International Trade Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

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

I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of Canada and the forthcoming CUSMA review.

By video conference, we have with us today, as an individual, Arlene Dickinson.

Welcome, Arlene. Thank you for coming before the committee again today.

From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have Catherine Fortin LeFaivre, senior vice-president, international policy and global partnerships; and Gaphel Kongtsa, director, international policy.

By video conference, From Manac Inc., we have Charles Dutil, president and chief executive officer.

Thank you very much to all of you for finding the time to speak to the committee today. You will each have five minutes. When I put up my hand, that means I'm going to have to cut you off, as it's imperative that committee members have a chance to ask their questions and get the answers that the committee needs.

Welcome to you all.

Ms. Dickinson, I invite you to speak to the committee for up to five minutes, please.

[Arlene Dickinson, Investor, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Arlene Dickinson.

As a Canadian fund investor in the agri-food space, I want to thank you, Madam Chair and all distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to provide you with my testimony and to answer your questions.

I'm speaking to you from my home office. I acknowledge the land as the traditional territories of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak about CUSMA and Canada's broader trade position.

We're in a defining moment. Our largest trading partner has shifted the sands beneath us, forcing Canada to be more strategic and more clear-eyed. Around the world, nations are rewriting and rewiring their priorities around food, energy, defence, and technology.

Food security has in fact become the new currency of global influence and, in that race, Canada should be leading. We have the land, water, safety standards, expertise and commodities, and most of all, the trust to feed the world.

For once, the federal budget has recognized that. There are real positives, such as modernizing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency through digitization. That's critical. It means faster approvals and greater certainty. The goal of doubling agri-food exports to $300 billion shows ambition, and new funding to help Canadian businesses access global markets signals that government finally sees this sector for what it is: an economic powerhouse.

However, ambition without speed won't win markets. It can still take five years to license and build a plant here, and that's unacceptable. Agri-food is our largest manufacturing sector, yet we still treat it like raw commodities, not the high-value engine it truly is. I saw this first-hand on a recent self-funded trade mission that I went on in Japan, Thailand and Singapore.

I met with some of Asia's largest importers and investors, companies that buy billions in food every year. What I heard should concern every party in this room. Most knew almost nothing about Canada's agri-food industry. They buy our wheat, oats and canola as generic commodities. They have no sense of origin and no awareness of the innovation or the quality that's behind them.

We've focused for decades on a market of 300 million people south of the border while overlooking a market of three billion people who already trust our ethics and food safety but barely know who we are as agri-food producers. That's not just a missed opportunity. It's a national oversight that has cost us jobs and significant revenue.

The challenge our negotiators face is this. The fastest-growing markets don't see Canada because we haven't shown them who we are. The budget gives us tools to change that, but now we need execution with urgency.

Here's what I believe we must do next.

First, we have to make food security a core pillar of trade. Food, energy, minerals and technology must work together, not in silos.

Next, we have to make the CFIA modernization measurable, with approvals in months, not years, and service standards published.

Third, we have to build a unified Canada brand, like New Zealand milk and Australian beef. We should be selling Canada: safe, premium, sustainable and innovative.

Fourth, streamline regulation so companies can scale. We need more plants, packers, processors and bottlers, and we need them now.

Fifth, strengthen the team Canada model. Trade missions should pair ministers with business leaders who can forge real industry-to-industry deals.

Finally, we have to remove interprovincial barriers and use procurement strategically. Government can be the first customer that helps Canadian firms scale.

Agri-food is not a footnote. It represents one in nine jobs and $150 billion of GDP. That's 7% of our economy, which is on par with oil, gas, mining and manufacturing.

Our government needs to stop telling businesses to go and talk to the Minister of Agriculture. This requires all hands on deck: finance, trade, transportation, health—everyone.

When I travel abroad, one thing is clear. The world needs and already trusts Canada, but trust without visibility, speed and a clear brand will not win the future for Canadians. If we move now, with urgency, we can turn that trust into trade, that potential into jobs and that reputation into real negotiating power.

This isn't just about CUSMA. It's about Canada's ability to access new markets, to trade confidently with the world and to act with the urgency and ambition our future demands.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Next is Ms. Fortin LeFaivre, please.

[Catherine Fortin LeFaivre, Senior Vice President, International Policy and Global Partnerships, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Good afternoon.

It's with great pleasure that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce provides its remarks on the CUSMA review to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

My name is Catherine Fortin LeFaivre. I'm the senior vice-president of international policy and global partnerships. I'm here with my partner, Gaphel Kongtsa, director of international policy, who has led our CUSMA consultation work for the past year.

The insights that we're sharing today today were submitted to GAC as well as to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. We will also be submitting them to the Mexican government in a few weeks.

Our findings are the result of feedback shared by over 70 organizations that are deeply involved in North American trade and represent the perspectives of virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy.

We also draw from ongoing engagements we've had with our members and other North American business counterparts over the past year. This includes our many delegation missions to Washington, D.C., one of which just concluded last week and involved a policy conference on the 2026 CUSMA review that we jointly organized with the Brookings Institution.

Since its entry into force in 2020, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, has been crucial to enabling the success of the North American economic partnership. Taken together, the combined economies of the three countries now account for nearly a third of global GDP.

Given the uniquely integrated nature of North American economic and commercial ties, our close proximity and extensive trade flows, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico share a common interest in a CUSMA that strengthens North American economic growth, prosperity and competitiveness.

The concept of North American economic security is especially relevant today, given the current highly uncertain global economic and security environment.

In order to ensure that the 2026 CUSMA review is a successful endeavour that benefits all three countries, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes that the review should be approached with the following strategic priorities.

First, we want to prioritize the continuity of the agreement and its existing key provisions. Second, we want to implement targeted measures to strengthen the agreement and enhance North American economic security. Third, we want to strengthen North American economic integration by reducing or eliminating recently imposed tariffs within North America.

In order to ensure that the 2026 CUSMA review is a successful endeavour that benefits all three countries, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes the review should be approached with the following strategic priorities, which my colleague, Gaphel, will now speak to in more detail.

[Gaphel Kongtsa, Director, International Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Good afternoon.

As Catherine mentioned, we are approaching the review with three core strategic priorities, which have associated recommendations with them.

The first of these strategic priorities is to prioritize the continuity of the agreement and its existing provisions. A fractious CUSMA review would harm businesses in all three countries that rely on the stability and predictability of the trilateral trading relationship. The agreement, I think we are all in agreement, brings substantial benefits by facilitating co-production in key sectors, especially agriculture and agri-food, automotive, steel, aluminum, energy, natural resources, medical goods and many others. These partnerships leverage complementarities among the three economies that create efficiencies to help companies produce high-quality products at low cost.

The second strategic priority should be to implement targeted measures to strengthen the agreement and enhance North American economic security. Rather than being a disruptive exercise, the review holds the potential to be viewed as an opportunity to build upon the successes of the agreement, address shared geopolitical challenges, enhance North American competitiveness and access, ultimately, the untapped potential of the North American trading relationship. Such measures should be targeted, oriented towards enhancing and building upon existing provisions of the agreement and, whenever possible, have buy-in from all three countries.

In our work, we've identified seven areas where there are significant opportunities for the three parties to strengthen the agreement. These include establishing a robust CUSMA competitiveness agenda; ensuring that the agreement keeps pace with advancements in digital technologies and heightened cyber-threats; prioritizing North American regulatory alignment; enhancing workforce development and mobility; modernizing and simplifying rules of origin requirements; modernizing processes that hinder customs administration and trade facilitation; and, finally, encouraging North American coordination on trade and security risks posed by non-market economies.

Finally, the third strategic priority we've identified is strengthening North American economic integration by reducing or eliminating recently imposed tariffs within North America. The recently imposed U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods violate the spirit and commitments of CUSMA, which is founded on tariff-free trade across North America. These tariffs, justified under section 232 of national security provisions, are unwarranted since imports from Canada and Mexico, key defence and industrial partners of the United States, do not reasonably threaten U.S. security. Instead, the tariffs disrupt integrated supply chains, raise costs and weaken competitiveness.

In this regard, we recommend three key recommendations: unwind the recent section 232 tariffs against Canada and Mexico; broaden the preferential tariff treatment for CUSMA-compliant goods, from the IEEPA tariff exemption to the 232s and other similar unilateral tariffs; and, finally, introduce a CUSMA rapid response mechanism for mitigating tariff escalation when and if tariffs do arise in the future.

In closing, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's international team and its executives would welcome any opportunity to meet with you individually at any point during the CUSMA review process. We believe strongly that frequent and frank engagements between the governments and industry will be essential for securing a favourable outcome for Canada in 2026.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dutil, go ahead, please.

[Charles Dutil, President and Chief Executive Officer, Manac Inc.]

Perfect. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me today to testify before the Standing Committee on International Trade. I'm honoured to be able to contribute to your work on issues that are so critical to securing the economic future of Canada as a whole.

My name is Charles Dutil, and I'm the president and CEO of Manac, Canada's largest semi-trailer manufacturer.

Our company is located in Saint‑Georges, Quebec, and we've been in business since 1966. We design and manufacture commercial semi-trailers for the North American market at three factories in Canada and one in the United States. We also support our customers through our network of five sales and service branches located between Moncton and Toronto.

Our industry and that of our clients are directly affected by trade policies and international agreements, mainly those governing trade between Canada and the United States.

As such, I would like to share with you today our experience in exporting our products and importing some of our components, and speak about the challenges that have arisen in the current environment due to tariffs, as well as general instability.

Renegotiating the Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Agreement will be crucially important for our economy and for our people. I hope that some of my observations and answers can have a positive impact, as minimal as that may be.

I'd like to point out that the Canadian Transportation Equipment Association, of which Manac is a member, submitted its comments during the public consultations on the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

Generally speaking, since our company was founded and under various successive treaties and agreements, we had competitive access one year ago to the U.S. market, just as U.S. manufacturers have access to the Canadian market. We all know that this situation changed in recent months, namely the first few months of Mr. Trump's term.

Our company is headquartered in Beauce, less than 50 kilometres from the border with the state of Maine, and this access to the U.S. market has been a key factor in the company's success. In our early years, our products were more openly accepted in northern New England and Maine than on Quebec's north shore or in the Montreal area. This access is equally important to other Canadian commercial semi-trailer manufacturers.

In our day-to-day operations, these companies compete with us, and the competition is quite fierce.

Today, before you, I ask you to consider me as a representative not only of Manac, but also of an active and present industry from east to west, and in almost all of the provinces. This industry provides well-paying manufacturing jobs and directly supports what I dare to call “the heart and lungs of the Canadian economy”, which is our industries and businesses.

It was the railway that connected and united Canada for the first time in 1885. In fact, it shaped and sustained our growth over the decades that followed. It was the movement of goods by rail that made it possible to open the west, and it provided access to the Pacific and to markets for our products on the Prairies and elsewhere. However, let's not make the mistake of underestimating the role that trucking has played in economic growth over the past few decades. Effective access to products required and manufactured in every region of the country is provided by truck and trailer. An efficient freight transportation industry is required in any country that wants to increase its wealth. Given Canada's vast distances, this is even more true here.

The aluminum mining required for the windows and doors industry, which starts in the aluminum smelters in Saguenay, doesn't get to the manufacturer without a semi-trailer. The same goes for steel on a construction site or for the softwood lumber needed.

The transportation industry isn't just about moving goods from one industrial point to another: It supplies our grocery stores, transports medications and medical devices, and contributes to your daily life. Your morning coffee at Tim Horton's and your Coca-Cola at lunchtime were most likely delivered by a semi-trailer we made in Beauce.

We need to prepare ourselves to become less dependent on our neighbours to the south. We all agree on that. However, for our industry, as for many others, access to the overseas market is practically impossible, at least not from factories located in Canada. The standards, the dimensions, the loads and the operational systems are completely different. The only way Manac could gain access to a market like the European Union would be to relocate its production facilities, and that would be counterproductive for the Canadian economy.

From a North American perspective, the standards and dimensions are compatible, albeit different. The general dimensions are the same, but the carrying capabilities are different and significantly higher in Canada. That's an important detail. Canadian capacity in our industry is required to support our needs, which are different from those of U.S. carriers.

Thank you again for inviting me. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to questions from the members.

Mr. Groleau, please.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to welcome Mr. Dutil.

I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the Dutil family, who have been deeply committed to my community for decades. They are truly very generous people. I thank them very much.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Dutil.

Manac is a jewel in the crown of Beauce. It is a leader, a key player in the manufacturing sector.

Can you give us an idea of how many jobs there are here, in the region, in Canada, and around the world, indirectly and directly related to Manac?

[Charles Dutil]

Manac currently has about 1,200 direct employees. At high points in the economic cycle, we hire about 1,500 people. All of those jobs are in Canada, except for about 225 positions at our plant in the United States. The jobs are distributed among Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

We're here to review the Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, or CUSMA. Right now, the U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel are directly and indirectly hurting the industry, as we mentioned earlier.

How do you think the federal government should negotiate? What strategy should it adopt to support steel producers?

[Charles Dutil]

Obviously, when you negotiate on a level playing field, it's simpler than negotiating with a somewhat unstable economic giant like the United States. I think the Liberal government's current strategy is absolutely the right one. Therefore, we mustn't make the Americans more angry or cause them to retaliate further, and we need to adopt a long-term vision rather than focusing on the short term.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Do you think other federal government policies could influence your activities across Canada?

[Charles Dutil]

The answer is yes, absolutely. This is obviously off topic for today's meeting.

From our perspective, as a manufacturer in the region with the lowest unemployment rate in the country in recent years, the immigration policy for foreign workers is important. We have a demographic problem. We have no new blood in the manufacturing sector. Many of our employees will be retiring over the next decade. Opening up controlled immigration for skilled workers would be crucial.

A country's wealth is what it produces multiplied by the number of inhabitants. From an economic standpoint, it is obviously preferable to recruit a skilled, trained and profitable taxpayer from another country than to wait 25 years for a young Canadian to enter the labour market.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

It is clear that when the percentage of foreign workers dropped from 30% to 10%, it affected regions like ours. The Liberals obviously limited that.

I'll just mention briefly that the Conservative Party is proposing that regions with an unemployment rate of less than 5.5% continue to benefit from foreign workers. We need them. They're important. Since this isn't the focus of today's discussion, I won't dwell on it any further.

Do you have any recommendations for us in the upcoming negotiations in your sector? You are an expert, you are a leader. What recommendations do you have for the government for a longer-term vision for your business?

[Charles Dutil]

We need to ensure that the rules are fair and equitable on both sides of the border between Canada and the United States. Currently, a commercial semi-trailer manufactured in the United States enters Canada without any customs duties. Since August 18 this year, a Canadian semi-trailer—like the ones we manufacture—is subject to a tariff on steel and aluminum content, even though our product complies with CUSMA standards. We believe this measure is unfair. In our opinion, this unfairness is one of the biggest problems. At a minimum, the rules should apply reciprocally.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

We talked a bit about regulations. From a tax or trade perspective, what's holding back your ability to grow and invest more in Canada?

[Charles Dutil]

Mr. Groleau, members of the committee, the only honest answer is the availability of labour in the region. No one in a large urban area such as Montreal, for example in Laval or Longueuil, is looking for a manufacturing job in Beauce. If we were in Barrie, Ontario, I would say the same thing about the greater Toronto area. We can try to recruit in urban centres, but to no avail. When it comes to employees skilled in welding, electromechanics, or painting, we lack human resources in our immediate vicinity.

We also lack human resources in our country. The birth rate has been too low over the past 40 years. We have to look abroad for skilled labour. Increasing Canada's population is a good thing. It strengthens our economy.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

In the context of the upcoming negotiations to revise CUSMA, are there other important things we need to know? Are there any urgent issues to be addressed in your area? We want to help you succeed. That's important. We talked about the rules earlier. Is there any additional information you would like to share that we might not have?

[Charles Dutil]

I'll repeat my previous comment. As manufacturers, honestly, we're not looking for a particular advantage. We just want a level playing field.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you both very much.

Mr. Lavoie, you have the floor.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to be with us today. We appreciate it.

Ms. Dickinson, as an entrepreneur, you must be pleased to see the measure in the budget known as the “productivity super-deduction,” which is intended to encourage business investment.

I have two questions for you. First, you mentioned expediency. You said that it takes about five years to obtain the necessary approvals to set up a factory. Would you tell me what you consider to be a reasonable time frame?

Second, you said that interprovincial trade barriers should be eliminated, which is what we proposed when we introduced Bill C‑4. Do you have any specific examples of how eliminating these barriers would help businesses and entrepreneurs?

Also, if you would like to comment on the productivity super-deduction, please go ahead.

[Arlene Dickinson]

In terms of the deductions from the food sector specifically, when we think about the sector that is not manufacturing, especially for these early stage companies, a lot of the people in the agri-food sector are early-stage growth companies. They don't have the ability to invest in manufacturing, and they're not going to be able to take advantage of some of the tax deductions that are there. These tax deductions are aimed more at larger companies that are in a high-growth rate that are looking to be able to invest in capital expenditures and infrastructure. This is not really the case for earlier stage companies, especially in the agri-food sector.

The agri-food sector requires a lot of help relative to co-packing and manufacturing, so we need to set up those plants. When you ask how long it should take, I would say from start to finish, it shouldn't take more than 12 to 18 months to be able to stand up a manufacturing facility once you have the approval and financing in place.

The challenge is getting those approvals, both from a land and a use perspective through to the compliance of the equipment and everything else, which is taking far too long. This means that people are having to go south to get the manufacturing that they require in order to meet the demands that they're filling.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I asked you what you would consider a reasonable time frame. For me, a time frame could mean five months, five years, or three years. What would you consider a reasonable time frame to avoid hindering our companies' investments and growth?

[Arlene Dickinson]

As I mentioned, in terms of standing up a manufacturing facility, 12 to 18 months would be a reasonable time frame to be able to stand up a facility and get it approved.

How Canada can help is by speeding up that regulatory approval process of getting approval for the development of the project itself and the permits right through to the approvals for the equipment and the certification of that equipment. There are a variety of different places that this touches in terms of getting the correct approvals in place, but it should be significantly faster than it is.