Bill C-216 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the third reading stage of Bill C-18.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved that Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, be read the third time and passed.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, given that I am the first speaker on this topic tonight, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my colleague from Surrey Centre.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-18, which is the continuity agreement of the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. It is always a privilege to bring a voice from the people of Kings—Hants to Parliament, but this agreement in particular is important to Nova Scotia. As a member of Parliament from the east coast, the United Kingdom's proximity geographically makes this an important trading relationship for agriculture producers in my riding and also businesses writ large. The basis of my remarks tonight will be how this continuity agreement is so important to maintaining those open relationships and that business relationship, as well.

Canada is a trading nation. We have what the world wants, whether it is our natural resource products, our services or our ingenuity. We are an important player in serving countries' needs around the world. It has certainly been a focus of our government to establish trading relationships to be able to provide our products to the world. As has already been established, this bill is relatively straightforward. The government had already established a strong trading relationship with the European Union through CETA. This is a confirmation ensuring those provisions that had been established, and that included the United Kingdom, which has now gone through the Brexit program, would continue. Our government has also illustrated its desire to make sure that we can sit down with the United Kingdom and look at a comprehensive agreement to establish even greater ties between our two countries, if there is room for them, which I presume there is.

I want to talk a bit, as a Nova Scotia parliamentarian, about how I see our future trade agreement, whether it be further in scope or as this existing continuity agreement, and what it means to our businesses. I will say again that agriculture is the backbone of our economy in Kings—Hants. There are supply-managed farms such as poultry, eggs and dairy, about which we have heard a lot tonight with Bill C-216, but we are also world-famous for our apple products. There is a long history, in the Annapolis Valley particularly, about our particular apple species, and it has been a source of pride shipped around the world.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Kentville research station, funded through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It has over 100 years of history in our riding, and a lot of the research that goes on through the Kentville research station supports our farmers by making sure they have varieties the world really wants.

For the benefit of the members in the House here tonight, every apple sold in London during World War II, and certainly for a period after that time, was produced in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia. I think that signifies the trading relationship our region has with the Commonwealth countries around the world.

I talked to our apple producers specifically about what this continuity agreement means. We have a huge reliance on the United States, as do many other places across the country, but they see this as an opportunity to re-establish some of those prior trading relationships with the United Kingdom, because of our proximity. I do not expect that overnight 100% of the apples sold in London will be from the Annapolis valley. We have diversified our markets globally, but there are opportunities to build on those existing relationships and our cultural ties.

I also want to speak a little about our wine sector. We have a quality wine sector that is gaining international recognition, and I am one of the biggest proponents of reducing our interprovincial trade barriers, such that our Nova Scotia producers are able to sell their product across the country to Canadians who want it. At the federal level, our government has removed any impediments to that. We have a lot of work to do with some specific provinces, and it is something I continue to call for, both within this House and outside. There is also an opportunity to make sure that our world-leading product can find its way to consumers around the world, and with the fact that our sector has seen significant growth we have an opportunity to have these products find their way to consumers in the United Kingdom, who I am sure would be happy to pick up a Tidal Bay, one of our destination originators in the Annapolis Valley.

I will be interested to see where some of my colleagues on the other side of the House go with this particular piece of legislation. Sometimes, of course, there is criticism, when we are forging trade deals, that there can be repercussions to the agriculture sector. This is an example in which our government stood firm. I cannot speak to the Minister of International Trade's dialogue, because I am not at the table.

I am quite confident that the United Kingdom would have been looking at gaining access to our supply-managed sectors. That was something our government was unwilling to do because of how important that sector is to rural communities across the country, including mine in Kings—Hants.

Part of the discussion here tonight will be comparing and contrasting. I heard some colleagues trying to suggest that our government had been unwavering or not necessarily supportive of this sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. When we look at the past United States administration under President Trump, it seemed that every second word was focused on the dairy industry. We knew that this was not going to solve the issues related to the American dairy industry and its oversupply. In fact, many U.S. producers actually talk about trying to implement a system similar to Canada's, in the sense that we have some ability to control supply. It is becoming even more important, in the world of low carbon emissions, to be mindful of climate change and producing product that is not going to be used. It was something that the President really wanted to push.

We maintained the integrity of the system. I have heard members from the Bloc talk in the House about Bill C-216. I believe they supported the implementation of CUSMA. I believe the Premier of Quebec was calling on all parliamentarians to support this provision. In fact, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose, talked about how it was the best deal that Canada could strike.

I am proud of how the government responded to protecting that system. I contrast that with, for example, the previous government. We talk about CETA. We were really down the road by the time it was implemented, but the member for Abbotsford could probably speak to it. It was a different situation politically, in terms of the pressure and expectation of our government to give up access to make that trade deal happen. That is something I highlight to my dairy farmers when I have the chance. They seem to appreciate that nuance.

Any suggestion, whether in tonight's debate or otherwise in the House, that this party is not committed to supply management is false.

Finally, I want to talk about the cultural ties between the United Kingdom and Canada, but specifically Nova Scotia. We have a lot of shared history. For example, in Nova Scotia we have the largest Gaelic-speaking population outside of Scotland. There is a long history of immigration from the United Kingdom, and Scotland specifically, to Nova Scotia. My great-grandfather has ties to Wales and a Welsh background. My fiancée has ties to Scotland.

As I mentioned, this trade deal presents an opportunity not only to the economy and to business relationships, selling services and goods back and forth, but also to further integrate and ensure that we have opportunities, whether for tourism or research between institutions academically, to strengthen the ties that we have with a country that we are still a dominion of, to make sure that we can support our businesses and individuals, and make sure those cultural ties are strong and remain robust.

I would be happy to take any questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud of our position in the NDP against this trade deal which poses real concerns, including for jobs in supply management. We are also very concerned about Canadian sovereignty that is ceded in other ways. I would add that we know from our recent track record that a number of the trade deals we have signed have actually seen the loss of good Canadian jobs, including in the part of the country I come from here in western Canada.

I understand that the member is in full support of this bill, but what does he say to people who have seen trade deals cede ground and lead to the loss of good jobs here in our own country? When will the Liberals stand up for Canadian jobs?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will start by correcting the record. The member suggested that somehow this trade continuity agreement was giving up access to our supply-managed sector. That is certainly not the case. I do not know exactly what the member was alluding to, but absolutely I believe in its importance. As I mentioned, Canada is a trading nation: we have services and resources the world wants. At the end of the day, we have a lot of good jobs, such as in the horticulture and apple sector in Nova Scotia. If we were insular and did not deal with and were not able to engage with countries around the world to get our products to markets, some of those good-paying jobs she mentioned would not even exist, and so I am in full support of this bill. It protects supply management and will ensure that we have that continuity and strong relations with key countries whose values we share.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, to allow more voices to contribute to this debate, I would first like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share here time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-18, an act that seeks to implement the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement. Since the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement was negotiated and signed by the Mulroney-led Conservative government in the 1980s, free trade has played a vital role in the Canadian economy. Canada is now party to more than a dozen trade deals with over 50 countries in total. These deals have knocked down trade barriers and given Canadian businesses better access to the global marketplace.

One such trade deal, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, is between Canada and the European Union. With the United Kingdom having separated from the EU, it would be natural, or so one would think, that Canada would sit down with the U.K., with whom we share historic ties, values and a trusted intelligence partnership, to work out a new comprehensive trade agreement that is specific to the needs and desires of both countries.

The U.K. is one of Canada's biggest trading partners. It is in fact our third largest export market and the fourth largest source of foreign direct investment in Canada. Looking specifically at my home province, B.C., in 2019 nearly half a billion dollars worth of exports to the U.K. originated in British Columbia. This includes wood, lumber, fish and more. B.C. exports to the U.K. have been trending upwards over the past decade. Of Canadian provinces and territories, only Ontario, Newfoundland and Quebec export more to the U.K. than B.C. Clearly this trading relationship is an important one for B.C. and all of Canada, a relationship that I certainly hope will continue to thrive and generate prosperity for small businesses from St. John's to Victoria.

What I do not understand given the obvious importance of this trading relationship to the Canadian economy is why the Liberal government was not better prepared and more willing to sit down with one of our closest allies to negotiate a trade agreement that would best satisfy the interests of our country. We know that the Liberal government walked away from the negotiating table in March 2019, only to return to the table in July last year with only five months left to negotiate and legislate a new trade agreement before the existing deal expired.

At that point, there was not enough time to do this properly. Instead we are left with the status quo. With the clock expiring, the Liberal government agreed to a trade continuity agreement that replicates the terms of CETA. It is that placeholder, copy and paste agreement that the Liberals now seek to enact into Canadian law. One might think, what is so bad about the status quo? Let me be clear: CETA is a good trade agreement for Canada, but it is a multilateral trade deal between Canada and the European Union, some 27 countries, each with its own unique economy, goods and services.

CETA was never intended to serve as a bilateral deal between Canada only and the United Kingdom. This duplicate deal does nothing to address trade issues that have emerged since CETA was negotiated in 2014, nor does it address existing challenges with non-tariff barriers. Stakeholders rightly want a “U.K.-1” agreement, not a “CETA-2” agreement. It is mystifying that the Liberal government did not even leave enough time to enact this placeholder deal before the December 31 deadline. Recognizing that the clock was about to run out, the government signed a memorandum of understanding on December 22 to buy some more time, 90 days to be exact. However, even that extension, as we debate the bill at third reading today, leaves only until the end of the month to complete third reading in the House and pass all stages in the Senate. What happens if we cannot meet that revised deadline? There will be more uncertainty for Canadian businesses at a time when they are in trouble and need certainty more than ever.

What we should have before us today, had the government done its job in the four and a half years since the U.K. decided to exit the EU in 2016, is a tailored, modern and comprehensive trade agreement based upon rigorous consultations with businesses and labour organizations from across our great nation. They should have consulted our lumber exporters in B.C., gold miners in Ontario, fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, and beef producers in Alberta and Quebec. Instead, the Liberal government dragged its feet and left Canadians in the dark.

While we were told this was merely a temporary fix, like duct tape on a leaky pipe, the reality is that there is no sunset clause in this agreement. This means it has no end date. While the deal sets out that we are to begin negotiations on a successful agreement within one year of its ratification and finalize a new deal within three years, there is no specific penalty for the failure of either side to come to the bargaining table.

Clause 4 of Article IV of the trade continuity agreement states, “The Parties shall strive to conclude the negotiations...within three years of the date of entry into force of this Agreement.” This duty to negotiate is effectively not a duty at all. This trade deal could literally last forever, never to be replaced with the complete, well-informed deal that Canadians deserve.

The Liberal government has made a dangerous habit of rushing through significant legislation without appropriate consultations. I have seen it too often as a member of the justice committee, by way of example, and we are seeing it here again. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU in June 2016, yet here we are in 2021 relying on a memorandum of understanding that is set to expire in three weeks.

Because the Liberal government did not take this trade relationship seriously, Canadians are left with an MOU that is serving as a placeholder for a placeholder trade agreement with our fifth-largest trading partner. In doing so, the Liberal government has caused unnecessary uncertainty for the countless businesses across Canada that import, export or rely on foreign investment from the U.K.

The last thing Canadians need right now is more uncertainty, yet time and time again that is what they get from the Liberal government. Between the Liberals' failures to negotiate a new tailored deal and their unwillingness to present a federal budget for two years, it is becoming clear that the economy, jobs and trade are afterthoughts for the government. Some questions remain: How much longer can Canadians afford these failures and how much longer before normally resilient Canadians break?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech outlining the weaknesses of this proposition.

I am very fortunate to be in the caucus of the official opposition with the member. She was a member of the previous administration, under former prime minister Harper. When we look at the current administration and the previous administration, on many issues we see some considerable differences. Certainly those related to foreign affairs and international trade come to the top of my mind.

As a member of the previous cabinet, could the member address the key differences she sees between the two?

Former prime minister Harper and our current shadow minister of finance really have an incredible legacy in Canada of free trade agreements. They were and continue to be the masters of that. There is a lot to be learned from Conservative history and the Conservative caucus, and the member was indeed a big part of that, so I would like to get her thoughts on that.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, times were very different then, I have to say, because we embarked, in the former Conservative government, on an aggressive trade agenda. We understood that we needed to open up markets around the world to Canadian businesses, Canadian exporters and Canadian importers. We understood the strength in expanding markets for Canadian businesses and therefore made it a priority. When we make something a priority, we also put the time, energy and thought behind what negotiations will look like and how thorough they have to be. Also, for something like CETA, because we were dealing with so many countries, all of that had to be translated into many languages. There was a lot to do, but I think the biggest difference is the thought and prioritization behind it.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

We are talking about international trade and about maintaining economic ties, which is, and will always be, important. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

Since this is a temporary agreement, is the member not worried that, in the coming years, Great Britain will ask us for new quotas on cheese, for example, since they produce a lot over there? We were just debating Bill C-216, which would prevent these kinds of restrictions.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to protecting supply management, Conservative governments and the NDP have stood up for it and the Liberals are standing up for it now. It is very important that certain sectors in Canada are protected.

When the CETA was being negotiated, it was a hard and fast bottom line for the Conservative government that we would not compromise on supply management. We were very aware of the dairy sector, which of course is alive and well in my province of B.C., as it is in Quebec and other provinces. We will always stand up for that and will always fight for it and protect it. Given what they do on the other side, we need strong negotiation at the table.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned about the fact that under CETA, imports from the EU have increased while the trade deficit has increased for Canadian exports. This has obviously hurt a lot of businesses, so the fact that we are ultimately adopting the same agreement causes problems. What does the member have to say about that?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my speech I addressed the fact that this is a placeholder agreement. It should have been negotiated specifically for the new entity, which is the United Kingdom, separate from the EU. We have a certain amount of time to negotiate, but there is no sunset clause. Again, it has to be a priority and a continuing objective to negotiate an agreement that is specific.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech, as I do with so many of my speeches, with an anecdote. I am privileged to have the opportunity to be here in the House to represent the good people of Calgary Midnapore and be their voice, and I am going to tell one of my favourite stories.

Several years ago, when I was a younger and fitter woman, I won the gold award from the Duke of Edinburgh. I was very excited to achieve and receive this award. I know that many young Canadians from coast to coast to coast strive for this award and the many different levels that can be achieved. I was very motivated by this gold award. It had numerous components. It had fitness, outdoors and community-service components. I undertook going after this award with great vigour and went on to achieve it, and it was presented to me by Prince Philip. It was wonderful to have the opportunity to meet him. I wish him and his family well at this time. That was one of my major introductions to the United Kingdom and all that it has to offer.

Of course, my interest in foreign affairs and diplomacy would continue, and in the early 2000s, when I wrote the foreign service exam and fortunately was accepted, I went on temporary duty to Argentina. I then went on to be the chargé d'affaires to El Salvador, which was a very proud moment for me.

It was a wonderful time to represent Canada abroad. As the chargé, when the head of mission is out of the country, I had the honour to act as Canada's representative. My accreditation ceremony was in El Salvador at the presidential palace. We had taken the motorcade through the nation, and when I received my accreditation along with my ambassador, I was told to always remain behind the ambassador except when she was out of the country. I was very proud to take on that role.

On one occasion I had an interesting bit of fortune. When Bill C-4, the Central American four agreement, was being negotiated with Canada, one round of negotiations was going to take place at a time when the head of mission was out of the country. As such, I became the representative. I was very excited and nervous. I went to the secure room, as a diplomat did back in the day, where a fax was printed out. I took the fax and read the notes over and over again about the positions on pork and sugar. I prepared and prepared.

The big moment came and I went off to the trade minister's office in El Salvador with my papers and my positions ready. The trade minister approached me, took the envelope out of my hand and told me to tell my government that El Salvador would get back to it in two weeks. The big moment I had prepared for had come and gone.

My point here is that diplomats only do what their governments ask them to do. I would later go on to speak about this in the chamber when our current leader of the official opposition asked me to respond to a situation that unfortunately took place at our high commission in India, after the government's administration organized an event and an accused terrorist was there. I went through the process of responding to this in the House. I walked the caucus through what goes into vetting a list of individuals who are invited to an event and what that looks like.

I still remain true to the fact that a diplomat and a trade negotiator only do what their government asks them to do, as was my experience with the Bill C-4 negotiation, which unfortunately did dissolve, and I believe ended up being a unilateral agreement with Honduras. Nonetheless something came out of it.

My sentiments right now in regard to the response of the government on so many things, but also in regard to this agreement as well, is disappointment, because so much more could be done. I think about what could have been the potential response for this pandemic in terms of trade opportunities. Certainly, it has been a very difficult year. We are coming up on the one-year anniversary, when we were all sent home from this beautiful chamber.

When this was occurring and we were seeing world forces shifting, I was considering the fact that it would be an incredible time for Canada to re-evaluate its position in the world. Were I the prime minister, I would have done a complete evaluation of our inventory from coast to coast to coast of natural resources, from energy, minerals, agriculture and textile, and really looked at how markets were changing and emerging, perhaps with less reliance on China and Europe turning inward to evaluate those opportunities.

We see opportunities missed within this legislation. This is a theme, unfortunately, with the government. What I am pointing to with the unfortunate situation that happened in India and with this trade agreement is that the government has had no guiding values for foreign policy. We have seen this time and time again. We have seen this with how it is handling the situation with China and the two Michaels who remain incarcerated. We saw this with the government's lack of will and gumption to stand up to China in regard to the Uighur motion. We saw this with the current deputy minister's tweets regarding Saudi Arabia. We saw this with a stance I wish would have been more firm regarding Venezuela.

All of these indicators have shown that the government has no foreign policy values. Again, this trade agreement is just a by-product of the government's inability to have a coherent strategic foreign policy that looks out for the best interests of Canadians and for Canada.

What makes me the most sad is when I think of the opportunities missed, comparably to the previous administration, of which the previous speaker belonged, and of the greats, of Harper and Kenney and Baird. I was very fortunate at the time to be a policy adviser. I took one year away from my foreign service career to serve the current member for Thornhill who was minister of state for the Americas at the time.

We had principles which guided us. Those included among them, democracy. Are we really standing up for democracy here in Canada and acting as an example to the world currently? I do not think we are. Are we standing up for justice? I do not think we are. Are we standing up for the prosperity of the world and the prosperity of Canadians right now? I do not think we are. I am certainly not seeing it within this trade agreement.

I extend this beyond this trade agreement. As I said, I feel as though the Liberal government has been a government of missed opportunities. We have seen this with the pandemic, the opportunity to prepare better, to prepare Canadians better, to avoid so much of the hardship, illness and death that we have seen as a result of this terrible last year, a result of not preparing better for the economy and missed opportunities here. I would include this trade agreement within this the inability to look forward.

This is the crux of the opposition motion that we have had here today, the inability to think forward for Canada's economic prosperity. Finally, it is the opportunity missed for foreign policy, to stand up for strong values, Canadian values, and that includes with this trade agreement.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, in which she had positive things to say about international trade and took a strong stance on things that are unacceptable.

I want to ask her a question that I asked earlier. As members know, this will be a temporary agreement, and we have about three years to replace it with a new agreement.

Is the member not worried about any future demands from Great Britain on imports of cheese, for example, and the other products under supply management that we are trying to protect with legislation? Her party seems to be opposed to this bill, and I would like to understand why, because for years they have been saying they want to protect supply management. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Of course I have a lot of concerns about this bill, this agreement. I think that what the hon. member said complements my position that the government currently does not have a firm position on values. I think that the key to foreign affairs is to have values. I think the government currently has no values when it comes to foreign affairs in general, but also with regard to this agreement. I have many concerns about the government's positions. This government has been in power for almost five years, and quite frankly, I do not hold out much hope right now that it will embrace any values for foreign affairs. It has yet to do so for foreign affairs in general or for this agreement.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the United Kingdom negotiated trade agreements with several other countries, but Canada did not. We came to a memorandum of understanding, but we did not finalize that agreement. What does say about the Liberal government's priorities when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I am very disappointed in the government's performance in looking out for Canada's interests comparative to the those in the previous administration, who were the masters and recognized the importance of looking for synchronicities and win-win situations with other nations. I definitely feel as though the current government has not done that. Once again, everything just seems to be last minute and thrown together, and it is very upsetting.

The member for Langley—Aldergrove also reminds me of another incredible opportunity, which I forgot to mention in my speech, and that is CANZUK. I know the leader of the official opposition is a big fan of it this. This is another example of another incredible opportunity beyond the U.K. to other nations that have similar values to Canada. As I said several times over both in English and in French, unfortunately the government lacks a moral-value compass not only with which to govern, but with which to govern foreign affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am rising as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade.

As we have said, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-18 on the Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement, but not enthusiastically so. Our position is and always has been clear. We support trade openness, which is necessary for our SMEs, and we support market diversification. Given our history, it is particularly interesting for us to see that it is possible for a country that is becoming independent or regaining its independence and trade sovereignty, like the United Kingdom is after Brexit, to quickly reproduce the agreements that were previously signed by the large bargaining group it is leaving.

Of course, the new country then has to renegotiate the agreements on a more permanent basis, but there is no black hole. There is no period of limbo when the newly independent country has no trade partners or international agreements. As Quebec separatists, we find this quite interesting, and we are taking notes. We have taken notes about this process, and we will be ready to address the issues and dispel the fears that Parliament is sure to raise next time Quebec's future is up for discussion.

We are in favour of open trade, but we will never give free trade our complacent and unconditional support if it compromises our agricultural model, harms the environment, supports the privatization of public services or makes it harder for our businesses to get contracts, nor will we support agreements that could undermine sovereignty and democracy for the benefit of profit-driven multinationals.

If we look at the Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement, or CUKTCA, it looks like the worst was avoided. Supply management has not been chipped away at, thank goodness. Sadly, that job had already been done with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA.

In the end, this agreement is not particularly bold, but it does allow us to maintain access in the short term. I say “short term” because this agreement is supposed to be transitional. Let us not forget that we must reach a permanent agreement later.

When we talk about free trade, it always sounds very abstract, but in reality, at the grass roots level, it ends up feeling quite concrete. This bill is very likely to pass in the next few hours, and there is nothing stopping us from looking ahead now.

There is something frustrating about this kind of process. It has to do with the fact that we, as parliamentarians, always end up rubber stamping an agreement as it is presented to us. The text is there, here it is, there is nothing more to say. We are never consulted beforehand, when we should be consulted before the negotiators even go to negotiate. We should be able to give them mandates. We are parliamentarians; we are here to represent the positions of our constituents. We should be consulted far more often. We should be given reports at different stages of the negotiations. Unfortunately, we do not get any of that.

That is why one of the first things we need to do right now is demand more transparency. The provinces and parliamentarians need to be more involved in future discussions. The elected members of the House of Commons are responsible for protecting the interests and values of their constituents. They are not just here to rubber-stamp agreements that have been negotiated in secret. We are not just puppets.

Between 2000 and 2004, the Bloc Québécois introduced a number of bills on this matter in the House. With the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP came to an agreement on sharing more information with elected members. The Deputy Prime Minister made a commitment at the time. Unfortunately, although this seemed like a step in the right direction, the government asked us before Christmas to study the agreement with the United Kingdom without letting us see the agreement itself. We heard from witnesses like the Minister of International Trade, but we could not read the agreement.

That was when we needed it. Can members imagine how ludicrous and absurd this was? The Standing Committee on International Trade had to study this agreement without having a copy of the text. I do not think members realize the absurdity of it all.

As parliamentarians, we must be kept informed at every step of the process, even before the negotiator steps on a plane or prepares for the virtual meeting. This would prevent parliamentarians from having to speak to an agreement without having the information needed to make a well-thought-out decision. The negotiations would be more transparent.

With regard to the provinces, members will recall that during the negotiations with Europe, which led to the ratification of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement in 2017, Quebec was able to send a representative when talks were held. However, Quebec was not invited to attend by Canada, but rather it was invited by Europe, as the European Union had to go through the parliaments of its member states and therefore requested that the Canadian provinces be present.

The Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement contains elements that the Quebec representative fought for. As a result, under the grandfather clause, the Société de transport de Montréal has a local content requirement of 25% in the procurement of rail cars, buses and so on.

That is a step backward from what we had before the agreement with Europe, but we can still say that we managed to salvage something in this new agreement with the United Kingdom. That did not happen because Canada fought for it, but because it was copied and pasted from CETA. That will be obvious when there is a permanent agreement, which is one more reason why the provinces and parliamentarians should come to an agreement before the negotiations in order to be able to give the negotiators clear mandates.

Quebec and the provinces can officially refuse to apply an agreement on their territory. We are taking a strong stand on extending Quebec's jurisdictions beyond its borders, something that the Privy Council in London acknowledged decades ago in a decision that led to the adoption of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, which is very important in Quebec.

In the end, independence is the only way we will be able to advocate for ourselves on the world stage. The Canadian negotiator will always be predisposed to protect Canada's interests at the expense of Quebec's. Until then, we have to do whatever we can to have our voice heard.

It is time for Parliament to look at procedures to give elected members more control over agreements. We have no choice. The minister responsible for ratifying an agreement should be required to table in Parliament an explanatory memorandum and provide a reasonable timeframe for obtaining the approval of parliamentarians before any ratification. This should be the bare minimum in the Parliament of a so-called democratic country. This should go without saying.

Let us also talk about what we might anticipate. I gave the example of awarding contracts and there has been much talk of buying local since the beginning of this pandemic. Fortunately, supply management currently remains protected, but we know that the United Kingdom would like to export more cheese. We dodged a bullet for now, but the permanent agreement could be worse and cause us problems in the future. I would say that is why we must adopt Bill C-216, which protects supply management and our agriculture model in its entirety. It would spare us from any new bad surprises. Our dairy, poultry and egg farmers have given enough. Enough is enough.

Another very important element, and this is one of the reasons we support the bill, is the infamous investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which will not apply for at least another two years. In fact, it may not come into effect in two years if there is no agreement within the EU.

Let us imagine a political fiction scenario. Imagine those two years have gone by and there is an agreement with the European countries, that kind of mechanism is in place, and there is no further discussion about a permanent agreement. The parties would have to use something such as an exchange of letters for it to apply. Furthermore, this cannot be part of any future agreement. Most fortunately, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement eliminated that possibility.

This is a very serious issue. Chapter 11 of the 1994 NAFTA included protection of foreign investors in a given state and enabled those investors, if expropriated, or the victims of what is known as the equivalent of an expropriation, to sue the state in an arbitration tribunal created for this purpose.

On paper, this seems to make sense. When a company invests money somewhere, it obviously does not want to fall victim to the policies of the local government. However, when we look at what it means in concrete terms, we realize that what is in there is extremely serious. There is a real risk of applying the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism to all rules or laws of an economic nature that could be detrimental to private profit. Could this open the door to the potential dismantling of national policies? It is certainly becoming increasingly difficult for governments to legislate on issues related to social justice, the environment, working conditions and public health, for example. If a given transnational corporation believes it has been hampered in its ability to make a profit, it will have recourse. My colleagues may be wondering exactly what that means. First of all, I would point out that trade litigation generally take a long time and is therefore extremely lucrative for law firms. A document from two non-governmental organizations has already demonstrated how eager large firms specializing in trade law are to engage in complex litigation.

Over the past few years, fewer multilateral agreements have been signed, but this does not change the fact that there are more than 3,000 bilateral investment protection treaties in the world. I will give one example and I will again be asked what this means in concrete terms. I will give a list of the trade actions against states resulting from these mechanisms. It is chilling.

In 1997, Canada decided to restrict the import and distribution of MMT, a fuel additive, which was believed to be toxic. Ethyl Corporation filed a suit against the Canadian government for an apology and $201 million.

In 1998, S.D. Myers Inc. filed a complaint against Canada concerning the ban on exporting waste containing PCBs between 1995 and 1997. PCBs are synthetic chemical products that are extremely toxic and used in electrical equipment. Canada lost before the tribunal established under NAFTA.

In 2004, under NAFTA, Cargill, a producer of carbonated soft drinks, won $90.7 million U.S. from Mexico, which was convicted of creating a tax on certain soft drinks that caused a serious obesity epidemic in the country.

In 2008, Dow AgroSciences filed a complaint after Quebec took steps to prohibit the sale and use of certain pesticides on lawns. The case was settled amicably once Quebec, which wanted to put an end to the challenge, agreed to acknowledge that the products posed no risk as long as users read the label.

There are many other examples. In 2009, the Pacific Rim Mining Corporation sued El Salvador for the loss of potential profits. El Salvador had refused to issue a permit for a gold mine because the company was not complying with national standards. El Salvador finally won the case in 2016. At least the government won, but the plaintiff only paid two-thirds of the defence's legal fees. El Salvador is obviously not rolling in money. The $4 million U.S. that this struggling country lost could have gone towards social programs.

In 2010, AbitibiBowater closed some of its facilities in Newfoundland and laid off hundreds of employees. The provincial government responded by taking over its hydroelectric assets. AbitibiBowater did not accept that and filed suit. To avoid a lengthy legal battle, Ottawa offered the company $130 million. There was an amicable agreement with a cheque on the way out.

In AbitibiBowater there is the name Abitibi. Abitibi is in Quebec, which unfortunately is still part of Canada. Considering that its headquarters are in Montreal, how is it a foreign investor?

This goes to show all the schemes that are at play. The company is registered in Delaware, a tax haven, in order to present itself as a foreign investor.

Let us look at other examples. In 2010, Tampa Electric got $25 million from Guatemala, which passed legislation to put a cap on electricity rates. The complaint, which dated to the previous year, was made under the Central America free trade agreement. In 2012, the Veolia group went after Egypt because of that country's decision to increase the minimum wage.

There are many other examples, but it would take a long time to list them all. The most recent case dates back to 2013, when Lone Pine Resources announced its intention to sue Ottawa because of Quebec's moratorium on drilling in the St. Lawrence.

It all goes to show that the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism allows democracy to be hijacked by powerful multinationals whose only goal is to make a profit.

As I was saying earlier, it is important to note that many companies were suing their own country, when there was a way to register or incorporate elsewhere. Fortunately, the transnational corporations did not always win these cases, but they continue to multiply. States must provide the financial and technical resources to defend themselves. This mechanism is one-sided. The government is always the defendant, while the multinational corporation is always the plaintiff.

According to a 2013 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 42% of the cases were decided in favour of the state and 31% in favour of the business. The rest were settled out of court. That means that the plaintiffs were able to fully or partially rebuff the states' political and democratic will in 60% of cases.

These numbers are enormous, but they do not reveal an unquantifiable factor: the permanent pressure of this mechanism on states. Public policy-makers are censoring themselves. Behind departmental doors, they are deciding not to apply such and such a policy because they do not want to be sued. This pressure and self-censorship is real. A 2014 report by the Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Union said this clearly served a a deterrent during policy decision-making.

I will give an example. In 2012, Australia imposed plain packaging for cigarette packs, banning the use of logos. The tobacco company Philip Morris International, which had also sued Uruguay in 2010 for its tobacco policies, sued the Australian government based on a treaty between Hong Kong and Australia. As that was going on, New Zealand decided to suspend the coming into force of its plain packaging policy, and the United Kingdom decided to postpone the debate that was supposed to begin on the matter. As we can see, there is an atmosphere of self-censorship. France waited three years before implementing this policy within its borders.

Multinational corporations are sometimes more powerful than governments, and if the will of the people, or even their safety, might affect profits, they are pushed aside. This is extremely serious. Especially in these pandemic times, we do not need this mechanism in future agreements. If it does not apply in the short term in the agreement with the United Kingdom, that is even better. We will do everything we can to ensure that it never applies. We demand that Canada oppose it in future negotiations with the United Kingdom for the permanent agreement.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I spoke a lot about values in my speech. My colleague spoke a lot about transparency.

I would like to know if he can give more examples about this government's lack of transparency, especially with regard to the pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, there are many examples. I gather from my colleague's question that we are not just talking about the issue of trade and free trade, but about things in general. We know that the government does not like committees that study its role. We saw this with several proposals where parliamentarians were to closely examine COVID-19 spending.

The government had to spend in the context of COVID-19, but we are retroactively entitled to have a very high standard of transparency, especially in light of certain matters such as the WE Charity or the respirator scandals, and when contracts or spending of that magnitude are involved. It is understood that the opposition has a duty to show good faith in a crisis. That also applies to the government, which must open its books.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his speech.

One of the things I find odd about this agreement is that representatives of the current government have repeatedly condemned investor-state dispute resolution provisions even though 20% of the agreement, which is only five or six pages long because it references the agreement with Europe, relates to keeping the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism option open.

In the member's view, why has so much time been spent on this resolution mechanism, which the government says it does not want in free trade agreements?

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

Madam Speaker, that is very hard to understand and justify, especially since this provision was removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, even though it had originally been in the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, with the United States and Mexico. It is hard to understand and explain how a government can want to censor itself so much or set back democracy and political sovereignty in favour giving for-profit companies the right to make money. That is very hard to understand.

At the Standing Committee on International Trade, my New Democrat colleague and I pressed the government in an attempt to understand. The minister is very good at avoiding our questions when she appears in committee. This has happened many times. As my colleague knows, when it came time for the clause-by-clause study of the bill, the NDP and I voted against the investor-state dispute settlement system. He can count on me to fight any such potential provisions in future agreements, including the agreement with the United Kingdom that will replace this temporary agreement.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the comments from my esteemed colleague, who expressed concerns about matters such as transparency and the future of national sovereignty. It should come as no surprise that I want to pick up on this, but he also expressed concerns about our supply-managed sectors and Great Britain's ambitions.

Could my colleague comment on the government's negligence, given that here we are, on March 9, discussing an agreement that has theoretically been in effect since the beginning of January? What does he think of possible future concessions or breaches in supply management? What solutions could be used to avoid all this?

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that my esteemed colleague is not disinterested in the issue. That said, I understand his total devotion to agriculture and supply management.

Agriculture is a jewel, and our model is based on food sovereignty and land use. We must protect and defend it. Farmers have heard enough empty promises.

I am very concerned about what comes next, not just a potential permanent agreement with the United Kingdom, but also the fact that the United Kingdom could join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, and then hold quotas. The same goes for the United States, which withdrew from the CPTPP and did not get its hands on the quota that had already been released. That could happen with both the United Kingdom and the United States. I am quite concerned about that.

Because we toured Quebec together virtually last week, my colleague obviously knows that we have to pass Bill C-216 and never touch our agricultural model again.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the investor-state dispute resolution chapter and gave a number of interesting examples of lawsuits where things went wrong. Any time that parties, corporations big or small, or countries are doing business with each other, there is the risk of commercial disagreement that could lead to litigation.

Therefore, we need a dispute resolution mechanism. If not this, then what? We could be sued in a foreign country's court system. At least here we have a recognized dispute resolution mechanism. What would be a better way to do it?

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

Madam Speaker, the mechanism in question was removed from our main agreement, the one we signed with the United States and Mexico that covers 80% of our exports.

No one has died so far. I understand that there needs to be a way to resolve disputes. However, it must not be limited to for-profit companies and the state. There should also be clauses to protect the public when their environmental and social rights are violated by the multinational investors.

As for a dispute between a corporation and a state, just look at the agreement with the United Kingdom. Our two countries are governed by the rule of law, and our highly developed legal systems are even quite similar in many respects. I think that we could just use the existing legal systems to handle any disputes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so happy to hear my colleague speak. One of the things he mentioned was supply management. Under CETA, dairy farmers lost quite a large percentage of their supply-managed sector in the market, but they were provided with compensation. Under CUSMA, the government has not provided compensation. I spoke to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario a few weeks ago and they are terrified about what will happen under this new U.K. trade agreement and the further chipping away at the supply-managed sector.

Could the member talk about why it is so important to not give away any more of that market share, and not just to promise compensation but to hold firm?

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

Madam Speaker, that is quite the question.

First, I believe that my colleague clearly showed us that the compensation process is quite long. We are in favour of compensation and will fight to defend it. There is no question about that.

The fact remains that this process takes a long time and does not fully make up for the breaches in every case. We have a system that works. If the breaches are offset by providing compensation, which does not last forever, only for a few years at most, the supply management system is transformed into a subsidized agriculture system, which is something else entirely. It is not true that the compensation just makes up for breaches in the system. Compensation transforms the system. This system makes it possible to buy local, which is a cherished value that results in jobs and quality products, generates local economic spinoffs and lets us stand in solidarity with our fellow citizens.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak to the question of how Canada trades with our counterparts in the United Kingdom. I think I would do well to begin by talking a bit about what we are not debating here. We are not debating whether it is a good idea to have a trade relationship with the United Kingdom; everybody is on board with that. Obviously there is a long-standing trade relationship with the United Kingdom going right back to the very origins of Canada.

The question is what the terms and conditions will be for our trade with the United Kingdom. I appreciate very much the extent to which some of the debate so far has focused on the question of the investor-state dispute settlement chapters in trade agreements, because these have been a long-standing irritant for many Canadians and which the NDP has been very proud to give voice to over the years.

The member who just spoke went through the list I know many MPs, including many New Democrats, have gone through in the past of all the ways in which Canada has been taken advantage of and lost money and opportunities to implement good public policy as a result of investor-state dispute settlement clauses. When we are talking about the terms of trade, just as any business would, we want to talk about at which the terms and conditions of trade make sense or when we are paying too high a cost for a particular kind of benefit.

The fact of the matter is that investor-state dispute clauses have had a chilling effect on good public policy, whether in respect to the environment, workers' rights or public health. When we consider the impact and what Canada has received in return, these clauses have have never been worth it and are not worth it now.

I have had the honour of sitting on the trade committee in this Parliament, and what we have heard in one breath from groups is that they are very keen to have Canada sign the next free trade agreement, but then they turn around and talk about all of the problems with the trade agreements and why they are not getting the market access they are so excited to get on paper but are not realizing, including the cattle industry under CETA, which is very frustrated not to get the market access it wants. Canadian manufacturers, despite being advocates of free trade, will tell us they are not able to take advantage of the opportunities that exist for them on paper through these deals. A recent report shows that Canada's trade deficit with Europe has grown considerably since CETA was signed.

These are all things that we eventually have to take a look at and ask if these deals are working rather than our just inhabiting the kind of ideologically blinded position of, frankly, the Liberals and Conservatives. There has been a consensus between those two parties and the mainstream media in Canada for a long time now that whatever is in a trade agreement is good.

I have had opportunities to ask business representatives at committee what empirical evidence, not just currently but in principle, could ever convince them that a free trade deal might not be in Canada's best interest, and on more than one occasion I have heard them say there is none. There is none, so as long as we call it a “free trade agreement”, as long as there is lipstick on that pig, they are going to think it is a good idea. It does not matter if it is a pig. As long as we put the right lipstick on it, they are going to go full bore, if the House will forgive the pun.

What New Democrats have been trying to make a case for over the years, which one would think we would hear from a prudent business person, is that the terms of trade matter. What do we have before us? We have a so-called trade continuity agreement, which is sometimes referred to as a “transitional trade agreement”, which of course is an untruth. I have made that case here before.

I just want to go back to kind of the slow train wreck that this process has been. I recall in the last Parliament that we were debating CETA, and of course at that time there was a pending referendum in Britain about whether it would remain a part of the European Union or leave it.

We thought, on the New Democratic benches, that this made a difference in whether CETA was a good deal or not. Given that 40% of Canada's trade with Europe was with the United Kingdom, we might think that whether the U.K. was in the deal or out of the deal would matter. We were told that New Democrats do not understand trade or business. Again there was that same theme that it did not matter what was in the deal. Apparently it did not even matter who was a party to the deal: As long as it was called a free trade deal, it must be a good thing. We did not even need to know what was in it. Who cares? We were just being told by business magnates that this was a good idea, so sign us up. Where do we sign? It was ridiculous.

Nobody was pretending to predict the outcome of the Brexit referendum. We were just saying that it mattered how the referendum would go and that maybe using time allocation to force the ratification of CETA before we knew whether the United Kingdom was in or out did not make sense. We were told no, we have to ratify it right away. All of that was signed, sealed and delivered before we knew the outcome of the referendum, and then, of course, the referendum did not go the way may people hoped. It went the way many other people hoped, and the whole Brexit saga kicked off.

The disadvantaged position that Canada found itself in was in having already signed up for a deal, and not long afterward, the fundamental terms of that deal were already changing. It was clear for all to see, before Canada ratified that deal, that there was a very real possibility that we would find ourselves in the position that we ultimately did.

What happened next? Not much. A couple of years ago, there were some initial conversations around trying to get to a deal. There was a lot of fanfare about how excited the Liberal government was to be one of the first to sign a deal with the U.K. It did not end up being one of the first to sign a deal with the U.K., of course, because it walked away from negotiations for over a year. Then it was all this eleventh-hour stuff that we have seen from the government on many other files.

The government finally decided to come back late last summer to the negotiating table. What we got was a carbon copy of an agreement, and it was quite misleading. All along what we were being told was that the opportunity for a substantial agreement had passed. The opportunity had passed to try to have a model agreement for progressive trade, not just one to hand over the keys to public policy-making to multinational corporations. The opportunity to have a trade agreement with terms and conditions modelled on the needs of everyday people and workers, rather than just multinationals, had passed.

We ragged the puck until that opportunity passed us by, but we were told not to worry, because we would just have a transitional deal. I think any reasonable person would have thought it was a temporary deal, a stopgap measure or something that carried on the status quo for a certain period of time so that eventually we could get back to the table. We would then know that we were going to have either something new and different and hopefully better, nothing at all, or maybe an agreement to extend things.

This agreement turns up, and no meaningful consultation happened at all. We know that this is true because we have asked people at committee if they were consulted about this deal, and they told us they were not, some very clearly and loudly, others somewhat sheepishly, but nobody has claimed that they were well consulted when it came to this agreement.

The government, quite disingenuously, has tried to pretend that the consultations for CETA were somehow adequate for this agreement. The CETA consultations were for a deal that was going to include 26, 27 or 28 different member states; this is nothing like a bilateral deal with the United Kingdom. In a bilateral deal with the United Kingdom, there are clearly a very different set of considerations. The possibilities, risks and rewards are different from what there are in a deal with the entirety of Europe. That is a point that the Liberals did not appreciate in the last Parliament with the pending Brexit referendum. The same mistake occurred again when they said that the consultations for CETA were essentially good enough for a deal with the United Kingdom. It is that same blindness that we see.

However, that notwithstanding, the Liberals do not recognize that much of that consultation on CETA also happened—in fact, the entirety of it happened—when the U.K. was part of Europe, so even the nature of CETA has changed considerably. Therefore, to tell anyone that the CETA consultations—when companies and others were giving their feedback on a trade agreement with a Europe that included the United Kingdom versus a Europe that did not—were also adequate for a bilateral deal with the United Kingdom is just false.

We find ourselves now with a last-minute deal to perpetuate the terms of an agreement that I do not think were very good in the first place, frankly. The agreement was trumped up on a supposedly temporary basis, and lo and behold, when it is announced, no, it is a permanent agreement. When this agreement goes through, this is it. These are the terms and conditions of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom unless a new agreement is started. These terms do not expire at any time.

We tried at committee to at least amend the enabling legislation so that something would have a hard deadline, but that did not go through. The government was very much opposed to that. We now find ourselves in a deal that was made for an entity that does not exist anymore, a European Union that included the United Kingdom. It is dictating the terms of trade with two important trading parties: what is left of the European Union and the United Kingdom. We have a deal that was never conceived for either of these trade arrangements that is going to dictate the terms of trade with both. It does not seem to me to make a lot of sense. I am not a business guy, but it does not seem to make a lot of sense to me.

It seems to me that Canadians ought to have had the opportunity to have a conversation about this agreement and to have been consulted about it, except they were not. The government went ahead and signed this permanent deal, and as far as I am concerned, it had zero mandate to do so, because as the Liberals talked about it in the lead-up, it was to build a mandate for a temporary agreement, not a permanent one. However, when they finally had the reveal, it was a permanent agreement. They were saying not to worry about the fact that they had pissed away all that time that could have been used to consult, that could have been used to negotiate a deal that was actually made to fit the entity that we are trading with, like a real bilateral trade deal and not a carbon copy of a multilateral deal. They said, “Do not worry about it. There are three reasons we are going to get a new deal, and you do not have anything to worry about, Mr. Blaikie, thank you very much.” Okay, what are they?

There are some issues around rules of origin for certain products that recognize the European supply chain in order to facilitate getting U.K. goods into Canada. Fair enough. That is one reason the U.K. might decide that it wants to come to the table, but I do not know that it is enough on its own. I do not know that anybody does, frankly.

The other reason, which I would get a kick out of if it were not such a serious issue, is that the Liberals say that the way the United Kingdom cheese producers are able to trade cheese into Canada is under some World Trade Organization TRQs right now, and those are going to expire, so the United Kingdom is going to want to come to the table. For what? Is it to get access to the Canadian cheese market that it does not currently have?

Government members have sworn up and down many times at committee, in this very House and anywhere anyone will listen to them that they are not going to sell out dairy farmers even one more time and that dairy farmers should not worry, because there is no Canadian market share on the table. Well, then, why would the U.K. come back to the bargaining table to get a different deal if the reason it is supposed to be coming back is to get market access for cheese?

It is one or the other. Either it is a leverage point to get the U.K. back to the table, which very clearly implies that there will be concessions on dairy, or it is not a reason for the U.K. to come back to the table. Which is it? We do not know. I have asked the question, but I have not had an answer. It would be nice to have that before we vote, but I will not hold my breath.

The final reason is that there is a good faith commitment in the agreement. It is not legally binding. It does not say a new agreement has to be signed, it just says it is going to commit. That is great. That is very nice. That is how things start and that may well turn out to be a success. I cannot say that, but what I can say is that there may well be another government in Canada before then, preferably a social democratic one. We are working to make that happen and I would like to see it happen. Maybe it will, maybe it will not. There may well be a new government in the United Kingdom. It may be that the two governments, even if they are the same governments, sit down and start talking about what a bilateral deal would look like. Just one of the parties, because this is a permanent agreement, has to decide that it cannot get a better deal.

Maybe this deal is not perfect for either side, but the sides just have to feel that they cannot get a better deal and throw in the towel. We all know that trade relationships and considerations can change on a dime. We just lived that over four years with the Trump administration in the United States. There is nothing to say that something like that, or even a far less extreme case of that, might come to pass between Canada and the United Kingdom going forward, such that one or the other party decides that it is not content with the terms of trade.

Look at what CETA has been producing for Europe. Canada's trade deficit has doubled under that agreement. If things are going that well for the U.K. under this agreement, it may decide that it is good enough, thanks very much. We have all heard that in order for the U.K. to accede to the trans-Pacific partnership, it needed to have a permanent trade agreement with at least one of the parties. This does that. It was not supposed to do that. We have been told from time to time that the U.K. will be incentivized to make a new agreement with Canada because it needs to have an agreement with at least one other country in order to get into the TPP, but this does that. There is no clause in this agreement that says it does not count for the purposes of a permanent trade agreement that could get the U.K. into the TPP.

The fact that this ended up being a permanent trade agreement, as opposed to a temporary stopgap measure, does not mean a short timeline. It does not mean inherent and cyclical uncertainty for Canadian or U.K. business. It could have been a three-year timeline. It could have been a five-year timeline. It could have been whatever timeline was chosen for those two governments to get together, hash it out and feel pressured to get a deal. Instead, the option taken was to absolve future governments of that pressure and hope for the best. I just do not think that is good enough, particularly when, if we look at the trade continuity agreement itself, the infrastructure for CETA is already there.

The agreement itself is very short. It is about five pages. Fully 20% of that agreement is about how to have a mechanism to keep the investor-state dispute settlement clauses of CETA alive. A lot of Canadians are concerned about those provisions, and they have a right to be. Canada has been the biggest loser on the international stage when it comes to having to pay out to multinationals for trying to make good public policy. What a farce it is that governments should have to back down from good public policy, apologize to some multinational company and then pay them damages. What a farce.

We know it is, because the Deputy Prime Minister has stood in the House, in Parliament, and said as much: that she is really proud that there are no longer any ISDS provisions in CUSMA. Why was fully 20% of this TCA dedicated to keeping ISDS clauses alive and who was asking for them? We do not hear from Britain that they are part of its global trade agenda, or that they are a priority to negotiate it into the deals that it is doing around the world, so who is asking for them? Why is it that the Liberal government swears up and down it is proud that ISDS clauses are out of NAFTA or CUSMA, whatever we want to call it now, and why has so much effort been expended to keep ISDS clauses alive in this agreement that was never envisioned for a bilateral trade relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for this member. We sit on the PROC committee together. I think we get along great.

One of the issues that it is difficult for NDP and Liberal members to see eye to eye on is trade. It would appear as though the NDP members are against all trade, even though they say they are in favour of it, if it is a good agreement. However, in order for it to be a good agreement for the NDP members, they have to get absolutely everything they want. That is just not how a deal is made. A deal is based on compromise and negotiation, understanding that parties have to give a little sometimes in order to get something on the other end.

My question to the member would be as follows. This agreement is literally just to keep us going. It is to continue on. It says in the name of it that it is a continuation agreement to continue going with the agreement had from the former set-up when the U.K. was part of the European Union.

Why would the NDP, at the very least, not just support this continuity agreement in order to then have a discussion about what is to be expected in a new agreement?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few things to say to that.

One is that I would remind the hon. member of an instance earlier in this Parliament when we voted in favour of CUSMA in exactly that spirit, a spirit of trade-offs. Getting rid of the investor-state dispute settlement clause in NAFTA was important to us, as was getting rid of the energy proportionality clause, negotiated originally by Conservatives and later signed by the Liberals. We hear a lot about energy sovereignty in the House, but the fact is that Conservatives and Liberals sold out Canadian energy sovereignty under NAFTA for 30 years when they signed that deal.

Those were things that were important to us. It is not because we liked everything in CUSMA. If the member would like to have a conversation about the deficiencies of the agreement, I am happy to do that. We recognize that there have to be trade-offs.

The question is, on ISDS for instance, the member speaks about trade-offs, but who was asking for it? The British government was not asking for ISDS. Canada says it does not want it anymore, purportedly. Who is asking? Who are we negotiating with?

Are we negotiating with the other country, or are they just going, cap in hand, to multinationals and asking, “What is it you want in this agreement, and how do we please you?” That is a very different kind of negotiation.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention. We sit on the trade committee together. We are able to question witnesses there, and that is what I wanted to ask the member about.

When we were having witnesses come and present on this initially, I think all of us who were not in government were quite surprised to hear about the lack of consultations with stakeholders. We heard from a number of organizations and labour groups that there was not a rigorous consultation. Government officials were there to answer questions, but that was about the extent of it.

Can the member maybe speak to that, on his experience of hearing from stakeholders at committee?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it really was a surprise, particularly given that this is a permanent trade agreement with the United Kingdom, that there was not more consultation.

I was only somewhat joking in my earlier remarks. We heard pretty widely, sometimes somewhat reluctantly from folks who I think were trying to protect their relationship with the government, that there was no real consultation. Some were pretty clear about it. Nobody was clear that they had really been consulted and felt really good about it.

I respect that organizations want to try to maintain good relations with the government of day, but I think it came across pretty clearly that there really was not a lot of communication.

The member may remember that when the deal came out in late November or early December, we were studying not the deal itself, because it was not public, but the issue of Canada-U.K. trade relations. We had witnesses the next day at committee when we all kind of found out that there was no sunset clause on the agreement.

I remember a lot of those witnesses being quite baffled and frankly unsure of what to say. I think the way that this was talked about in the lead-up was very much as a temporary transitional agreement, and suddenly it was a trade continuity agreement, which meant it was going to be permanent. That is a big difference. It is a difference that makes a difference. It is an outrage that Canada is getting a permanent trade agreement without a better process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the question that he asked me earlier.

Why does Canada keep leaving the door open for multinationals to take governments to court? Why do public decision-makers always want to reduce the scope of their decision-making?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tough question to answer, particularly if we take the government at its word.

One worry is that there may be a sincerity issue here. I raised that issue on the point about cheese. The Liberals say it is going to be a leverage point to get the U.K. back at the table, yet they are not going to make any concessions on that. They are swearing up and down that they do not like investor-state dispute settlement clauses and that they are glad to see them gone, yet they somehow keep popping up in Canada's agreements. Somebody has to be advocating for these things, so who is it?

Whose interests is the government really representing and fighting for at the international bargaining table? If we look at the evidence, one has to draw the conclusion that Liberal and Conservative governments for the last 30 years have been there to represent the interests of multinational corporations far more than the interests of everyday working Canadians.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always love hearing my hon. colleague speak. He does it so well, and he is so concise about all the different issues. I really appreciate that.

One of the things that he so brilliantly talked about was, again, the corporate agenda, and the defence of Liberal after Conservative after Liberal after Conservative governments negotiating trade agreements that are not good for workers, women, dairy farmers, or so many people.

We obviously know that these past governments defend their friends against reform on taxables, wealth taxes, and ISDS and ICS provisions within trade agreements.

Can the member talk about what the NDP vision is for trade and what we would do differently? Even though past governments have all these condescending beliefs that we do not know what trade is, could he talk about some of the ideals we want to bring into a better trade agreement?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that topic is a speech in and of itself, but, first and foremost, it is about democracy and the protection of democracy. One of the things that is important to name and combat is this pretense that somehow free markets go hand in hand with democracy. It is something that Liberals and Conservatives in this House do and have been doing for a long time. It has been done on the world stage by neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in other countries as well.

Often what ends up happening in free-market scenarios is that we get a serious accumulation of private power that subverts the power of democratically elected governments to make decisions in the public interest. Where there are some really free-market situations in the world outside of Canada, places where there is less regulation, we do not see a lot of freedom. Instead, we see a lot of exploitation.

If markets are going to work, they have to be regulated in an appropriate sense. Far too often, what these kinds of trade agreements have done is deregulate, and try to consolidate that deregulation by keeping democratically elected governments from imposing any kind of future regulation. Sometimes it gets in the way of regulating new types of things, and we are seeing that with the Internet. There are some pretty draconian provisions in CUSMA—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We can have time for one more question.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really well versed in these trade issues. I agree with him on so many points, in particular the need for a sunset clause.

I looked at a lot of the transcripts, but I was there for one of the witnesses from the manufacturing sector who said that Canada's manufacturing base has been hollowed out. We are not getting the exports into the EU, but we are exporting a lot of raw resources. That is one of the things we did not like about CETA.

What are some of the things that the hon. member does not like about the CETA that he does not want to see carry on with this agreement?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say quickly that one would be ISDS, which we have talked a fair bit about so far.

There were also a number of intellectual property provisions in CETA that are putting upward pressure on the cost of drugs, when Canadians already pay among the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world, so it does not make sense to be pursuing that. There is more to say about the WTO and TRIPS, vaccines and all that, but that is certainly part of it.

There are also some of the restrictions on the ability of local governments to make sure that the money they are investing actually goes to companies in their communities, so that that money stays and is part and parcel of building up local communities. America is doing that, despite our trade relationship. We are upset about that. We want access for our Canadian companies, but we are giving that away without reciprocity from our trading partners, and it does not make sense.

Canadian companies are not making tonnes of money on infrastructure projects in Europe, but European giants are here. In some cases they are sending their work forces here to take the work of Canadian trades people, for example, who could be doing that work. We need to consider these things when we are signing the agreement.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House tonight to talk about the benefits of Bill C-18, an act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the U.K.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is probably the first time I have ever split with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and I daresay it will likely be the last time. I am here in two capacities: as the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, but also as a chair of the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association. I am interested in all matters pertaining to Canada and the U.K.

All companies stand to benefit from the predictability and stability that this agreement would provide. The U.K. is one of Canada's most important trading partners. The U.K. is Canada's largest market in Europe. It is a key source of foreign direct investment and of science and technology partnerships. Two-way partnerships between Canada and the U.K. amounted to $29 billion in 2019, making it Canada's fifth-largest trading partner after the U.S., China, Mexico and Japan.

The trade continuity agreement before the House today would ensure that Canada could sustain and build upon those relationships by preserving the main benefits of CETA, the trade agreement that Canada had entered in place with the European Union in 2017, the benefits of which are just rolling out.

Replication of the CETA benefits would mean that 98% of products would continue to enter the U.K. duty-free. These include key exports from Quebec and Ontario such as manufactured goods, metals and mineral products. As of January 1, 2024, we are hoping that will increase to 99% of goods receiving duty-free treatment. The Canada-U.K. TCA would also preserve preferential access, established under CETA, for agriculture and agri-foods to the U.K. market, further strengthening the bilateral Canada-U.K. trade relationship. At the same time, this agreement would fully protect the dairy, poultry and egg sectors and would provide no new incremental market access for cheese or any other supply-managed products.

The U.K. is Canada's second-largest services trade partner, behind only the United States, with services exports totalling nearly $7.1 billion last year. Under the Canada-U.K. TCA, just as in CETA, service suppliers would have preferential access to, and greater transparency in, the U.K. services market, which would result in better and more secure and predictable market access for things such as environmental services.

In terms of investment, the U.K. is Canada's fourth-largest foreign direct investor, valued at $62.3 billion in 2017. Canadians are also key investors in the U.K., to the tune of $107 billion, making the U.K. Canada's second-largest direct investment destination. As in CETA, the Canada-U.K. TCA before us today would guarantee access to investors to and from Canada with greater certainty, transparency and protection for their investments, while preserving the rights of those governments to legislate and regulate in the public interest. Just as in CETA, the Canada-U.K. TCA would create more favourable conditions for exporters from Canada and Quebec through important commitments to address non-tariff barriers and establish mechanisms under which Canada and the U.K. could co-operate to address and seek to resolve non-tariff barriers as they may.

While I believe that the House will support this bill, but not necessarily unanimously, I wanted to bring to attention one element of the negotiations that could be either a unifying point or a sticking point.

Most Canadians will not knowingly purchase goods produced by slaves. Britain has been a world leader when it comes to legislative response to supply chain slavery. In the U.K., all major companies are expected to publish a statement on their websites saying they have examined their various supply chains and are satisfied that no element of slavery exists anywhere in their supply chains. This has proved to be a popular initiative with both the public and legislators. It is likely to undergo some revisions shortly to strengthen the resolve and impose more significant consequences. Inevitably, this will be a point of some negotiation, maybe not in this agreement, but in subsequent negotiations. Britain will likely ask for a commitment to parallel legislation so the U.K. is not put at any trading disadvantage. It would be preferable, therefore, that Canada have similar legislation so there is no discrepancy between the two countries.

Currently languishing in the Senate is Bill S-216, formerly my bill, Bill C-423. It is stronger than the current British legislation and would be a complete answer for any issue raised by the U.K. I have had some very positive conversations with the very able and distinguished British High Commissioner, Susan le Jeune d'Allegeershecque. Regrettably, she is leaving this year. She has represented her country brilliantly these last three years. She expressed great interest in Bill S-216 and was quite willing to support the bill in whatever way possible.

Canada imports more than $34 billion worth of goods annually that are tainted by slavery. This includes everything from garments to shrimp, tomatoes and possibly even some high-tech items. It is a competitive disadvantage if one country is governed by strict legislation and another is not. Just as Canadian companies and workers cannot compete with slave labour, also one country cannot disadvantage itself in a trade agreement by allowing the scourge of slavery in the other. I would therefore urge the Government of Canada to adopt this legislation sooner rather than later so that any trade irritant can be reduced and Canada and Britain can form a common trade barrier to slave labour.

The agreement also carries forward from CETA trade facilitation measures designed to reduce red tape at the border, including some of the costs prohibiting companies from doing business.

Diversifying trade has the potential to increase Canadian wealth. SMEs are looking to us to provide market opportunities for their exports. By ensuring there are accessible opportunities abroad, and by maintaining attractive conditions within these markets for SMEs, we are supporting their prosperity and the creation of new jobs in Canada. The Canada-U.K. TCA furthers the same.

As we look to turn the corner from COVID-19, and Lord knows we cannot turn that corner quickly enough, it is even more important that we continue to provide Canadian businesses with as many options and opportunities as possible. The Canada-U.K. TCA maintains crucial ties and preferential trade terms with one of Canada's key trading partners and ensures Canadian businesses do not face yet another disruption at this time. Indeed, if this agreement were not in place this would be yet another setback that businesses could ill afford.

Successful trade provides good employment opportunities. With one in six Canadian jobs linked directly to exports, we remain committed to growing trade and providing opportunities for all Canadian SMEs. That is why I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-18. Their support will help SMEs continue to succeed in the U.K. market.

I look forward to questions from colleagues.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his enlightening speech on Bill C-18, the Canada-U.K. trade agreement. Could he comment on the inherent advantages of Canada entering into a trade agreement with a country with whom we share common law, common parliamentary tradition and common contract-negotiating strategies?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. He is a very able and helpful member of the public safety committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to work with him.

My view is that this should be the easiest trade agreement in the world to negotiate. We share a common language, a common set of laws, a common heritage, a common understanding of the world and we are both part of the Five Eyes, so this is a natural for us. This should be a relatively easy sign-off for our trade officials. I would hope they delve into some of the more problematic issues regarding social issues. If they did, I think it could end up being a model trade agreement for the rest of the world.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the transparency of the negotiations.

He has extolled the virtues of the agreement and free trade, but he surely heard the same comments I did from people who had to work in committee without being able to see the text of the agreement. I would think someone in the government would at the very least feel somewhat uncomfortable, if not embarrassed, working on a bill without seeing the agreement. What does he think about that?

I would also like to hear his thoughts on the government's negligence. It is March, but the agreement was supposed to come into force as of January.

Lastly, I would like to know whether he personally thinks that we should improve the mechanism for consulting and involving elected members in all stages of the negotiation of trade agreements. Why not also ask the provinces and Quebec for feedback on matters involving selling goods on the international market?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what precipitated this agreement was the Brexit deal, which only took effect in January. To be talking about a continuing trade agreement in March and actually moving legislation forward is lightning speed in trade terminology. As for the contents of the text, the hon. member simply needs to read the CETA and he will have 99.9% of the text because this is, in fact, a continuing agreement.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech but also for his important work with the parliamentary association for Canada-U.K. He talked about irritants with this trade deal. He heard earlier from my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith about the 136,000 recipients of the U.K. state pension who live here in Canada, many of them in my riding. Their pensions' annual indexes have been frozen since they arrived, unlike those of U.K. pensioners living in countries such as the U.S., Germany, Italy and Barbados.

Pensions are deferred wages. This is theft as far as I am concerned, and it is a significant irritant. Many of these folks are veterans who served Britain. They have been school teachers, nurses and doctors. I am wondering if the member agrees that this should be discussed when we are talking about trade deals, and it certainly is his important role in leading our group. Again, I want to thank him for his service.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because it is an important issue and it is an irritant. I would not describe it as a trade irritant, but it certainly is an irritant. There are literally tens of thousands of people who should be entitled to a full pension as opposed to the frozen pensions that they receive.

I encourage the hon. member to be active in the Canada-U.K. parliamentary group because this is something that is regularly raised with our British colleagues. At this point, it cannot be said that our British colleagues or the British government are prepared to engage, and it is pretty hard to do any kind of negotiations or make any kind of progress without a dance partner. We do not have a dance partner, but I agree entirely with the hon. member's observation that this is grossly unfair to British pensioners.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join tonight's debate. I understand that my friend from Scarborough, in splitting his time with me, anticipated that it would be the last time ever that he would do that. If he does eventually follow his heart into the Conservative caucus, I would be happy to split my time with him many times in the future. That is saying something, given how little I like sharing the limited time I have in this place.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a point of order all by itself.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my support for virtual heckling is well known because it allows these kinds of substantive exchanges.

I also want to recognize the excellent work of our shadow minister from Kelowna on the bill. I had the opportunity of door knocking with her a little during her campaign and was amazed by the three and four-storey driveway we had to walk up and down in certain parts of Kelowna. That is quite a feat to get here. She has had to tread much greater heights than many of us in the flatter parts of the country, and she is doing great work leading our response on the trade file.

We see the government's approach to trade unfortunately characterized by delay and challenged by its inability to manage and prioritize its legislative calendar. We have been pushing in the House, specifically around a timeline coming up at the end of March where it was critical for the government to move things forward. We are having this debate tonight because it was the leadership of our Conservative caucus pushing forward on the need to prioritize this legislation in light of that timeline.

The government is very clearly trying to position itself for a spring election that it seems to want, but nobody else in the country seems to want. Therefore, it is calling these different bills for short periods of time, at a time, without any sort of focus on specific legislative items, especially ones that clearly are a priority.

In the interests of addressing a real need for Canadians, the Conservatives proposed that we have this debate tonight, at a time when we do not normally have debates, to try to move these things forward. Unlike the Liberals, frankly, whose approach to the legislative calendar seems entirely informed by politics, the Conservatives were thinking about the public interest in the process of really the urgency of moving things forward before the end of March.

As one British politician observed, “even the turkeys won't be able to prevent Christmas.” The timeline was coming and that is why, thanks to the leadership of our shadow minister as well as our House leadership team, we are moving this legislation forward. It follows naturally from our party's deep commitment to the importance of our ties with the U.K., of our ties with other CANZUK partners and recognizing the importance of Canada's position as a global trading nation.

Our leader has from the beginning championed the benefits of strengthening our ties with like-minded CANZUK countries, our relationship with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, four out of five of our Five Eyes partners we collaborate with on security. We have expanded our trading relationships through the TPP, for example, which was negotiated under the Conservatives and gave us trading access with Pacific Rim nations.

There is more work we can do to further expand and strengthen our trade ties. I am very proud of the record of our previous—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We seem to have lost the connection. I will pause momentarily to see if we can regain that connection. Following that, we will decide on the next steps.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is back online. We were at the five minute and 20 second mark, so he can pick it up from where he left off.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am on an irregular device, unfortunately. I am using my phone because my computer crashed. As long as members can hear me and the interpretation is functioning, then I will proceed.

I was speaking to the importance of the trade ties that had been pursued by the previous Conservative government. We dramatically expanded those trade ties. It will be continually important for us to make the case for a robust international trade system even in light of the new challenges that we face.

One of the major challenges we face in the world today is how to respond to human rights abuses linked to unfair trade practices in certain countries, the use of slave labour and how we respond to that in certain countries in a way that is consistent with our values and does not allow our workers to be put in a vulnerable position in addition to that. That is why we should be focused on free trade with like-minded free nations like the U.K., with whom we know there are shared standards in terms of labour commitments, human rights commitments, environmental commitments and so on, that our trade is mutually beneficial, reflective of shared values and that we will not be undercut or undermined through human rights abuses or abuses of intellectual property.

One of the frustrations I have with the government with respect to its lack of focus is that it has not seen or prioritized these opportunities associated with free trade with free nations. In fact, the Prime Minister seemed reluctant about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement initially when he came to office. In fact, he missed key meetings. At the same time, he was talking about wanting to have free trade with the People's Republic of China, with all the problems associated with that. Frankly speaking, we saw just how far down the government's list were the obvious advantages of the Canada-U.K. free trade opportunity. This is really the missed opportunity by the government failing to prioritize this issue. It has taken constant pressure on the government, pushing it to recognize these benefits and to prioritize this issue, to get us even to this point.

I would encourage the government, seeing the opportunities that exist, to look for ways to go further and expand trade co-operation with like-minded nations. There are many other opportunities among our Commonwealth partners throughout the world where we can look to expand trade ties in a way that is beneficial to Canada and Canadians as well as other countries.

I suggest that Canada should do more to look at the opportunities for economic partnerships with countries in Africa. Africa is a continent where dramatic economic growth has taken place in recent years. There is major demographic growth. Too many people do not yet perceive Africa as a continent of economic opportunity and a mutually beneficial partnership. There are many countries with whom we share history and languages and can collaborate with on the next step in our trading infrastructure. As we do that, we should have a focus on building a trade system that reflects our values and a commitment to the rule of law. When we see the Government of China expanding neo-colonial projects in Africa, it underlines the importance of us being engaged there, along with our partners, looking for ways to expand our trade ties and really recognizing the economic potential that flows from those partnerships.

To summarize, the Conservatives are supportive of this trade agreement moving forward with Canada and the U.K. It is frustrating to see the government behind on putting these things forward and not prioritizing important legislation like this. However, the Conservatives have always been prepared to lead, whether it is from government or from opposition, on issues of trade. We were pleased to put forward the motion to have this debate tonight to move this legislation forward. It reflects our desire and our commitment to work constructively in this Parliament when there are areas of legislation and priority that overlap between different parties. We are keen to seize those opportunities in the public interest, obviously not agreeing with all aspects of the government's legislation but seeking to lead and push forward in priority areas like this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for adjusting on the fly so quickly. I think we only lost about a minute, because of his quick reaction and adjustment to get back to debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult times I spent was on the door step of a women who was a senior. She was unable to afford her medicine. She was making a decision on whether to buy food or fill her prescription. No one should have to deal with this in Canada. We know that over 30% of single women over 65 are living in poverty.

Is my colleague concerned that this agreement, like CETA before, might put upward pressure on the price of pharmaceutical drugs for Canadians? Is he concerned about that? What can he propose to ensure that this woman and others do not have to make those difficult decisions?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to ensure that people are not in the vulnerable position that the member described. There are different kinds of steps that can be taken to address the situation of somebody who is struggling to pay for for his or her prescription drug needs. I know the NDP has some proposals along those lines. We have put forward some proposals that try to work collaboratively across jurisdictions, identify where those gaps are and work to fill those gaps. That is a large and important debate and one we are prepared to have.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have talked in the past about sanctions, particularly against China, Magnitsky sanctions, trade sanctions and things such as that. I put forward in my speech an opportunity to join with Great Britain with respect to supply chain slavery legislation. I would be interested in my hon. colleague's thoughts on the utility of supply chains slavery legislation, particularly in the context of a trade agreement with Great Britain which already has similar legislation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is seen as a laggard when it comes to addressing supply chain slavery. We need to do so much more on that front. I am very supportive of a legislative proposal that is in the other place that would start moving us in a stronger way toward achieving those objectives. I do not think, in particular, that the measures the government has proposed with respect to East Turkestan are at all adequate, but steps need to be taken for countries throughout the world.

I will point out that the benefit of collaboration with other countries, the U.K. and the U.S., in response to supply chain slavery can be assistance in monitoring, in reporting and in enforcement. These issues can be difficult to track with respect to identifying the precise risk of slave labour being part of the production of a product in a particular case. If we did a better job of working with our partners, we could find this data and have more effective enforcement as we seek to protect vulnerable people around the world.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not echo my colleague's invitation to the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to cross over and come to the bright side. I do appreciate his welcoming comments to me when I joined the House just over a year ago.

My hon. colleague mentioned trade with Africa. Could he expand on some of the benefits and dual purposes of an expansion in that area? I know that all three of us share a heart for others around the world, so I wonder if he could expand on that, as it is similar to our long-standing relationship with Great Britain.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague did extensive work on international development with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank prior to coming to the House, and I think he would understand very well that our relationship with developing countries should include both development assistance and trade, recognizing the economic opportunities that come from those kinds of partnerships.

I spoke with an ambassador recently who made the point to me that developing countries need investment. They need trade and development assistance as well, and it is private sector growth through trade that can help build long-term economic growth for those countries as well as for Canada. We need to start trying to do both in the case of developing countries, whether it is in Africa or elsewhere. Certainly, there is explosive economic growth happening in parts of Africa, and there are some real opportunities for Canada and for mutually beneficial partnerships.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

It is a pleasure to rise today at third reading on Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the CUKTCA. I want to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House for unanimously agreeing to debate Bill C-18 tonight and to help move it through Parliament.

The United Kingdom is our fifth-largest trading partner and our third-largest export market, and we need to ensure that our exporters and importers, and all businesses and workers who rely on trade with the United Kingdom, have certainty. I want to take time in the first part of my speech to lay out some of the timelines and talk about the reason we are here now, in March 2021, debating the Canada-U.K. trade agreement, which should have been completed and in place months ago.

With the United Kingdom set to leave the European Union, we knew that our trade agreement with the EU, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, would not be applicable to trade with the U.K. once this happened on January 1, 2021. Throughout the last year, on many occasions the Conservatives asked questions of the government on the status of trade negotiations with the United Kingdom and whether we were going to see it meet its timelines and have a new agreement in place by the end of 2020. We did not receive many answers, and when we did they were quite vague or had little detail.

It also did not help the Liberals shut down Parliament and several committees, like the international trade committee, during the spring and summer of 2020. The international trade committee met only once between April and September of last year. This was at a time when it could have been doing important work, just like the committee that I was previously sitting on, the industry committee, which met virtually twice a week on critical issues. When the international trade committee finally resumed last fall, the Conservatives brought forth a motion to begin a prestudy on a potential trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, and to hear from stakeholders who would have been affected by this agreement or lack of one, as well as study what impacts could arise if an agreement was not in place.

While this study was occurring, we found out that the Liberals had walked away from trade negotiations with the U.K. in March 2019, only to return to the table in the summer of 2020. Other countries were negotiating and striking deals during this time. Finally, at the end of November 2020, after years of working on the agreement, just as one month before the CETA's application to the EU was set to expire, the government announced that it finally reached a trade agreement with the U.K., the CUKTCA, which was simply a rollover of the previous CETA. Four years of on and off talks led to a rollover.

The Liberals did not take our trading relationship with the U.K. seriously and mismanaged the process. I have heard and met from many organizations, workers and businesses about the trading relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. They were hoping that a new trade agreement would be Canada 1, not CETA 2. They were looking forward to addressing emerging issues, whether it was non-tariff barriers preventing goods from being exported to the U.K. or seeing measures to target trade imbalances between our two nations. Some were looking for new provisions, such as better measures to connect small businesses to trading opportunities, or a chance to address long-standing issues, such as inequalities of frozen pensions. None of this was done.

While the Prime Minister in the fall of 2020 publicly and patronizingly stated that the United Kingdom did not have the “bandwidth” to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada, the U.K. government was working to negotiate with other countries and secure comprehensive trade agreements. Trade ministers in the U.K. denied these claims from the Prime Minister. Such comments about the U.K., one of our longest-standing allies, surely was not helpful.

Furthermore, we heard from many stakeholders in business and labour that the government did not consult with them. I heard Liberal MPs say that they did not need to consult widely, as the consultations were already done during CETA. However, those consultations were years old by the time it finally came to negotiate this agreement, with newer and emerging issues that really needed to be looked at.

Finally, on December 9, 2020, just two sitting days before the House of Commons rose for the year and just weeks before CETA's application to the U.K. was set to expire, the government introduced its enacting legislation for the CUKTCA, Bill C-18. The government literally waited until the final week of the final month of the final year to introduce enacting legislation on a bill to continue trade with one of our most important allies.

To no one's surprise, the government did not get Bill C-18 through Parliament before the end of 2020 and before CETA expired. This was even though the Conservatives had been pressing for months so that we would not have uncertainty for Canadian businesses.

Because the government mismanaged the timelines of the Canada-U.K. trade deal by not getting legislation through Parliament and the Senate by the end of 2020, it had to announce bridging measures through a memorandum of understanding, or an MOU, in the last week of December as a stopgap measure to give them more time. Otherwise, Canadian businesses would have been facing tariffs. The MOU was to last for 90 days, until the end of March.

Bill C-18 passed through the trade committee, and we were very surprised not to see it on the government's agenda this week considering there were only two sitting weeks of Parliament in March 2021 and the bill needs to go through the Senate. What was on the agenda instead this week was legislation so that we could have an election during the pandemic. That was the priority of the government. Now, with us being here on March 9, weeks away from the MOU ending, we do not know if Bill C-18 will go through the parliamentary process before the MOU expires. The answers from the minister were déjà vu, as we heard them last year before the last looming expiration deadline. They were vague and noncommital. Was the government preparing transitional measures for a transitional memorandum of understanding and another extension?

This is why Conservatives sought unanimous consent to get Bill C-18 through third reading in the House of Commons tonight, despite the Liberals mismanaging their legislative agenda. When were the Liberals planning to bring Bill C-18 forward for debate, if we were not doing it tonight? Businesses, workers and exporters would have been left in the dark again.

I want to be clear. The Conservatives have heard from exporters and they support Bill C-18, as it would provide continuity in trade between Canada and the United Kingdom. We are grateful for the hard work of our negotiating team in getting this done, despite the parameters that were left to them by the Liberal government.

The Conservatives have expressed concerns about some aspects of the agreement, which we believe could have been done better. For one, the Liberals claim that the agreement is an interim agreement, but we see lots of signs that this is not the case. The agreement states that the Governments of Canada and the U.K. could get back to the table to negotiate a successor agreement within a year of ratification, and that within three years the Governments of Canada and the U.K. must finalize their successor agreement. However, there is no sunset clause and this interim agreement could very well become a permanent one.

We have also learned through questioning of trade officials at the committee stage that the portions stating that Canada and the U.K. must get back to the table to negotiate a successor agreement are not binding. A successor agreement is important to better reflect the Canada-U.K. trading relationship, but I am disappointed that stronger language is not in it to ensure that this happens. The agreement does not address trade imbalances of specific sectors, such as the beef sector, and does not address any non-tariff barriers.

Once the agreement is ratified and in place, the Conservatives will be holding the government to account on the priority to get a successor agreement. Our Canadian citizens, workers and businesses deserve this.

Right now, at a time of so much uncertainty, we know that businesses need predictability, and they have told us this, which is why we do not want to delay Bill C-18. This is why it is really important for us to move forward with this legislation. We want to give certainty and predictability to businesses at a time when there is so much they are unaware of around the corner. While the pandemic is still occurring, businesses are still in jeopardy and are still hurting. A lot of the businesses that export from Canada are in agriculture, and it is really important that they have stability right now.

I am really glad that we are debating Bill C-18 this evening, that we can move it forward and that we can put it on the legislative agenda. Businesses can rely on the fact that Parliament is working for them and that we can meet the deadlines.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

She raised several concerns about this government's management and negligence before negotiations began.

Faced with such a government, we have reason to be concerned. Is my colleague not worried about what will happen next, particularly with respect to supply-managed commodities? Earlier, she spoke out against Bill C-216, but considering the government we are dealing with, would she be willing to pass a bill that would give people a little security?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that this agreement does protect supply management. It was very important for us to have it in there. One of the first announcements the government made was that the supply-managed sectors were supported in this agreement. We were very happy to see that once we saw the legislation for this.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague will not find this question difficult to answer because I really wanted to ask it of the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is about the issue of slavery in supply chains. I am really encouraged to see how much discussion we are having. It is tangential to the Canada-U.K. trade agreement, but given that the U.K. has tackled this issue of slavery in supply chain, I am wondering if I could take it up with her as well. We have Bill S-216 sitting in the Senate. We need to move ahead with these measures to help Canadians know that the goods we are consuming here are not produced with slave labour.

We do have a problem, though, that the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the World Trade Organization generally has identified these kinds of concerns as what it calls “PPM”, process and production methods that are outside the scope of government action. I am wondering if the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country would agree that we should grab the momentum toward taking action against slavery in supply chains while we have the chance and try to move Bill S-216 ahead as quickly as possible?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. It is actually very timely because I am not sure if the member might be aware that at the international trade committee yesterday, the Conservatives put forth a motion dealing with forced labour in supply chains. We put forth a motion to look at government measures and their effectiveness. There are a couple of measures in place right now. We wanted to look at how effective they are with forced labour and human rights in Xinjiang and region and call the Minister of Small Business and a number of officials and look to see where there are gaps. That motion did not go through. The Liberals voted against it, as did the Bloc. Unfortunately, that study will not be happening despite the fact it would have been a very good and very timely study.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also salute my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I would like to come back to her exchange with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. She said that she was pleased to see that the agreement with the U.K. would not result in new breaches in supply management. We are also pleased, and it is one of the fundamental conditions for our support, which we are providing.

However, we know that the United Kingdom wants to export more cheese. That means the problem will crop up again. My colleague rightly told us that the government was negligent. That being the case, why not protect supply mangement through legislation and prevent this negligent government from making the same mistake again?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on the committee as well, where we work collaboratively. Supply management is very important. We are staunch supporters of supply management, so as I said earlier, we were very happy to see it in Bill C-18, so that all of those sectors can have certainty and stability during this time. That was one of the first questions that we posed once we heard there was an agreement coming forth. We were really happy to see that in this agreement, as we are discussing today.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country and official opposition shadow minister for export promotion and international trade for sharing her time with me. I know her constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country are well served by the member. She has done great work on this file and on this bill, so I would like to thank her for that.

I rise today virtually as the shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food to speak to the importance of maintaining and growing Canada's post-Brexit trading relationship with the United Kingdom as it leaves the European Union and is no longer covered by the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA.

To begin with, the linkages between Canada and the United Kingdom may be obvious, but they are worth pointing out. First and foremost, Her Majesty the Queen is sovereign of both Canada and the United Kingdom. She is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, of which both countries are founding members. Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, was originally the British North America Act, an act of Parliament at Westminster.

Until the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the United Kingdom led Canada's foreign relations. The former British Empire, which Canada was part of, was the world's largest trading and customs union. When he was prime minister, the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker wanted to revive this trading and customs union. Therefore, today, Canada's trading relationship with the United Kingdom is among its most important, including for the agricultural sector.

According to Industry Canada, in 2019, Canada's overall exports to the U.K. were valued at $18.9 billion, while imports from the U.K. were valued at $9.2 billion. Combined, the two-way trade between Canada and the U.K. in 2019 was valued at over $28 billion. This makes the U.K. Canada's fifth-largest trading partner.

In the same year, agriculture and agri-food imports from the U.K. were valued at more than $404 million, and Canada's agriculture and agri-food exports to the U.K. were valued at more than $344 million. That included agricultural implements valued at more than $13.4 million and distilleries products valued at more than $3.6 million. All other agricultural products exported by Canada were valued at $326 million. Therefore, as an agricultural export market, the U.K. is Canada's seventeenth-most valuable in the world. The U.K. is Canada's third-most valuable agricultural export market in Europe, after France and Belgium.

Canada produces and exports some of the highest-quality food products in the world, and our farmers are proud of what they produce. In 2019, Canada's exports of wheat to the U.K. were valued at $116.3 million, and customers in the U.K. recognize that Canadian durum wheat is a premium product in the production of flour for bread and semolina for pasta. The demand for other grain, pulse and oilseeds crops is high because of the virtually unrivalled quality of our Canadian products.

Let me expand on the agriculture commodities that we trade most with the U.K.

Corn exports totalled $42.8 million. Dry pea and bean exports totalled $104.7 million. Soybean exports were valued at $338 million. Oilseeds, apart from soybeans, totalled $3.2 million. Non-citrus fruit and tree nut exports were $1.7 million. Miscellaneous crops, including other grains, totalled $18 million. These products are all grown by farmers who pride themselves on the quality of their product and appreciate the relationship that they have with the U.K., including farmers from my own riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

The U.K. is an important market for a wide variety of farm products and services. This agreement protects Canada's dairy, poultry and agriculture sectors and the viability of produced-in-Canada suppliers of these products. It offers no incrementally increased market access for supply-managed products. However, the U.K. market is effectively closed to other Canadian farm products, including beef.

Because of this, any future trade negotiations between Canada and the United Kingdom should look at the following points of discussion. The first is what Canada must do in order to restore the United Kingdom's market openness for Canadian beef exports. The second is to look for an opportunity to promote Canadian agricultural products to achieve a greater share of the existing United Kingdom market.

For example, the United Kingdom exports of distillery products to Canada in 2019 totalled just short of $270 million, compared to $3.6 million from Canada to the United Kingdom. Discussions should be pursued to create what would effectively be a new market for other Canadian products, including canola. As well as serving as a high-quality cooking oil, canola is used as a feedstock for the production of biodiesel. Sadly, at present, the United Kingdom is not a significant market for canola. Is the Government of Canada doing all it could to promote Canadian agricultural products in the United Kingdom?

Further, and according to the Minister of International Trade, if this bill failed and Canada's trading relationship with the U.K. were to revert to most-favoured-nation provisions, subject to the World Trade Organization regime, food exports would be among the most negatively affected. At a time when Canadian producers have seen markets reduced or closed to their agricultural products in China and elsewhere around the world, we must keep open and expand all existing markets for Canadian producers.

Our consideration of Bill C-18 and trade continuity with the U.K. post-Brexit should not be taken as a be-all and end-all. This should be taken as a new starting point for an enhanced, friendly, fruitful and prosperous trading relationship between our two countries and our respective producers and service providers.

I want to turn now to where the performance of the Liberal government has fallen short of what Canadians expect. As my colleague, the shadow minister for export promotion and international trade, has pointed out, the Liberals introduced this bill at the last minute to replace a trade agreement that they had known for some time was expiring at the end of 2020.

Again, as my colleague pointed out, while we are pleased that Canada and the United Kingdom have secured a trade agreement that re-establishes provisions under CETA, we are not pleased that the Liberals waited until the eleventh hour to introduce the implementing legislation. This is yet another example of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence.

Make no mistake, Conservatives have been the party of well-regulated free trade. Sir John A. Macdonald sought trade reciprocity with the United States immediately following Confederation. As I have already mentioned, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker sought to revive free trade in the Commonwealth. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was initiated and implemented by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his international trade minister, the late John Crosbie. The Right Hon. Stephen Harper negotiated over 30 bilateral trade agreements, as well as CETA and the trans-Pacific partnership. The Conservative Party understands that Canada's prosperity and job creation hinge on Canadian producers' access to international markets for their goods and services, including agricultural goods and services.

Let me say again that the Conservative Party is the party of well-regulated free trade. On a more personal note, as with so many communities across all regions, provinces and territories of Canada, my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is heavily dependent on having secure and reliable access to markets for the agricultural products that they produce. As with ridings served by my colleagues on this side of the House and also by colleagues on all sides of this chamber, our constituents' jobs and livelihoods, and their ability to provide for their families and loved ones, depend on both local and global markets for agricultural products. They cannot afford to lose any market, including the United Kingdom, as a market for agricultural products.

Let me summarize by again pointing out the obvious. Canada's relationship with the United Kingdom is a long and warm one. Even apart from our commonalities, Canada's trading relationship with the United Kingdom is too valuable to lose. It is too valuable to lose for Canadian farmers and agricultural producers of goods and services. Canadian agricultural producers are ready to supply top-quality products to the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I cannot help but think about is the fact that this trade agreement is touted as a temporary or transitional deal. Does the member believe that we should include a sunset clause to ensure that negotiations lead to a successor agreement? I think that would provide a lot more stability and I would like to hear what the member thinks about it.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is important in this agreement is that we have continued trade with the United Kingdom for our farmers and producers and can continue to open markets for them. While this is an important bill before us today that will help all sectors, including our supply-managed sectors, we need to make sure to continue to press for such access going forward for commodities such as beef, and even more so for canola in the U.K.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have had years to work on a new trade agreement with the United Kingdom and yet they waited until the last minute to restart trade talks and failed to negotiate any improvements in the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement over CETA. What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau failed to negotiate this trade agreement with the U.K. He failed to take it seriously and waited until the eleventh hour, again putting people's livelihoods and our trade with the U.K. at risk, and potentially closing markets for the U.K. It was simple. We could have had something earlier and, unfortunately, he waited until the last hour.

It is important to point out that if the Prime Minister had not prorogued Parliament when he did, in the middle of the WE scandal, this bill would already be in the Senate. We have seen nothing but delays from the government, and this is just another example of Liberals not standing up for Canadian producers and farmers, as we have continually seen. They fail to stand up for farmers. This is just another example of where they are falling behind and hurting our agriculture sector.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member to reference other hon. members by their titles or ridings.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She gave a very powerful speech about the incompetence of this government with respect to its foresight and reaction time.

She mentioned that she wants to protect supply-managed commodities. Yes, there are many commodities destined for export, but there are also some supply-managed commodities that should not be sacrificed. Does my colleague not think she should support our bill tomorrow?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always said, and the leader has been very clear, that the Conservative Party understands supply management and how important it is to our farmers in the supply-managed sectors of eggs, poultry, dairy and our feathered friends. Supply management is important and we will always stand up for it. We have shown that we will support our farmers and I have been very vocal in saying that I will support supply management. We will continue as a party to support our farmers and the supply-managed sector.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers on Vancouver Island are very concerned because every single time a trade deal is negotiated, it chips away at supply management. If we add up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, CETA and what has been happening in other trade deals that were negotiated under both Conservatives and Liberals, there is less protection for supply management than there used to be, just as there is with this adoption of the CETA rules for our dealings with the U.K.

I wonder how we are going to explain to dairy farmers the compensation they might receive down the road for the loss of supply management or how any member can say that we stand up to protect supply management when we enter into trade deals that chip away at it quite substantially.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding that is very rich in agriculture, including many supply-managed farms. I will always stand up to protect supply management, as will the Conservative Party.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

On another practical housekeeping item, my kids are getting ready for bed right now, and so to Matthew and Emerson: Good night and love you guys. I will also tell them to listen to their mother.

It is just about 9 p.m. on a Tuesday, and generally the House would have adjourned hours ago, but Conservatives have made it clear that we are willing to work with the government when it is willing to be a good partner. I think that is demonstrated by us wanting to make sure that two things happen tonight. The first is that legislation before the House has the scrutiny that it deserves. As a legislator, I take seriously my obligation to review, debate, discuss and dialogue about the most serious issues facing our country. Tonight, we are talking about an important trading relationship, which is representative of how important it is that we have that dialogue. The second is that people, and their perspectives, from across our country have their voices heard.

I often am asked why there are so many empty seats in Parliament. Certainly during normal times there would be one explanation, but as of late there is a different reason, which is making sure that there is safe physical distancing so that we can stand together in the fight against COVID. However, for the first time in our history, we are seeing members of Parliament join in debate in this place virtually, which is a significant milestone. It is so important that we can have these very important discussions.

When it comes to trade overall, one of the most serious obligations of Canada's Parliament, as laid out in the founding documents of our country, is that this place would be responsible for navigating global trading relationships, whether 150-some years ago as a new country as part of the British Empire, or today. We share a system, and the first words of the British North America Act talked about how we have a structure similar to that of the United Kingdom. We share much of our history, legal systems and structures. In fact, the green carpet we have the honour of debating from represents the foundation of democracy, not just in Canada, but some of the earliest democratic structures in the modern world. It is within that context that we enter into debate here tonight, and it is good to be able to ensure that there is stability in one of Canada's very important trading partners. We will certainly work with the government.

I will get into the substance of the bill in a moment, but during question period today I heard about how the Liberals were blaming the Conservatives for all of these delays on different things. I find that ironic, because the Liberals control the agenda of the government. It seems that whenever it is inconvenient for them, they will simply blame the opposition. They are inserting tactics and politics into the debate, not to mention prorogation, when we lost approximately 35 legislative days. We have had to debate many bills multiple times to fix mistakes made in previous bills. As well, there were many months where the House did not sit in a substantive capacity, although there are practical reasons for that. Certainly, democracy is an essential service, and I was proud to stand and debate that coming up a year ago as we enter into the second year of COVID-19.

Regarding the debate at hand, I find it very interesting. Although just elected in 2019, I had spent a little bit of time in Ottawa and was a staffer prior to getting elected.

It is always great to see the legacies of good governments, and when it comes to what we are debating today, in substance it is actually a Conservative legacy. If we go back to the beginning of the CETA negotiations, we see that the signatures on the page took place after the 2015 election, but the substance of that agreement, one of the largest agreements signed in Canadian history, was negotiated by a Conservative government, acknowledging fair and free trade and how important that is for a resource-rich country with great expertise in products and manufacturing capacity, secure supply chains and technological innovation. Conservatives led the charge in ensuring that we had a wide variety of trading relationships. There was massive growth in the number of countries that Canada had trade agreements with over the close to 10 years that Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it is an honour to sit in caucus with the member for Abbotsford and hear some the war stories of some of those trade negotiations.

As for the substance of the bill we are talking about today, although the United Kingdom's position in the European Union has changed dramatically over a number of years, when we get into the nuts and bolts of the continuity and the recent history of that trade agreement, it really comes back to Conservative expertise in getting us to this point. Although I was not elected at the time, I saw news articles about how the Liberals almost dropped the ball on CETA, yet were able to get what is largely a Conservative legacy across the finish line. I am thankful for that. Good, strong, free and fair trade is the right thing for our nation.

What we are debating today is a little unfortunate, because it was a comedy of errors that got us to the point where we are now. It was about a year and a half ago that the negotiations broke down between Canada and the United Kingdom. The Liberals were quick to say that it was bandwidth issues with the United Kingdom, and in fairness, the United Kingdom is faced with a myriad of significant challenges associated with its exit from the European Union, but that did not stop the Australians or other jurisdictions from negotiating good, strong improvements to their trade deals.

It is unfortunate that negotiations broke down between our two countries and that it was not until the eleventh hour that this interim agreement was brought forward. The agreement lacks clarity. Trade and global investments and commerce depend on certainty, and that is what is required. This is a good step in the right direction, but it is unfortunate that the bill lacks a definitive timeline to ensure that there are concrete steps taken toward a long-term agreement. Some of the things that such an agreement should include are our tremendous expertise and tremendous resource capacity. I am proud to come from an area where net-zero oil comes from the region that I represent. It is a proud legacy that we have the most environmentally sustainable and ethically produced energy in the world. We have such a strong legacy of that, as well as so many opportunities to develop agriculture. I come from a strong agricultural region with so many opportunities.

As I see my time is almost up, I want to say that it should give Canadians pause to see that ideology seems to have got in the way of the Prime Minister and the Liberals negotiating with a Conservative government from another jurisdiction. It is unfortunate that it is truly Canadians who end up paying the price for the ideological blindness, I would suggest, that sometimes takes place on the Liberal side.

It is an honour to discuss this important bill and to support continuing the development of a strong trading relationship with the United Kingdom as it undergoes significant change. I am looking forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague talk about trade and agriculture. I know that he will reiterate that he is here to defend supply management, but why refuse to do that through legislation, if only to protect ourselves from the negligence of certain leaders?

I would also like my colleague's perspective on ways to improve transparency and negotiations in these agreements, instead of presenting parliamentarians with the final agreement that they have to simply rubber-stamp.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer both parts of the member's question. I will answer the second part first.

I did not get a chance to talk about this in my speech, but it is interesting that the House, Canada's democratic institution, actually required the government to keep it informed of the status of negotiations. Certainly, there was not a lot of information provided, and that is a shame. In fact, it verges on contempt. Often, we see the government make grand statements about how it is the most transparent government in the history of the universe, but the evidence is certainly the opposite of that.

To the member's point on protecting our supply-managed sectors, that could be a valid discussion, but I would simply turn it around and ask the member this. He is worried about the agricultural industry in Quebec, but I certainly find it very, very troubling how the Liberals seem to be quick to target the energy industry in Alberta. It is unfortunate that there is no reciprocity in building a Canada that works for all Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the member had some comments about what this side of the House has been saying about the Conservatives holding up bills, the fact that they are very much interested in this bill and supported having it on the floor tonight. That is great to see and I am glad to see that we are able to make progress on this one.

One of the other bills that would really affect Canadians right now is Bill C-24, which deals with EI benefits, in particular for those who have been affected by the pandemic. If that bill does not receive royal assent by March 21, there will be a lot of Canadians without EI benefits.

Now the Conservatives will say, “Well, it's the Liberals' fault because they didn't set the agenda properly to allow that bill to be put on the floor and to have enough time for debate,” and so on and so forth. However, by saying that they are effectively saying to those people, “We are going to hold you hostage because we're upset with the Liberal government and their legislative agenda”.

We asked the member, all Conservatives, and everyone else in the House, to vote to have debate on that bill extended last night until midnight. The Conservatives voted against it. Does the member not think that Bill C-24 to support EI recipients is just as important as this free trade bill?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it bears pointing out a simple number and a simple word: 35 days of prorogation. We would be in a very, very different sort of scenario had the government not decided to try to cover up its scandalous ways. I think that is the unfortunate context. It is unfortunate for all Canadians, the context that we were in.

When it comes to Bill C-24 and a lot of other very important legislation, Conservatives have worked with the government. In the midst of a global crisis, we have seen that when we work together, things get done. It is unfortunate that the Liberals continue to play politics with this issue and blame the official opposition when, in many cases, they have had to bring legislation back numerous times to fix the errors that would have been remedied had the legislation been debated properly in the first place.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a first for me too. I have never shared time with a Conservative member of Parliament. I want to thank, in the spirit of co-operation, the Conservative member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the investment chapter and the investment dispute resolution mechanism in the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement. I will begin by emphasizing that maintaining the robust investment relationship Canada has with the U.K. is a top priority for our government. As we are all well aware, Canada and the U.K. have historically enjoyed a mutually advantageous trade and investment relationship. Our bilateral investment relationship, which was already strong, has grown rapidly under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade agreement, or CETA.

The U.K. is Canada's largest market in Europe and is a key source of foreign direct investment. Indeed, the U.K. is Canada's fourth most important source of foreign direct investment. In 2019, the FDI stock from the U.K. was valued at over $62 billion. Canadians are also seeking investment opportunities in the U.K., with our FDI stocks in the U.K. valued at over $107 billion in 2019, making the United Kingdom Canada's second-largest direct investment destination.

The trade continuity agreement that was signed by Canada and the U.K. on December 9, 2020, would ensure that both parties can sustain and build upon this important relationship by preserving the benefits of CETA in a new bilateral agreement. More importantly, as this trade continuity agreement is based on CETA, an agreement Canadians are already familiar with, it provides continuity, predictability and stability for Canadian businesses, exporters, workers and consumers. This stability is more important than ever as we grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Once the trade continuity agreement is ratified and fully implemented, it will continue to maintain predictability and protect Canadian investors as well as preserve CETA's high-standard provisions on dispute settlement. Canada's businesses have told us that what they want most at this time is stability, and the continuity agreement would provide that as we continue to work toward a new comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement with the U.K. that best serves Canada's interests over the longer term.

I will elaborate on two very important parts of the trade continuity agreement: the investment chapter and the investment dispute resolution mechanism, the purpose of which is to protect Canadian investors.

As stated by my colleagues, the trade continuity agreement is an interim agreement that replicates CETA's provisions to ensure the stability of Canadian businesses during the unique situation Brexit has presented. As such, the comprehensive investment chapter of CETA was effectively replicated in the trade continuity agreement to ensure a smooth transition and provide predictability for Canadians. This will ensure that Canadian investors, as well as Canadian financial institutions with investments in the U.K., receive the same high standard of investor protection under this agreement that they were provided under CETA.

I will elaborate on the investment dispute resolution provision.

The trade continuity agreement replicates the CETA investment dispute resolution provisions, including CETA's permanent investment tribunal and appellate tribunal, with only minor technical changes to reflect the replacement of the 28 EU member states with the U.K. However, the investment dispute resolution provisions will be temporarily suspended upon entry into force of the trade continuity agreement, pending a review by parties. The purpose of this review is to consider the approach to investment dispute resolution that best reflects the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.K. The review would be set to commence within three months of entry into force of the trade continuity agreement and should be completed within three years, unless extended by agreement of both Canada and the U.K. If Canada and the U.K. do not agree on an approach to investment dispute resolution, or to extend the review process within three years, the CETA-like investment tribunal and appellate tribunal would apply, provided that equivalent CETA provisions have entered into force.

While this trade continuity agreement would protect Canadian investors, it would also maintain Canada's right to regulate in the public interest. As in CETA, the trade continuity agreement would require both Canadian and foreign investors to abide by Canada's laws and regulations in areas such as the environment, labour, health care and safety.

Through the unprecedented Brexit transition process our government strived to provide Canadians with certainty and security. This objective was made all the more important with the added economic consequences and uncertainty resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our government takes great pride in achieving this trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom. The objective in negotiating this agreement has always been to create a temporary measure to ensure stability for Canadian businesses during the Brexit transition process. To be clear, the trade continuity agreement is good for Canadian and U.K. investors and for the strong mutually beneficial trade and investment relationship our nations have built over 150 years.

While CETA will continue to govern Canada-EU trade, this trade continuity agreement will provide predictability and remove uncertainty for Canadians doing business with and in the U.K. This agreement is not only about ensuring continuity and maintaining the status quo, but is also essential in setting the stage for our future trade relations with the United Kingdom.

It is critical that the trade continuity agreement be ratified and implemented as soon as possible to ensure certainty for businesses. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-18 and allow the government to move ahead and implement the Canada-U.K. continuity agreement in a timely manner.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the member for Surrey Centre's riding, having spent my whole professional career working there.

Can the member comment on the significance of Canada's entering into a free trade agreement with a country with whom we share so many commonalities, such as common law, respect for the rule of law, our parliamentary traditions and so many other values? Is this a model that could be carried to other English-speaking, common-law tradition countries, like New Zealand and Australia?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the member of Parliament for Langley—Aldergrove. I hope I am serving his previous place of work well. I commend him for his public service as well.

I take that point very seriously and not just with respect to other English-speaking places with Commonwealth traits, although that obviously helps because our legal systems are very similar in the Commonwealth, including India, New Zealand and Australia. There are opportunities to grow our trade with those countries, and many in Africa, based on our similarities rather than our differences. That is key. Our government will always strive to create fair, responsible trade and open up markets for Canadians wherever we can.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement is important and it needs to be signed. We all agree on that.

I would like to ask my colleague how we could improve elected members' participation in the negotiation process for these agreements, so that they are not presented with a fait accompli. My colleague is a member of the government and might be able to enlighten us on that.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I had the good fortune of being on the trade committee this year when it was hearing from Mr. Verheul and other trade negotiators for Canada.

In this case, it is a transitional agreement, so there is really not much new to it. It is really protecting what has already been debated in the House and existed previously with CETA. It is basically cutting and pasting that agreement and making sure there are legal compatibilities for the two countries to adhere to.

I think trade is one of those things that are very difficult to negotiate in a public forum when dealing with foreign countries, but there are very good ways in the future to create transparency where perhaps people from the trade committee or the trade critics of the opposition parties might be brought in to look at those trade deals to see if there are comments or suggestions they want to make before the trade agreements are negotiated. To some degree, transparency as a principle is always great, but as a practicality, when one is negotiating with other countries, it might be a lot more difficult than we think.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely clear on where the Liberals stand anymore. Maybe I was not clear before.

I would like to hear some clarification from the hon. member. He was talking about the amazing wonders of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, yet we had the Minister of International Trade work really hard to make sure that ISDS and ICS, which are ultimately the same thing, made it into CETA. Then she negotiated in CUSMA the removal of ISDS, and we heard what an incredible contribution that was to that trade agreement.

Therefore, it is very confusing to me where the Liberals stand, but that is usually the case. I wonder if the member could clarify the back and forth, and why they keep flip-flopping on this issue.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the investor-state dispute mechanism and principle is, in my own opinion, actually a really great initiative. However, when they handicap governments for the purpose of just simply trade or their own personal interests, or they inhibit them from creating environmental laws or labour standards, that is where the challenge is. Many times, states have used the opposite to inhibit trade so that they can give advantage to local trade. That is where that challenge has been.

It is one of those things that has grown. As we have relationships with countries like the U.S. where we have had free trade for a long time, we have seen some of the negatives of perhaps the investor-state dispute settlement system. There has been a cry from the public, as well as industry, not to have it. In other cases, such as starting fresh with CETA being new or when we are doing new trade agreements, it is sometimes very important to have those benchmarks and those safeguards to ensure that it works well.

One of the reasons we are working with the U.K. to see where we can reduce this or change that is because the legal systems in the U.K. and Canada are very similar. Therefore, we are safeguarded. This is in opposition with the European Union, where it is a cosmopolitan mix of different frameworks and, therefore, we need more protective measures for when our investors go and invest in that space.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, that the motion be adopted on division or, for that matter, that it be carried, I would invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote on this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 10, 2021, at the expiry of time provided for Oral Questions.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:25 p.m.)