Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I'm not clear. You'll review and—

[Yannick Mondy]

There is a process under way that reflects what was mentioned in parliamentary...I can't recall exactly what it's called here, but it's a motion that was adopted by the Standing Committee on International Trade, and we're presently undertaking necessary steps to respond to the committee's request. Some of the information you're looking for might be in there.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I think that's with respect to the public consultations we're undertaking. What I'm looking for is internal government analysis on the costs of Canada's countertariffs. Would you undertake to review if you have anything like that? If you don't, you can respond that you don't, or it's not responsive.... Would you undertake to look into it and get back to us?

[Yannick Mondy]

Well, the government has provided information as to what the countermeasures or tariffs are, the value of them and what they apply to the U.S. As you can imagine, over time those costs change.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

If you want to say “no”, you can say no.

[Yannick Mondy]

I guess to the extent of what you're framing right now, I cannot commit to this.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

That's fair enough.

I have one last question. My understanding of the political or interest side of countertariffs is that we're supposed to be in a better negotiating position having imposed them. Can you give me any evidence that we are in a better negotiating position now than before imposing countertariffs?

[Yannick Mondy]

I can't really provide you what you're looking for in this situation. It's difficult to speculate on the but-for world.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

You said you were trying to respond to the U.S.'s actions. Part of doing that is trying to get us to a better negotiating position. The countertariffs are what the government has said they're doing.

However, as you said, we're no longer negotiating. Can you give me some evidence that imposing countertariffs has put us in a better negotiating position?

[Yannick Mondy]

I can say that Minister LeBlanc is continuing discussions with the USTR, Jamieson Greer. Those informal discussions continue even though we're not at the negotiating table right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

Next we will go to MP Zuberi.

You have six minutes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us.

I'd like to pick up on some comments that you made in your opening remarks around the trade negotiations with the United States and how you mentioned that we will accept

a fair deal, not a deal at any cost.

Can you elaborate on that concept, given the previous line of questioning we heard?

[Yannick Mondy]

I also mentioned that I'm not at liberty to discuss the specifics. I can say we are looking to conclude an agreement with the United States that upholds our economic interests in areas of strategic value for the Canadian economy, that does not impede our sovereignty and that provides continued mutual benefits on both sides of the border.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Certainly, and it should be one that will benefit Canadians, as you said in French, but not at any price, and that is mutually beneficial for both countries.

Now I'd like to go to my line of questioning. I was in the military once upon a time, in the reserves, so I'll start off with something around NATO and our spending. In the 1990s and 2000s, our spending on defence was about 1.1% to 1.3%. From 2022 to 2025, it increased from 1.33% to about 1.59%.

More recently, in March 2026, we hit 2% in NATO objectives. We have set an objective to hit 3.5% of core spending and 1.5% of our GDP on another element and another area of spending by 2035.

How has the United States responded with respect to this increase in our spending and commitments?

[Martin Larose]

Thank you for the question.

I think the United States has responded very positively to the fact that Canada is significantly stepping up our defence spending, as you indicated.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that we're committed to 4% by 2030 and to 5% by 2035. As you indicated, we met the 2% in March. This translates into a number of capabilities that the Government of Canada is procuring now and will be procuring in the upcoming years, which will translate into concrete capabilities on the ground in the next several years. The United States deeply appreciates this.

I'm sure you have seen the U.S. national security strategy that was released, which focuses on the western hemisphere. For them, the defence of North America is a top priority, and the fact that Canada is stepping up in such a way is well received.

Thank you.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Larose.

I'd like to go more broadly into our engagements with the Americans and the different levels of government.

How has our engagement been with governors, members of Congress, business leaders and state-level stakeholders? Would the witnesses like to share the results of those engagements and what fruit they have borne thus far?

[Niall Cronin]

Thank you for the question.

As the committee is likely aware, Canada has an embassy in Washington. We also have 12 consulates general across the United States, led by a top-notch team of diplomats whose full-time job is engaging with members of state legislatures, the U.S. private sector and other stakeholders.

What we've heard from our network in the United States is broad support for the Canada-U.S. relationship, an affection for Canada and an understanding of the benefits that a relationship with Canada brings to the United States. We've also heard people raise their concerns in private about some of the steps the administration has taken. Few are ready to be more public about it, and that's their decision.

Our network across the United States spends a lot of its time raising awareness of the benefits of the trading relationship, the security partnership and other aspects of the relationship, and it has a very receptive audience from a number of sectors across the United States.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I appreciate your response and what you mentioned about the 12 consulates doing their work, along with the embassy.

Now I'll pivot a bit to the Indo-Pacific. We have an Indo-Pacific strategy that's being updated. Minister Anand has spoken about it and has mentioned the updates.

With respect to shared priorities between Canada and the United States, how are we doing with respect to the Indo-Pacific and those shared priorities—our two countries—in our approach to the region?

[Martin Larose]

Thank you for the question.

With regard to the Indo-Pacific, I think we're seeing eye to eye with the United States in terms of potential threats and risks for the region that are emanating. You will have seen that the U.S. is burden shifting a bit in the NATO context in Europe, with a view to be in a position to dedicate more of their resources to the security of the Indo-Pacific.

In this regard, the types of capabilities that the Government of Canada is currently purchasing—procuring—are absolutely relevant for contributing to this burden sharing in terms of the security of the Indo-Pacific. We can talk about the destroyer. We can talk about the submarines that the Prime Minister announced earlier in the summer and the discussion on the contract with TKMS in Germany. These types of capabilities are very relevant for the security of the Indo-Pacific, and I think the U.S. is deeply appreciative.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

My first question is a bit broad and is for you, Ms. Mondy.

What is the main purpose of retaliatory tariffs? Is it to generate revenue for the government, to protect a specific economic sector or to exert political or economic pressure on the United States?

What is the main benefit of retaliatory tariffs?

[Yannick Mondy]

The goal is not really to generate revenue for the government. It's more about the other two objectives you talked about, which are to ensure effective defence and protect certain sectors targeted by unjustified American tariffs.

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

Has your department identified any economic sectors in Quebec that could suffer as a result of the Canadian government's retaliatory tariffs?

[Yannick Mondy]

I will be careful how I answer, because obviously I have not talked to all stakeholders. There are areas that I could leave out of my answer. However, I can say that we are in contact with representatives of the aluminum, supply management, of course, and pharmaceutical sectors, which are all affected. There is also the steel industry and the softwood lumber sector, which I don't want to forget.

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

I come from a forestry region, so I know what it's like.

When you implement retaliatory tariffs, is it from a Canadian perspective, looking at Canada as a whole, or do you have processes specific to each territory?