International Trade Committee on Sept. 18th, 2024

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Welcome, everybody.

This is meeting number 115 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Before we begin, I need to ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines written on the updated cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I need to remind all members to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hands if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

If any technical issues arise, please let me know immediately. We will suspend to ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming proceedings.

Following Mr. Seeback's departure from our committee, which we're very sad about, because we were working well together, now we have someone else who I am sure will be equally as competent and great to get along with.

We need to fix the issue of the vice-chair for the official opposition. Before I go on to the witnesses' statements, I'd like to call on the clerk to preside over the election of the vice-chair.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Grant McLaughlin]

Thank you very much.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition.

I am now prepared to receive motions for the first vice-chair.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I propose Ryan Williams, my colleague.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

Are there any further motions?

Seeing none, it has been moved by Mr. Baldinelli that Mr. Williams be elected as first vice-chair of the committee.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried and Mr. Williams elected vice-chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ryan Williams]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right. Before I introduce the witnesses, Mr. Savard-Tremblay had asked a question about the microphones at Monday's meeting. The clerk consulted and has confirmed that the old earpieces were the source of the issue during the spring acoustic incidents that we were experiencing, which is why they have all been replaced. After testing, it was determined that the microphone systems were not problematic, so while they will be replaced when they go through life cycling, they can continue to be used until that time. I hope that is sufficient information for everyone as regards the earpieces.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, August 21, 2024, the committee is continuing its study on protecting certain Canadian manufacturing sectors against related Chinese imports and measures. This includes electric vehicles, aluminum and steel.

With us today, as an individual, we have Charles Burton, a senior fellow with Sinopsis. From the Aluminum Association of Canada, we have Jean Simard, president and chief executive officer, by video conference. From the Canadian Steel Producers Association, we have Catherine Cobden, president and chief executive officer, and François Desmarais, director of trade and industry affairs. From the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association we have Brian Kingston, president and chief executive officer. From Environmental Defence Canada we have Nate Wallace, clean transportation program manager. From Unifor we have Lana Payne, national president, by video conference, and Angelo DiCaro, director, research department, also by video conference.

Thank you all very much for joining us today.

We will start with Mr. Burton. I invite you to make an opening statement for up to five minutes, please.

[Dr. Charles Burton, Senior Fellow, Sinopsis, As an Individual]

Last month, the United States' national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, spoke to reporters in Nova Scotia. At that time, Mr. Sullivan said the U.S. sees “two distinct challenges” connected with Chinese EVs.

The first one, he said, is this: “Massive subsidies going into the Chinese electric vehicle industry have eliminated a level playing field and so part of the economic response the U.S. has taken is responding to that.” Second, he said that there are “issues associated with data security, with critical infrastructure, and with the underlying questions of national security associated with connected vehicles, electric vehicles”.

Now, China sells its EVs cheaply because it considers the geostrategic benefits. China has no private sector commercial enterprises as we understand them here in Canada. Chinese corporations are required by law to support state intelligence services, including sharing proprietary information about foreign partners and customers. The Chinese authorities can order Chinese EV manufacturers to incorporate spyware into their products and then sell them to western markets at prices below production costs because of Chinese government subsidies.

Two years ago, Canadian authorities banned Huawei from accessing key Canadian infrastructure in 5G networks because of the security risk posed by the Chinese tech giant.

In 2020, Global Affairs Canada terminated a contract between NucTech, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, and Global Affairs to install security X-ray scanners in Canada's embassies around the globe, for similar security concerns.

Several years ago, U.S. legislators moved to ban the purchase of China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation subway cars because of technology in the cars that could allow for remote monitoring, secret recording of conversations, surveillance of individuals and even threatening passenger safety by manipulating the opening and closing of railcar doors from Nanjing in China.

I'd like to focus my remarks on Mr. Sullivan's second point: that there are issues associated with data security, with critical infrastructure and with the underlying questions of national security associated with electric vehicles.

If the real intent of a 100% tariff is to ban the import of Chinese EVs into Canada, then we should do this, because Chinese EVs are potential spy machines on wheels, accumulating data about drivers on where they go and when. Their many cameras and sensors and GPS can camouflage spyware and malware.

These EVs can have sensors loaded onto them that collect data every second, not just about the car and its occupants but about the licence plates around it, or people on streets through facial recognition apps. Advanced apps can process this data in near real time, giving intelligence services instant situational knowledge of who goes where and when. China already knows this. China bans the U.S.-based Teslas from using roads near Chinese government or military facilities.

In testimony to the U.S. Congress earlier this year, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned, and I quote: “China's hackers are positioning on American infrastructure in preparation to wreak havoc and cause real-world harm to American citizens and communities, if and when China decides the time has come to strike.”

Chinese EVs are part and parcel of this kind of endeavour.

Without firing a shot, Beijing could coordinate a massive attack on our domestic stability. It could easily overwhelm the ability of the Communications Security Establishment to monitor malign backdoor capabilities slipped into software updates on Chinese equipment. They can extend to millions of lines of code.

There is a sobering realization of the role Chinese technology could play in kinetic conflict. Bridges being blown up in far-off lands will not characterize future wars. Technology, including software embedded in cars around the world, can be used to sabotage everything from communications to transportation, health care and food supply chains.

My judgment is that the potential security threat trumps all of the other factors in our consideration of Chinese EVs. Just as we've banned Huawei telecommunications technologies from Canadian infrastructure, on the same basis we should ban all import of Chinese electric vehicles.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's perfect timing. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Simard, go ahead, please, for up to five minutes.

[Jean Simard, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aluminium Association of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members, I stand here today representing a vital industry that produces 80% of North America's primary aluminium, a cornerstone of Canada's pivotal role in the North American economy. However, despite this advantageous position, the reality facing our industry is clear and alarming to all well-informed Canadians: We are under a growing threat. It is a threat that wears the mask of short-term bargains offering the appeal of low-priced products, but these prices are artificially low as a direct result of a non-market-based system distorted by China's state-sponsored overcapacity in aluminium.

As our CUSMA partners, the U.S. and Mexico, take necessary steps to protect their markets by imposing tariffs on Chinese aluminium and aluminium-intensive electric vehicles, the risk of this excess capacity's being diverted to Canada grows significantly. Without decisive action, Canada could become the back door for these unfairly traded high-carbon products, undermining the integrity of our industry and the stability of North American markets. The path ahead for Canada will be challenging, but the steps we take now will be crucial to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our industry and securing our place in a fair and balanced trade environment.

Aluminium is like water: It seeks the path of least resistance to reach the highest price. The possibility of Chinese products flooding our markets is a clear and present danger. It will damage our partners' economies as well as Canada's own economy and industry, but above all, these unfair Chinese practices will hurt Canadian citizens, both consumers and producers. Behind Canada's industrial fabric lie hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs that enable Canadians to contribute to their regional economies. The risk to these jobs comes in the form of Chinese products. These Canadian workers know that price is what you pay, but value is what you get.

A recent survey by Spark Advocacy reveals that 79% of Canadians support the idea of joining the U.S. and Mexico in imposing tariffs on Chinese products. Even more telling, when presented with the argument that Canadians could benefit from cheaper electric cars if they weren't taxed, 68% rejected this notion, agreeing instead that Canada should prevent cheaper Chinese vehicles from entering our market because they're subsidized by the Chinese government, will undermine our economy and cost Canadian workers their jobs. As a Canadian myself, I can't help but feel a sense of pride when confronted with such conviction. We are in a race, but it won't be a race to the bottom, not with this strong Canadian spirit.

Evidence of China's non-market economic behaviour from 2010 to 2020 is overwhelming, as China propelled its aluminium industry forward with unprecedented state intervention. The western world's smelting capacity in aluminium became a graveyard. Over 40 plants shut down, including many in the U.S., where the number of smelters dropped from 15 to just four. Allowing imported Chinese metal into Canada means importing carbon at no cost while exporting jobs at a high price. It means undermining our hard-earned technology investments, whether in projects like Elysis or in the electric vehicles that rely on aluminium as a core component of all batteries and vehicle bodies.

We are free traders because we believe that rules-based level playing fields are the best way to thrive for the greater good; however, China is anything but a free trader. We must protect our free-trading North American environment, its jobs, its people and its businesses and communities from such harmful behaviour. The primary aluminium industry fully supports the government's use of section 53 of the Customs Tariff to implement these surtaxes. This approach is not only timely but absolutely necessary. By allowing for the flexibility to extend tariffs throughout chapter 76 of the HS code as needed, the government can proactively prevent circumvention and enhance the effectiveness of its measures over time.

We understand that imposing tariffs might have repercussions for some consumers of Chinese goods. It is essential to manage this impact carefully and to ensure a gradual transition that supports the realignment of trade flows in the desired direction. Our goal should be parity with U.S. tariffs to maintain a competitive balance while avoiding undue burdens on Canadian businesses.

Finally, we expect the Canadian government to spare no effort in the coming days and weeks to ensure proper and timely alignment with our U.S. and Mexican CUSMA partners.

By doing so, we can safeguard our economic interests, support the growth and innovation of our domestic aluminium industry and maintain our critical role within the North American trade landscape.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Simard.

We have Ms. Cobden, please, for five minutes.

[Catherine Cobden, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for once again inviting us to appear before you to share the views of the members of the Canadian Steel Producers Association on today's topic of section 53 tariffs.

Briefly, the CSPA is the national voice of the Canadian primary steel and pipe and tube industry. Our 14 member companies are based in six provinces of the country: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our industry represents 123,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributes $15 billion to the Canadian economy.

The steel we produce also ends up in a wide range of products, including integrated North American automotive, construction and energy sectors, amongst many others. We are the United States' largest importer of steel, and the United States is Canada's largest importer of steel, so steel goes like this.

First, I want to start off by strongly supporting the establishment of tariffs on steel. We are very pleased that the government is taking this critically important step to protecting Canada's steel industry and our workers. This action is warranted in retaliation—in retaliation—to unfairly traded steel from China, and it aligns with similar actions taken by the United States, Mexico and elsewhere. As we have said repeatedly, unfair trade from China hurts Canadians, hurts Canadian industries and hurts our workforce. It also deeply compromises our trading relationship with the United States.

China has developed a significant overcapacity in its steel production, and its practice of unfair trade is irrefutable. International organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, otherwise known as the OECD, and the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity are excellent resources that enable this committee to review the documented facts.

In Canada, there are currently 18 active anti-dumping duties in place against China for primary forms of steel. Indeed, 56% of Canada's entire trade caseload involves China, yet, despite the significant number of findings of dumping, steel from China is surging. It is doubling in the Canadian market over the last few years. This demonstrates well that our trade remedy system alone is insufficient for these exceptional circumstances.

Canadians agree with this action. In recent national opinion polling, 79% of Canadians indicate their support for these tariffs. Canadians understand that we are facing an exceptional existential threat and that unfair trade is not only bad for the steel industry but has terrible consequences across the economy.

The U.S. also agrees with this action, as witnessed by USTR Ambassador Tai's public statement upon Canada's announcement of the section 53 tariffs.

Canada is standing strong with the U.S. in taking direct aim at Chinese overcapacity in steel, aluminum and EVs. Given the highly integrated nature of our economies, Canada must remain aligned with the United States to ensure a fair and secure supply of steel throughout North America.

In May, the U.S. announced 387 tariffs on Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum, amongst other products. Of those 387 tariff codes, 289 were on steel. I am pleased to say that Canada's notice of intent to enact section 53 on steel in Canada essentially matches the U.S. tariff codes.

In closing, we look forward to working with the government and all parties to ensure a smooth and rapid implementation of these absolutely necessary tariffs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Cobden.

We'll go to Mr. Kingston, please, for five minutes.

[Brian Kingston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the invitation to take part in your study. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here and to provide the auto manufacturers' perspective on this important issue.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association represents Canada's leading manufacturers of light and heavy-duty motor vehicles. Our membership includes Ford Motor Company of Canada, General Motors of Canada Company, and Stellantis, also known as FCA Canada.

We strongly support the government's recent decision to implement tariffs on Chinese EVs and to limit purchase incentives to products made in free trade agreement partner countries.

These measures are critically important for two key reasons.

The first is alignment. Since the Auto Pact of 1965, Canada has reaped enormous economic and social benefits by being part of the integrated North American automotive sector. Through common regulations and competitive supports, we manufacture in this country into a market that accounts for annual sales of nearly 20 million vehicles. It is this very integration that has enabled Ford, General Motors and Stellantis to make historic, job-creating investments into this country to produce EVs and batteries. These investments total nearly $15 billion. They'll create 6,000 new jobs and tens of thousands throughout the automotive supply chain. However, we cannot take this success for granted. Measures have to be taken to protect Canada's automotive industry and the hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs it supports.

Alignment with the United States in the automotive industry is the foundation of our manufacturing base. With an upcoming review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, in 2026, there is simply too much at stake for the industry and the broader Canadian economy if we are out of step and misaligned with the United States on the approach to China.

The second is time. The creation of a North American EV supply chain from mining to final vehicle assembly is still very much under development. Time is required to allow for critical minerals production and processing to ramp up, for the construction of new battery plants and for the retooling of existing manufacturing facilities. If we were to allow subsidized Chinese EVs to flood the Canadian market in pursuit of misguided EV sales targets, we would threaten Canada's role in the automotive supply chain. Implementing tariffs will give Canada a foothold in the emerging EV supply chain during this once-in-a-century transformation to electric.

Now, before I conclude, I would like to table a recommendation for the committee's consideration as part of this study. The federal government's recently implemented regulated EV sales mandate is a significant departure from the long-standing Canadian approach of alignment with the United States. This is a direct challenge to the very integration that is the foundation of this industry. It's a challenge to our integration with CUSMA and the competitiveness of Canada as a manufacturing jurisdiction.

Our seat at the automotive table in North America and the hundreds of thousands of jobs this industry provides depend on regulatory alignment for everything from vehicle safety to emissions standards. Given the transformation under way and the threats posed by countries like China, the consistency of our regulations across the larger North American market has never been more important than today.

By prioritizing EV sales over the development of a North American supply chain, the federal EV mandate opens Canada to subsidized or dumped EVs from China and other non-market economies. We recommend that the misguided EV sales mandate be scrapped in advance of the 2026 CUSMA review. The time and resources of the government would be much better spent ensuring that the supports are in place to help Canadians switch to electric, rather than mandating what vehicles they can and cannot buy.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Kingston, if you want to email the motion you referenced to the clerk, then it will become part of the documentation and the report as we go forward.

[Brian Kingston]

I'd be happy to. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll go to Mr. Wallace for up to five minutes.

[Nate Wallace, Clean Transportation Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Nate Wallace. I'm the clean transportation program manager at Environmental Defence Canada. I'd like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to share our views on the application of tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.

When discussing this issue, the debate is often premised upon the idea that there is a trade-off between Canadians getting access to affordable electric vehicles, thus speeding up our net-zero transition, and the need to protect jobs and the investments in Canada's fledgling EV auto sector.

We believe Canada can do both. That's why we favour a balanced tariff approach similar to the European Union's. It's in nobody's interest for any one country to dominate the electric vehicle supply chain, especially not one that is a geopolitical adversary of our closest ally, the United States. It is in our own economic, environmental and security interests to build up an EV industry in Canada that delivers good jobs with union wages.

At the same time, it's important to recognize what tariffs are. They are a tax on Canadian consumers that have the explicit intent of raising prices. As noted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report on Canada's electric vehicle adoption goals, the price of an electric vehicle needs to fall by about 31% by 2030 to achieve the federal government's EV sales targets.

What we are primarily concerned about is how Canada needs to have a strategy to get EV prices down toward an affordable range for consumers. If the federal government plans to deliberately cause EV price inflation with its tariff policy, there needs to be a plan to compensate for these impacts and continue to drive prices down.

There are limited methods of reducing EV prices from a policy perspective. I'll name a few.

Firstly, there is the option of expanding consumer subsidies. However, our own economic modelling on this option indicates that this can create a perverse incentive for automakers. When the government pays for EV price reductions, it reduces the incentive for automakers to cut costs themselves by investing in battery innovation and research and development. Moreover, as EVs begin to dominate the new vehicle market, these incentives can become increasingly fiscally costly.

Secondly, there is the option of employing more direct industrial policy tools and attaching affordability strings to the EV production subsidies that Canada has been giving out. However, this option is limited by the negotiating room the Canadian government has relative to other countries offering similar production subsidies. Canada, unfortunately, does not have a domestic automaker and relies on foreign investment.

Thirdly, there is the option of encouraging more market-based competition. In the European market, the presence of Chinese competition has caused incumbent automakers like Stellantis and Renault to introduce budget EV options. There is currently no indication that these incumbents will bring these budget models to North America.

Tariffs, of course, reduce competition.

It's important to note that we support the idea of establishing a level playing field. Canadian auto workers should not have to compete with the lower wages of Chinese auto workers. China does not have a system of free and fair collective bargaining.

However, establishing a level playing field should be evidence-based. It is important to note that the 100% tariff number is not evidence-based; it is arbitrary. If we want to level the playing field, we should have an approach more similar to the one used by the European Union, which conducted a subsidy investigation. Chinese automakers that complied with that investigation, such as BYD, received only a 17% tariff, not a 100% tariff. Tesla received an 8% tariff.

The intent of a 100% tariff is not to level the playing field. The intent is to deliberately shut out competition for its own sake by completely wiping out the business case for entering the market.

In the presence of an overwhelming tariff wall, the only safeguard in place to keep EV prices on a downward trajectory is the presence of Canada's electric vehicle availability standard. Our own economic modelling, which was recently cited by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, finds that this measure alone will drive EV prices down by approximately 22% by 2035. This underscores the importance of developing a consensus across all political parties to keep this policy in place. We can't lose sight of the fact that getting affordable electric cars into people's hands isn't something that is optional; it is essential to achieving our climate goals.

Thank you. I'm happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Payne, welcome back to committee. You have up to five minutes.

[Lana Payne, National President, Unifor]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Hello and good afternoon to members of the committee and my fellow panellists. I'm happy to join with all of you today.

I'm Lana Payne, the national president of Unifor. We represent 320,000 workers across the country, many of them working in the sectors we're discussing here today. Joining me is our director of research, Angelo DiCaro.

In May, as you know, we urged this committee to take the threat of unfair Chinese EV imports to Canada very seriously. In recent months, the government has taken steps to do just that.

For the past decade, China has deployed every possible resource it has to become the world's number one EV assembler, battery-maker and critical mineral processor. It doesn't stop there. China has built up its overcapacity across many industries. You've heard that here today. Their subsidies and the industrial capacity China has amassed are unparalleled. Their ability to avoid international trade and investment rules is blatant, just as you've heard. Their denial of fundamental labour rights is totally unacceptable. It is illegal, as you know, for workers in China to form an independent trade union. It is illegal to engage in free and fair collective bargaining. Chinese workers who attempt to strike or protest face severe sanctions by their government.

It's important for everyone in Parliament to understand our position on these matters—the rights of all workers, including Canadian workers, to bargain fairly, to strike and to have access to good jobs built through collective bargaining. Canada and its allies must realize China's economic prowess and its impact on good Canadian jobs. Past governments were so enamoured with globalization and free trade that they gave themselves permission, frankly, to ignore the damage being done to working families in our country and the economic hole they dug for Canadian industry.

Our job in a postpandemic world is to understand this new global economy and reality that we're facing. Nations are competing for investments and developing robust industrial strategies to get us to net zero. For example, no one can view the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act as anything other than a massive blueprint for industrial renewal. The U.S.'s decisions with respect to tariffs and China are about protecting that renewal and the millions of jobs tied to it.

Canada must also be bold. We must strengthen key existing industries and create new ones. We must invest in workers and our workplaces. We must build the things we need and employ the skills of every worker in this country to do it. That includes building up our auto, truck, bus, steel and aluminum industries but also such other critical transport sectors as rail, subway cars, aerospace and shipbuilding. I'm not sure if you know this right now, but we have a Chinese firm looking to build subway cars for Toronto while Unifor's Thunder Bay plant is facing an uncertain future. We have to get our procurement act together here in Canada as well.

Section 53 of the Customs Tariff is one of the many levers basically hardly used right now by governments. The fact that we are doing it is a bold move. It's the right move to guard against a surge in Chinese EV imports while our domestic industry retools. It also provides workers a buffer against carbon-intensive Chinese steel and aluminum that's been dumped in our market for decades. We're pleased to see the government taking action on this front.

We've also identified other concerns. For instance, China is currently overproducing lithium-ion batteries and dominating global production of battery parts and precursor materials. While China continues to pump out cells and cathodes and anodes, other battery plant investments, including some in Canada, are facing delays as EV demand slows. Canada must ensure that these lucrative job-creating battery factories get up and running. Unifor wants to see similar action, under section 53, targeting Chinese batteries, critical minerals and other components that are key to Canada's EV transition.

Canada has other legislative powers that it can use to stop illicit goods from entering the country, specifically goods made with forced labour. We know that China is implicated in some of the worst forced labour violations in the world. Canada must act. We are calling on this committee to add its voice to this critical matter.

Either we take responsibility to fight human rights abuses across supply chains or we accept it and live with our complicity in it. We can do better for Canadian workers and workers everywhere, so let's do that.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and look forward to answering any of your questions.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Payne.

We will move on to Mr. Berthold for six minutes, please.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Simard, Canada and Quebec are proud of their aluminum industry. As you said earlier, 80% of North American aluminum comes from Canada, and most of that comes from Quebec and British Columbia. It's produced using hydroelectricity, so it's clean aluminum.

Exactly how many jobs does Canada's aluminum industry account for?

[Jean Simard]

In Canada, that's almost 9,000 jobs right in our plants. I would say it's about 8,000 jobs in Quebec and a little over 1,000 in British Columbia. Then there's a whole industrial ecosystem of suppliers that represents some 40,000 jobs.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

So, it's a fairly large industry. I was shocked when I saw, in May, that the United States was imposing tariffs to protect its industry and that Canada's Liberal government was so slow to react. They're still talking about it, but the tariffs are not yet in effect.

What damage has this market imbalance between the United States and Canada done because the Liberal government is taking too long to act?

[Jean Simard]

I think we need see tariff issues as dynamic, especially when countries are implementing tariffs.

What we have are implementation timelines. The Americans sent the signal in May, but the final version of the tariffs was announced only about a week ago and will come into force gradually over the next year or year and a half, depending on the product. Canada isn't actually lagging behind. On the contrary, it moved quickly. There was an expedited consultation process.

Canada was very sensitive to the representations we and our steel industry colleagues made. The fact that two sectors joined forces to make those representations is a first in Canadian history. Our primary trading partner, the United States, has actually praised Canada's efforts to follow suit because we are acting quickly, and we're targeting the right products in the right way. I, for one, wouldn't say that the Government of Canada lagged behind. On the contrary, it followed suit very quickly.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

If measures are not adopted quickly, how will Chinese dumping impact the jobs we just talked about?