International Trade Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us and for their remarks.

Ms. Payne, we heard Mr. Appleton speak earlier about transparency and consultation issues.

With regard to the workers in your union, do you feel the same way? When it comes to agreements that affect jobs, if anyone should be consulted, it should be you, I would imagine.

[Lana Payne]

I think the challenge we have right now is that everyone is feeling that they need a place to be able to help and to be part of what I would call a coordinated team-Canada approach. The structures that the professor was talking about have been dismantled over a long period of time. It's not going to be easy to get that kind of system back together, but what I can say to you is that there is no time like the present to work on it.

Where I would start would be in the sectors that are under immediate attack, and those are the 232 sectors: steel; aluminum; auto; forestry, which just got the most recent one; and now, of course, the heavy-duty trucks. These are the priorities. We can do something by bringing everyone together around that. Information is knowledge, and it's important to have that knowledge when you're fighting at a negotiating table. It's a team approach, and we need to do that.

Whatever we can do to make sure that people are being consulted and that you're getting the information in real time is critically important right now. I deal with some of the largest corporations on the planet, many of them operating in the United States. Some of them are now trying to also put pressure on the White House to have a different approach to trade. Knowing what these companies are doing and how that can also help us in our positioning is very important right now. We do have friends as well south of the border who would like to see a better trading system, so we need to lean into that.

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

Does this whole negotiation process lack transparency?

[Lana Payne]

Yes. What I would say is that we understand, as a union that negotiates, that certain parts of negotiations have to occur in certain ways. That means that there have to be these kinds of conversations that would happen between our Prime Minister and the President, and, yes, all of Canada can't be in the room when that's going on. At the same time, there is support for a negotiating position, and the stronger we can be in terms of having all of the players be part of that is critically important. I would say, yes, there is room to improve there for sure.

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

To resolve this transparency issue, my political party introduced a bill to strengthen parliamentary oversight and control of trade agreements. We proposed that the first step be committee studies on the agreements, not just studies on an implementation bill that leaves little room for changes or amendments. We also proposed that a minimum period between the introduction and adoption of an agreement be legally enforced, and that the agreement not be signed without the approval of parliamentarians.

In your opinion, are these good potential solutions?

[Lana Payne]

Right now we're in a different time. In a traditional world, I would say to you we would probably take this approach, but the world is now upside down and every day we are facing a renewed attack, a renewed threat and a renewed challenge to what it is we're building in Canada and how our economy is operating.

In that time and in that space, that means we have to be able to react quickly as a country. It also means that at some point in time we have to understand there's going to be a line drawn in the sand. For us as a union, that happened last week when Stellantis made the decision it made.

We cannot carry on conversation after conversation and negotiation after negotiation and allow our economy to unravel and lose production. At some point, we have to say, “Okay, this is it. Enough is enough.” We're getting close to that point. We have a lot to protect here. We have hundreds of thousands of workers depending on us to get this right. The focus needs to be on making sure we're getting it right as opposed to the mechanics of how we deal with it after a deal is done.

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

I find your comments surprising. I believe that democracy has its rights. I believe that, even if we can respond quickly, we shouldn't sign blank checks. Moreover, all the interests represented and elected officials in a parliament should still have greater control over decision making.

I must admit that I'm surprised by your response here. You yourself are involved in negotiations. I understand that you can't disclose everything. However, you're undoubtedly the first to recognize the need to have your members' interests represented. I'm sure of this.

[Lana Payne]

Yes, I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a democratic process to deal with things. I just think we have to recognize in this moment that we may have to make a decision very quickly. Honestly, it's to a point where I wish people could focus on what it is I'm having to deal with on a daily basis, which is people losing their jobs. We have forestry plants and mills that don't know if they're going to survive the month. We have auto jobs being shifted south of the border. This is where I would like Parliament to debate these things. This should be the focus of what our elected MPs are concerned about right now. Canadians are experiencing job losses. The anxiety that so many of our members have experienced since February is that they go to work every day not knowing if their plant is going to be open next week. That is where I want to see the focus.

Yes, if we get to a point where there is something that is negotiated, that absolutely has to go to Parliament, and there needs to be a review and it needs to be ratified the same way we ratify collective agreements in many ways. Right now, the focus absolutely has to be on what it is that's happening in our economy and what working people are experiencing in this moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Payne.

We'll go to Mr. Jeneroux for five minutes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Mr. DiCaro and Ms. Payne, thank you. You're regulars at the committee; we should get you regular seats here.

Ms. Bednar and Mr. Appleton, thank you as well.

I will start with you, Mr. Appleton, if that's all right.

My first question for you was going to be whether we are prepared. I think you answered that pretty solidly in some of the other testimony you gave. Minister LeBlanc was here a few weeks ago and he was absolutely certain we were prepared. I'll give you the opportunity to counter what he said.

In addition to that, is it too late for us now? There have been heavy negotiations happening over the last few weeks. Can you elaborate on some of that?

[Barry Appleton]

Thank you for your question.

Look, Minister Leblanc has a very difficult job. Having said that—and I've known Minister Leblanc for many years—I do not believe that we have equipped ourselves to be ready for the intensity, the focus and the nature of these negotiations, but I believe it's not too late.

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is today, but it's going to be too late. The Boy Scouts always say to be prepared, but we're not prepared. That's where I disagree.

I had the opportunity to meet with some of our trade negotiators at the embassy in Washington. They are very able and they are working very hard, but they do not have the resources they need and they do not have the capacity they need. As a government, we're not doing it. There are mistakes along the way that are not from one government. They're from many governments and they accumulate. We've never fought this type of storm. This is not just a once-in-a-century storm. This has changed foundationally everything that we believed, and we were not ready for it.

My problem is that if you listen to Jared Kushner.... Look, in the Middle East, they've been listening to Jared Kushner. He just got the deal. The President listened to Jared Kushner. He told us what this deal was about. He told us the nature of the negotiating tactics they used. That's exactly what they used in the Middle East. It's exactly what they're using with us, and I don't believe we're prepared for that.

It's very difficult for everybody who's in the section 232 sectors. It's very difficult.

Foundationally, what are we going to do when the President decides that he's going to put more leverage on Canada by cancelling CUSMA or just signalling that he's going to cancel CUSMA? That's enough. Look at what will happen to the markets and look what will happen.... We have not made ourselves enough robustness and enough capacity to be able to deal with that.

The good news is that it's like an economic war, and everybody should come to the aid of the country. We can do that.

Right now, I don't think we're ready.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I was prepared to just let you go for the full five minutes.

[Barry Appleton]

I'm sorry. I didn't want to eat your time.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

That's fair.

Things like the DST—the digital sales tax—when they're put forward, that sends the wrong message. Do you agree, yes or no?

[Barry Appleton]

For sure it does because it was a sign of weakness. Foundationally, the trade provisions on digital trade are not used to propel and aid Canada. They're used to weaken us. That's why it's so important that we think about this. This is the difference in a new economy and these provisions. It used to be that we looked at these provisions to give us more access. They've been giving us less. That's why we need to have a policy before we go there and not sign things before we've thought about it.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Great. Thanks for that answer.

Ms. Bednar had a proposal of a national economic council. I was curious to hear your thoughts in terms of weighing in on that.

I get a little bit nervous when you say things about the government creating things like trade czars and innovation czars, only because those things seem to never go away. They create lives of their own, and then we have more and more bureaucracy that generates those.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the economic council. If we have time, I wouldn't mind Ms. Bednar weighing in on the trade czar and innovation czar piece.

[Barry Appleton]

I'll be very quick.

The idea is not to add more bureaucracy, but to add more capacity at a very specific time. It's like when you call the Coast Guard out. You need them to be able to do search and rescue—you need to deal with it right away—and then they go back. That would be the idea here.

We are in a period of national emergency. We need to be able to bring more to bear and use capacities that are broader and bigger than what we're doing now. We need the types of people who can bring those skills in. My idea about an innovation czar is to take exactly the types of things that we would use to keep our economy going and think through new strategies. The flip side of the trade czar is to be able to use those types of things and the knowledge and ideas to get better at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Lavoie, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Appleton, in your opening remarks, you spoke about three solutions. I would like to discuss these further, since we touched on them briefly. You referred to a pan‑Canadian government strategy. I'm trying to make the connection between this strategy and the new government's decision to remove barriers to interprovincial trade, a key part of its approach.

Is there a connection between the two?

[Barry Appleton]

Mr. Lavoie, I had the privilege of being part of the negotiation team to bring us the agreement on internal trade, and I was involved in the first case in Canada to have internal trade barriers struck down. I'm a strong believer in reducing internal trade barriers.

If there's no interpretation, I can wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is it all right now?

Continue, Mr. Appleton.

[Barry Appleton]

Do I need to repeat what I said before?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

At what point did the interpretation stop?

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

It was very weak from the start. We could hardly hear the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think you'll have to start at the beginning, Mr. Appleton.