International Trade Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[Michael Harvey]

We should have a presence in Asia. We welcomed the opening of the Indo‑Pacific Office for Agriculture and Agri‑Food in Manila and we played an active role in it.

We believe that it's vital to maintain an ongoing relationship with regulators and inspectors in countries where we want to sell our products. Technicians and inspectors in these countries must learn about and understand our systems and realize that these systems are up to par if we want to get our products into their territories faster.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What do you mean by up to par? Are you referring to the quality of our products?

[Michael Harvey]

This matter involves product quality and health standards, which are quite high in Canada. However, the rules may differ from country to country. We need to work to help them understand our systems.

When Canada sends experts to Asia or invites their experts here to learn about our systems, it speeds up the approval process for health permits, for example.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

By promoting these meetings, can we resolve disputes concerning the understanding of health regulations?

[Michael Harvey]

It's often best to avoid disputes before they arise. Products may be blocked simply because of a lack of understanding of a situation.

If we work together from the start, we can prevent issues before they arise and resolve other issues.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Could this also apply to the free trade agreement with Europe?

I know that the concept of reciprocity can sometimes give rise to certain misunderstandings.

[Michael Harvey]

In this case, it's more challenging. We're quite frustrated with how Europeans have implemented the agreement in the agri‑food sector. They often don't understand that our systems comply with health standards just as much as theirs do. The cultural difference is significant and difficult to manage.

We see Europe as an attractive potential market. However, we're disappointed, even very disappointed, with how the situation has unfolded since we signed the agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Next, we have Mr. Savard-Tremblay, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given your level of knowledge, I'm surprised that you haven't heard about the previous free trade talks between Canada and China. The government officially ended these talks in 2020.

My next question is for Ms. Lilly.

Ms. Lilly, you have become an advocate for market diversification. That's my take on it. In the case of Europe, we've looked into this issue extensively. I believe that Mr. Harvey also touched on this issue in the previous discussion. The issue isn't so much formal access to markets but rather all the sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and so on.

We must also talk about the Indo‑Pacific region. We've been hearing about a strategy for the Indo‑Pacific region for a long time. The Chrétien government had one, and so did the Harper and Trudeau governments. All governments have their strategy for the Indo‑Pacific region. However, this market doesn't seem to have been truly explored or cultivated. Canada hasn't really pursued these avenues. Indeed, when the Trudeau government presented the latest version of the Indo‑Pacific strategy two or three years ago, we learned just a few months later that Canada's Indo‑Pacific strategy would proceed without India, given the end of relations with that country.

In your opinion, should we still focus on this part of the world? If so, how can we succeed in areas where we've failed so far?

[Meredith Lilly]

I think it should be a both/and approach. There are a number of high-growth Indo-Pacific countries that could be exciting for Canadian exports—Michael has mentioned some of them for agricultural products. Energy is another market. Canada should continue to work on and advance its trade with India. It is a large and important country. We worked for many years on a trade agreement with India. It is not easy. There is no country in the world that would say that trying to reach a trade agreement with India is easy. It would be worthwhile. It is the world's largest democracy. We should continue to try to make gains in that space.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We now have Mr. Groleau, for three minutes.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Lilly. I'll speak to you in French.

Thank you for coming. I'm honoured to be here with you and the other witnesses.

You're an expert in international economic policy. My region, Beauce, is located near the American border. We're a major producer of steel products. As you can imagine, the current tariffs are hurting us badly. Negotiations have stalled and nothing is currently happening.

In your experience, how would you advise the government to move forward with this issue, which remains at a standstill? What high‑level suggestions would you make regarding the negotiations?

[Meredith Lilly]

It's a difficult one. I think about the workers in your region who are being negatively affected, because this is really hurting a lot of communities in Canada that produce steel. It is not easy. Some of what the government is rolling out is good. EI and workforce measures are good things. At the same time, those become accessible to people only when they've lost their jobs. It's kind of a small comfort. Most people I know would rather not lose their job than know that EI will be more accessible when they need it. Finding ways to avoid that, I think, is paramount.

The government's plans to buy Canadian steel in government procurement is an interesting option and something that should be explored. It's better to exploit the internal market and get Canadians to buy more Canadian steel. That's also good and something I support.

Having said that, we need to be careful how we do that. With the Americans in particular, the section 232 tariffs are devastating: 50% is too high. The government needs to address the section 232 tariffs on steel as a primary objective. It's my understanding that they are seized with this, but it cannot wait until the end of USMCA negotiations to find an end result for that; we need something sooner.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Lilly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Next, we have Mr. Lavoie, for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question will be brief. It's for Mr. Herman.

Mr. Herman, you have a great deal of experience. We're talking about over 45 years of experience, even 50.

In your career, have you ever seen a situation comparable to the current situation with the United States?

[Lawrence Herman]

No.

Never.

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

Not even close?

[Lawrence Herman]

The situation with the Americans is challenging. It won't be resolved even after the Trump administration ends.

I'm saying this because both the Democrats and the Republicans have embraced a protectionist stance that won't change. In my opinion, it lies at the heart of their international trade policy.

Canada must be ready, because relations with the Americans will be completely different in the future.

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

Good. Thank you.

In your opening remarks, you said that legislation must be changed.

In concrete terms, which piece of legislation would you change and why? How could this affect our businesses?

[Lawrence Herman]

Good question.

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

Can you provide an example of legislation that benefits ordinary people?

[Lawrence Herman]

In my opinion, our legislative system governing trade remedies is too complicated. The system built is complicated and very costly for manufacturers.

It would be easy to simplify the system. It shouldn't cost a company millions of dollars to file a trade remedy. Canada could simplify the system without necessarily changing the legislation. It could simply make administrative changes. This is important to understand.

I encourage the committee to look into these issues, because the government can take action without too much difficulty.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lavoie.

Thank you to our witnesses for another very valuable information session. Thank you all very much.

For the information of the committee, this coming Thursday we will have Representative Bill Huizenga and Representative Marcy Kaptur. There are a Democrat and a Republican coming to speak to us. It will be an informal meeting in camera, so come with questions. The whole two hours, or whatever amount of time we take, we'll have with them, so it should be very informative and helpful for all of us as we move forward.

All right. The meeting is adjourned.