Evidence of meeting #26 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was post.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation
Absolutely, sir. We'll go back and look at the data. If there's new information that tells us something new, we will do a deep dive on it.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
Okay.
This was mentioned in French, but I want to ask the question in English so it's on the record in both languages. It's about the tools you have to hold subcontractors to account.
Obviously, $2 billion is a big amount in procurement through contractors. A lot of that is happening through subcontractors, and maybe that's where the greatest risk for gaps lies.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation
Alex, why don't I hand that over to you?
Chief Operating Officer, Canada Post Corporation
I would say—as I said in French—that we treat subcontractors just like contractors because, to us, they show up on our property, they have a truck, they need the right equipment, they need to be qualified and they need to have the right driver's licence for what they're driving. We audit them whether they're subcontractors or not.
I think it's also important to mention that we have, over the years, beefed up our ability to conduct audits. We're hiring third party firms to do that for us. They go to the suppliers' premises and look at the way they train. They look at their equipment. They look at the way they run their own yards beyond Canada Post, because that's important to us.
We're not just auditing on our premises. We're spending time at the suppliers' facilities, as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Brisson. I'm not picking on you, by the way. It just so happens that you're always the last person to be asked a question, and time is running out.
Next, we'll turn it over to Mr. Kelloway.
The floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Verleysen, I want to say thank you so much for being here and for sharing recommendations. I also thank MP Lawrence for inviting you. It's important to hear your story, your sister's story and the recommendations.
I'm going to pivot to Canada Post.
This morning, we heard about the robust and strong process you have, which I appreciate. We have such limited time here, but when I hear of robust and strong processes, I think it's important to unpack as much as we can.
Can you give us a sense of what that is? When you looked at La Presse and saw the stories, and the companies in those stories, what did you measure? What informed your decision that there was not enough evidence to suggest that there was an infraction or something against Canada Post's policy?
Chief Operating Officer, Canada Post Corporation
The process covers things from the day we hire a supplier to the day the goods are delivered to us, as well as audits.
Regarding the names that came up in La Presse, they're part of our process. We've audited them in the past, so they're known to us. Again, you heard that today. If there's factual information you're able to share with us that we can investigate, we'll gladly do it. There's no question about that.
The procurement process is one that's public and very structured. It has different stages. You have to clear a stage before you can move on to the next one. I think you can talk to any supplier and they will tell you that applying for a piece of work at Canada Post is work. You have to show all the programs you have. That's a challenging part. We even go to the extent where, if you're not selected in our process, we'll sit down with you and explain why you weren't and how you can improve. Part of our job is to try to make everybody better, and we're definitely willing to play that role. That's at the heart of health and safety. That's the procurement process.
At the auditing level, we're very structured too. We start by looking at the way a person behaves in our facility. We look at the quality of equipment, then dispatch our own people on the street to watch how people are driving and what they do. I would call this quite comprehensive. We're detailed. With health and safety, you don't cut corners—you go all the way or you don't go. We're going all the way. That's why there are a lot of notices we're sending out about a vest having to be zipped up. We're at that level. If you show up and some equipment is not ready, we are not only going to send you home but also going to contact the supplier. You're going to show us the inspection record on all these types of equipment you're running, even outside Canada Post.
We're going to great lengths to drive a process that's quality first in everything we do.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation
The only thing I can add to that is this: We have full access to all their records, all their vehicles and all their employees. We can access those at a moment's notice, and we do.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
We'll go into the part of the questioning that probably requires just a yes or a no. It's about some things you've already discussed.
You have not employed the Driver Inc. model in any form or fashion.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
You have stated on three or four occasions here today that you support the removal of Driver Inc.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation
We support the removal 100%. We'd like to see it done as soon as possible.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
A few of my colleagues from the opposition asked, should information come up that would suggest the Driver Inc. model is being used, what you would do about it. You've gone back about that. I've started with the compliance framework and trying to unpack that, because it's hard to unpack several processes in three minutes.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Do you see any area that you can strengthen, based on this particular accusation of Driver Inc. being used? Have you seen anything that you can improve on, look at or re-examine, based on suggestions that Driver Inc., in some form or fashion, has been used?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation
That's a great point. We're always looking to improve. We're not saying we're perfect, as was mentioned earlier. We're clearly not. We make mistakes. If there's evidence, we will do a deep dive into that, based on all of the full access we have to all of the data. We will put those companies on the mat and we will go deep into them.
Our processes are very rigorous, but there are always things we can improve. As we see recommendations come out of this committee, we will be all over them and we'll employ them fully, because there's nothing more important than what we heard here earlier today about the sanctity of life and the tragic things that occur on the roads. We do not want to be part of that in any way, shape or form.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Verleysen, Mr. Ettinger and Monsieur Brisson, I'd like to thank you on behalf of this committee for appearing before us today and contributing to this very important study.
Colleagues, we're going to suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the clerk to transition to the next round of witnesses.
The meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, I have the honour of welcoming the following witnesses for the second round.
From the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, we have Daniel-Robert Gooch, president and chief executive officer; from Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., we have David Rivest, president and general manager; and from Melford Atlantic Gateway, we have Mike Uberoi, chief executive officer.
Welcome to all three of you.
We'll dive right into opening remarks.
Mr. Gooch, I'll turn the floor over to you to get us started.
Daniel-Robert Gooch President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Good morning. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, which represents Canada's 17 port authorities. These are essential national critical infrastructure and will play a central role in delivering on the country's trade diversification and economic resilience objectives.
Let me focus on four key areas.
First, financial agility. Canada's port authorities are facing a significant infrastructure gap, estimated at between $15 billion and $21.5 billion by 2040.
Unlike many other parts of the transportation system, port authorities do not receive ongoing public funding. Port authorities rely on their own revenues, access to federal programs and private financing to build and maintain critical infrastructure.
The challenge is that the current borrowing framework from 1998 is too rigid and does not reflect commercial realities. Borrowing limits are fixed, tied to outdated ratios and can take years to adjust through federal approvals. That creates delays, increases project costs and makes it harder to attract private capital.
There is a clear opportunity here. By introducing higher and more dynamic borrowing limits that reflect the actual earnings capacity and potential of port authorities, the federal government can unlock significant private investment, provide greater financial certainty and reduce reliance on unpredictable public funding.
Port authorities are already working with Transport Canada on solutions, but some aspects of the port authority model itself must be improved. If ports are expected to deliver on Canada's trade diversification agenda, they must be equipped with modern financial tools to do so.
The second point is governance and board appointments. Canada's port governance model strikes the right balance between local and regional stakeholder needs and federal oversight, but the federal appointment process is creating real challenges. In some cases, board vacancies have remained unfilled for years. That affects continuity, reduces effectiveness and slows decision-making at a time when ports are expected to move quickly on major infrastructure and trade priorities.
There is a straightforward fix. Bill C-33 previously included a provision that would have introduced a 12-month deadline for federal appointments. We believe that approach should be reinstated in any future legislative efforts. Timely and transparent appointments will strengthen governance, improve investor confidence and ensure that boards are able to provide the leadership needed to deliver on national objectives.
The third point is unlocking partnerships and expanding permitted activities. Modernization is not only about infrastructure but also about giving port authorities the flexibility to operate in a more commercial and competitive environment. Today, legislative limitations restrict the scope of activities that port authorities can undertake. They limit their ability to capitalize subsidiaries, participate in joint ventures and pursue partnerships that could strengthen their financial position.
Expanding the definition of permitted activities and enabling greater participation in partnerships would allow ports to develop complementary revenue streams and reinvest those revenues into core marine infrastructure. This is not about moving away from their core mandate; it is about strengthening it. Greater flexibility would improve financial resilience, accelerate project delivery and better position Canadian ports to attract private capital.
The final point is trade corridor investments. We strongly support the trade diversification corridors fund and the federal government's focus on building more resilient and diversified supply chains. Ports are central nodes in these corridors, and investments must be coordinated across marine, rail, road and inland logistics systems.
We were encouraged to hear Minister MacKinnon note in his recent appearance before this committee that the government recognizes the importance not only of major port projects but also of smaller, lesser-known initiatives that are critical to overall system performance. That recognition is important. It is important that funding supports not only major high-profile projects but also smaller high-impact investments that will address bottlenecks and unlock regional trade. The program reflects this with a targeted stream for high-impact projects, a collaborative stream to address specific challenges and an open call to address regional infrastructure gaps.
In closing, Canada's ability to diversify trade and strengthen economic resilience will depend on having ports that are financially agile, well governed, operationally flexible and supported by coordinated infrastructure investment.
We appreciate the committee's leadership on this study and look forward to engaging with you afterwards.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Gooch.
Next we'll go to Mr. Rivest.
Mr. Rivest, you have the floor for five minutes.
David Rivest President and General Manager, Desgagnés Transarctik Inc.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I'm appearing on behalf of Desgagnés, which is a Quebec-based marine transportation group. The company owns and operates a fleet of Canadian flag vessels and is active in general and dry-cargo transport, liquid bulk transport, essential marine services to Quebec's lower north shore communities, Arctic sealift operations, and maritime port and terminal operations.
From our perspective, Canada's port strategy should be built on major gateways, capable medium-sized ports and Arctic-serving nodes.
Major gateways are indispensable. Canada needs them for scale, specialization and access to global markets. At the same time, if Canada is seeking to further diversify trade, then a port network must do more than move large volumes from a few locations. It must also support community resupply, resource development and industrial supply chains. In practical terms, this includes cargoes such as construction materials, industrial raw materials, mining supplies, forest products, steel, concrete, project cargo and wind turbine components—to name a few—moving to and from industrial users and processing sites.
Many medium-sized ports operate in a very different reality from large, specialized gateways. They require adaptable handling, flexible warehousing, outdoor storage, marshalling areas, efficient rail and road interfaces and, where needed, bonded space and responsive custom services.
As an example, the impact of inadequate infrastructure is evident on Quebec's lower north shore. At La Romaine, one of 12 communities served by the Bella Desgagnés, quay load limits reduce usable container capacity by about 50%, effectively doubling handling requirements and cutting efficiency by roughly 40%. Delays at one port cascade eastward as the vessel cannot make up for lost time along the route.
In practice, weak infrastructure leads directly to higher costs, lower reliability and more fragile supply chains in these communities. In that context, I would respectfully offer three recommendations.
First, the committee should recommend that Transport Canada treat medium-sized, regional, remote and Arctic-serving marine sites as strategic trade infrastructure in the implementation of the new federal corridor and Arctic funding programs. These sites should be assessed not only on their current throughput, but on their long-term strategic contribution to trade resilience and supply chain performance. Relevant investments include berth and wharfage upgrades, dredging where navigation depth is a constraint, warehouse modernization, safe outdoor storage and lay-down areas, improved rail and road connectivity, and environmental improvements that strengthen long-term operational performance.
Second, the committee should recommend that federal project evaluation place explicit weight on industrial enablement and cargo adaptability. Marine development projects should receive stronger consideration where they support industrial clusters, enable secondary and third-tier transformation, accommodate for evolving cargo mixes and complement major gateways. This is a more strategic test than tonnage throughput alone.
Third, the committee should recommend improved trade-enabling coordination and operational responsiveness, including where customs and bonded-area capabilities are needed to support ports handling mixed cargo, including containers in sufficient and efficient routing.
In the Arctic and in the north, Canada is increasingly using an operational base, hub and node approach. That same logic should inform Canada's port system. Having strong major gateways supported by capable secondary sites connected through reliable inland and maritime logistics is how Canada strengthens communities, supports industry and builds more resilient, Canadian-controlled supply chains.
In closing, if Canada intends to expand into new markets and reduce reliance on the United States, it should continue to strengthen major gateways. It should also modernize the broader network around them—regional terminals, medium-sized ports, Arctic-serving nodes and industrial logistics platforms—because that is how Canada builds a system that is efficient, resilient, adaptable and truly national in function.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Monsieur Rivest.
Next, we'll go to Mr. Uberoi.
The floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.
Mike Uberoi Chief Executive Officer, Melford Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Chair and honourable members, I'm here today representing Melford Atlantic Gateway.
We're not here to ask for help with planning or permissions. We've done the work. Melford is a greenfield development consisting of a large marine terminal, construction of 32 kilometres of rail and a logistics park.
We are the most shovel-ready infrastructure project in Canada today. The federal and provincial environmental permits are secured for our 1,800-acre industrial site, which is completely free of urban congestion. We have consulted and secured first nations investment in the project. We have an eight-year labour agreement in place providing the exact long-term stability that global shipping lines demand. The project is private sector-led, ready to be built. What we need now is a country ready to back it.
Today, a massive volume of Canadian trade is moving through U.S. ports. When we rely on our competitors, like New York and New Jersey, which handled 8.7 million TEUs last year, Canadian jobs and economic activities follow that cargo south of the border.
Melford isn't just about stopping leaks to the U.S.; it's about opening Canada to the world. The Province of Nova Scotia recognizes Melford's importance, as demonstrated in the letter of support sent in October from Premier Houston to Prime Minister Carney requesting that Melford be included as a priority.
We urgently need this big-ship capacity. Over the past 35 years, Canada's share of east coast container volume plummeted from 7.3% to 2.8%, yet on the west coast, Canada's market share grew by more than 300%. The west coast achieved this success because of federal government support and investment in new terminals—Deltaport and Prince Rupert.
On the east coast, we now have the exact same opportunity. Melford can be the Prince Rupert of the east. With a 36.5-metre natural deep harbour and no air draft restrictions, we can handle the ultra-large container vessels that define the future of global shipping.
Melford provides much-needed big-ship capacity. A port capable of receiving the largest vessels will increase the total volume of cargo handled by Canada. Cargo moving through Melford could feed and utilize other east coast and seaway ports, rather than watching those lose port share to U.S. competitors due to congestion or vessel size limitations. As the maritime adage goes, a rising tide lifts all ships. This has been proven to be true on the west coast, where both Prince Rupert and Vancouver have flourished since Prince Rupert's opening.
What Melford adds is capacity, resilience and future-proofing of Canada's supply chains. Furthermore, while we're focused on developing a deepwater container port, Melford has recently attracted interest from a variety of sectors that recognize the site's unique attributes. It's an optimal location to serve as a logistics hub for onshore and offshore wind—including supporting wind west—pulp and paper, steel mills and defence-related activities. However, none of these broader economic activities can be utilized without the construction of the terminal.
Our recommendations to this committee are straightforward.
One, formally recognize Melford as a national strategic asset for trade diversification.
Two, prioritize shovel-ready infrastructure investments that can unlock projects of national significance that have already cleared regulatory and consultation hurdles.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much.
We'll begin the line of questioning in the second round with Mr. Muys.
Mr. Muys, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.