Transport Committee on April 13th, 2026

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hynes, perhaps you could answer this question. The way our network is structured may serve the United States more than us, making us dependent on them for our supply chain and our customers. When the Prime Minister says that the forestry, steel, goods and commodities sectors should become more independent, does that have any implications for the network you represent today?

[Derrick Hynes]

From a port perspective and from the maritime industry's perspective, we think it's important that we look at the transportation infrastructure system as an ecosystem and that as we contemplate investment in that ecosystem, whether it's rail, roads, bridges, inland warehousing or port infrastructure, we do it in such a way that we are building for the future the Prime Minister is striving for.

We are obviously supportive of increasing Canadian trade, and we are very supportive of those particular investments to permit that to happen.

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

Mr. Harvey, what's your perspective?

[Eric Harvey]

What I would say about that is that most of the infrastructure we are familiar with today was built many years ago. The reality is that population growth, combined with growth in gross domestic product—in other words, we produce more today than we did 50 years ago—means that in many places, infrastructure may now be nearing its limits.

Earlier, in response to a question from one of your colleagues, I spoke about the need to take a long-term view, meaning not just to think about today, but to consider that the infrastructure we need to build must continue to serve us for many years to come. It's therefore essential to approach this from a medium and long-term perspective. So there are two objectives that need to be achieved.

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

Mr. Sharma gave us some impressive figures about the number of trucks being taken off the road because of their impact on road conditions and road safety. We are in the process of doing a study on Driver Inc.

In each of your studies and deliberations on deploying the network to properly serve your customers and work with the ports, do you take into account that every use of rail transportation means one less truck on the road?

We did not hear you give any testimony along the lines of what Mr. Sharma said. Can you tell us a bit about that?

[Eric Harvey]

Basically, it's obvious that, from a fuel consumption point of view, rail transportation is a much more efficient form of transportation. It takes one quarter the amount of gas to transport the same traffic. That alone is huge.

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

You mean the same volume.

[Eric Harvey]

Yes.

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

What about safety?

[Eric Harvey]

Obviously, a 150-car train, as you just said, amounts to 150 trucks off the road. We therefore feel that we are strategically well positioned to transfer traffic, keeping in mind that if it were transferred, there would necessarily be requests that would have to be met.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll continue with you, Mr. Hynes.

We heard from witnesses who told us how disappointed they were with some of the federal government's policies in the marine sector, particularly with regard to decisions on the subsidy for steel transportation.

In fact, there is a steel plant in my riding.

In the context of the U.S. tariffs, I understand the federal government's idea of putting in place a subsidy system to fund 50% of the cost of transporting steel by rail from one place in Canada to another. Unfortunately, the subsidy applies only to rail transportation, not marine transportation. In a way, this creates a form of unfair competition, because people in marine transportation don't benefit from the assistance, whereas it would sometimes be more efficient to use marine transportation than rail transportation.

I would like to know if your members have talked to you about that. What is your organization's position on that?

[Derrick Hynes]

Truthfully, I'm not well briefed on the issue. It seems reasonable that marine would also be captured by any such subsidy, but I would have to consult with my members and come back to you after the fact.

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

Mr. Harvey, if the opposite were to happen, that is, if we decided to subsidize the marine sector without subsidizing the rail sector, would you find it acceptable to make a deliberate choice not to let market rules apply, to a certain extent?

[Eric Harvey]

First, it is important to note that this is not a subsidy to the rail sector. What we understand here is that this is a subsidy that the government chose to give to two economic sectors affected by the U.S. tariffs: wood and steel. It's important to note that, initially, this isn't something that was done at the request of the railway industry. However, we understand that this is simply an approach where the government wants to support industries that are affected by the U.S. tariffs.

You also talked about the market. I think the question that hasn't been answered in this conversation is, what is the volume? What I understood is that, for example, there's a concern about transporting steel to British Columbia, which obviously can't be done by boat. At the same time, there's also the transportation of forest products, which, again, depends on local market dynamics. There is a source in Ontario and a source in the west, in British Columbia and in part of Alberta. All I want to tell you is that, in our opinion, the measure that applies is first and foremost a temporary measure intended to support industries that are suffering. That's how we understood it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next we'll turn the floor over to Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence, you have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you.

My questions will be for Mr. Sharma.

I'm going to focus specifically on the Billy Bishop airport. Of course, the Ford government announced that they were going to expand it. My understanding is that it is currently governed by a tripartite agreement that includes the Toronto Port Authority—your organization. What obstacles will the Ford government face if in fact they go forward with the expansion plan of Billy Bishop airport?

[Atul Sharma]

You're right that the airport is governed under a tripartite agreement, which involves us, the City of Toronto and Transport Canada, representing the federal government.

Given that cities are governed under provincial jurisdiction, it is up to the province and the city to make the calculation as to who will be the representative. The reason there are three parties within that governance model is that, historically, there were some sandbars in that area, which our predecessor organization, the harbour commission, filled in. The sandbars were originally owned by the City of Toronto.

The land we filled in was and is owned by us. The representation is that about 78% of it is the Toronto Port Authority, 20% of it is the City of Toronto and about 2% of it is Transport Canada.

In terms of the obstacles, certainly they would have to work that out with the city directly.

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

One of the other parties is, of course, Transport Canada and the federal government. Minister MacKinnon has been a little coy in whether he will support this, saying he's going to work with the province “to design a path forward”. That's the exact quote, which is far from an approval.

If Transport Canada is not supportive of the expansion of Billy Bishop, could that stop the expansion plans?

[Atul Sharma]

It certainly could. You'll recall that back in 2015, there was a different proposal with the three parties. The city and, at that time, Porter Airlines made that proposal, and the federal government decided that it would not allow for the reopening of the tripartite agreement to accommodate that. Of course, that stopped all activity on that proposal at the time.

Should the federal government take the position that it does not want to see an expansion of the airport, that would certainly stop it. However, I would point out that the government did make an investment in pre-clearance of about $30 million at the airport. It also made some recent decisions with respect to Pickering, so there are two airports within the city of Toronto that are looking to accommodate future aviation demand.

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

Mr. Sharma, what would be the next step? What approval needs to happen to get this plane in the air, as it were?

[Atul Sharma]

I think the immediate next step would be for the province and the city to determine who's going to be the representative within the agreement. Once that's been settled, the three parties would get together to look at what the future development could look like.

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

Thank you, Mr. Sharma.

I'm going to move to Mr. Hynes for the last question.

I think I'm hearing you call a potential work stoppage a “fire alarm” if the federal government doesn't take any action. You've said that it's been a year. That's almost exactly how long the new Liberal government has been in place, and you've seen no action on this from the federal government. Is that the case?

Second, maybe you could build upon some of the other answers. What will be the long-term impact to the Canadian economy if there is a work stoppage in the near future?

[Derrick Hynes]

The report started under the previous government. It was commissioned by a previous minister of labour after the 2023 13-day strike along the west coast ports, with a monumental impact on the economy.

Almost a year's worth of analysis went into that report, done by two outside experts. They came up with a series of recommendations. There were seven in total. Four of them speak to the geographic certification piece, which is the structure underlying bargaining along the west coast, where they think improvements could be made to bring more stability there. The special mediator piece is another one where the objective would be to keep the parties at the table.

That report was finalized and then publicly released about a year ago. I can't overstate how much we have been advocating for its implementation. We don't think it's very difficult. It's a low-cost, easy solution.

To your second question, it's really about our reputation. Mr. Harvey talked about this earlier. These work stoppages are really hurting our reputation as a country. Business is going elsewhere. Some of that business doesn't come back. There are competitors up and down the coast in the east and west ports that want this business and want this traffic, and sometimes these are long-term contracts. When we lose them, they don't come back.

We just want more stability. We want to keep the parties at the table to get collective agreements that meet the needs of both the union and the employer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hynes, and thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Finally for this round, we'll go over to Mr. Kelloway.

The floor is yours, sir.