International Trade Committee on June 9th, 2026

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll move on to Mr. Groleau for five minutes, please.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Good morning, Madam Chair. It's nice to see you today.

Ms. Noble, predictability is a priority for businesses, as one of my committee colleagues often says. On this we agree.

You mentioned that it's very important to renew the agreement on a long-term basis, for a period of 16 years. How would that be beneficial?

If it were renewed annually instead, how would that be detrimental?

[Brian Kingston]

If you end up in a scenario where it's being reviewed every year, what you ultimately end up with is a situation where your negotiating partner—in this case, it would be the Americans—could have a new list of demands on an annual basis that it would like to see Canada address. Now, Canada could do the same, but there's a power balance issue here that we have.

If we have to go through that every single year, it makes it really difficult for any business that's deploying...in the instance of autos, we're talking about tens of billions of dollars in capital. If you don't have certainty around what the rules are going to be next year, it's very hard to make those investment decisions.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Ms. Noble, what do you think?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Yes, it comes down to predictability, being able to purchase cattle for that feedlot while knowing that you have a market at the end, and not constantly questioning your investment in your business because you're not sure what will be at the other end with regard to a market.

These are large feedlots. In Alberta, where 70% of the feedlots exist, we're speaking about 40,000 animals on one feedlot. It's a very significant investment they're making—a multi-million-dollar investment—and they can't do it if they don't have the predictability of a market at the end.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Ms. Noble, in your opening remarks, you mentioned the negotiation of other agreements, particularly with Mercosur. In your view, an agreement with Mercosur would be extremely detrimental to the market and to renegotiating CUSMA with the Americans.

Could you please elaborate on that?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Sure. Certainly, when we speak to our U.S. counterparts, we understand that they are watching what we're doing in markets—whether that is with China or Mercosur.

Mercosur does not have the same standards with regard to labour, animal care and phytosanitary regulations. When you don't have the same standards, you can produce beef more cheaply. You're going to bring in a low-quality, low-cost beef, and that displaces the Canadian market. However, because we're so integrated, that displaces the U.S. market as well. If you're depressing beef and cattle prices in Canada, then we're going to sell it for less in the U.S. market, and then they're not getting the same benefit as well.

Also, when it comes to disease, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada are very integrated. We're seeing that now with the current challenges with screw worm. When you're bringing in product from a country that doesn't have the same standards for disease or the same reporting standards, that's going to be watched by the U.S. It's just a black mark that's not going to help the CUSMA negotiations.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

If you had a message for the government, what would your top three priorities be? What are some easily achievable outcomes the government could secure in the next agreement?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Our top priorities are to renew it, to get predictability in place again and to move forward.

There are regulatory challenges and misalignments at the border, or in the transportation of the animals. Those are not, for us, a reason to open up CUSMA or delay CUSMA. We want to see it renewed as quickly as possible for as long as possible. We'll continue to work through initiatives like the Regulatory Cooperation Council to address those challenges.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

I have one last question for you, Mr. Kingston. You said you're very concerned about the agreement to allow 49,000 Chinese electric cars to enter the Canadian market.

In your opinion, is this just the tip of the iceberg? Could this threaten our national security?

Do you think the government should cancel this agreement?

[Brian Kingston]

Absolutely. I believe the government should cancel the agreement. It is a threat to national security. There is no world in which this is contained at 49,000 vehicles. It's set to grow by 6.5% every year. Just look at the way China engages in trade relations with other countries. We have opened the door. It will now leverage that at every opportunity to gain more access.

The agreement on canola, for example, is time-limited. What do you think China is going to ask for when Canada says that it would like to extend this? It's going to want more access to our automotive market. Just look at what's happened in Europe. Europe was naive, I would say, about what China meant to its automotive market. It opened the door, and the European automotive industry is under pressure like we've never seen before, losing tens of thousands of jobs as Chinese manufacturers take more and more market share.

This is extremely dangerous and obviously has security risks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston.

We'll go on to Mr. Ehsassi.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our two witnesses, Mr. Kingston and Ms. Noble. Your testimony has been very helpful.

I will start off with Mr. Kingston.

You often talk about how integrated the North American auto industry is. Would it be fair to say that this integration has enhanced the competitiveness of North America-manufactured cars vis-à-vis those from Europe and China?

[Brian Kingston]

For sure, the fact that manufacturers can build in Canada, the U.S. or Mexico, use parts and components from those other markets and then sell into the largest auto trade bloc in the world has made them far more competitive. If you pull that apart, you'll see the predictable result, which is less production.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Absolutely.

Would you mind spending a minute on the competitive advantage Canada has and how it makes the North American industry more competitive?

[Brian Kingston]

Our main advantage has been access to the U.S. market. If you look at why other manufacturers came to Canada, it was because they could build here, service Canada—a “two million vehicles a year” market—and send most of their production to the U.S., which purchases about 16 million.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I meant among the three jurisdictions in North America.

[Brian Kingston]

That is number one. U.S. access is the main reason we are competitive.

We have advantages in other areas, though. We talk about the Canadian labour force being highly educated, highly skilled and highly punctual. There are many benefits to having a Canada-based manufacturing facility. Compare that to Mexico. They have a labour-cost advantage, but it's not the same workforce quality we have here in Canada.

The one other area of advantage—which we haven't realized, but I believe there's potential for it if EV adoption finally increases—is that we happen to have all the critical minerals necessary for batteries. Right now, the world is totally dependent on China. That can't continue. Companies and countries are trying to reduce dependence on China, and Canada is where a lot of that activity should be taking place.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

The next issue is section 232 tariffs.

First of all, why don't you tell us how much has been collected in tariffs from the big three?

[Brian Kingston]

I have the total amount for the five in Canada.

It's over $5 billion Canadian through 2025. It's not broken down by company, because it's based on U.S. CBP data.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You don't have data for the States as well.

[Brian Kingston]

The U.S. has collected about $34 billion U.S. on all manufacturers. That's based on quarterly reports from the companies themselves.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Would it be fair to say, because I have heard some experts say this, that prior to 232 tariffs, North America was the second most competitive area to manufacture cars after, I presume, China, and now, out of the three, which are China, Europe and North America, it's the least competitive of the three because of these tariffs?

[Brian Kingston]

Absolutely, yes. The cost of manufacturing in North America has gone up significantly. I talk a lot about the 232s on auto, but the Americans have also put tariffs on aluminum and steel. Aluminum happens to be, in particular, a very key input into the automotive supply chain, so North America is now significantly less competitive.