Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Sponsor

Mary Ng  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment implements the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 10 to 15 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

Part 1 approves the Agreement, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.

Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement and contains a transitional provision.

Part 3 contains a coordinating amendment and the coming-into-force provision.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

March 10, 2021 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Feb. 1, 2021 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 10th, 2021 / 4:40 p.m.
See context

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe this has happened for a second time. I thought my vote had counted last time, but now I just received notice that my vote did not count. I would have voted yea in the last vote, and I am voting yea in this one. I am not sure if I followed all the instructions.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 10th, 2021 / 4:40 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Barrie was being very honest, clear and humble a couple of minutes ago when he said that he missed the previous vote because he thought his vote had been recorded. He said it in good faith and with good intentions. I feel we could seek the consent of the House to give the member for Barrie the opportunity to record his vote on the previous matter.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:05 p.m.
See context

Liberal

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:15 p.m.
See context

NDP

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?

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:15 p.m.
See context

Liberal

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

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?

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:25 p.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:30 p.m.
See context

Bloc

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?

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:30 p.m.
See context

NDP

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?

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:35 p.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:45 p.m.
See context

Bloc

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.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2021 / 6:45 p.m.
See context

Conservative

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.