International Trade Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

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

Rightly so.

Earlier, you talked about the consultation processes between the federal government and the provinces in the context of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

Do you have a way of ensuring proper implementation and compliance with the free trade agreements that are in place?

[Aaron Fowler]

Of course we do. We have created institutional systems to support the implementation of our free trade agreements, to enable us to discuss with our partners issues related to their implementation of the provisions of the agreement and to discuss the concerns that are communicated to us by Canadian companies, both importers and exporters.

Our free trade agreements also include dispute settlement mechanisms. If a discussion with a partner is not sufficient to improve a problematic situation and our analysis shows that the partner is not complying with a provision, we have an opportunity to advance our interests through the establishment of a dispute-settlement panel.

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

Thank you very much.

We talked earlier about Europe and the issue of reciprocity, as well as problems related to the agri-food industry. I was on this committee during the negotiations of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

Is there a way to resolve those disputes?

[Aaron Fowler]

I would say yes. I want to point out two things. First, discussions are under way on issues related to the implementation of the existing rules. Second, discussions are under way to determine how to resolve issues raised by both Canadian and European companies. These two discussions are proceeding at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fowler.

We'll go to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fowler, could you talk about our relations with China?

We know about the gradual shift away from diplomatic and even trade relations with China. Of course, with such a giant power, relations never cease entirely. However, at the very least, we know that talks ended in late 2024 and resumed in the first half of 2025.

How do you explain this shift? Where do we stand? Is there a desire to reopen this discussion?

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you for the question.

We've been constructively engaging with China on a number of fronts, both at a high political level and at the technical or official level.

Canada's priority is to restore access to the Chinese market for products affected by the Chinese measures in place, particularly agricultural products and seafood.

We're in regular contact with stakeholders in the affected Canadian sectors to find a solution that could work for them. This engagement with China isn't easy. These are difficult issues, but we have a process in place.

We talk fairly regularly, and we exchange information with China to determine how we could improve the situation.

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

It took a while for people to realize that China was collecting data. Canada was wary of products, especially technology products, coming from China and entering our market. We also know that there have been documented and proven cases of industrial espionage in that country.

Canada and China are beginning to reach out to each other again, but is there still a healthy distrust of China?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Give a brief answer if possible, Mr. Fowler.

[Aaron Fowler]

I think that we understand the nature of our relations with China. The country is a major economic and trading partner for Canada and for certain sectors. This doesn't mean that we always agree on every issue or that this partnership is risk free. However, we want to try to find areas where we can work together for the benefit of our industries. That's the nature of our discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hoback, welcome back to your favourite committee. It's great to see you here.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses. It's been a while since we've talked. I think I'd rather take you out for a beer and talk for an hour, but I have five minutes here, so we'll go with that.

From 2008 to 2015, we did a record number of trade agreements around the world under the Conservative government and Prime Minister Harper and Ed Fast, for example. Are the bones that those agreements were built on still relevant today? Do these agreements still have a mechanism so that they're functioning the way they should?

[Aaron Fowler]

My assessment would be yes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

How are you adapting to news and talk of combinations of things whereby we're going to go sector by sector in future trade negotiations? How does that function? How do you create a trade agreement when you're trading off sectors versus doing...sensitive products versus non-sensitive products and things like that?

[Aaron Fowler]

The model that guided our FTA agenda for a very long time was a comprehensive negotiating model that we, at least in the negotiating team, referred to as the NAFTA model, because NAFTA was the first agreement that really covered the full sweep of issues that ended up forming a part of our standard model. We deployed that model very successfully for a very long period of time. The NAFTA was concluded in 1994. I would say that the model informed our starting position for discussions almost up until the present day.

However, we have, to a significant degree, exhausted the partners who have a level of ambition to be willing to contemplate the NAFTA model, so while we may be able to persuade some of these partners who are a bit more nervous and a bit more reticent to pursue a model with that much ambition and to consider it, it is a longer negotiating exercise than would otherwise be the case. Quite frankly, some markets that are of importance to Canadian stakeholders are not prepared to contemplate that level of ambition in their trade negotiations.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's fair enough.

I'm running out of time.

I'm going to just spin back to China. When we put the tariffs on EVs, for example, was there ever a request from the minister's office to you to do an analysis on what the counter-tariffs could look like and what products may be at risk? Was there any analysis done on that part?

[Aaron Fowler]

In the context of looking at the considerations around taking action on electric vehicles from China, we provided analysis and advice on a wide range of issues that—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You would have said to the minister—I don't want to put words in your mouth—that these are the sectors that may be impacted, may be targeted by China, in light of this announcement on EVs.

[Aaron Fowler]

To be honest, I think you are a little bit putting words in my mouth, because I think what we would have done is to say that it is highly likely that there will be a response. Whether we went to the extent of speculating on the nature of that response strikes me as perhaps a bridge farther than the analysis went.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So the minister's office didn't ask you to—

[Aaron Fowler]

I would have to verify and come back to you.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You know, one of the complaints in the sector is that China gives notice—they give a heads-up to the fisheries, canola and other sectors that there would be consequences—yet we see no action from this Liberal government to prepare for those consequences. Is that normal?

[Aaron Fowler]

Um....

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm getting you to shake the rust off now.

[Aaron Fowler]

I'm not sure I can accept the premise of the question and therefore answer it.