International Trade Committee on Jan. 27th, 2026

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

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to everyone.

Welcome, Minister Sidhu. Glad to have you here in your role as minister. I think it's the second time you've been to committee since you switched from being a committee member to being the minister.

Happy new year to everybody. I'm glad to see everybody was able to make it to our meeting today.

This is meeting number 19 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, December 11, we are studying Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

We have with us today, as I mentioned, the Honourable Maninder Sidhu, Minister of International Trade, and from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Mary-Catherine Speirs, director general, trade negotiations bureau. It's nice to see you again.

Welcome, all.

I understand that the minister is not going to take the usual 10 minutes that ministers do. He's going to do opening remarks of five minutes. That will leave more time for questions from the committee members.

I will now open the floor to Minister Sidhu.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

It's so nice to be back here in the trade committee room, where I spent a lot of time previous to my role as a Minister of International Trade. I'm excited to be back here with you as you do important work. This was one of my favourite committees, because it was all about collaboration and getting good things done for Canadians.

Thank you for having me here today as we speak to Bill C-13 and, of course, the future of Canada's trade relationship with the United Kingdom.

Bill C-13 is about strengthening one of Canada's most enduring partnerships and taking it into the future. It brings the United Kingdom into the CPTPP as the first new member of this high-standard trading bloc.

That matters, because the U.K. is not just a trading partner: It's a strategic partner, an economic partner and a long-standing ally of Canada. Our histories are deeply connected, our economies are complementary and our people-to-people ties run very deep. As global trade shifts, this relationship will only grow more important, not less.

This agreement builds on the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, which preserved tariff-free access for Canadian exporters to a market of more than 67 million consumers. That matters. It matters for farmers, manufacturers, service providers and small businesses across the country that depend on stable, predictable access to global markets.

Bill C-13 is not about standing still. It's about moving forward. It positions Canada to modernize our trade rules, deepen our commercial ties with the U.K. and ensure Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can compete and win in a rapidly changing global economy.

Yes, even among close partners, trade relationships require constant work. We continue to address trade irritants with the U.K. directly, constructively and with one goal in mind: fair treatment for Canadian workers, producers and exporters. That's what serious trade policy looks like, and that's the standard this government holds.

What gives me confidence is this: Canadians are ready, our businesses are innovative, our workers are world class and our products are trusted globally.

Our government is focused on expanding Canada's trade horizons, deepening strong partnerships and building new ones that reflect today's economic reality. This is not trade for trade's sake; this is trade that delivers. It's trade that supports good jobs in every region across our country, strengthens supply chains, attracts investments and creates opportunity for the next generation of Canadian entrepreneurs. It's trade that makes Canadians more resilient, more competitive and more prosperous.

At the centre of it all are Canadian workers. Every agreement we negotiate, every barrier we remove and every partnership we strengthen is done with workers in mind. Their success is Canada's success. Their resilience is Canada's resilience.

Bill C-13 reflects a confident, outward-looking Canada, a country that understands the value of global engagement and the importance of strong, reliable partners like the United Kingdom. It reflects a government that is focused, optimistic and determined to ensure Canadians can compete and win on the global stage.

This is how we build Canada strong: by opening doors, creating opportunities and making sure that the benefit of trade reaches workers, families and communities across our vast country.

Madam Chair, I'm very delighted to be here on short notice. As you know, we got the notice yesterday. We're here today. It's always exciting. I'm sure I'll be here many more times as we progress on many of our trade agreements, but I'm happy to take questions from members today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister Sidhu.

We will start with our committee's questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Mantle, please.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We too received short notice today. This is not a new issue. This is something you've been dealing with for months, and I would suggest that if the government takes this matter seriously, it should provide parliamentarians with appropriate notice to prepare to consider your remarks and the remarks of officials, not two hours and 10 minutes in the morning on the second day back from our constituency break.

You talked about trade delivering...preserving access, but by all accounts, Minister, the deal we are getting is worse than the deal we had. The trade continuity agreement, which we previously had, was in large part based on the provisions of the Canada-EU trade agreement, CETA, as you know. Until very recently, the stated objective of your government was to negotiate a stand-alone Canada-U.K. trade agreement to preserve those mutual benefits that we had under CETA. What you've brought before us is a worse deal.

The TPP has comparatively higher tariff rates and slower tariff elimination. The TPP has less service and investment liberalization and more shallow regulatory co-operation. The TPP has less access for our agricultural products; no dedicated provisions for veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary protocols; less breadth and depth of access for local government procurement opportunities; and weaker pharmaceutical protections. You said workers are top of your mind, while the TPP has weaker labour protections than our previous deal.

So, simply holding on to what we had, which was your stated objective until recently, would have been a better deal. How did you miss this opportunity to engage and redefine our trading relationship with the United Kingdom?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

We're talking about the CPTPP and what the quality of this agreement is. The CPTPP is a trading bloc of roughly a dozen countries that represent 15% of the global economy. If you look at trade numbers since the Government of Canada signed the CPTPP trade agreement in 2018, they have gone up; it has actually opened up more access for many industries.

I'll just give you some quick examples. Malaysia has had 25% growth since we signed on to the CPTPP. If you look at the numbers in Japan, with from $29 billion to $48 billion in 2023 alone, there's a 60% increase in two-way trade. For Vietnam, another important trading partner, there's an increase of roughly 110% growth. So this is about creating opportunities. This is about opening doors for workers.

There's a reason why countries are lining up to join the CPTPP; it's because of the high quality standards.

Coming back to the U.K., why is the U.K. important? It's our third-largest trading partner, and we need to continue opening doors. Currently with what we have with the U.K., we have 99% tariff-free access. Of course, we're working hard to get to that 100% mark; I'm fighting hard for that 1%. The CPTPP presents us an opportunity to have mechanisms in place to have those conversations to get to the full 100%.

I think it's important to know, look at the numbers, look at the facts. You look at the countries lining up to join the CPTPP. We need to be there to support countries like our counterparts in the U.K. to join this important trade agreement.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Vietnam and Indonesia have nothing to do with our access to the United Kingdom. So, while I may agree with those positions, you've not answered my question. In fact, you've not disagreed with any of the points I made that the deal we are entering into is worse than the deal we had.

I have another question for you on a different matter. It's on your recent trip overseas to China. Tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of the final report of the public inquiry into foreign interference, which identified China as our top foreign interference threat.

In fact in the election, of course you'll remember, and it's been widely reported, that the Prime Minister considered China to be our greatest security threat, and just eight months later we are now entering into what you are calling a strategic partnership.

Now, trade with China is necessary, a positive diplomatic relationship with China is necessary, but forging a new strategic partnership with China is a choice. Declaring that we are setting ourselves up for a new Chinese-led new world order is a choice. Doing those things with great fanfare and media attention is a choice.

What I would suggest to you is that attempting to trade American unpredictability for Chinese dependence is not the answer to our problems. I think Canadians are owed an explanation as to why in such a short period your government has moved from a position of considering China our greatest security threat to forging new strategic partnerships with a geopolitical adversary.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, I'd like to respond to the member regarding his important question in terms of the U.S. and, of course, China.

The U.S. will always be an important partner to Canada in terms of trade and other relationships.

When you look at China, our second-largest trading partner, it's important to engage at a time when our economic security is being threatened. The Joint Economic and Trade Commission, JETC, didn't sit for eight years to work through many of the trade irritants that the canola growers and the seafood industry have asked us to resolve, and that the beef industry has asked us to help them resolve.

This comes back to a conversation I had—when I was newly appointed back in May—in Paris with my counterpart from China, Minister Wang, to work toward reassessing and opening the JETC so we could work through many of these trade irritants. The trip to China was about resolving many of these irritants and getting access to many of these industries.

The canola industry alone supports 250,000 jobs. The beef industry has 350,000 jobs. When you look at the seafood sector in Atlantic Canada and on the west coast, there are about 30,000 jobs. To me, at the end of the day, it's about the workers on the ground and making sure we're giving access...to those workers.

That trip to China resulted in shipments getting out the door. Our first beef shipment in many years is now out the door. Canola shipments are now going out the door. This is what workers and stakeholders have asked us to do, and we're there.

Of course, we're making sure that we're protecting Canadians and that there are security provisions in place. Those will remain there. We always make sure that we're standing up for Canadians, and we will continue to do that, but we need to be eyes wide open and pragmatic about our approach. China is our second-largest trading partner, and the U.S. is our largest trading partner, so we'll continue to have those conversations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Madame Lapointe, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today despite the short notice. We really appreciate it.

I recently spoke on Bill C‑13 in the House. The United Kingdom is one of our largest trading partners. You know that I represent Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, in the Lower Laurentians, north of Montreal. It's a very innovative and industrial riding, and expansion is ongoing. We have a number of high-tech companies, small and medium-sized manufacturing companies, as well as strategic aerospace suppliers. Smart mobility, clean energy and advanced engineering are very important in our neck of the woods.

The aerospace sector in Quebec accounts for 43,000 direct jobs and more than $20 billion dollars in exports. In the Lower Laurentians, we have Bombardier, Safran, Bell Textron and Airbus. To the south, in Saint-Hubert, there is also CAE.

You may not know this, but I have a son who is an airline pilot, and he trains pilots using CAE flight simulators. It's high-quality training. CAE has subsidiaries around the world, and it started in our region. It provides customer service to many airlines.

Minister, can you tell us about your experience with aviation and aerospace companies in the Montreal region?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Absolutely.

I want to thank my colleague on this trade committee for that very important question. I hope to respond to you one day in French. It's a work in progress.

Yes, you're right. The aerospace industry in Quebec is hugely important to the GDP, to the economy and to the workers there. Everywhere I travel, Canadian innovation in aerospace is front and centre.

You mentioned CAE. They have many simulators around the world. CAE alone has thousands of jobs in its ecosystem, not only in Quebec but also across Canada. You talked about Bombardier. This recently expanded into another space in Quebec to create more aircraft products.

If you look at the top exports to the U.K., aerospace is in the top five. We have many opportunities in the aerospace industry. Canada is known for that, not only in Quebec but also beyond Quebec. Look at what De Havilland is doing in Calgary to create water bombers. Those are world-renowned. These are conversations we're having everywhere I go.

I was just recently in the Middle East, where we had a vast conversation on aerospace and on what more we can do in terms of training and simulation. We are very proud. Everywhere I go it's about Canadian workers. We have the most educated workforce in the world, including many in Quebec. It's something we should be proud of. It's being there to pitch Canada as a reliable, stable trading partner.

Aerospace plays a key role, but there are many other sectors that feed into that. You mentioned Pratt & Whitney and Bell helicopters. These are many conversations that support thousands of jobs that we need to continue pushing forward. In the U.K., if you look at their imports and look at our exports to the U.K., aerospace is in the top five. It's about collaborating. It's about making sure that our workers are represented.

When you look at trade agreements and what they mean for people, at the end of the day, Linda, as you know, it's about opening opportunities. You've been on this trade committee for many years, even before I got here. I want to say thank you for your work as we continue to engage and to open up areas of opportunity for your workers in Quebec.

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

Thank you very much.

You said Canadian products are trusted.

Whether it's a matter of goods or services, these are world-renowned products.

How could you make the Canadian brand even stronger and more attractive so that we can sell even more of our products abroad, especially in Great Britain, through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership or any of the many free trade agreements we have?

How can we elevate the Canadian brand?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

What we can do to encourage businesses to look outwards is a great question.

Prior to politics, I spent 13 years in the private sector in international trade facilitation. Back then, because of the shipping costs, not understanding the language, packaging requirements, etc., many businesses were not ready to look overseas. Now businesses are more open to that conversation, especially with the trade policy from our southern neighbour, so we need to be able to do some hand-holding and encourage businesses to get out into these new overseas markets.

What are we doing as a government? If you look at budget 2025 and the trade ecosystem that we're creating through the SME export readiness program that's being led by our Minister of Industry, you'll see the CanExport program that's going to be able to provide grants and assistance to get our businesses and our world-class products onto the global stage at trade shows. Once they have orders ready, we want to make sure that there are some credit facilitation tools there through EDC by enabling $25 billion or more in credit financing to help them get out to new markets.

I think this is very important when you look at the ecosystem. There are many businesses that don't know how to export yet, and we want to make sure we get them there. Once they're ready to get there, we want to make sure that we're able to get them to trade shows around the world through CanExport. Of course, once they get their first order, it's about financing that first order, so this ecosystem is being created.

We're at an opportune time when the world is looking at Canada as a reliable, stable trading partner, and we need to be able to promote Canadian goods.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Minister, when you were sitting across the table from me and not to my left, I used to call you “Mani”. Today, I will be calling you “Minister”. We'll keep the familiarity and the name “Mani” in the private sphere, as the situation has changed.

That said, I welcome you back to this committee, and I wish you a happy new year. Happy new year to all my colleagues, as well. In Quebec, there's often a debate about how long we can wish each other a happy new year, but since this is the first time we've seen each other since last year, I think we can wish each other the best.

First off, the protocol was tabled on September 18, 2025, and Bill C‑13 was introduced 15 sitting days later. However, the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament says that the time frame must be 21 days. That is a policy and not a piece of legislation, so it is not binding, but it is still a public policy that can be found through a Google search, which takes us directly to the Government of Canada site. So it's an official policy.

Why not comply with Canada's official policy on this?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Chair, through you, I wish a very happy new year to my colleague and friend.

Of course there's important work that you do on this committee, so thank you for everything you're doing.

In terms of your question, in the state that we're in right now, two-thirds of our economy is powered by international trade. If you look at the policies being created by our neighbour to the south, you see that they're directly hitting our economic security. When the Prime Minister says we're in a crisis and we need to move fast, here's why we're moving fast and here's why I'm here within a day's notice: It's to make sure that we're moving forward on many of these agreements and creating opportunities.

As we move forward, I think we need to keep in mind that we're not in normal times anymore. Our number one trading partner is creating some trade policies that are directly impacting workers on the ground. Respectfully, I think it's important that we look at the context that we're in.

We want to continue engaging with stakeholders, and we're doing that, whether it's through my ministry or whether it's through many of your colleagues here on this trade committee and engaging with witnesses coming to committee. We need to move fast to be able to open doors for Canadian businesses, and that's exactly what we're doing.

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

Those six days would have changed everything. For example, in committee, if we decided to extend the study by a week for whatever reason, you would say that we are radically changing the situation, since, in your opinion, waiting six days—the difference between compliance and non-compliance with official policy—would have changed the situation completely.

Did I understand your answer correctly?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Coming back to my answer, it's about the current situation we're in.

When you look at how trade impacts communities across Canada, whether it's in Quebec or in Ontario, you see huge impacts of trade policies created by our neighbour to the south. We need to be able to diversify as fast as possible.

We promised Canadians during our election mandate that trade diversification to open new doors would be at the top of our priorities, especially when we're impacted by so many things that we cannot control from other governments. What we control is how fast we open doors, how fast we move in Parliament, how fast we're able to get workers more opportunities so that they can export their goods to other countries around the world.

One in five jobs in Canada is directly or indirectly impacted by trade. Two-thirds of our economy is powered by trade. We need to continue opening doors. This is what workers on the ground are—

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

Minister, I think we agree on the substance. That's not the issue. We agree on diversifying our economy. On the substance, I agree with this accession, which ultimately doesn't change much because the United Kingdom is already part of the agreement. Some aspects are finally being formalized. On the substance, then, there is no problem.

However, while we are at it, why not comply with the policy in question? At the same time, do you have an announcement for us today? If you think that six days would change everything, do you think that, in our case, there would be a maximum time frame that we would have to respect in our study right now?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I think the committee's energy is well respected and well recognized. In the meetings that you've had, I've sat on the other side of this table, meeting with witnesses and talking about trade. We need to continue engaging with stakeholders, so it's not to say that we don't want to engage stakeholders. We need to continue engaging stakeholders, but I think stakeholders understand that we're in a complex time right now.

We have other trade agreements that we've completed. Indonesia is next up in line, and I introduced that agreement in the House of Commons last month. We hope to move fast with that, because that's another fast-growing market. It's destined to be the fifth-largest economy in the world.

After that, we hope to get to Ecuador and the U.A.E. investment agreement. We need to continue moving forward and opening doors to many other things. Historically, we have 15 trade agreements with 51 countries, but Canadians expect us to open more markets, and that's exactly what we're focused on.

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

We are also parliamentarians, members of Parliament elected by the people to advance certain interests and values. If we were to tell you that we need a certain amount of time to carry out this study properly, for example, would you say that we're thereby hampering trade?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I think it's important. I don't know about time frames, but when you look at stakeholders and engagement and what stakeholders have said about this process and about access to the U.K., we've heard a lot of positive things about having access, so it depends on stakeholders. Have we listened to stakeholders? I certainly think so. If there's someone that I need to talk to, I'm always happy to have that conversation.

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

You don't have a specific time frame, but you're saying that those six days, needed to comply with the policy, are fundamental.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

As I said, in the context that we're in, we need to move fast and we need to open doors, and I think Canadians recognize that and appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. McKenzie, please go ahead for five minutes.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, you indicated that there are in the neighbourhood of 350,000 employees or jobs in the Canadian beef industry. The figures I have available to me indicate that Canada exported $85,000 worth of beef to the U.K. in 2023, $25,000 worth of beef in 2024, and had no beef exports in 2025. Those amounts of revenue wouldn't pay for the gas for the Prime Minister's jet to go and visit his friend in the U.K.

I'd like to know from you, sir, whether specific industry barriers—non-tariff barriers with the U.K. that are preventing our beef exports to that country—were discussed in the course of the support that Canada is offering to the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP.