International Trade Committee on Nov. 24th, 2025

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

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 15 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

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.

We have with us today, from the Canada Organic Trade Association, Tia Loftsgard, executive director. From the Canadian Animal Health Institute, we have Catherine Filejski, president and chief executive officer. From the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, we have Keanin Loomis, president and chief executive officer, by video conference. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president, and Elizabeth Kwan, senior researcher. From the Digital Media Association, we have Graham Davies, president and chief executive officer, by video conference.

We also have a past chair of international trade filling in for us today: Mr. Randy Hoback. Welcome back to your favourite committee.

Welcome to all.

You will have up to five minutes for your opening remarks, followed by questions from the different committee members.

Ms. Loftsgard, I invite you to give us an opening statement of up to five minutes, please.

[Tia Loftsgard, Executive Director, Canada Organic Trade Association]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak.

I represent the Canada Organic Trade Association, the national voice for Canada’s $9.75 billion organic sector and Canada’s technical lead on organic equivalency arrangements. As we approach the 2026 CUSMA review, continuity and stability must guide our decisions. This agreement has delivered strong trade and investment benefits and helped grow the organic sector by improving access and availability for consumers. We urge renewal for the full 16-year term and caution against annual reviews or wholesale renegotiation, which would create uncertainty and disrupt trade.

Canada is the fifth largest organic market globally, growing 8% in 2024, with two-thirds of Canadians buying organic products weekly. Canada is also a critical trade partner, ranking as the number one export partner for both the United States and the EU. Both of them are our largest successful trading partners, and this is built on trust and regulatory alignment. Canada has nine organic equivalency arrangements that reduce barriers to the $200-plus billion global market and have created a level playing field. Our two most important trade partners, the U.S. and the EU, are currently under review for their organic equivalency arrangements. For the Canada-U.S. arrangement, this will be the first review since it came into force in 2009. The U.S. is the largest organic market in the world, representing about 45% of global organic sales and Canada is the top destination for U.S. exports, accounting for 40% of U.S. exports.

Our top priority is to protect organic equivalency and keep it out of the CUSMA negotiations. Since 2009, the Canada-U.S. arrangement, like all global organic equivalency arrangements, has worked as a technical and not a political mechanism. We strongly oppose bringing these technical arrangements into trade talks. Instead, Canada should invest in better tracking tools to measure economic impacts and keep our sector competitive. Organic faces unique vulnerabilities. It's a high-value industry with limited global supply chains, leaving us more exposed when trade agreements impose rigid rules that don't reflect the realities of integrated supply chains. Zero-tariff access and smooth cross-border movement are essential. Organic trade depends on rigorous standards across the entire value chain, from soil inputs and on-farm practices to processing aids and distribution and labelling. Canada cannot produce all of our demand domestically, so many organic ingredients, finished products and packaging materials must be sourced internationally, while seasonal limitations and gaps in processing capacity require integrated North American supply chains to maintain that organic integrity. Stricter rules of origin would raise costs and consumer prices, which is a major risk for such a premium sector. Domestic organic production has stagnated or declined in recent years, which creates an increasing reliance on imports.

These challenges underscore the urgency of implementing an organic action plan for Canada, of which I have a copy available here today to share with you. We just launched this in October 2025. This plan focuses on production, growth, market development and policy alignment, including better data systems, regulatory modernization and export readiness. Canada currently lacks basic organic data, with fewer than one-third of the exports to the United States tracked. This gap weakens our position in trade negotiations like CUSMA and limits investment in supply chains. Addressing this is absolutely critical for informed policy and competitiveness.

Tariff exposure is another concern. About 45% of Canadian organic exports to the United States face tariffs outside of CUSMA compliance, largely due to supply chain gaps. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are outpacing Canada. The U.S. investments in organic competitiveness are eight times higher per acre, and the EU invests 200 times more than Canada does. Without action, Canada risks losing its market share and our export opportunities. The two-way trade between Canada and the U.S. is absolutely critical, supporting thousands of farms and processors, and ensuring year-round availability of organic for consumers. Any disruption would cause harm to both countries' organic sectors and undermine organic consumer trust.

In closing, we urge that the committee support the full 16-year renewal of CUSMA and keep organic equivalency arrangements outside of these trade negotiations. These measures, combined with investment in data and domestic capacity, are essential to maintain predictable market access, safeguard the community of the $9.7 billion organic sector and strengthen North American supply chains built on trust, sustainability and consumer choice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Filejski, please go ahead for up to five minutes.

[Catherine Filejski, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Animal Health Institute]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Canadian Animal Health Institute, CAHI, the national trade association representing developers, manufacturers, importers and distributors of veterinary medicines in Canada. CAHI members account for 95% of animal health product sales in this country, including veterinary drugs, biologics, feed additives and pest control products. We're deeply invested in the health and welfare of Canada's livestock and companion animals and in the prosperity of our agricultural sector.

CUSMA is foundational to the stability and competitiveness of Canada's animal health industry. Healthy livestock are essential to a secure and productive food supply across North America. The medicines, vaccines and diagnostics produced by our industry form an integrated supply chain that supports food safety, public health and economic vitality. The Canadian animal health sector contributes directly to public health, food security and economic growth, with a market value exceeding $4 billion. As of 2024, Canada maintained 12 million cattle and 14 million hogs, generating $40 billion in livestock receipts. The availability of effective veterinary medicines is critical to this productivity.

Canada relies heavily on the United States for veterinary medicines and vaccines. Approximately 40% of all medicines and 90% of vaccines for food animals are imported from the U.S. For companion animals, at least 40% of medicines and nearly all of our pet vaccines come from our southern neighbour. This dependency underscores the vital role of CUSMA in ensuring access to affordable, high-quality veterinary medicines for Canadian farmers and pet owners.

CUSMA has delivered tangible benefits to the Canadian animal health sector. By eliminating tariffs, improving market access and establishing science-based regulatory disciplines, the agreement has lowered costs and increased access to essential products. This has led to reduced disease prevalence in both food and companion animals, higher productivity and lower food prices due to improved livestock health, and competitive advantages for Canadian producers.

Canada accounts for 15%, or about $96 million, of U.S. exports of veterinary drugs, reflecting the efficiency and cost savings of integrated regional supply chains. CUSMA's stable and predictable framework has enabled Canadian businesses to plan investments, streamline product development and deliver innovations that protect animal and public health.

Regulatory co-operation is a cornerstone of CUSMA's success. CAHI members have benefited from Canada-U.S. collaboration during product review and approval, which reduces duplication and accelerates the availability of safe, effective medicines. We strongly support continued Canadian leadership to enhance this co-operation, ensuring that regulatory decisions remain science-based, transparent and harmonized where possible. Regulatory predictability allows companies to invest confidently, develop new products and deliver critical innovations.

To build on CUSMA's achievements and remedy the animal health industry's ongoing trade irritants, CAHI offers a number of recommendations.

The first is defending strong intellectual property standards. The current data protection provisions incentivize innovation for new chemical entities but do not adequately support research for new uses of existing drugs or minor use/minor species drugs. We urge the government to broaden data protection to include new uses, with a meaningful period of protection for new data generated.

The second recommendation is advancing regulatory reliance, moving beyond co-operation to true regulatory reliance. When an animal health product is approved in the United States, Canadian regulators should rely on that review to the maximum extent possible. The upcoming 2026 CUSMA review is an opportunity to catalyze this shift.

The third recommendation is strengthening the use of international standards. The common adoption and implementation of such international standards as the guidelines issued by the international council for harmonization of technical requirements for veterinary pharmaceuticals are essential for eliminating costly and duplicative animal studies across jurisdictions.

The fourth recommendation is aligning maximum residue limits, MRLs. Misalignment in MRLs for veterinary drugs creates costly trade barriers. The co-operation envisioned in article 28.17 under CUSMA should be more effectively applied to ensure that MRLs are established in a timely and coordinated manner between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

The fifth and final recommendation is modernizing domestic regulatory frameworks. That would involve actively using the retrospective review mechanism outlined in CUSMA article 28.13 to update and improve Canada's regulatory environment for animal health products.

CAHI strongly supports a full 16-year renewal of CUSMA. The agreement has enhanced North American competitiveness, strengthened supply chain resiliency and promoted science-based regulatory alignment, benefiting Canadian farmers, animal owners, veterinarians and the broader public. CUSMA is crucial for ensuring access to essential veterinary medicines, supporting food security and maintaining Canada's position as a reliable global supplier of high-quality animal protein.

Strategic trade and economic integration with the U.S. and Mexico enhances our capacity to manage animal disease outbreaks, uphold food safety standards and protect human health.

CUSMA provides transparent rules and the stability needed for Canadian businesses to plan supply chains and build lasting customer relationships.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Loomis, you have the floor, please.

[Keanin Loomis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Institute of Steel Construction]

Thank you, Madam Chair and the committee, for inviting me back to present on behalf of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, CISC, representing one of the foremost sectors impacted by the ongoing U.S. trade war.

Established in 1930, the CISC is Canada's voice for the steel construction industry, representing the steel manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers, contractors, engineers and architects who are building with steel in Canada.

The domestic steel industry faces unprecedented mounting pressure from aggressive U.S. tariffs, global overcapacity and predatory trade practices. These developments underscore the need for a modernized “Fortress North America” trade agreement that reflects current risks, closes enforcement gaps and ensures long-term market stability.

It is quite an understatement to say that the past year has been a challenge for the steel sector. The unpredictable tariff policies, with no clear end in sight, have created significant instability for the sector and have made it difficult to plan for future projects. Steel fabricators risk losing contracts, undermining their ability to employ tens of thousands of Canadians. These are highly skilled, well-paying jobs, and entire communities are now at stake.

As we look toward the CUSMA renegotiation, the CISC's primary recommendations are, number one, to secure a permanent exemption from U.S. section 232 tariffs for Canadian steel; number two, to include an explicit domestic procurement clause protecting Canadian steel and federally funded infrastructure; number three, to harmonize the trade remedy in anti-circumvention rules to reflect current supply chain risks; and number four, to standardize the reporting and strict tariff application for steel product imports.

I'll go to number one first. As the cornerstone of Canada's CUSMA renegotiation, the federal government must secure a full, permanent and enforceable exemption from the application of section 232 tariffs on Canadian steel. These actions have inflicted disproportionate harm on Canadian producers, who represent the largest share of U.S. steel imports, disrupting deeply integrated supply chains and capital investments.

Canada must negotiate a binding provision in the CUSMA text that explicitly prohibits the application of section 232 to metals and commodities of Canadian origin. Without such a provision, the spectre of arbitrary U.S. trade actions will continue to destabilize the North American steel sector, undermining the very purpose of CUSMA.

Number two, the CISC has long advocated for reciprocal access to public procurement processes on both sides of the border to support North America's steel and construction market. However, as the U.S. continues to implement protectionist procurement policies at both the federal and state levels, Canada should use the CUSMA renegotiation process to secure an explicit right to prioritize Canadian steel and taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects, as is often the case with U.S. infrastructure spending.

Currently, U.S. procurement policies exclude Canadian structural steel from large, publicly funded infrastructure projects, including transit, energy and defence-related construction. Until we arrive at a reciprocal procurement and trading agreement with regard to the CUSMA, protectionist policies must be met with a protectionist response to support our domestic industries.

Number three, we must expand and maintain measures on Chinese imports. One of the most pressing challenges facing the North American steel industry is the persistent influx of dumped and subsidized steel—particularly from state-subsidized economies like China—that is designed to wipe out Canadian manufacturers. These imports are often sold below market value and are produced under weak environmental and labour standards, and they severely undercut the fair-market North American producers. This is a shared concern for both Americans and us, and it's why we should aim for a “Fortress North America” agreement.

In 2024, the CISC called on the federal government to introduce the surtax order as a measure to defend Canadian industry against unfair Chinese trade practices, advocating for fair competition and a level domestic planning field. We now call on the federal government to expand the surtax order to cover derivative steel products—downstream steel products are steel that has been fabricated, such as the canopy that hangs over the House of Commons—safeguarding all elements of the steel value chain.

Finally, inconsistent reporting requirements and tariff enforcement across Canada, the United States and Mexico have created systemic vulnerabilities in the North American steel market. These gaps are increasingly exploited by foreign producers that reroute, dump or subsidize steel through the weakest regulatory entry point. The CUSMA renegotiations must deliver a unified and enforceable system of import data, transparency and tariff consistency. We should advocate for harmonized reporting standards across all of the CUSMA parties. We should advocate for consistent tariff application and synchronized enforcement of trade remedies on products entering the bloc. Finally, we should advocate for coordinated audit and verification mechanisms to flag abnormal trade flows and prosecute circumvention.

Without harmonization, CUSMA risks becoming a system riddled with loopholes, where the lowest standard country becomes the entry point for unfairly traded steel and undermines the entire North American steel industry.

Once again, thank you to the committee for inviting me to appear on behalf of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Loomis.

Ms. Bruske, go ahead, please, for up to five minutes.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for inviting us.

My name is Bea Bruske, and I am the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. I am joined by Elizabeth Kwan, our senior researcher.

In the CLC, we represent over 50 different unions in every sector of our economy, including thousands of workers whose jobs depend on trade: steel, aluminum, forestry, critical minerals, agriculture, food production, energy, transportation and more.

Across the country, workers are being hit with rising costs and the fallout of an escalating trade war. Since the start of this trade war, I have met with workers in communities from St. John's to Windsor, Hawkesbury to Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Courtenay and Nanaimo.

Families across Canada are very worried about what tariffs will mean for their jobs, their homes and their communities, all at the same time as they are facing an affordability crisis. In this context, your committee is studying Canada's approach to the renegotiation of CUSMA. I'm here to tell you that Canada's workers want their government to protect their jobs, to protect our country and to protect workers' futures.

I agree with the Prime Minister that Donald Trump's strategy is to weaken Canada to own Canada. He is trying to force us into concessions that undermine our sovereignty. Appeasing Donald Trump, we have seen, does not work. Each single concession that Canada has made, from cancelling our digital services tax to dropping countertariffs, has been followed by more attacks from Trump.

Canada has to approach these CUSMA negotiations with a very strong backbone and a clear sense of our leverage that we bring to that table, leverage ensuring that no worker, no industry and no region is left behind, and we do in Canada have that leverage.

The American economy we know can't function without Canadian inputs. America cannot farm without our potash. It cannot keep the lights on without our electricity, and it cannot run without the oil, gas and critical minerals that we supply. It certainly cannot replace the Canadian aluminum that it has chosen to tariff.

We have to think about it in this way: If America wants our potash, it should buy our cars, and if America wants reliable access to Canadian energy and minerals, then Canada needs to secure fair access to our lumber, steel, pharmaceuticals, movies, food and manufacturing to the U.S. That is how leverage works in negotiations and at bargaining tables, and workers expect this government to stand firm.

To guide that work, the CLC recommends three core principles for this round of negotiations.

First, trade must be worker-centred, worker-first. Canada has to insist on strong, enforceable labour chapters with strong protections for women and migrant workers with clear provisions for addressing gender-based violence, and robust occupational health and safety rules. This approach aligns with Canada's industrial strategy that prioritizes jobs, skills and fair labour practices.

Second, we have to preserve our policy and our regulatory space. Trade negotiations must increase our capacity to build domestic industrial and manufacturing capacity. We need to be able to increase value-added production. We need to be able to tax multinational corporations, including tech giants, fairly. We need to be able to require companies that profit here to produce and maintain jobs in Canada. We need to regulate AI in the public interest, and we need to be able to set our own tax strategies, including our ability to tax wealth. We need to meet our climate commitments, and we need to expand our public service.

Canada must never fall into the Trump trap to trade away economic sovereignty in the hope of regaining unimpeded access to the U.S. market. The U.S. is intent on restricting Canada's policy space in taxation, climate regulation, industrial development and digital governance. Canada has to protect that space and not bargain it away. Government investments and industrial strategies have to come with conditions, and those conditions have to be good union jobs, community benefits, Canadian procurement and guarantees that jobs stay in Canada.

Third, we need to protect our public services from privatization and from trade-related constraints. We need to understand that public dollars must deliver for the public good: public health care, child care, housing, transit, clean energy and employment insurance that allows families to weather the economic storms that we are facing. We cannot build reliance for individuals by hollowing out the very systems that support families during hard times.

In CUSMA negotiations and in all trade dealings with America, Canada needs to be able to respond with confidence in those negotiations. We can build reliable and resilient supply chains. We can build stronger domestic industries and a fairer economy, but that requires refusing concessions that weaken workers' rights or undermine our economic independence.

Canadian workers built our country, and they built our country's prosperity. They expect their government to defend it and to negotiate with strength, clarity and a solid backbone.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Graham Davies, President and Chief Executive Officer, Digital Media Association]

Chair, Vice-Chairs and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Graham Davies. I'm the president and CEO of the Digital Media Association, representing the leading music streaming services in Canada, including Amazon, Apple Music, Spotify and YouTube.

This isn't my first time appearing before this committee. I participated a year ago to raise concerns regarding the implementation of the Online Streaming Act. My fear was that it would not only be bad for Canadian consumers, artists and the music industry, putting at risk the growth of this sector, which has made streaming nearly 80% of total recorded music revenues, but it could also cause issues with Canada's trading partners. At the heart of my concerns then, and central to the examination of trade irritants and barriers between Canada, the United States and Mexico you are considering today, is the fact that the implementation of the Online Streaming Act is harmful to the economic relations among the parties involved.

Streaming has enabled Canada to attain the position of the third-biggest exporter of digital music in the world. Sustaining growth and strengthening Canada's broader economic, competitive and technological leadership requires a predictable and non-discriminatory framework for digital products and services.

It was a step in the right direction when Canada dropped the digital services tax earlier this year, but the Online Streaming Act remains. It requires streaming services that make more than $25 million a year in Canada to pay 5% of their gross revenue into Canadian cultural funds, while Canadian-owned services are exempt from this requirement. New discoverability conditions, local content requirements and additional spending obligations will likely be required on top of this contribution, which could increase. These new obligations fall primarily on foreign streaming services, requiring them to make financial contributions to the Canadian content funds, to which they have no access. This approach creates a two-tiered system that distinguishes between domestic and international services, placing the latter at a structural disadvantage within the Canadian marketplace.

The online streaming sector does not operate through spectrum scarcity or traditional programming models. Instead, it thrives through openness, data-driven discoverability and global collaboration.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has sought to apply legacy broadcasting rules to global, on-demand music streaming services, which will constrain innovation and limit investment in Canada. It has ignored the fact that music streaming services pay the majority of their revenues to artists and rights holders via intermediaries. By way of comparison, the contribution of my members is around eight times higher than that of Canadian independent radio stations, and 1.5% of this is to be used to subsidize local broadcast radio news production. This obligation is unrelated to the operations of music streaming services, which are not active in the news business, and effectively redirects resources from digital innovation to legacy media.

Streaming services do far more than distribute music; they provide the exposure, analytics and market access that sustain creative careers today. This has reversed the fortunes of an industry that was in steep decline due to piracy in the early 2000s. According to industry analysis, for every dollar of economic value generated by streaming, related sectors gain an additional $1.65. Streaming sustains thousands of creative professionals and businesses.

Our concerns have been echoed within Canada's creative and business communities, noted by international partners and shared by lawmakers in the U.S., where members of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means have said the act looks like a barrier to digital trade. They have tied it to the broader CUSMA discussions now under way.

This isn't a choice between supporting Canadian culture and respecting Canada's trade commitments. Adjusting the implementation of the act to ensure that rules are fair and consistent with CUSMA and aligned to how digital markets work would keep cultural goals on track, while avoiding unnecessary risks to growth and trade problems.

The joint review presents Canada with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by identifying and addressing barriers where they exist.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thanks very much, all of you.

We'll go to the members, with Mr. McKenzie, please, for six minutes.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Loomis, there was a rumour started back in the spring of this year that Canadian consumers didn't need steel. I think that was a bit of a misunderstanding. Perhaps there was some clarification.

I'd like to understand a bit more about your industry and the integrated nature that I suspect it has with U.S. producers and customers.

[Keanin Loomis]

Yes, as you point out, we weren't appreciative of that particular comment. We have had the opportunity since then to educate everybody across the country, really, as to just how much steel is in pretty much everything that you and I take for granted on a very daily basis. It's my members who are building this country's infrastructure: our hockey arenas, our bridges, our schools, our hospitals, our buildings, etc. We've had that opportunity.

We've also had the opportunity to help politicians and decision-makers understand what we don't make here in Canada, such as wide flange beams, for example. We are heavily reliant on U.S. imports for those beams, and that has been a huge disruption this year for us and has resulted in increased costs due to our infrastructure.

On the other hand, we do a lot of work in the United States, because they just don't have the capacity to meet all of their domestic infrastructure needs. We help, especially at times of peaks, to build some of their buildings as well. We have long-standing relationships in the United States and we are known as being really good at the work we do.

There have been a lot of disruptions over the course of the last year. It's been highly lamentable. The one thing we take solace in is that our friends in the U.S. are also feeling these disruptions. There are very few people, other than the main producers of steel in the United States, that have been advocating for this.

There are very few within the downstream part of the industry in North America who are benefiting as a result of these tariffs. There are a lot of increased costs, and there is a lot of regulatory burden as well. Previously, we never had to worry about sending shipments across the border. Now, we have to hire lawyers, we have to hire brokers and we have to figure out what the latest developments are in the tariff war. There is a lot of regulatory burden.

This is just all about rent-seeking as well. This encourages corruption and encourages people to get their grievances addressed and to try to find loopholes within the system. You have to hire lobbyists as well to be able to carry on business as usual.

We're hopeful that we can get back to this. We're hopeful that there's an understanding in the United States that this is not sustainable at all and that Canada is the U.S.'s number one customer. A lot could be done to bring stability back into the U.S. and the North American continental economy if we can get back to free trade between our countries, to the benefit of all our countries and to create a “fortress North America”—as I said in my testimony—against the biggest common challenge that we have, which is unfairly dumped Chinese steel coming into the North American market.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

In respect of that, our Prime Minister has brought some new energy, perhaps, to conversations with China.

Has your industry been made aware of whether or not your concerns about Chinese steel dumping in North America have been part of those conversations?

[Keanin Loomis]

We've certainly had the opportunity to express the issues and to help people understand the nature of this industry. Obviously, there are many other interests to be balanced. I don't envy the job that our key decision-makers have.

Yes, that would be a big concern for us, just as it would be a big concern for us to go down the path of a “fortress North America” type of approach and have the U.S. president also thaw relationships with China.

That's a big concern for us. We will continue to express our desire to ensure the steel that is done here and the reciprocal procurement arrangements that we have are on a fairly balanced basis. We're not looking for protectionism here. We're looking to compete on a fair basis.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I just want to understand. I think it has just about become common knowledge that, in the integrated North American automobile construction sector, the parts may cross the border numerous times as they are developed into larger components.

Is the same true in your industry, or is it to a lesser degree than it is with automobiles?

[Keanin Loomis]

It's true to a lesser degree. There are fewer components, I guess you would say, in fabricated steel. Nonetheless, we do, as I said, import a lot of American beam into Canada and fabricate and engineer it here according to the highest quality standards in the world, and then we send it back across the border to projects in the U.S. That certainly does happen. As I said, this has been a highly disrupted time for us in the last year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKenzie.

Mr. Lavoie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here. We're very grateful to them.

My first question is for Ms. Loftsgard and Ms. Filejski.

Can you hear me okay, Ms. Loftsgard?

[Tia Loftsgard]

I can.

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

Okay. I'll continue.

Ms. Loftsgard, you talked a lot about supply chains, and I'm very interested in that subject. I'd like to have some concrete examples of that.

I have a two-part question.

In concrete terms, what problems are you currently seeing? I wonder if you could briefly give me one or two examples.

What actions could be taken to provide assistance right away? What could be done in the longer term?

My question is for Ms. Loftsgard and Ms. Filejski. If any of the other witnesses would like to answer my question as it relates to their field, I would welcome their comments, too.

Go ahead, Ms. Loftsgard.

[Tia Loftsgard]

Certainly, with organic, of course, you need to have certified ingredients and you need to have manufacturers that are certified as well.

When it comes to packaging options that are available in Canada, they are very limited, especially with such long supply chains and limited tropical ingredients, perhaps. We are seeing products that, for instance, can only be made in Italy because there is no manufacturing equipment such as that available in Canada.

These products, of course, are coming in. They're trying to trade with the United States, and, of course, they're 10 times the size of us, so we have clients who are practically going bankrupt right now from trying to actually ship their products overseas or to the United States.

Also, there are other products, like coconut milk, which is made in Sri Lanka and, of course, could never be...but it's a Canadian company, and they're bringing in products that are manufactured on their family farms. That's a completely Canadian company that is getting hit very strongly with these tariffs right now.

In the short term, obviously I think our government is trying its best to negotiate away these tariffs, with good reason, and we wish for that to be resolved. I think, in the long term, we've had a very positive trading relationship with the United States. Our biggest long-term ask is to keep that going the way it has been, because our organic equivalency arrangement has facilitated so much trade around the world, including with countries outside of Canada and the U.S., because we recognize each other's regulatory adherence as well as our standards.

[Catherine Filejski]

With respect to veterinary pharmaceuticals and biologics, the global supply chain is extremely complex. It has to do with economies of scale, and we are not the only country that's in this position.

Most active pharmaceutical ingredients, which are the building blocks of modern veterinary drugs, originate in India, China or somewhere in eastern Asia. They are then shipped to manufacturing sites, which are often either in the United States, in the European Union or in other countries, and then they move out as finished products.

One of the biggest challenges we have with respect to that is the Canadian requirements for each stage of that global supply chain, particularly for drugs, often are misaligned with the larger markets. There are good manufacturing practices required for low-risk veterinary pharmaceuticals that far exceed those of the European Union or the United States, and that makes it problematic for Canadian companies to actually source what we want to bring into this country.

That is one of the reasons we have seen the loss of some of the foundational veterinary drugs that are used by the livestock industry in particular and have been for decades. It's things like injectable vitamins and injectable supplements, like vitamin A and vitamin D, that just cannot actually be brought into Canada anymore because we cannot find foreign manufacturing sites that will meet the good manufacturing practices requirements that were implemented in 2017, which, again, exceed anything the other major global markets require.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Bruske and Ms. Kwan.

It's important to protect our workers and our businesses.

Budget 2025 provides funding for the “buy Canadian” initiative, which is similar to the American initiative. The government decided to eliminate interprovincial barriers.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Do you think that's a good thing?

[Bea Bruske]

On the issue of trade barriers between the provinces, we have many different thoughts on that particular point.

We want to ensure that worker protection, whether it's in interprovincial trade or trade with foreign countries, does not mean a race to the bottom in terms of worker protections and regulations. We're always very cognizant, when we're talking about why various different regulations exist, as to what it means to remove some of those. Labour is very clear that we need to protect good jobs and that we need to make it easier to trade within Canada, but it can't be at the expense of things that are there to protect workers. That's what I would offer on that particular point.

There were many good points of the budget that we were hopeful to see and there were some points that we were a little bit dismayed about.