International Trade Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

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

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number three of the Standing Committee on International Trade. In this session, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on June 16, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of Canada's engagement in a rules-based international trade and investment system.

We have with us today, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Aaron Fowler, associate assistant deputy minister for international trade and chief trade negotiator. We're glad to have you back with us again. Welcome.

We will start with opening remarks and then proceed to a round of questions.

You have up to five minutes, as you know, Mr. Fowler, but if you have more to offer, we'll be sure to give you a few more minutes, if you'd like, before we go on to the members. Thank you. The floor is yours.

[Aaron Fowler, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, International Trade Branch, and Chief Trade Negotiator, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee.

Thank you very much for the invitation to appear today to discuss the role of Canada's free trade agreements and rules-based trade.

As a mid-sized nation of 42 million people with enormous resource endowments and productive capacity, trade is critical to the Canadian economy. Equivalent to approximately two-thirds of Canada's GDP, exports alone support almost four million Canadian jobs.

Canada's prosperity has long depended on the stability, transparency, predictability and openness afforded by the rules-based global trading system, a system to which Canada has contributed since its creation.

We are an active member of the World Trade Organization. We are the first economy in the G7 to have comprehensive free trade agreements with all the other G7 economies. We have a total of 15 bilateral and regional agreements covering 51 countries, and 39 bilateral foreign investment promotion and protection agreements.

This network of rules has provided Canadians with several benefits, including enhanced competitiveness of Canadian goods and services abroad; lower costs for Canadian businesses and consumers; increased access to high-quality and diverse goods and services, inputs and technologies; increased investment from abroad into Canada; and a stable and attractive investment environment for Canadian investors abroad, supporting their access to and participation in global value chains.

While this system has long provided Canada with a strong foundation for trade and investment, this is a challenging moment for the global trading system. In part, this is a function of the economic policies pursued by some, but we must also acknowledge what has been becoming increasingly clear for some time. In certain respects, the multilateral rules have become inadequate, and we have for many years failed collectively in our efforts to fix them. That means that rules have not always prevented harmful behaviour by others, and they have not always provided a clear framework for countries to take appropriate and necessary actions to protect themselves. Some nations have determined that the status quo is no longer sufficient to protect their essential economic security interests, to ensure fair competition and to respond to market-distorting practices and global shocks.

In this pivotal moment, we must take stock of not only what rules-based international trade has provided for Canada but also of what must be done to secure our own strategic economic interests and to ensure our current and future prosperity and resilience. We must adapt, and we need to respond. Canada's priority is to support economic sectors facing the most severe shocks while building a stronger and more secure economy. Pursuing this priority means taking measured, decisive actions in a transparent manner, but it also means working with partners to maintain, expand and improve the rules-based system.

The Government of Canada has made it a priority to strengthen partnerships with trusted allies around the world. Our efforts include diversifying Canada's trade relationships. A couple of examples are the implementation of the recently concluded trade agreements with Indonesia and Ecuador, as well as the investment agreement with the United Arab Emirates.

This includes continuing negotiations with partners such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Mercosur, as well as eight ongoing investment negotiations with partners in Africa, South America and the greater Middle East region. Canada also supports the expansion of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, to new members.

The Government of Canada also prioritizes efforts to ensure that Canadian companies take advantage of the network of trade agreements we have with our key partners, including the CPTPP, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

We will continue our active role in support of fair and open international trade, not only at the WTO but also in international forums such as the G7, the G20 and the OECD, working with our partners and allies. We are ready to work to address trade-distorting practices that are harmful to the economy. This includes seeking improved rules to better address emerging issues affecting trade, such as industrial policy, and to ensure fair competition over the long term.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this important topic.

I look forward to our discussion, and I would be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fowler.

Now we'll go on to the members.

Mr. Groleau.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues.

Mr. Fowler, thank you for being with us.

Last week, we heard from the chair of the Canadian Pork Council. We talked about an agreement that was negotiated, as well as the non-tariff barriers related to that agreement.

It would be possible to get up to $400 million in exports, but we can't do that because of those non-tariff barriers.

Are you aware of those barriers, Mr. Fowler?

[Aaron Fowler]

Yes, I am aware that barriers are imposed on almost all of our partners around the world.

We are currently discussing the barriers, including with our partners in the European Union.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

What concrete action is the government taking to eliminate those tariff barriers, especially with the European Union?

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you very much for your question.

In all of our free trade agreements, including with international organizations like the World Trade Organization, or WTO, we create committees, working groups and institutions based on certain rules. The goal is to make sure that Canada and our partner—in this case, the European Union—have the ability to discuss trade relations issues.

Some of the issues considered are related to the rules of the agreement, but the discussions are often broader. They are about what can be done and how we can move our trade relationship forward. We also discuss ways to improve elements that hinder our interests, such as non-tariff barriers.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Most non-tariff barriers are related to small details in agreements.

Are you holding meetings with pork producers?

If so, are you aware of and listening to their issues?

[Aaron Fowler]

I would say so, but they don't always come to discuss things with me. I have a good team in the department.

One of our partners, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, has regular discussions with industry representatives, such as the Canadian Pork Council.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Why do you think some trading partners, such as the European Union, continue to impose non-tariff barriers?

[Aaron Fowler]

It's probably because, from their perspective, it's not non-tariff barriers that are hindering our trade interests, but rather the policies, rules and laws in place in the European Union.

If we were to ask our partners in Brussels what Canadian policies and laws represent non-tariff barriers for them, they could certainly identify some. However, for us, that is a way to advance a very reasonable policy.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Do you think the Government of Canada, including your team, will have to take a stronger stance during negotiations, especially, again, on the small details contained in the agreements on non-tariff barriers?

If so, what should that stance be?

[Aaron Fowler]

That's a very general question, and it's difficult to answer it in a general way.

Most of our agreements have specific and sufficient rules to protect the majority of our interests. From time to time, it is not possible to find a solution during negotiations. Barriers can arise once negotiations are completed, and they are not necessarily related to obligations set out in the agreement.

So it's not necessarily a lack of rules or the fact that the objectives or interests of our industries are not understood; it's simply that the rules in place did not contemplate the situation that arose after the agreement was negotiated.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Fowler.

So it can be noted, after the negotiations, that there are barriers that were not anticipated.

Do those agreements contain a mechanism to amend them because something isn't working? For example, $400 million worth of pork could not be exported.

[Aaron Fowler]

We can put a number of mechanisms in place with our partners. In the case of the European Union, there are regular discussions within the committees established to support the implementation of the agreements. For example, the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures often discusses topics related to the interests of a specific agricultural sector, whether Canadian or European.

That said, we first try to express our concerns so that they are understood by our counterparts. That way, we can determine whether something can be done about the rules already in place.

Our partners are taking the same approach when it comes to Canadian measures that raise concerns. It may be possible to find a rule or process that will apply to the situation, or we may have to come back with other facts. However, since these are fairly technical issues, it takes a lot of time, as we want to make sure we move forward in a way that will be appropriate for both partners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Fowler.

You were almost a minute over your time, sir. I thought it was really important to try to get the answers in as much as we can.

Mr. Fonseca, you have six minutes, please.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Fowler.

In your opening remarks, Mr. Fowler, you mentioned the success that Canada has had in terms of its trade agreements, be it NAFTA or CETA or CPTPP or the bilaterals that we've been able to achieve. I'd like to thank you for your service. I was speaking to you earlier, just before this meeting, and you mentioned that for about a quarter of a century, you've been helping Canada succeed in those agreements.

It's pretty normal that we would have a change in government, of course, over those 25 years. We've had many different governments here in Canada. We know that these negotiations do take time. They take years. We can look at something like CETA, our agreement with Europe. I can recall being in the House at the time. I know that MP Hoback was sitting on the committee as we went through those negotiations. He was sitting in this room under the Harper government, when we had Minister Ed Fast as international trade minister, and then when Minister Freeland was our international trade minister. I recall being in the House the day this was passed. Minister Freeland walked across the aisle and shook MP Fast's hand. We understood that this was a real team Canada approach and that we did it together.

My question for you is this. When we enter the global stage as team Canada, as parliamentarians, which we've done in Washington, D.C., and around the world, what does that mean for your job when you are at the table and in those rooms? Could you take us through what that means, in terms of your negotiations, for our brand as team Canada? Could you tell those who are watching, and us here, what that means to you in terms of the leverage you have, knowing that we are united?

[Aaron Fowler]

I think that, at the end of the day, there is only one Canadian position that gets put forward in a negotiation. It is part of our process as trade negotiators to attempt to ensure that the positions that Canada is putting forward at the negotiating table are as broadly consulted and comprehensive as they can be and reflect the widest possible swath of interests across this country. We are taking advantage of these opportunities to address concerns that have been brought to our attention and to create opportunities for Canadian businesses in the market with which we're negotiating. That comprehensiveness of approach, we hope, supports a broad cross-Canadian consensus around the validity of the positions that we're putting forward.

It's certainly nice, as a negotiator, to know that Canada's conduct of a particular negotiation is broadly supported in the country, but I think the answer to your question probably resides more in the international space. When there is a clear framework of a team Canada position that is clearly being advanced in a given negotiation, our negotiating partners have a high degree of confidence that it is not going to be fruitful to attempt to split the Canadian position away from the table and that Canadian negotiators are, in fact, speaking on behalf of the interests of the country as a whole.

I think I'll leave my answer there. Thank you.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Fowler.

When we look here internally at Canada, we have 10 provinces. We have the west, the Prairies, central, Quebec and Atlantic, and we have our three territories. How does your team get the provinces and territories aligned on what we are doing in trade as we take it abroad and try to negotiate these agreements?

[Aaron Fowler]

We spend a lot of time working with our counterparts at the provincial and territorial level within the bureaucracies of those jurisdictions. That begins with information sharing, ensuring that our partners in the provinces and territories have a good understanding of the negotiations in which we're engaged, the topics that are coming to the forefront in those negotiations and the negotiating partners we're contemplating sitting down with. They have a full and comprehensive opportunity to provide us with that jurisdiction's views to inform the Canadian negotiating position that is going to be put forward.

We do that in formal ways, such as inviting their comments through formal Canada Gazette notices on specific consultations, and we have a number of internal mechanisms that we deploy in order to stay in close contact.

In the course of the last week, I have met with provincial and territorial counterparts through a mechanism that we call C-Trade, which is the federal-provincial-territorial trade consultative body, through the CUSMA FPT consultations committee, which is a specific committee that we established at the time we implemented and put CUSMA into force to ensure that we would have good federal-provincial-territorial exchange of information, and again today, through the FPT ADM committee, which is a committee at the assistant deputy minister level across the country, discussing a very similar topic.

Those engagements allow us to take up both general and specific issues of interest to the jurisdictions, and then, in the context of a specific ongoing negotiation, they would be supplemented by engagements that we create specific to that negotiation. That can be much more involved, including almost day-to-day interaction between provincial and territorial officials and the negotiators at the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, go ahead for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Fowler. Allow me to compliment you on the quality of your French. I saw that you were perfectly able to grasp what we were saying and answer us. Let's continue that way, if you don't mind, but feel free to use the interpretation if there's a problem or if the discussion goes too quickly.

Regarding the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, I saw in the Canada Gazette that consultations had indeed begun.

First of all, on a strictly advisory basis, what else do you plan to do to gather the opinions of various groups and individuals?

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you for the question.

Is it exclusively about the CUSMA review?

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

What I read in the Canada Gazette was about the review of the agreement.

[Aaron Fowler]

That issue of the Canada Gazette does focus solely on the agreement. I just wanted to confirm that the question was not broader.

For your information, we already conducted a formal consultation on the review of CUSMA in the fall of 2024. We received a number of responses and comments from Canadians, and we published a report on what we heard at that time.

That said, fall 2024 is different from fall 2025. A lot has happened in the world of international trade as well as in Canada-U.S. relations in terms of how the agreement works.

We thought it would be a good idea to ask Canadians again whether, in the past 12 months, there have been any other changes to note that would have shifted their perspective. We also wanted to know whether other considerations should be taken into account during the analyses and the development of our positions.

Since the fall of 2024, we have also left a small online portal open on the Global Affairs Canada website so that all interested groups can continue to provide their perspectives, ideas and questions.

We also created advisory groups for a few specific sectors already affected by the measures put in place by the U.S. government in recent months.

We can make more efforts if necessary, but we will start by taking note of the comments received during the current consultations.