International Trade Committee on Dec. 1st, 2025

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

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 17 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.

Welcome to our witnesses. I see that we have some new faces around the table today. Welcome to all of you.

From Garaga, we have Martin Gendreau, co-president. From the BC Lumber Trade Council, we have Kurt Niquidet, president. From the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, we have Daniel Tisch, president and chief executive officer.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your taking the time to be with us today.

We'll open the floor up with Mr. Gendreau, please.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Martin Gendreau, Co-President, Garaga]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Martin Gendreau. I am the co-president of Garaga and co-owner of the Novatech Group. Both Canadian companies manufacture garage doors, thermal entrance doors, decorative glass and patio doors.

Our family-owned business employs over 3,200 people in Canada and the U.S. We are heavily involved in Canada’s supply chains and purchase almost all our steel in Hamilton, Ontario. Garaga and Novatech have roots in Quebec and take pride in creating jobs in the regions and investing in our communities through our foundation.

We are facing four challenges, which I would like to discuss with the committee today.

The first challenge is the issue of U.S. tariffs on steel. Canadian garage doors are subject to 50% tariffs on steel, while U.S. products coming into Canada are subject to only 25% tariffs. As a result, 30% of our Canadian production of garage doors is at risk because doors are manufactured locally in Canada and then exported to the U.S. Since the beginning of the year, we have had to invest over $20 million in our plant in Minnesota so that our sales in the U.S. market are generated there instead of at the plants in Barrie, Ontario and Saint-Georges de Beauce, Quebec. Customers were not willing to shoulder 50% tariffs. That was not possible.

Meanwhile, Canadian customers import approximately 200 million American garage doors into Canada and these doors are subject to only 25% tariffs. These tariffs are partially subsidized by American competitors to maintain their market share. I’d like to ask the committee whether there’s a way to harmonize tariffs at 50%. Last week there were announcements about steel industry derivative products. That sounds good, but the HS codes have not yet been released, which leaves wide open the question of whether tariffs on garage doors imported from the U.S. will increase to 50%.

The second challenge is the unfair importation of steel from Asia. We have noticed a significant import of low-priced commodities containing insulation that does not meet our environmental regulations. Some of these products are below the cost of raw material. Due to U.S. tariffs on products from Asia, manufacturers from Asia are rerouting their production to Canada at very low prices. They are also using unregulated insulation. Customs officials have turned back three containers so far. We hope these importers will continue to face stringent measures to ensure compliance with Canada’s environmental regulations.

Third, I’d like to discuss the challenge of steel supply with the committee. Up until last week, there was no clear strategy for the steel industry and this created a lot of uncertainty. We get our supplies exclusively from Hamilton, Ontario. We started to qualify international suppliers at the beginning of the year to protect our supply chain. We did not do that to save money. Without steel, we would not have garage doors and entrance doors. That’s very important for us. We need the government to take a clear stand. The government must support the steel industry and ensure that it is not wiped out from Canada.

The fourth challenge is related to the workforce in the regions. There are many jobs in the regions and we cannot move our plants, which are rooted in the communities. Temporary foreign workers are essential. They work night shifts and weekends. Next year, we will lose 15 workers at Novatech, followed by an additional 30 the year after. These workforce losses will reduce our production capacity directly, making it harder to remain competitive with the U.S. market.

In closing, we’d like to make the following key demands. We would like 50% tariffs on American doors imported into Canada, so as to make this measure reciprocal. In addition, we want anti-dumping measures for Asian products, which have been entering Canada in increasing numbers since the Americans imposed tariffs on them.

We want to keep our production in Canada, create jobs in Canada and buy our steel in Canada.

Thank you very much for your attention.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Niquidet, please, the floor is yours.

[Kurt Niquidet, President, BC Lumber Trade Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am Kurt Niquidet, president of the BC Lumber Trade Council, representing the majority of BC lumber producers. Our sector accounts for about 40% of softwood lumber exports to the United States and supports roughly 100,000 jobs, contributing about $6 billion annually to government revenues.

As you prepare for the 2026 CUSMA joint review, I want to highlight two priorities that are essential for securing fair and stable trade for our industry and for North American competitiveness.

Firstly, pursue a durable resolution to the softwood lumber dispute. Since 2017, Canadian producers have paid more than $10 billion in unjustified duties. These costs burden Canadian companies and workers and raise housing input costs for U.S. consumers. At the same time, European imports facing no duties have displaced Canadian lumber in the U.S. market. Softwood lumber is a strategic input for North American housing, supply chains and economic resilience. Canada must pursue a durable settlement to the lumber V dispute, either within the CUSMA process or alongside it.

Secondly, we need to strengthen the CUSMA binational panel system. The chapter 10 binational panel system is Canada's most effective tool for challenging unjustified U.S. trade actions. Its rulings have direct force of law in the U.S., making it a critical tool for restoring fair market access. However, the system currently is not functioning as intended. Panel appointments face long delays. One challenge filed in 2017 did not reach a hearing until 2023. These gaps undermine Canada's ability to defend its interests and impose large costs on producers and communities.

Canada should use the 2026 review to strengthen chapter 10 by securing enforceable timelines for panel appointments. Predictable dispute settlement is foundational to a credible trade agreement.

To conclude, the 2026 CUSMA review is a critical moment. Canada must seek a long-term settlement to the softwood lumber dispute and strengthen chapter 10 with enforceable panel timelines. A stable rules-based system is essential for Canadian workers and communities and the credibility of CUSMA itself.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Tisch, please go ahead for five minutes.

[Daniel Tisch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable members.

Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce represents 60,000 businesses of every size in every sector and community in Ontario. It's a real privilege to be part of this meeting today.

Trade agreements, of course, are more than legal texts. They create the economic playing field for the businesses and communities of a trading nation. They provide clear and predictable rules of the game for businesses on all sides of the borders of this continent. When they work, they create jobs, they attract investment and they keep our supply chains resilient, and when they falter, as we're seeing today, there's uncertainty that stops businesses from hiring, from investing and from growing.

For us, the CUSMA review is not just a review; it's a test of whether North American economic integration, as it stands, can survive a White House whose policies are likely to push trade away from this continent.

The very idea of the trade agreement is under threat, so we have to reaffirm a simple truth: that trade agreements are written for businesses, not for governments. Having spoken regularly to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and every state chamber in the Great Lakes region, I'm very confident in saying they agree with us that there should be fewer barriers to trade, not more, and that businesses believe free trade is working for them.

Surveys support this, finding that 94% of manufacturers across North America in all three countries rely on CUSMA for their operations, and no matter what the U.S. president may want, nearly 80% of Americans believe the agreement benefits their economy. Given this precious consensus, it's vital that we act on it.

We've polled our members, and 33% of Ontario businesses right now—a very low number—are confident we can renegotiate CUSMA on acceptable terms, and nearly half are not. At the same time, 61% of these businesses say they believe they can adapt to higher tariffs, but, of course, that resilience has limits and businesses are already making hard choices: 34% have diversified their suppliers, 33% have raised their prices and 28% are now marketing more to non-U.S. markets. Notwithstanding the U.S. president's reshoring fantasy, Ontario businesses are staying put: only 4% of respondents to our survey would even consider relocating part of their operations to the United States.

Of course, staying put and surviving does not mean thriving, so in November we spoke with one voice across Ontario's trade-impacted industries. We brought them all together earlier this year in the Ontario Business and Trade Leadership Coalition, and 18 senior leaders from the most trade-exposed sectors in Ontario joined me in putting forward some recommendations related to this review.

We've recommended three core things.

The first is preserving CUSMA as a trilateral and legally binding agreement with a fair dispute settlement process. The second is ending sectoral tariffs, as some of my colleagues have alluded to, and reducing uncertainty; we recognize this needs to be on a bilateral track adjacent to the trilateral track of CUSMA. The third is that we're recommending the government adopt an extend-and-refresh approach, not a comprehensive rewrite of the agreement so that it's a review, not a redo.

We also believe Canada must prepare for the risks that happen when you're dealing with an unreliable and unpredictable trading partner who's unresponsive even to the needs of U.S. businesses. That means we anticipate Ontario businesses will continue to need the federal and provincial governments as partners as they adapt to new operating models, new supply chains and new markets.

We're recommending that the federal government match Ontario's 15% manufacturing investment tax credit to create an aligned and combined 30% incentive for productivity-enhancing investments; avoid export bans on critical resources that could trigger retaliation; shore up domestic supply chains for essential goods and materials; and expand growth capital sources, including, we're pleased to see, the mandate of the Canada Infrastructure Bank; we saw that in the budget and we were encouraged by that, but we need to keep thinking about how we can keep providing more access for Canadian businesses.

Madam Chair, honourable members, in this period of trade turbulence, I'll conclude by saying CUSMA is not a nice-to-have; it is our lifeline and it is our lifeblood as we trade across this continent and beyond. Preserving and refreshing it is not just about trade; it's about competitiveness, it's about prosperity and it's about security that's inclusive and sustainable.

It's a moment for courage and clarity. We believe that we have to seize this opportunity to strengthen North America's economic foundation, and we believe that Canada's businesses, workers and communities are relying on us to do just that.

Thank you so much for your time.

We look forward to the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all very much.

We will go to our members now.

You have six minutes, Mr. Groleau.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming here today. We are very grateful for that.

I’d like to recognize and welcome Mr. Martin Gendreau, a proud resident of Beauce. As everyone here knows, Beauce is the most beautiful region in Canada.

Mr. Gendreau is the co-president of Garaga, which manufactures garage doors, and co-owner of Novatech. He’s a respectable businessman at the helm of a well-established business that has had a long-standing commitment to Beauce and the community for many years.

Garaga is well known to many people. It is the name of the hockey club where I had the privilege of playing for many years. We won Canada’s championship, the Allan Cup, twice with the club. Those are beautiful memories. Those were the days, as the saying goes.

Mr. Gendreau, U.S. tariffs in your industry stand at 50%.

In your opinion, is the Liberal government doing enough to protect Canadian businesses in this tariff war?

If not, what recommendation would you offer to the government?

[Martin Gendreau]

It would definitely help us a lot if we could have reciprocal tariffs, meaning the same tariffs as our competitors.

We were forced to relocate production on our end. To keep jobs in Quebec and Ontario, we must have the ability to replace the volume relocated to American plants with domestic volume. The best way to do that is to sell more garage doors in Canada to customers that currently buy American products.

We are five regional and national manufacturers in Canada and we have all the production capacity needed to cover the entire American volume.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I think the U.S. tariffs on Asian countries have a direct impact, namely dumping. A significant proportion of steel from China is coming into Canada.

Am I correct?

[Martin Gendreau]

Over the past few years, many new Chinese companies, which often sell nearly identical products to our commodities, have set up in Vancouver, and in Toronto in particular. They don’t offer any warranty. We have discovered that they are using insulation materials that fall short of Canadian regulatory standards. There is no doubt they have put us at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Earlier, you alluded to the supply chain, steel and regulatory uncertainty.

Can you tell us what you mean by uncertainty?

[Martin Gendreau]

We’d like the government to have a clear plan for the steel industry. There were some grand announcements last week. What we really want is to have some clarity.

Last week, there was an announcement about a measure that will apply to $10 billion worth of steel derivative product imports. We now need to have HS codes, or harmonized system codes, to ensure that garage doors and some of our inputs fall within these codes.

For example, we would like to know whether the wire we use for manufacturing garage door springs will be on the list of products subject to tariffs. We buy wire from Korea because there are no Canadian manufacturers. We used to get the wire from an ArcelorMittal steel plant in Hamilton, but it shut down in June.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Why did this plant shut down? That was a big business.

[Martin Gendreau]

It’s just one of the ArcelorMittal plants that have shut down. It used to make wire. If you ask me, wire production was relocated to the U.S. We were buying a small quantity before it went out of stock.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

You spoke about some grand announcements earlier. There are many loans. There have been many announcements.

In your opinion, do businesses, such as those in Beauce, prefer to get loans or would they prefer a resolution with Americans?

[Martin Gendreau]

Of course we would like to reach a resolution. We need stability. Temporary foreign workers are the best example. We are at full employment in Beauce. The unemployment rate is extremely low. We need temporary foreign workers if we want to have workers for our evening and weekend shifts.

I have witnessed what I would characterize as human suffering. People have settled down with their families, they have jobs and then they are forced to go back to their country. Businesses don’t even have the capacity to replace these workers. Obviously, this would make sense in regions with very high unemployment rates, but a plant is not something that can be relocated. You can’t just say you’re going to move to another region because the unemployment rate is high when there are local workers and talent available.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

One of our proposals is related to the fact that we use unemployment rates, and yet the reality varies from one place to another. Unemployment may be high in downtown Toronto or Vancouver, but 3% in our community. We have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, which means there are no jobs.

Do you think the temporary foreign worker label should be changed to “economic workers”?

What do you think about that?

[Martin Gendreau]

To us, these are economic workers. They work evening and weekend shifts and they get good paycheques in this manufacturing sector.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

It’s costly to bring these workers here.

[Martin Gendreau]

Yes, it’s very costly to bring them here. You need to plan infrastructure for their housing and so forth. It’s complicated. It would be much easier if the workforce were available locally, but that’s not the case.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I have a bit of time left.

Do you feel that there is currently a clear and consistent policy to support Canadian steel?

[Martin Gendreau]

There were some grand announcements last week. That’s a good start, but more clarity is needed. We need HS codes to determine what will be subject to tariffs in order to plan our supply chains.

We will really need help from the government. There was an announcement about a measure that will apply to $10 billion of derivative product imports. The government must have an idea of the HS codes. The sooner we know them, the better.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gendreau.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Madame Lapointe, go ahead.