is further north in Quebec, slightly inland thanks to the Saguenay River. This gives us excellent access to the entire hinterland of north-western Quebec. We are well connected to the existing railway network, which extends as far as the Chibougamau—Chapais area—one of the most prolific mining regions at present, particularly for critical and strategic minerals. We therefore have a good connection to this network.

The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, where we are located, is well known in the industrial sector. It is one of the main aluminum-producing regions in North America, amongst other things. There is a significant metallurgical sector and a wide range of industries here. Furthermore, one of Saguenay’s neighbours is the Bagotville military base, one of the largest military bases in the country.

What we see in the region is a port that is developing assets with a view to industrial transformation; it is a port with a large capacity to accommodate ships; it is a well-located port, with good connections to the northern parts of Quebec where mining projects are under way; it is a port that provides us with a good link for trading with Europe, amongst others, and with other countries. That is what we are currently seeking.

We are in the process of building this infrastructure. We have the support of the Government of Quebec and the City of Saguenay. We are also working with the federal government and the Canada Infrastructure Bank to develop the financial models that will enable us to complete this infrastructure. This is extremely strategic. We believe our positioning fits very well with what we are currently seeking to develop in Quebec and Canada, namely having west-east corridors to export our goods, particularly in the mining sector in our case, given the proximity of our resources. We also want to be able to generate added value by establishing industries around the port. That is what we are currently setting up. We plan to start construction on this infrastructure this year, in fact. We are at that stage now.

That is where we currently stand. To build on our momentum, we are seeking the federal government’s support to fund certain additional infrastructure projects that we require. A number of programs were announced last week, and we hope to be able to benefit from them. In fact, last autumn, as part of the most recent budget, the government made announcements regarding port infrastructure. We are very pleased with these announcements, but we will also need support for industrial infrastructure. We expect the Canada Infrastructure Bank, amongst others, to support us in this regard.

We are a small Canadian port authority, but we are experiencing very strong growth, and thanks to our capacity and location, we have the potential to significantly help Canada achieve its goals regarding the processing and export of critical and strategic minerals. We therefore need the resources that will enable us to grow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laberge.

I would like to thank you both for your opening statements.

We will now move on to our question period.

Mr. Lawrence has the floor for six minutes to start.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses; I'll start with a brief bit of housekeeping. I believe all parties are on board, so hopefully this should go quickly.

I would like to move the following motion:

That the committee invite Peter Neil Verleysen to appear as a witness for the committee’s tentative meeting on the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada on March 23, 2026.

Of course, Peter's sister was a victim of a tragic accident involving a transport truck, and he would very much like to testify.

I expect and appreciate all members' support there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

I believe that members understand the motion, and there have been discussions prior to today's meeting.

Do I have unanimous consent from members?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Lawrence, the floor is yours, sir.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate all members' support. It means a lot to Peter and his family.

Mr. Baudry, most of my questions will be directed toward you.

You're now in a position to start the Contrecoeur expansion, but I want to talk a bit about where we are before we get there.

Currently, the World Bank's global port index ranks Montreal 351st out of 405. To what would you attribute the poor performance of the Port of Montreal?

[Julien Baudry]

Thank you for your question.

In our view, Canadian ports as a whole, particularly those known as destination ports, are not valued in the same way as other ports. Let me give you an example. The index in question does not take into account the fact that ships are fully loaded and unloaded in Montreal, i.e., 100%. In the methodology used, this aspect is actually not taken into account. Yet, in reality, we are a very productive port.

However, we can certainly do better. There is no doubt that, in order for us to perform as well as the world’s top-performing ports, we need better intermodal coordination, particularly by working with all levels of government. At present, the challenges facing the Port of Montreal are also linked to the equipment investments required at both the provincial and municipal levels. This work would go a long way towards improving overall performance.

I cannot stress this enough: The reason why some ports elsewhere in the world are performing better than us is that we are not competing on a level playing field. These ports have higher revenues, more diversified revenues and greater digitalization capacity, particularly because they possess both a scale and network effects that we do not have in Canada.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

The discussions for the expansion that's going to be starting, I believe, started in the 1980s, over 40 or 50 years ago. Someone at the Port of Montreal at that point had the vision. How would you say that the federal government specifically—because we're in the House of Commons; we're the federal government—has been as a partner to work with over the last 10 years? Has it given you the support you needed to get the work done?

[Julien Baudry]

Our consultation process, which included preliminary consultations and was managed by the agency, was very long. Of course, the Canadian government has helped us in the past by giving us grants. However, the fact is that things are totally different now that we're collaborating with the Major Projects Office. That doesn't mean we skip the queue; the Contrecœur project is not being accelerated in any way. However, having a central agency that is also able to coordinate efforts means that we're now in a very good position to deliver, on time and on budget, a quality project that will meet businesses' needs.

Let me go back to what I said a little earlier and emphasize that certain amendments to laws and regulations definitely can and should be made more quickly. Ports, like all Canadian businesses, want predictability. Faster is better. Lastly, I want to emphasize that, whether we're talking about Contrecœur or activities in Montreal, the best way to help Canadian ports is to maximize their existing capacity. At the Port of Montreal, capacity has been affected by labour instability. We're neither the employer nor the union, but a work environment that results in greater stability also helps us convince Canadian companies to use Canadian ports.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

This is consistent with what we've heard from many witnesses. The uncertainty from what has occurred over the last decade in the Canadian economy has really held the economy back.

That being said, what is the date for the Contrecoeur expansion to be completed?

[Julien Baudry]

Our current timeline would enable us to begin operating as early as 2030. As I said in my presentation, if the trend continues, our usage rate will be 86%. If commissioning were delayed, some of Canada's ambitions could be difficult to achieve. Right now, if 6% of Canadian exports to the United States are sent elsewhere, the Port of Montreal will not be able to meet the demand, which is mainly from Quebec and Ontario. If we have to delay the project past 2030, there will be complications and lost opportunities for Canadian businesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

We'll go to Mr. Greaves.

The floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, colleagues.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. Good morning.

As we've heard before in conversations in this committee, and as we've heard extensively from the Prime Minister and from the government, it's clear, I think, that we're all on the same page. Canada must diversify its trading partners, and we have to increase our exports around the world, with a focus on expanding beyond the North American continent.

The government's $5-billion trade diversification corridors fund is part of the strategy to double non-U.S. exports over the next 10 years and will support projects across the country, including national and regional trade bottlenecks affecting some of Canada's ports.

For the witnesses here this morning, could you please share how funds from the national trade corridors fund in 2024, and now, the new trade diversification corridors fund, will help your ports to expand to meet these targets for non-U.S. exports within the next decade?

Perhaps we could begin with the Port of Montreal and then go to the Port of Saguenay.

[Julien Baudry]

Thank you for the question.

I want to make it very clear that any investment of public funds in a project at the Port of Montreal, whether by the Government of Quebec or the federal government, is essentially a lever. In the case of the Contrecœur project, public investment allows us to reduce risk and, subsequently, get the port authority to make investments that will come from the private sector.

In other words, every investment made through the national trade corridors fund is not only for the port, but also for users. In our case, past investments have resulted in India being the port of Montreal's third-largest partner. Why is that? It's because we have infrastructure that allows us to better serve western Canada through terminals like CanEst and increased rail capacity.

At the end of the day, it's not just the port that's more competitive; it's the product that's in the container or in the ship destined for export. This applies to all countries, and it's the same dynamic we see. The end user benefits from these investments.

[Carl Laberge]

Mr. Baudry is right: We're making these investments for users and to have more efficient and competitive infrastructure.

One of the things I mentioned was our bulk handling project, which will end in June of this year. We had support from the national trade corridors fund, which was critical to our being able to do this.

We also need to expand our port facilities to meet existing demand as well as future demand resulting from the development of strategic and industrial critical minerals projects in the port industrial zone. Last fall's announcement about the new trade diversification corridors fund is critical to this development.

An organization like ours has limited financial resources but significant responsibilities in serving its industry, so it needs the support of its partners, including the provincial government and the federal government. In our case, even the municipality of Saguenay is involved because we manage public infrastructure for the good of the public, and there is a fairly significant level of risk upstream. That said, it pays to have this infrastructure when we need it, but it takes a long time to develop it.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, gentlemen.

I'd like both of you to clarify something. What is the current capacity of your respective ports? What would their maximum handling capacity be if they had all the necessary resources?

Let's start with the Port of Montreal, and then we'll see what the situation is for the Port of Saguenay.

[Julien Baudry]

At this point, the Port of Montreal can handle 2.1 million containers, but that's a theoretical number, because the reality is that, at an 85% utilization rate, our capacity is closer to 1.73 million containers. The closer we get to that peak, the less competitive we are. To simplify, I would say that there are times when there's lots of space and times when we have to turn customers away and send them elsewhere. That volume is spread out over a whole year, and some seasons are busier than others. That happened in 2019, when we had more difficult seasons. Anyone in import-export will tell you that.

Thanks to these investments, especially in digitization—which I consider very important—and optimization, we're able to reduce costs and our carbon footprint. At the end of the day, we're making the port more competitive and, more importantly, there's a multiplier effect on the products we ship out. The Port of Montreal primarily serves Europe, which is still very interested in low-carbon products, but it also serves Asia, to which we export 25% of our volume, and it is increasingly serving Africa, as you can see. Those are essentially the needs we are going to meet.

Capacity limits relate directly to the principle of supply and demand. The more capacity you have in a system, the more companies can take advantage of it and do business internationally with fewer logistical barriers. Again, that creates jobs here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baudry.

Thank you, Mr. Greaves.

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 start my first round with Mr. Baudry.

Welcome to the committee. We're very happy to have you here. We're always happy to have people here.

On February 23, the committee had the opportunity to hear from the Minister of Transport, Steven MacKinnon, and I told him about the following situation. Consultations for the Contrecœur expansion project were held in the immediate vicinity of the port, in Verchères and Contrecœur, not in Boucherville or Varennes. Like it or not, containers that go through Contrecœur have to be transported either by road or by rail. If the project is equivalent to 60% of Montreal's current capacity—1.15 million containers—that means a lot of containers being moved, some of them by rail through cities. We therefore expect noticeable impacts on residents of Boucherville and Varennes. When I told the minister about this, he said that my request to hold consultations in Boucherville and Varennes with representatives from Transport Canada, the Montreal Port Authority and CN was entirely reasonable.

Would the Montreal Port Authority be willing to take part in such consultations?

[Julien Baudry]

Thank you for the question.

I should point out that the 2017 impact study considered increased road and rail transportation. In addition, during the consultations, which were conducted not by the port authority, but by the agency, people from Boucherville and other municipalities throughout the Montérégie region and elsewhere in Quebec sent in comments. People from Verchères, Varennes, Contrecœur and Boucherville submitted briefs.

It was a designated project, so we focused on the impacts of the project first. We're no longer at the consultation stage, but the Montreal Port Authority holds events, such as information sessions. We have mechanisms to make us good neighbours. We're always happy to listen to questions and answer them.

With respect to doing more and being involved in a consultation process, as I'm sure you know, we don't own the railway infrastructure; it belongs to CN. Regardless, those questions and comments have been forwarded to the agency, and we will respond to them. I am taking note of the recommendation to do more for these residents and municipalities. We'll continue to answer questions.

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

Basically, I understand that you will say yes if you receive an invitation from the minister's office, Transport Canada, CN or the City of Boucherville.

I understand that, as you did mention, the track belongs to CN first and foremost. That doesn't prevent alignment challenges, because what's going to transit on the track will come from the port. Therefore, the port authority may be in a better position to answer some questions. That's why I think it would be important for you to be there.

I've learned that some of the land where the work is going on, where the preparatory work has started, is contaminated. People have told my office about their fears that drinking water could be contaminated, particularly as a result of runoff and snowmelt. We explored that a bit further. According to the City of Contrecœur's documents, two lots in particular are affected by contamination: Lot P‑252 contains cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, petroleum products and zinc, while the lot located at 1920 route Marie-Victorin contains aluminum, ammoniacal nitrogen, cadmium, copper, iron, nitrate, nitrite, sulfides, vanadium, zinc, chrome, manganese and nickel.

However, under the Environment Quality Act, before a municipality issues any permits, contaminated land like that must be subject to a rehabilitation plan approved by the ministère de l'Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the Government of Quebec. I understand that, true to the habits of most federal entities, the Montreal Port Authority has not applied for a permit from the city or submitted a rehabilitation plan to the Government of Quebec.

Nevertheless, I would like to know what the port's intentions are regarding the treatment of contaminated land. Will it be treated properly?

[Julien Baudry]

Thank you for your question.

First of all, it should be noted that the vast majority of the site used to be intended for agriculture, particularly growing corn and soybeans.

Now, in the western part of the land, where these two lots you mentioned are located, there have indeed been industrial activities. In this case, a characterization was done of the sites. All of that was also shared with federal authorities.

Since we are already at work, the necessary measures have been put in place, starting with the installation of barriers to prevent runoff into the nearby creek. It's also important to note that, even when work is done on the site, the vehicles are mechanically cleaned, so there is no contamination beyond the site. When the vehicles have to leave the site, we apply the Quebec regulations, meaning we use the Traces Québec program.

I really want to reassure committee members that the entire site is managed in an exemplary manner and that we report on the measures we use to the authorities. I'm talking about federal authorities, of course. I want to emphasize one point as well: We are not asking for permits from the Quebec government or the municipality, but the Quebec government took part in the consultation process that resulted in a favourable decision statement. We made the choice not to apply for a permit, but it's the same as any agent of the Crown. We followed the federal guidelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Baudry.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next we have Mr. Muys.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.