International Trade Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you. These questions will be for Mr. Verheul.

Mr. Verheul, I was here in 2018 and you were where you're sitting right now as we were negotiating the first NAFTA with the first Trump administration. I recall Ms. Hillman sitting right next to you. One of the things we brought up that gave us a lot of leverage was our team Canada approach—that everybody was on the same page with all of our stakeholders and the work that had been done.

We're in a different time right now and we're in a different time here in this Parliament. I recall back then that all parliamentarians were on board. Everybody was singing from the same song sheet. We were all team Canada and it was all positive. That's not the case today. We have parliamentarians who have politicized these negotiations and have been, in my opinion, very negative on Canada. Does that hurt our leverage at the table? Does that hurt us when you're in Washington and doing the work that you need to do?

[Steve Verheul]

I think it's always better when you have everybody behind you, supporting you at the negotiating table. It prevents the other side from taking opportunities to try to find divisions or ways to weaken Canadian positions. I think that a certain number of political differences are always going to be evident. It's easier when there are not, but you have to accept that they can be there. Most important, from my perspective, is that the government has a very close exchange with industry, all along the way. It's the same with labour and the same with the provinces and territories.

If you do that and if you manage to get everybody in that kind of position, there is really not much space for any other political actor to say that they're not on board, because they're not going to be supported by labour, by the business community or by others who are all on board. The benefit of having such a dedicated effort to have a team Canada approach is that it doesn't leave a lot of space for political differences.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Really quickly, what are the risks and benefits of retaliating versus negotiating quietly, in terms of our response to the U.S. tariffs?

[Steve Verheul]

That's a tricky one, of course.

In most situations, I tend to be a fan of retaliation, not only because you're causing some pain for your opponent on the other side but also because you are levelling the playing field somewhat. When it comes time to take things off, you both have things to take off and you can reach an accommodation more easily.

We're now in an environment where the U.S. has successfully managed to convince most countries around the world not to retaliate, so you get to be in a position where you're far more isolated and that makes it much more difficult to play that game. I think, without a doubt, we should be playing a very firm, strong game, but we need to think about how we're going to react in a bit more subtle way—I wouldn't say any less effective but more subtle—rather than with the kinds of issues that are going to attract the attention of the President.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Adam Chambers]

Thank you very much. We will have to leave our panel there.

As I understand, the clerk has sent a motion around to all of the members, so the chair will recognize himself to move the motion. If we have unanimous consent, we would pass that. Do I see that from the members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Adam Chambers]

Thank you very much.

Do I have agreement to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Adam Chambers]

We're adjourned. Thank you very much. We will resume at our meeting next week.