Industry and Technology Committee on April 16th, 2026

[Andrew McKinnon]

We are still lacking in processing and materials processing capacity here in Canada. It's a big gap.

For instance, in graphite production globally, 90% of graphite production for battery anodes is still in China. We have some innovators in that space. We need to support them. We're not going to take all of that capacity away—it would be an unfair ambition—but we need to work to strengthen where we are weak and try to compete.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

That's very clear.

Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Colleagues, we'll have to reduce the amount of time we have. We'll end up having the right amount of time allocated, but we're going to reduce the number of questions.

I'm going to Madame Dancho for five minutes, followed by Mr. Ma, and then we will conclude for today.

The floor is yours, Madame Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I believe this is the last meeting we have on the electric vehicle study, so I want to just reflect briefly, before I go to my questions, on the importance of this study and what we've learned today and other days, particularly concerning the deeply distressing potential impact of importing Chinese electric vehicles from the PRC and the possible impact on our national security.

We heard loud and clear today and on other days of this study how very real that concern is and how very real that threat may be, yet I have been surprised that there have been very few questions, if any, by the Liberal Party about pursuing more information about the potential security impacts of this policy. It has been quite disappointing to us personally to see the lack of interest or concern that it poses.

Today, of course, we saw Mr. Bains look to discredit Mr. Hinton and his testimony. Mr. Hinton is a foremost leader in Canada on intellectual property, so Mr. Hinton, I have a few questions for you, and I would like to allow you some opportunity to respond to some of the comments directed towards you when you were not permitted an opportunity to address them.

I think you've outlined this very clearly, but there is clearly a giant deficit, which we have heard in this committee and during other studies, in Canada's ability to maintain intellectual property, and that has had a long-term impact on our productivity, which has been stagnant after 10 years of Liberal government. We are one of the worst countries in the OECD for intellectual property leakage. Your comments really underline that impact.

I also agree with your concern that Canada has, not just in automotive but elsewhere, become a branch plant economy. Rather than setting up a Canadian car manufacturer in another country, we consistently have others coming here. While we deeply value and need jobs from foreign auto companies—we want them to stay; we want them to grow—I very much take your point that it's a disappointing outcome that we do not have a Canadian auto manufacturer that can export to the world. I'd just like to give the floor to you to further express this.

You provided a quote that I found concerning and interesting: that only “7% of a car's value goes to labour”, which seems counterintuitive. We need these jobs, we want these jobs and we value them from foreign auto companies, but your point has been that a lot of the wealth for countries that have ownership over these companies is in the IP.

I'll give the floor over to you to use how you wish, but if you can, just elaborate on that.

[James Hinton]

Yes, thank you.

I wish for Canada to be in a world where it's as easy as just manufacturing and having the jobs, but that's not the world we exist in today. It's about intangible assets. It's about owning technology and commercializing technology and data. Simply having production happen here and subsidizing it are not going to be high-performing. Everybody can do that.

We need to be the ones who own the technology and commercialize it. Despite wanting to be the best, it's like spending a whole bunch of money on new running shoes saying you're going to be a marathon runner and never leaving the couch. We are not in this race. There are no Canadian firms.

The more you put in here and the more money you put into foreign firms, the worse it is for the companies that Andrew is talking about. Canadian firms are here paying taxes and trying to grow in scale, and you're putting the thumb on the scale of our biggest and fiercest competitors. It's the opposite of what you want to be doing.

Smart countries don't provide adoption subsidies for technologies they don't own. That's what we're doing. That's the problem. You have to put your socks on your feet before you put on your shoes. At this point, we're putting our socks over the top of our shoes. We're doing it backwards.

We need to create an industry and have industrial capacity, and then drive adoption and further expand growth. We're doing the opposite. We're making the walls higher for our competitors to lock us into this low value-add position. It's not something I want, but this is the reality.

I work with innovative Canadian firms, and trying to do a deal on IP terms to be able to extract and increase value with an OEM is extremely difficult and almost impossible. It's like living in a magical world that doesn't exist where you can just have a big manufacturer across the street and then you get a deal because you're a small Canadian company right across from it.

The only way you get that deal is if you have a strong IP position and you leverage in, and then you insert into the value chain and expand across it. Just putting a bunch of jobs in a bunch of factory positions down here in southwest Ontario.... I go to Windsor all the time. My background is in heavy truck parts manufacturing. I understand the realities of this, and the realities have shifted.

It's about IP, and it's about data, and that's not the game the public funders are playing.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Madame Dancho.

Mr. Ma, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will go to Mr. McKinnon.

I'll refer to the battery innovation road map that was released by your organization. In the road map, your organization outlines “a strategy to establish Canada as a global leader in battery technology by 2035”. How does this road map align with the Government of Canada's EV strategy and overall goals for net-zero emissions?

[Andrew McKinnon]

Our battery innovation road map focuses on how to position Canada as a technological leader in battery materials and battery materials production. From our perspective, support for critical materials production through the strategic investment fund and the critical minerals sovereign fund are ways that will increase funding for the supply chain and increase supply for critical materials producers in Canada. We've also seen several specific investments into Canadian companies that are leading in these innovative battery production spaces.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

The road map further notes:

The global landscape of battery innovation is shaped by the strategic efforts of leading nations to advance their battery technologies and secure a dominant position in the market. Countries like China, the United States, the European Union, South Korea, and Japan have set ambitious production and innovation targets to drive their battery industries forward.

Given this landscape, what steps would the Government of Canada take to ensure long-term global competitiveness in battery technology?

[Andrew McKinnon]

I believe that focusing on which niches of battery production and technology Canada can excel in will be amenable to becoming not necessarily a leader but an important global player in battery production. We know this requires a holistic approach that looks at consumer demand for electric vehicles, battery production for electric vehicles, battery and cell production for EVs and other applications as well.

We really need a holistic view that considers multiple segments and industries in the battery supply chain, including mining, chemicals industries, final manufacturing and vehicle sales.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Related to that, what existing strengths or advantages can Canada leverage to succeed in the global battery market?

[Andrew McKinnon]

I would suggest there are a number of strengths. Of course, the auto manufacturing footprint can't be discounted, even though we know that auto manufacturing is led by foreign firms. There is an opportunity for an EV production base in auto manufacturing to have a spinoff effect and support battery innovation.

Innovation and research are our real strength. We have seen innovative battery and battery production research from multiple nodes in Canada over the years. Now there's more of a recognition of how important that is, so let's act on that and make sure we support those firms and ensure the IP grows here.

I'm mostly in agreement with Mr. Hinton's remarks that we need to protect Canadian IP and battery material production and support those firms.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

In the battery innovation road map, you also indicated, in addition to your 2025 pre-budget submission, that your main recommendation is for the Government of Canada to create a national battery alliance to support battery innovation and production. Why is a national battery alliance needed here in Canada?

[Andrew McKinnon]

Equivalent jurisdictions, like Japan, Europe and China, have embarked upon long-term strategic approaches to developing battery production. As I noted, this industry requires coordination between mineral producers, chemicals industries and final offtakers, such as vehicle producers, storage providers and defence industries. Having a national battery alliance has been the mechanism in Europe, Japan, Korea, China and elsewhere to coordinate the complexity of this advanced technology industry.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ma.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of the second panel. Thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing before us here today and for contributing to the study we have undertaken over the course of the past few weeks.

Just to correct Madame Dancho, we actually have one meeting left on EVs.

We have some further business to attend to, so witnesses, we're going to let you go. I hope you have a great rest of your day. Again, thanks for availing yourselves to the committee.

Colleagues, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that it is Madame Dancho's birthday today. I know she doesn't like surprises, but she does like gifts. As a result, not only have her staff brought some things for members to snack on later, but we've also awarded her a Standing Order 106(4) request, which we're going to provide her with an opportunity to dive right into. I couldn't think of a better present for our colleague.

Madame Dancho, happy birthday to you. I'll take the opportunity to pass the floor to you to speak on an important matter that you'd like to bring to the committee's attention.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, we deal with very serious matters at this committee, but I appreciate the good-natured and good-humoured well wishes on my birthday. Thank you for that. It's very kind.

As for the Standing Order 106(4) request, a very serious matter is before us, and I appreciate the behind-the-scenes collaboration thus far with the committee to discuss this and prioritize it. My colleague MP Borrelli will explain this in more detail, but there has been a recent tariff change that, from our understanding, has very deep and concerning impacts that are occurring today. Certainly, over the next number of weeks and months, they could be devastating for tens of thousands of jobs and their considerable contribution to the GDP in this country.

I'd like to thank MP Borrelli and MP Lewis, who is also joining us, for their exceptional advocacy in drawing this issue to the committee's attention, and also our colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who agreed to work with us and who signed on to the letter that allowed us to trigger an emergency meeting, which we are undertaking now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to discussing this very serious issue in this ongoing tariff war. I would appreciate it if an opportunity were given to Ms. Borrelli to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Madame Dancho.

Madame Borrelli, I'm going to turn the floor to you, and then I know Mr. Ste-Marie would like to speak, and Mr. Bardeesy as well. I suspect, if this goes according to plan, that we're going to have a motion presented that will give us an opportunity to talk about what some of the next steps are.

Madame Borrelli, I'll give the floor to you now.

[Kathy Borrelli, Conservative, Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for taking the time today to discuss the emerging crisis that the Canadian mould-making industry is facing. It's due to the invocation of section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to unilaterally alter the tariff structure on steel and aluminum goods entering the United States.

The changes being imposed have drastically impacted the way that tariffs are calculated. In one of the many cases I heard about in my area, a company said that before the April tariff was applied, it would have paid $1,473 in tariffs. The day after the tariff was applied, that same mould, which had about a $200,000 value, had a change in tariff price to just over $33,000. This change will put many of our mould-makers out of business, virtually overnight.

With that, I move:

That, given that:

The United States has invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to unilaterally alter the tariff structure on steel and aluminum goods entering the United States;

These changes have reportedly resulted in dramatic tariff increases for members of Canada's mould-making industry;

The impacts extend beyond mould-making to the broader metallurgical processing sector and advanced manufacturers that rely on cross-border trade; and

This policy threatens thousands of Canadian jobs, the families they support and critical links in Canada's domestic manufacturing supply chain;

The committee:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), undertake a study of at least two meetings to defend the interests of Canadian workers and taxpayers by examining the economic and supply chain impacts of these tariffs and assessing potential policy responses available to the Government of Canada;

Invite the Minister of Industry, the Minister of International Trade, representatives from the Canadian Association of Moldmakers, and other representatives, experts and stakeholders selected by parties to testify before the committee in relation to the study;

Begin the first meeting of this study no later than Thursday, April 23, 2026, and, once begun, give priority to the study over all other matters; and

Report its findings and recommendations to the House.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Madame Borrelli.

Colleagues, we're now entering into a conversation about the motion that's been presented.

I have Monsieur Ste-Marie and then Mr. Bardeesy. If other members would like their names added to the list, please indicate that as we go along.

I have a couple of suggestions to make on timing and the schedule. We'll allow for the conversation first, and then we can frame the discussion around that.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to wish Ms. Dancho a happy birthday. That's great news. I'd also like to thank Ms. Dancho and her colleagues for alerting us to the urgency of the situation and the consequences of the most recent order.

The mould makers and the mould-making industry are affected. However, as Ms. Borrelli said, all businesses that export goods containing steel and aluminum to the U.S. are affected. The Americans found it too difficult to calculate the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum products, so they decided that, for those products, they would set the duties based on 25% of the total value.

As my Conservative colleagues were asking me about this, I received a call from the Corporation de développement économique de la MRC de Joliette, in my riding, which deals with small and medium-sized businesses and any trade with them. According to those businesses, they will have to close down if this system continues.

We're talking about small and medium-sized businesses that have been in operation for a number of generations, that made it through the first wave of U.S. tariffs and that have benefited from federal government investments in the past year. They're now saying that it won't be enough and that, given this reality, they're going to have to close down.

I'll give you some examples to illustrate this. A product that was being sold in the U.S. for a little over $500,000 was hit with $40,000 in tariffs. Since that decree came into effect, those duties have gone from $40,000 to $140,000. For a $200,000 product, there was $7,500 in tariffs to pay. Today, those duties are as high as $48,900, nearly $50,000. The businesses are saying that they're just going to close down.

Yesterday, I asked the ministers about this privately. Not all the ministers were aware of the issue—far from it—which explains the importance of holding an emergency meeting on the subject. At the same time, we saw in the news that stock prices for Bombardier's recreational products, including snowmobiles and personal watercraft, were plummeting because they were being hit hard by this order.

This morning, we received communications from the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. They told us to be careful. They told us that urgent action was needed.

In light of the discussions I have had with the key ministers involved, I'm beginning to realize the full gravity of this order. Importers in the U.S. are also very concerned. They're saying that it doesn't make sense because, for the contracts currently signed, those importers are the ones who have to pay the tariffs. However, as soon as the contracts are renewed, our small and medium-sized businesses are no longer competitive.

For that reason, I fully support the motion put forward here. I will obviously be open to the chair's suggestions in terms of policy.

I would propose an amendment to this motion, which I hope will be welcomed. If not, we can vote. The first point reads the following: “a study of at least two meetings”. I would replace the word “two” with “three”.

I'm convinced that all my colleagues will see just how serious this most recent order is in the coming days or weeks. I think that a minimum of three meetings won't be too many.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

I'd like to make a suggestion. I would ask you to wait a few minutes before officially introducing that amendment. We could listen to what Mr. Bardeesy has to say, without getting into a debate about the number of meetings. You can then formally move your amendment.

Does that work for you? Okay. That's excellent, thank you.

We have Mr. Bardeesy, followed by Mr. Lewis.

Once members have had a chance to speak, I'm going to go back to Mr. Ste-Marie, in good faith, to allow him to present his amendment.

Mr. Bardeesy.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would also like to move a subamendment, which can be resolved among the parties once I have made some brief comments on this matter.

These issues are very important. We're learning more and more about the impacts of the tariffs imposed under section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act, as our colleagues Mr. Borrelli, Ms. Dancho and Ms. Ste‑Marie have said.

We were fortunate to have the executive director of the mould-makers association here earlier. I think we would want to have her back so we could have more of her time, as well as hear from others who are affected by this. The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction was here this week, and we heard some of their concerns on this fast-moving issue.

As we know, the government has been responsive in the past to these kinds of emergency committee deliberations, having acted quickly in response to the collective work of the committee, and we know there are already some policy tools available.

I want to support the direction of this with my colleagues on the government side. I have a subamendment that would recommend the tabling of a comprehensive government response to the report of this committee, rather than having this committee report to the House.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, in the spirit of what you were requesting earlier, we could recess briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks, Mr. Bardeesy.

In the spirit of fairness, in order to not supersede the amendment Mr. Ste-Marie wanted to put forward, I will come back to you, if you can hold off on that amendment.

Mr. Lewis, you wanted to speak to this. Welcome to the committee.