Transport Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Lorna Campbell]

As I stated previously, Sydney Harbour is a public port. The federal government maintains ownership of the submerged lands, but over many years the federal assets landside have been either sold or divested.

We are under the management of the Transport Canada ports group, but we have a limited local presence of Transport Canada. The port corporation I work for is a not-for-profit, and we are the deferred to or assumed port authority for Sydney Harbour in the absence of another presence in the harbour. We see opportunities and see stakeholders wanting to advance projects, but there is a lack of a unifying group, or what I'd like to say is the catalyst to really unify, promote and advocate on behalf of these individual stakeholders.

We're looking to establish the local harbour authority and be resourced by the revenue generated through port activity that is currently remitted to Transport Canada general revenues. There's a gap that needs to be filled.

We submitted a proposal in 2024 with respect to divestiture and the thought that we could possibly fit under the ports asset transfer program, but we are not eligible to be in that program because there are no federal assets, with the exception of the submerged lands, that enable us to fit in that criteria.

We are not a Canada port authority, nor are we currently checking the boxes to be a Canada port authority. We are proposing this path forward as a potential opportunity to establish governance that gives local control through a management agreement with Transport Canada that will essentially be in accordance with the Canada Marine Act, but will really fulfill the objectives of the national marine policy.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 10 seconds.

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

I want to thank you, Ms. Campbell, and the folks who came up with you from Cape Breton. I know this is an important initiative for the community. The mayor, the council, the chiefs and you are supportive of the port and all that it will become. I really appreciate your coming today.

[Lorna Campbell]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

Thank you, Ms. Campbell.

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 would like to share my discomfort with the way things are going at the committee right now. For the past few weeks, we have been parading port representatives like a line of ballerinas, making them sing along to the Liberal song sheet to maintain the narrative that all the countries of the world will suddenly be fighting over goods produced here and exports will explode thanks to the “Carney effect”. Ports are not stupid: They cozy up to the government to get money to meet their needs. I can understand them.

What bothers me a little more is that the Port of Montreal is being portrayed as if it were soon about to be overwhelmed, when, in fact, that is far from the case. Actually, volumes at the port have been stagnating for 10 years. They have pretty much stalled. Recently, there has even been a downward trend. Therefore, what I'm wondering is this: Is the expansion of the Port of Montreal necessarily a national emergency? I'm not yet convinced of that.

What we're hearing is that Mark Carney the magician is going to change everything. We must not ask any questions, only trust him. We are told that everything will be fine. I get the feeling that, at the end of the day, what we're being asked to do is take a leap of faith. In Quebec, we've played that game before with people like Pierre Fitzgibbon, who gambled at the casino with public funds. They say they have a host of colossal projects, such as the Port of Montreal and the Alto HSR. Soon, it will be the turn of the pipelines. However, in the meantime, we have no figures and we have a government that is using creative accounting to hide its astronomical deficit.

The worst part is that, last week, I had the good fortune, so to speak, of seeing Mr. Carney and his gang show up in my riding without warning to announce an investment of $1.16 billion for the Contrecœur terminal. However, a few weeks ago, I warned MinisterMacKinnon that there were a lot of problems to solve: shoreline erosion, the abandonment of the Verchères wharf, the redevelopment of the rail line, which is a challenge for the people of Boucherville, and concerns about increased rail traffic. At the time, Mr. MacKinnon seemed to be acting in good faith by telling me that he would follow up and work with me to resolve these issues. Unfortunately, there was absolutely no follow-up. Instead, he showed up without warning. Let's say that things are off to a bad start in terms of co‑operation.

I have no illusions: I know that the Liberals intend to do whatever they want. Anyway, it's only a matter of time before they patch together a majority. However, I would still like to see the government act in good faith, and I think there's absolutely nothing preventing it from doing so. Before we blindly invest billions of dollars, can we at least have the assumptions and figures they are using to spend these public funds so that we can ask questions and verify them? At the end of the day, we just need to know what we're getting into. It seems to me that this is not too much to ask and that it is entirely reasonable.

What is even more worrisome is that we are plowing ahead with this project when we do not even know if we really need it. Maybe we do, maybe we don't, but I am not yet convinced. Meanwhile, there were three rather intriguing departures from the Port of Montreal management team. In March, the head of the Contrecœur terminal, Paul Bird, left his position. In April, just a week and a half ago, the CEO, Julie Gascon, seems to have resigned. We have no idea why she is no longer in her position. This morning, we learned that the chief financial officer, Alban Fournier, had left his position at the port. We have no idea what happened. That said, it seems to me that, when the pilot and his two co-pilots leave the plane in mid-flight, there is cause for concern. Personally, it worries me, and I think it should worry committee members as well. We should all be wondering what's going on at the port. I feel like there's a bit of a crisis.

Therefore, I have two motions to introduce today, and I would like to present them to committee members. The first motion reads as follows:

That the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, and the Montreal Port Authority, or MPA, provide the committee, within 30 days, with a copy of the financing agreement related to the $1.16 billion loan granted for the construction of the Contrecoeur terminal; that the CIB submit its risk analyses and financial assessments that led to the granting of the loan; and that the MPA table with the committee its calculation assumptions supporting the project's profitability, as well as a copy of its agreement with DP World once it has been finalized.

The second motion reads as follows:

That the committee invite the former head of the Contrecoeur terminal, Mr. Paul Bird, the former president and chief executive officer of the Port of Montreal, Ms. Julie Gascon, as well as the former director of finance of the Port of Montreal, Mr. Alban Fournier, to appear as part of the study entitled Supporting, Diversifying, and Modernizing Quebec and Canada's Ports.

I would now like us to deal with these motions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

We can debate only one motion at a time.

Can we start with one of them?

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

We could start with the second motion I moved, the one to invite the three people who left their positions unannounced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That's fine.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague for moving these motions.

We're ready to debate the second motion. We'll come back to the first one later.

I would just like us to be able to debate the first motion starting on April 20, which is next Monday, on the condition that we debate the second motion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My concerns are related to the first motion, so I will reserve my time until then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, we have two motions on the table. We will begin debate on the second motion.

Are there any others who would like to speak to it, or are we prepared to vote on that particular motion?

I think the idea, as discussed before we resumed, was that we would debate the first motion on Monday and make that a point on the agenda.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, we'll put it formally on the agenda for Monday, April 20.

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

That's great.

Mr. Chair, I'm fine with that, out of respect for the witnesses who are here today. I understand that they have things to tell us and that we want to question them. However, I think it's important that we debate it and that it be on Monday's agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I couldn't agree with you more.

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

I think we all have an interest in getting the numbers and knowing what the data is so that we can make up our own minds. Right now, it's hard to sort it all out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Are we all in agreement to vote on the second motion today, and to debate the first motion on Monday, April 20?

I see that everyone is fine with that.

Colleagues, we're going to a vote on the second motion put forward by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

There is an agreement publicly that we will be debating the first motion as the first order of business on Monday, April 20.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Colleagues, now we'll turn over the floor to Mr. Albas.

You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say thank you to both of our witnesses for being here today.

I would like to start with Picton Terminals.

Sir, let me start by saying that offering to pay for the CBSA not only is a sign of faith that your port can handle the business, but also signals the seriousness of this to the government and that it is absolutely necessary.

The government has talked about hiring 1,000 CBSA agents. I imagine you would wish for a few of them to be allocated to Picton. Is that correct?

[John Grech]

Absolutely.

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

In terms of your port development, I'm sure you have a capital plan. Do you have a plan for the expansion of the port that you're considering, or right now is it just renewing the infrastructure?

[John Grech]

We do have an overall vision, but we base what we're going to do on the opportunities that present themselves. As I said in my testimony, we custom-build logistics solutions for our port partners. We have seen that containers are in demand. Actually, from an agricultural perspective, there is a lot of demand to export agriproducts through containerization. With us having the bulk facility there now, it makes it that much easier.

Several farmers have come to us and asked, “Are you going to adopt that?” We said that right now it does not make sense. They're going all the way to Brampton to pick up containers and sometimes not even getting one, and then coming all the way back home just to go back the next day because the containers are not situated.

If we were able to create this hub where the demand is, it would be much better. We know what we would like to do at Picton to set ourselves up for success. Unfortunately, we're limited by our dock space. Now that we have Parrish & Heimbecker there, we're expecting about 20 to 25 ships this year, and possibly as many as 60, because the port is capable of handling that. We need more dock face in order to facilitate that, because time is money. It's important that these ships are in and out, and we don't want to create delays like the congestion that everybody talks about at all of the other facilities. We want to try to avoid that.

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

How can you best do that? Is there a privatized capital plan, or are you looking for partnerships in government?

[John Grech]

There is, and there are partnerships. Our partners have suggested that they would be willing to help invest in that as well. We have Windsor Salt and other salt customers coming online that have expressed that concern, but we are looking into the trade diversification corridors fund, and we're hoping to apply for some funding through that.