International Trade Committee on Nov. 17th, 2025

[Aaron Fowler]

We have already conducted two formal consultations through the Canada Gazette, one last year and one this fall. These consultations give us something that the United States and Mexico do not have, namely, an indication of our private sector's standing prior to the trade policy developments that have occurred over the past 12 months.

Moreover, after many months of challenges with our American partner, our industry is still in good standing. We are more closely linked to several more sensitive, highly technical or complicated sectors. We have already begun.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Verheul, once more, mentioned that you didn't consult companies sufficiently, but did consult a few multinationals. As for SMEs, you don't consult them. They are, after all, the specialists of each sector.

Why don't you consult them?

[Aaron Fowler]

I disagree with Mr. Verheul. We are involved, and small and medium enterprises can share their opinions with us and inform us of their activities here and in the United States, in order to strengthen Canadian positions and strategies.

I am convinced that other discussions will take place at some point but, up until now, many Canadian companies from various sectors, and national and provincial associations are already involved, very closely in some cases.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I'm happy to hear that, Mr. Fowler.

I come from a region where agriculture plays an important role. Yet all the negotiations surrounding CUSMA are making farmers extremely nervous.

My question is simple. Will you be sacrificing agriculture once again for the benefit of other sectors?

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you for your question.

No, I would say we are not going to sacrifice. I would reject the premise that the agriculture sector has previously been sacrificed for the benefit of other sectors.

I'm sure that Canada's negotiating team in this negotiation, as in every negotiation, will do its best to advance Canadian interests across the full waterfront of issues that are taken up in that negotiation, recognizing that in order to reach an agreement, compromise is possible. We try to ensure that this compromise does not negatively impact or overly advantage one sector, one region or one set of interests vis-à-vis others. We try to strike a balance. That's the art of the negotiation.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

The farmers disagree with you. Just take the example of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA. Pork industry stakeholders were promised access to an export market of 500 million people, which never happened.

I was recently informed that officials from the Canadian Agri‑Food Trade Alliance met with their American counterparts in Washington.

Is that right? Are you aware of the negotiations and discussions that took place in Washington regarding agriculture?

[Aaron Fowler]

No, not necessarily. I don't know when the meeting in question took place.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

It was a few weeks ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Groleau, I'm sorry, but your time is up.

Go ahead, Mr. Lavoie.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

My first question is for Ms. Wilshaw.

I was happy to hear you speak earlier about the great opportunities for opening up growth markets. You listed a few, such as the Indo‑Pacific region and Italy, where a meeting took place. That sounds great.

Based on your experience in the field and meetings with international partners, how is Canada's approach to diversifying its export markets and doubling the value of its exports within 10 years viewed by its future partners and by its current partners with which it would like to increase trade?

[Sara Wilshaw]

Thank you for your question.

A few weeks ago, we led a group of Canadian business representatives to Italy, where we were warmly welcomed by the Europeans and Italians. They were open to meeting with us and our businesses. Hundreds of business‑to‑business meetings took place. We hope that these meetings will lead to agreements, as we anticipated. This was the case during the latest trade missions to the Indo‑Pacific region.

We've held close to nine trade missions. According to my data, 3,100 meetings have taken place between Canadian and foreign businesses. Several hundred Canadian businesses accompanied us. The tangible results confirmed so far are estimated at about $30 million. The value of the expected benefits for participating businesses is estimated at about $222 million. These results were obtained from a survey conducted among Canadian businesses that participated in the mission. However, only 41% of participants responded to the survey. The value of the benefits is bound to be higher than this amount. Nevertheless, based on this data, the mission received a really positive response.

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

This is quite impressive. You're confirming that 3,100 business‑to‑business meetings have already taken place. The 40 or so people who responded to the survey said that these meetings could generate over $200 million in additional revenue.

This brings me to my second question. How do European countries view trade with Canada? I can see that the current initiatives are receiving a positive response.

[Sara Wilshaw]

It's always a matter of following up.

First, the businesses must follow up with their counterparts in Europe or other parts of the world, such as the Indo‑Pacific region. However, the trade commissioner service can also help them with this task. We're on the ground 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We're always there to help businesses contact businesses in other parts of the world. It's necessary to follow up and to visit trading partners a number of times.

We need to build ties and relationships with other businesses and partners, which may also include research institution partners, for example.

We can establish all kinds of partnerships with institutions and organizations in other countries. They can become, for example, innovation partners.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Before you start counting my time, I would like to verify something.

Mr. Fowler said that he believed that the meeting concerned diversification rather than a review. I wanted to make sure that the information on today's topic was properly conveyed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The invitation to Global Affairs has exactly what we are studying. It says we're resuming our study of Canada and the forthcoming CUSMA review.

[Aaron Fowler]

I apologize, Madam Chair. I wasn't trying to create any confusion. I understand that this is part of the ongoing study that's linked to CUSMA. I had understood that today's session in particular was focused on Canada's trade diversification efforts and was intended to provide a contextual lens to the committee's study.

In any event, I've tried to answer the questions. I hope that you don't feel like I've evaded any of them as a result of the misunderstanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

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

Was the witness told that today's meeting would focus on diversification?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Grant McLaughlin]

When I extend invitations to federal departments, I generally share the motion of the study, and that was done in this instance.

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

In that case, hopefully there won't be any similar confusion in the future and that the invitations will always clearly state the topic.

Madam Chair, you can start the timer.

Mr. Fowler, I was a bit surprised when you told my colleague that agriculture hadn't been sacrificed in the past. Yet shares were sold off. This was seen as such a big sacrifice that the government spoke about compensation. Usually, when you compensate for something, it means that a problem, a setback or harm has occurred in some area.

If this example doesn't qualify as a sacrifice in Canada's current position, at what point would agriculture be considered sacrificed?

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you for your question.

Honestly, I wouldn't describe our negotiations and free trade agreements that way.

For example, in the industrial sector, our approach and policy for decades has been to completely eliminate non‑agricultural tariffs for both Canada and our partners. Our approach to the agriculture sector is different. It's a bit more nuanced given certain sensitive aspects of the agriculture sector.

As a result of our efforts in these sensitive areas of agriculture, our expectations are somewhat lower than our ambitions for non‑agricultural sectors.

Some people in the agriculture sector, like others in the industrial sector, feel that certain agreements don't do enough to meet their expectations. Others believe that they can't comply with certain provisions included in the agreements.

In general, I would say that this isn't the case in either the agriculture or in non‑agricultural sectors. I don't think that any sector can say that its interests weren't protected by the Government of Canada during the negotiations.

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

Please answer yes or no—