The committee’s work this session has been dominated by two overlapping concerns: the 2026 CUSMA review and the push to diversify Canadian trade away from the United States, chiefly toward Japan, the Indo-Pacific and, to a lesser extent, Africa. A recurring theme across meetings is that diversification is desirable but cannot substitute for stable U.S. market access. Witnesses from beef, cattle, pork, canola, forest products, autos, aluminum and equipment dealerships repeatedly described deeply integrated north-south supply chains—75% of beef and cattle exports, roughly 75–85% of Canadian vehicle production, 75% of B.C. lumber exports and 85% of food-grade paper output going south—and warned that Section 232 tariffs, countertariffs and CUSMA uncertainty are raising costs and eroding competitiveness. Industry witnesses broadly urged rapid renewal of CUSMA for as long as possible, removal of tariffs on both sides, and caution about parallel deals such as Mercosur, which beef and cattle representatives said would offer little and risk biosecurity and U.S. friction.

A second cluster of meetings examined internal trade barriers and export support. Business groups, the C.D. Howe Institute and manufacturers argued for mutual recognition over harmonization, a national scorecard, federal fiscal levers tied to credential recognition, and updates to competition and regulatory statutes, while the Confédération des syndicats nationaux cautioned that removing barriers would not transform the economy and could erode health, safety, environmental and language protections. BDC and EDC described tariff-relief lending, advisory programs and expanded Asian and European representation, while acknowledging weak non-residential investment and a cautious venture capital market. On forced labour, officials presented Bill C-35 as strengthening the existing import ban through a flexible, updatable list and a shifted onus on importers, while acknowledging that CBSA publishes no enforcement statistics and that shipment-by-shipment enforcement is difficult.

The clean energy, critical minerals and nuclear meetings brought a distinct set of voices: policy institutes, the Mining Association of Canada, the Asia Pacific Foundation, Candu Energy and Resource Works. Here witnesses described energy and minerals as strategic assets and Canada’s problem as converting advantage into projects, citing stagnant mining reserves, lost smelters, northern infrastructure gaps and slow approvals. They welcomed the mega deduction and Bill C-39 while disagreeing over private capital’s willingness to invest, the value of countertariffs, and whether Canada lacks aluminum processing capacity. Nuclear advocates sought EDC and CCC financing, CNSC capacity and streamlined co-operation agreements, while others argued government should examine whether its own rules deter investment before subsidizing and criticized industrial carbon pricing and the west coast tanker ban.

Across the session, witnesses agreed on the importance of trade-enabling infrastructure and reliability—ports, rail, permitting and labour stability—with repeated references to the costs of port strikes and the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. They also broadly agreed that Japan is a premium but stagnant or mature market, that CPTPP has levelled the playing field, and that Canada must move from raw material supplier to trusted industrial partner, though they differed on how much Japan can offset U.S. dependence. Over time the emphasis shifted from Japan and CUSMA sector impacts in the spring toward internal trade, forced labour legislation and, by late September, clean energy, critical minerals and nuclear export opportunities, with procedural matters—vice-chair elections, a SIMA handbook motion and a proposed EDC/BDC/CCC/Invest in Canada motion—appearing but largely left unresolved.