International Trade Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[Lauren Comin]

That can certainly be the case for some crop types.

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

I guess in response to some of those concerns of a slow and cumbersome process, a modernization program was undertaken beginning in 2021. It remains unfinished and incomplete as of today. Is that correct?

[Lauren Comin]

That's correct.

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

In your view, is nearly five years enough time to do a modernization program?

[Lauren Comin]

I think it depends on the scope of the program. Certainly, it was well overdue in terms of the seed regulations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Comin. I'm trying to be tight with our time.

Yasir, you have five minutes.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and for sharing their thoughts.

I have two lines of questioning. The first one is for all three of you.

We are living in unprecedented times, post-Second World War, in terms of the level of protectionism we're seeing, especially within the North American context but perhaps globally. As we look at this CUSMA review and as we look at maintaining our close economic relationship with the United States, what would be, from your sector's perspective, your one bit of advice to the Government of Canada, as we engage in this review, that would be beneficial to your sector and to workers here in Canada?

We'll start with Mr. Breton.

[Daniel Breton]

Thank you.

You know, there's this whole discussion about buy American and the Buy American Act. I think we should start talking about buy Canadian. Take ferries, for instance. I'm sure you heard about the ferries ordered by BC Ferries. There was an RFP and it was awarded to a Chinese company.

I mean, we can make ferries. We can make electric ferries in Canada, whether it's in B.C., Quebec or Nova Scotia. For example, Paccar makes electric trucks and diesel trucks in Quebec. We should have RFPs to support those trucks being bought, and any cars or any product we can, because they are not respecting the rules south of the border.

To me, all bets are off. I think we have to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian workers. To me, we really have to look into that very seriously.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Comin.

[Lauren Comin]

The advice I would give is to make sure that our regulatory systems here in Canada are as efficient as possible and eliminate as much regulatory burden from our sector as possible so as to maximize investment in Canadian industry and ensure that our products are competitive on an international basis.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chera.

[Satinder Chera]

Mr. Naqvi, I would simply say three things.

First, I think certainly the importance of dialogue between the Government of Canada, all members of Parliament and industries like the ones around this table is absolutely critical. With that ongoing dialogue, we can provide real, frontline intel to you and your colleagues on the impact that these tariffs are having.

We also have relationships south of the border. We work very closely with our sister organizations in the U.S. to ensure that the concerns we have are certainly being documented and being raised and that we have consistent messaging in terms of how important and integrated the North American construction supply chain is.

The other thing I would say is that, more immediately, the government can ensure that we continue to build on the successes of the national model codes that have been put into place. There are codes that can sometimes take years to get addressed—changes that industry is looking for. We're certainly working through all of those with NRC, but those are some of the things that the government can work to speed up, to at least help with getting products to market in the most efficient way possible.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have a minute and 16 seconds left, so here's a rapid-fire question.

Canada and the U.S., of course, are important, but trade diversification and looking beyond Canada has to be an equal, if not a greater, priority. What advice do you have from your sector's perspective to the Government of Canada as to what needs to happen in order for us to open more markets in the world?

We'll go to Ms. Comin and Mr. Chera, and we'll end with Mr. Breton.

Thank you.

[Lauren Comin]

I would double down on what I mentioned previously. It's really important for regulation here in Canada to start supporting and enabling our industries to export to other jurisdictions, as opposed to focusing on policing.

[Satinder Chera]

I would add that certainly there are other markets, whether it's the European market or the Asian market, where the government has been looking to open up opportunities. From my members' perspective, yes, the North American market is absolutely critical, but there are other regions of the world, including Europe and Asia, that should be prioritized moving forward, for sure.

[Daniel Breton]

I would look at the American market as a whole, not as the United States of America. I'm talking about all of the countries from America. Americans think that America is them, but actually many countries are not “America”, but they are in America. Do you know what I'm talking about?

I was in Mexico a couple of months ago. They want to do business with us more and more. Actually, when I was in Mexico, we were talking about trade. The second morning I was there, the U.S. administration announced a new 30% tariff on trade. Now they're more interested in working with us and finding ways to collaborate more.

I'm talking also to the Brazilian government. I think we have to look at our friends beyond the United States of America in America.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

We'll go on to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for five minutes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations today.

Free trade or North American trade, at the very least, requires a review of CUSMA. That is the subject of today's meeting. However, electrification requires critical minerals. Mr. Breton, you are in fact one of the spokespeople for the electrification of transportation.

The issue of Chinese involvement in Canadian mining companies is part of the dynamic. In fact, China has made very significant investments in the critical minerals sector. However, there are also investments from the U.S. Department of Defense. Should that be part of the discussion?

[Daniel Breton]

That's a great question.

For those who don't know, for decades, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Natural Resources have been investing heavily in research and development in Canada to ensure the future of transportation electrification. They've also started to invest in mining projects.

I remember that a few years ago, the current Minister of Finance and National Revenue went to Washington to take part in discussions with the Biden administration on the Inflation Reduction Act. As partners, what are we going to do strategically to secure our competitiveness in the energy transition, meaning to secure access to critical minerals, whether for electric vehicles, renewable energy or defence? For strategic reasons, the Americans wanted to ensure that there would be no increase in Chinese investment in Canadian mining companies. At the time, Minister Champagne told Chinese investors that they needed to withdraw their investments from mining companies operating in Canada, which had to happen. Minister Champagne did that for the purposes of North American strategic security.

Today, we find ourselves in an odd situation where the U.S. government, meaning the Trump administration, is investing in Canadian mining projects while threatening to make Canada the 51st U.S. state. I think the Department of National Defence and the Department of Natural Resources should have a real discussion about how to react to the Trump administration's potential investments in our mining projects.

The issue of critical minerals goes far beyond electric vehicles. This is a matter of national security, so I think an important discussion needs to take place.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

First, how do you explain American involvement, given that the Americans are no longer interested in electric vehicles, while the previous administration was?

Second, you may be aware that, as part of our study, representatives of the automotive industry appeared before the committee. They seemed to identify electric vehicles as an irritant and a barrier to trade relations. I imagine that's not your position.

[Daniel Breton]

No, that's not my position. In fact, I find it kind of unbelievable, because automakers say they're in favour of free trade and don't want regulations for the sale of electric vehicles. From what I understand, for all sorts of good reasons, they also don't want competition, meaning they don't want Chinese or European vehicles to enter Canada.

I'm going to read you a quote from the CEO of Ford, Jim Farley.

It says, “Today's announcement imposing tariffs on imported medium and heavy[-duty] trucks and making auto parts affordable for U.S. production delivers on that promise”.

Ford's CEO says he agrees that U.S. tariffs should be applied on American products, specifically on medium and heavy-duty vehicles. At the same time, we're being told by representatives of the same company north of the border that we shouldn't create competition and that they're against tariffs, which are causing job losses in Canada. The tariffs on medium and heavy-duty vehicles that came into effect two days ago resulted in the loss of 300 jobs at a Paccar plant in Canada.

Let me tell you something. Currently, in the United States, General Motors is using the fact that there are no longer any regulations or investments in the electrification of transportation as an excuse to justify layoffs, whereas north of the border, people are being laid off because there are regulations.

Let me tell you what I think in either language. Some car manufacturers say one thing and then the opposite depending on which side of the border they're on.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

You're talking about job losses, but can you also tell me about offshoring? Some manufacturers said that the vehicle availability standard was the cause of layoffs and relocations to the United States.

[Daniel Breton]

No, it's not the zero-emission vehicle standard that's causing the layoffs; it's the tariffs and the divestment.

I'm getting old, so I've seen the same kind of tango, one step forward and one step back, for a quarter of a century. Republican administrations move back the energy transition while Democratic administrations move it forward. When a new president takes power, we move back. I've seen this since the presidency of George W. Bush, who moved back. Barack Obama moved forward. Donald Trump moved back. Joe Biden moved forward. Donald Trump moved back. The next president will probably move forward.

What is changing in terms of the electrification of transportation is that, a few years ago, there wasn't really any competition, whereas now, the Chinese are competing with us and taking market share.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Breton.

[Daniel Breton]

If we do nothing and simply align ourselves with the Trump administration, which is moving back on the energy transition, we'll end up in a situation where Chinese manufacturers will walk all over us.

That's a given.