International Trade Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[Deborah Yedlin]

There is a very important way to look at this. I call it the “and” conversation. We need to make sure that we have the regulatory framework and the certainty to support our domestic industries, so that there is legislation in place and we know exactly what we're working with from a timing perspective. If there is no certainty and it is a very uncertain time, and if there is something we can do more effectively within the country to encourage investment and to encourage the formation and attraction of capital to develop whatever, whether it's a business that's manufacturing or a resource-based company.... Without certainty, nobody risks any capital.

I also think part of that is to focus on making sure that we have.... What the government can do and what we need to focus on is infrastructure, making sure that we have transportation infrastructure to get our goods to market. I know that I have spoken with some major companies and they've said to me that if we don't deal with the infrastructure piece—whether it is rail, whether it is ports—it's hard for them to justify making investments in Canada.

Let's figure out how we can make sure that we have the right conditions to attract companies from other parts of the world to come here, help us develop our resources and start to grow our manufacturing capabilities.

I just want to remind everybody that we're about 3% of the world's global capital markets, so we depend on foreign investment and foreign investors to help develop our economy over the years. There has been a chill because there has been such a lack of certainty in terms of our regulatory system. Let's focus on that and let's focus on making sure we have the infrastructure, as well as the labour certainty, to be a reliable trading partner for whoever wants to come to be part of our Canadian economy.

[Doug Griffiths]

Thank you.

I would approach this with some kind of 20-year vision about where Canada is going to be 20 years from now. That's because if we do this right, 20 years from now I think Canada would be a better place to invest than the United States, even if you're looking to access the entire North American market. However, in order to do that we have to make sure our regulatory and environment processes are streamlined and, as Deb said, the infrastructure is in place. Otherwise, even if Canada is a decent place to invest, if we don't deal with the interprovincial trade barriers, then you're still going to have internal barriers, even with the infrastructure built. We need to deal with that.

You continue to work on interprovincial trade now, which I think is a solution for the short term, two to four years, but then in the immediacy I think this government is going to have to look at what sort of tax structure, what sort of policy structure and what sort of support structures need to be in place to ensure that our innovation economy continues to evolve and that our resource economy continues to survive, because we're going to need that to achieve those final objectives 20 years from now. Subsidies, tax restructuring, investments in infrastructure and the free trade within Canada are some core things we need over the next 10 years to make sure that 20-year vision comes true.

There isn't going to be one solution because the biggest challenge we have right now is that we're trying to find rational solutions to an irrational situation, and there is no rational solution when every five minutes a new policy comes out of the south. We have to approach this as though we're dealing with chaos, because we are, while still trying to integrate a long-term strategy that ensures security for us and access to all of North America and the world 20 years from now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much to our witnesses. To all three of you, you've given us some really valuable information today.

We will suspend for just one minute because we are already behind, since we started 10 minutes late.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order.

Would everybody please take their places? Our witnesses are ready to go.

Our witnesses for this panel include the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating. By video conference we have Satinder Chera, chief executive officer. From Electric Mobility Canada, we have Daniel Breton, president and chief executive officer. From Seeds Canada is Lauren Comin, director of policy.

Welcome to you all.

Mr. Chera, you have up to five minutes. The floor is yours. Please commence.

[Satinder Chera, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating]

Good afternoon.

Thank you to the chair and members of the committee for the invitation to appear in respect of the forthcoming CUSMA review.

My name is Satinder Chera. I'm the CEO of the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating.

Founded in 1933, the CIPH is a national not-for-profit trade association representing over 250 companies. These businesses employ thousands of Canadians to help provide a safe, healthy and sustainable quality of life for our citizens. Our members manufacture and distribute plumbing and heating products across Canada, ensuring access to reliable systems for homes and businesses alike. These products are both in plain sight and behind the foundations of every built environment.

As part of a forthcoming report, CIPH has quantified the economic footprint of Canada's plumbing and heating industry as contributing $21.5 billion to the country's GDP, directly employing over 75,000 Canadians, paying out nearly $14 billion in wages and benefits and contributing nearly $14 billion in tax revenue to all levels of government. Decades of stable trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico have allowed our industry to serve Canadian homes and businesses. In recent years, however, supply chain volatility and, more recently, tariff uncertainty have contributed to the erosion of business confidence in our industry.

While the initial shock of tariffs between Canada and the U.S. has subsided—somewhat—the business outlook for many of our members is far from certain. Higher costs have given way to a perpetual state of uncertainty, leaving many of our members to park their vote on future expectations for their businesses.

For CIPH members, these impacts are not theoretical. Plumbing and heating systems are the backbone of safe, livable communities. They heat our homes, deliver clean water and keep hospitals, schools and workplaces functioning. Canada's construction and building-products sector is deeply integrated with that of their U.S. counterparts. Many of our members operate on both sides of the border. Every day, products and components cross seamlessly between manufacturers, distributors and job sites. This vital integration is exactly what CUSMA envisioned.

When tariffs are placed on such products as plumbing fixtures, water heaters and raw materials, the consequences are amplified throughout the entire construction supply chain. These costs can rarely be fully absorbed by manufacturers and distributors. In fact, our member surveys continue to warn of higher product and input costs during this period of uncertainty. At a time when governments have committed to accelerating the pace of homes being built, even small increases can translate into higher housing prices, delayed projects and fewer affordable housing units. As one CIPH member has observed, consumers are very concerned and are more likely than not waiting for positive news before they start to make large investments, such as buying a new home.

Recent steps by the federal government to alleviate some of the reciprocal measures that were placed on products in our industry is a step in the right direction. We thank them for listening to our concerns and providing some measure of relief. At the same time, ensuring open borders to both the incoming and outgoing trade of products and services must factor into discussions around the future of CUSMA. As an industry, we stand ready to do our part in supporting the government's efforts, both here and south of the border.

CIPH's message is simple: Maintain open, predictable and tariff-free trade in essential building products. Plumbing and heating products are not a luxury. They are essential to not only building more affordable homes but also supporting the growth of Canada's plumbing and heating industry. These products should be protected from future unilateral trade action.

The CUSMA review also offers an important opportunity to further strengthen regulatory co-operation between the trading partners. Divergent product standards can add to supply chain challenges, resulting in higher costs and impeding innovation. A modernized CUSMA should reinforce stability, alignment and collaboration between North America's integrated construction ecosystem, just as governments in Canada have prioritized the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers.

CIPH recommends prioritizing the alignment of standards in such key areas as energy efficiency. Harmonized standards would streamline cross-border trade, reduce compliance costs and enable manufacturers to produce products more efficiently.

We are proud of the work that governments in Canada have undertaken in recent years to ensure the speedy adoption of harmonized national model codes. We need to take it one step further by aligning these efforts with our cross-border trade agreements.

In closing, Canada's plumbing and heating industry depends on free and fair trade across North America. The next phase of the CUSMA agreement should strengthen the integrated supply chain that keeps our homes warm, clean water flowing and our sector productive. CIPH and our member companies stand ready to support Parliament and the Government of Canada in achieving that goal.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Breton, go ahead, please. You have up to five minutes.

[Daniel Breton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric Mobility Canada]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My name is Daniel Breton. I'm the CEO of Electric Mobility Canada, or EMC.

EMC is Canada's association for the transport electrification industry. It has 190 members, including car, truck and bus manufacturers; labour unions and research centres.

According to an EY report published in 2025, our industry already employs 130,000 people, and it's expected to employ between 360,000 and 600,000 within 10 years.

To ensure that CUSMA continues to support the growth and competitiveness of Canada's EV industry sector, EMC recommends the following actions to be considered during the 2026 joint review.

First, protect the zero-tariff classification of electrical energy. The provision supports the development of clean energy systems and the electrification of transportation. Its preservation is essential to maintaining cost-effective access to renewable electricity across the board.

Second, preserve and strengthen regional content rules that incentivize North American manufacturing of EVs, batteries, charging infrastructure and critical minerals. These rules are essential to building resilient supply chains and supporting the Canadian economy.

Third, establish a trilateral framework for battery recycling and black mass refining. Coordinated investment and standard setting across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico would help retain strategic materials within North America and reduce reliance on overseas processing.

Fourth, avoid regulatory harmonization that could lower Canadian standards. Canada must retain the flexibility to set ambitious zero-emission vehicle and environmental policies, particularly in light of divergent approaches among CUSMA partners such as the U.S. but also Mexico.

Fifth, include EV infrastructure and grid modernization in future co-operation chapters. They are foundational elements of the transition to e-mobility and require coordinated planning and investment across borders.

Sixth, advance interoperability through charging equipment standards. To support transborder travel and trade in electric vehicles, CUSMA partners should work towards harmonized standards for EV charging infrastructure.

Seventh, promote alignment or mutual recognition of clean fuel credit systems. This would support investment in public and private charging infrastructure and help scale low-carbon transportation solutions.

Eighth, support trilateral workforce development initiatives. Joint training and certification programs would help ensure that the North American labour force is equipped to meet the demands of the EV transition.

Ninth, work towards a harmonized customs valuation across CUSMA jurisdictions. Differences in customs valuation methodologies create an unnecessary administrative burden and increase costs for businesses and consumers. CUSMA partners should align their valuation approach to reduce red tape, improve affordability and support the integrated North American auto industry.

A few days ago, the tariffs led to layoffs and relocations at Stellantis, General Motors and Paccar, among other companies.

We are therefore in favour of concluding a new free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, but not at the cost of concessions made at the expense of any sector, be it agriculture, manufacturing, forestry or any other one.

Given that the current American president does not respect either the citizens or the governments of other countries, including Canada, and that his own word and his own signature are unreliable, what value can we place on potentially signing a new agreement?

We also have to think about what can be termed non-offshorable jobs.

These are jobs that cannot be moved south.

At the end of the day, we would rather have no agreement than a bad agreement where we sacrifice entire segments of our economy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Comin, you have the floor.

[Lauren Comin, Director of Policy, Seeds Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, the national industry association representing seed developers, growers, analysts, retailers and service providers across the country. I'm here to support your study on Canada and the forthcoming CUSMA review.

Seed is the foundation of Canada's $150-billion agri-food industry. Our sector contributes $6 billion annually to the economy, 63,000 jobs and over $1 billion of exports annually.

Seed is a critical input for Canada's agricultural production. Without access to seed, farmers are unable to produce a crop. As we approach the next planting season, farmers need assurance that they will have access to high-quality, low-cost seed.

Free trade is critically important for the Canadian, U.S. and Mexican seed industries due to their deep integration, mutual reliance and the global competitiveness of North American agriculture. Over $1 billion of seed moves between Canada and the United States each year. Our partners are more than trading partners; they are partners in production. Seed may cross the border several times prior to being sold to the final customer, and there are some crop types for which Canada is entirely reliant on international seed production to fuel our industries, such as the 548,000 metric tons of tomatoes that are produced in Canada annually.

The Canadian seed sector, represented by Seeds Canada, supports preserving the existing text within CUSMA and feels that a renegotiation of the entire agreement is unnecessary and potentially disruptive. Seeds Canada recommends the maintenance of tariff-free market access for planting seeds—or seeds for sowing—as well as a commitment to ongoing co-operation on policy and regulatory issues.

Tariffs on seeds discourage investment, ultimately impacting farmer access to new seed innovations and negatively impacting Canada's competitiveness and food security. The free trade relationship facilitated by CUSMA provides the consistency the industry needs to optimize innovation.

It is important to note how closely the success of the seed sector is linked to the grains and oilseeds markets. Canada's crop sector is export-focused. The demand for these crops in global markets drives domestic production, which in turn creates strong demand for high-quality seeds.

Seeds Canada has the following recommendations for the forthcoming review: maintain tariff-free access to planting seeds or seeds for sowing; and continue commitment to ongoing co-operation on policy and regulatory issues, including seizing every opportunity to establish legal certainty for the commercialization of plants developed using innovative technologies such as genome editing, and encouraging Mexico to meet its obligations to ratify or accede to UPOV 1991.

In parallel to the CUSMA review, Canada must improve our supporting trade infrastructure, policies and procedures. Inefficiencies due to delays in phytosanitary certification and lack of consistency in applying policy delays trade, harms reputations and relationships, and leads to unnecessary costs to the sector.

Canada must commit to improving procedures, such as the full adoption of electronic phytosanitary certificates, or ePhytos, in the place of paper-based documents, and improving service standards. It is essential that frontline staff receive clear messaging from policy-makers on procedures to allow for consistent border experiences and to prevent delays. Most importantly, it is time for our regulatory environments to enable our trade-reliant agri-food sector as opposed to policing it.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward to the discussion and to answering any questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We now move on to questions and comments from the members.

Mr. Mantle, please go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.

Mr. Chera, my first questions will be directed to you. Thank you for being here. We often analogize things as being “the plumbing” when they're helping things work and run. You are the plumbing and the heating for Canadians, so I thank you and your members for that.

I note in some of your submissions, and you alluded to it in your remarks, that many of your products were subject to retaliatory surtaxes imposed by the Government of Canada on goods that were of U.S. origin. For example, natural gas furnaces that people use to heat their homes, schools or hospitals were subject to a 25% retaliatory tariff.

The majority of supply is from the United States. I think your numbers were that about 90% of the supply of furnaces is from the United States. Is that correct?

[Satinder Chera]

That would be fair to say. The standard number used is probably north of 70%.

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

When your members paid surtaxes on that, they passed that along to their consumers in Canada. Is that correct?

[Satinder Chera]

That certainly would have been the case, yes.

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

Did that raise the cost of home heating in Canada for Canadian citizens and for schools, hospitals and the like?

[Satinder Chera]

I'm not sure I have an exact line of sight on those costs, but I will say that in the conversations we've had with our members—I made this comment in my remarks—rarely are manufacturers able to fully absorb those costs. Yes, some of those costs have been passed on. I don't have an exact breakdown of those costs, however.

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

Fair enough. I wouldn't expect you to have exact costs, but I think the principle would be that if the equipment to heat your home is more expensive, then it's more expensive to heat your home. Is that fair?

[Satinder Chera]

It's fair to say that costs on some of these products have certainly gone up, yes.

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

I understand that the government removed some of the retaliatory tariffs as of September 1, but tariffs on home heating equipment remain. Is that correct?

[Satinder Chera]

For most of those products, the tariffs have now come off. There is, however, some hot water tank equipment where tariffs still remain, yes.

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

I guess my question to you as an industry is this. We repeatedly heard from the Prime Minister during the election that Canada's actions would have a minimum impact on Canadians and a maximum impact on the United States.

Why would the government maintain retaliatory tariffs on products that are not easily accessible or sourceable in Canada?

[Satinder Chera]

I think this is one of the arguments we made earlier in the year when we asked the government to rethink some of these reciprocal measures that are in place. I have no doubt that this is not an easy situation any of us are in. I talk to my members on a very regular basis. The uncertainty is alive and well. It's certainly impacting their businesses.

For us, working very closely with all members of Parliament—I'll simply say that a number of weeks ago we met with all parties around this table—our hope and our expectations going forward are that we will continue to have those lines of dialogue open so that we can continue to provide some of the feedback our members are providing to us when it comes to the impact that tariffs on both sides of the border are certainly having on their businesses.

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

Ms. Comin, I have a few questions for you. I understand that the CFIA maintains a seed grading system and that only grain products or varieties produced from seeds that are registered can receive appropriate grading. Otherwise, the grain gets the lowest grade. Do I have that roughly correct?

[Lauren Comin]

That is correct. The Canadian Grain Commission is the one that has the grain grading system.

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

Thanks.

I understand that the United States Trade Representative has specifically singled out this seed registration system as, to quote the USTR, “slow and cumbersome”. Would you agree with that assessment?