Foreign Affairs Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador.

In your opening remarks you mentioned that it was quite welcomed by Washington that Canada met its 2% NATO target and plans to go beyond that. I also know that you have a very strong defence team supporting you. Canada has always had strong relationships and interoperability with the United States in defence and security, not least at NORAD, which you also mentioned.

Could you talk about your priorities and strategies going forward in that regard?

[Mark Wiseman]

Obviously, the co-operative defence relationship with the United States is very important to Canada and also to the United States. In the embassy, we have nearly 80 members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including a rear-admiral who not only helps, day in and day out, in working with our American colleagues but also advises me as it relates to defence policy.

I will be going out to Colorado Springs to visit NORAD. Of course, we have all seen the growing importance of Arctic security in conjunction with both the United States and our other Nordic allies. Obviously, a big part of my role is helping to further those relationships, including in procurement, making sure that Canada is getting the things it needs to defend itself and ensuring that Canadian defence suppliers are able to have continued favoured access to the United States market. In that regard, earlier this week, for instance, I was in Washington, with Vice-Admiral Topshee, visiting a number of Canadian manufacturers who were presenting their products to not just the U.S. defence market but also the global defence market that had gathered.

That is part of my job. It's an important part of my job. As I say, with Canada meeting its 2% NATO commitment in the last fiscal year, we're off to a very good start. That is not going unnoticed.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You also mentioned in your opening remarks that your core mandate, of course, is Canada's bilateral relationship with the United States. That is in the context of a very rapidly changing global geopolitical environment but also in the context of a broader Canadian government mandate, including domestically, to build Canada strong.

Could you talk about where the work you're doing on the bilateral relationship fits into the larger Canadian government mandate?

[Mark Wiseman]

The Government of Canada has made very clear and the Prime Minister has spoken regularly about the need for Canada to diversify. Obviously, diversifying also means changing our reliance, unnecessarily, on the United States of America, but diversifying does not mean abandoning our relationship with the United States of America. It is too big of an advantage to us. It is too important to us. We are next to the strongest market that has ever been built in human history. Other countries wish they were next door to the United States. As I said earlier, we also benefit, absent the section 232 tariffs, from very close to free trade with the United States.

Diversification means, yes, lowering our dependence on the United States in trade, defence and other areas, but it does not mean abandoning that very important and valuable relationship. It actually means growing it to our economic benefit, as we've seen in defence. It may mean growing our other relationships even faster, and therefore becoming diversified, but it's not a trade-off, in my view.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Is there any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

We're out of time.

Thank you. We're going next to MP Brunelle-Duceppe.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiseman, when you took office, you were introduced in the media as an international investment banker and pension fund manager who will have to help Canada find solutions to reduce U.S. tariffs.

As for tariffs, you may not know this, but I come from a forestry region, Lac‑Saint‑Jean, which is currently being hit very hard by the softwood lumber dispute. The forestry industry is the largest employer in the region.

I imagine you know the amount that comes from the countervailing duties related to the softwood lumber dispute and that's currently sitting in trusts on the other side of the border.

Is that correct?

[Mark Wiseman]

I believe the amount is close to $10 billion.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That's exactly it.

If we break that amount down by province, that's about $2.5 billion for Quebec. That's 155,000 direct and indirect jobs. Sometimes, people think it's simply a regional industry outside the major centres, but it actually supports many small and medium-sized businesses, and there are also head offices in Montreal and the major centres.

Do you have a strategy or vision for the new negotiations? For the forestry industry, it isn't just the new tariffs that are extremely harmful; it's mainly the countervailing duties associated with the tariffs. There's the impression that the government may not be doing enough in terms of negotiations. This may be the fifth or sixth trade war.

How do you see that, Mr. Wiseman?

[Mark Wiseman]

I am well aware, even in my brief time, of how important the lumber issue is to Canada and any number of provinces, including Quebec. It's not just a section 232 issue. It's not just a CUSMA issue. This issue, as the member has stated, has been going on for a long time. It comprises countervailing duties, anti-dumping levies and, now, section 232 tariffs.

This is on the front burner in terms of the need to try to get some resolution of what we see as unfair and unjustified tariffs on Canadian industry.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

There was a proposal made by the industry and supported by the unions, namely a program for the Canadian government to buy back a portion of the countervailing duties to enable the industry to have liquidity. The government didn't move forward with that proposal.

Have you heard anything about that proposal in Washington? Do you know if it made its way through? We have heard that some unions, on both sides of the border, were pushing it forward.

[Mark Wiseman]

I'm aware that there have been discussions that have taken place, but I'm not aware of the specifics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We go next to Monsieur Groleau.

You have five minutes.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to our witnesses.

Mr. Wiseman, you've been Canada's new ambassador to the United States for just 67 days. It seems to me that you're off to a bad start.

In 2024, The Globe and Mail published your column in which you took a position against supply management. You are the founder of the Century Initiative, which wants to introduce millions—yes, millions—of immigrants to Quebec to reduce the prominence of French. Yesterday, you sent an invitation to the members of this committee to a reception in Washington. The invitation was in English only. Even the Prime Minister is disappointed in you today.

Mr. Wiseman, are you the right person for the position?

[Mark Wiseman]

I believe that the Prime Minister has confidence in my position. He has appointed me and has continued to support me.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Here is a simple question: Are you against supply management, yes or no?

[Mark Wiseman]

My views on supply management, positive or negative, are not relevant to carrying out my role and representing the Government of Canada's positions.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

You say that your position on supply management has no impact on your role.

Is that what you're saying?

[Mark Wiseman]

My job, as has been made very clear, is to support the chief negotiator and support the Government of Canada's position, including Bill C-202.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

In the past, you've been an outspoken opponent of supply management, as has President Trump.

Do you consider yourself a weak link in the current negotiations when you agree with President Trump on this position?

[Mark Wiseman]

I don't think I've ever been in agreement with President Trump's position on this subject and many others.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

However, in 2024, you stated that you were opposed to supply management, which is the same position taken by President Trump.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

I just want to address my colleague.

I think he's answered the question numerous times and he's indicated that his job is to—

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, he's not answering my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

No, of course, but you keep going back in time. It's not a confirmation hearing. We had a discussion before in the committee.

This is about the mandate of the ambassador. Let's try to stay as close to that as possible.