Bill C-18 (Historical)

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

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.

[Mike Fisher, Board Member, The Friends of Ojibway Prairie]

A joint written brief has been submitted on behalf of The Friends of Ojibway Prairie, Essex County Field Naturalists’ Club, Wildlife Preservation Canada and the Citizens Environment Alliance. The submission also has the support of the Public Advisory Council of the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup locally, as well as Ontario Nature provincially.

The purpose of our submission was to provide four key areas of comment that we feel are essential to the creation of an Ojibway national urban park. These four key areas are legislation that makes ecological integrity the top priority; maximizing park boundaries for increased ecological preservation and habitat; meaningful consultation and partnerships with indigenous communities; and robust community consultation.

While we won't be able to fully cover all of these areas in these introductory statements, we welcome you to review our written brief for any questions you may have.

We would like to touch on the importance of strong legislation that prioritizes ecological integrity to establish Ojibway national urban park. In reviewing the legislation and discussion of Bill C-40 and Bill C‑18 relating to the Rouge National Urban Park, we noted significant debate over the high standard set by the Canada National Parks Act for maintaining ecological integrity as the first priority for all aspects of park management. This led to amendments being required and a delay of the transfer of provincial lands to the federal government.

While urban settings can present unique challenges, we would suggest that this is precisely why it is crucial to have strong legislation that makes the first priority of ecological integrity clear. Our community is eager to have such legislation, as evidenced by the City of Windsor expressing its full support that an Ojibway national urban park be created by the Canada National Parks Act.

We thank the committee for the opportunity to appear and will gladly take any questions at the appropriate time.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be responding to the Canada-U.K. report.

I would like to express my appreciation to the analysts, the clerk and my colleagues on the Standing Committee of International Trade for their work in preparing this final report on trade between Canada and the United Kingdom, and I want to thank them.

Attached to the report is the supplementary opinion of the official opposition Conservatives. In this report, we highlight that we are pleased to see the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement come into effect on April 1, 2021, though we are disappointed that the government was not able to meet the initial deadline of December 31, 2020, when the CETA's application to the United Kingdom ended. It is truly unfortunate that the government left this critical trade agreement to the final sitting week of the final month of the final year the CETA's term no longer applied to the U.K., having to sign an interim memorandum of understanding to provide trade stability due to this delay.

The Conservative Party of Canada is pleased to see recommendations in the report on negotiations for a successor Canada-U.K. trade agreement, which we hope to see begin negotiations this year, including to address gaps raised by small businesses and those in the agriculture and agri-food sectors. Conservatives support the recommendations in the report and we look forward to the government's response.

Conservatives also recognize that we were in a unique situation where we did this Canada-U.K. trade study and we also had a separate study on Bill C-18,, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act, where we also heard from witnesses whose testimony is regrettably not included in this report. We, in the Conservative caucus, do hope that the government takes the time to review the input from stakeholders from the Bill C-18 study, including concerns around non-tariff barriers, as well as non-indexation of frozen British pensions.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-14. I think it is important to note the curious situation we find ourselves in today. Here we are, with the government putting this legislation on its agenda this week, debating the fall economic statement in the middle of April. In yet another example of Liberal mismanagement of important files, we are here debating legislation introduced last year, comprising a whole host of financial measures.

There are some good parts of this legislation, but there are measures that could have been implemented last year to help people. Now, it seems odd debating this when we have a budget set to be released in just five days. Similarly to how the Liberals have no plan for Canada's economic recovery, they had no plan to get Bill C-18, the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement, ratified within deadlines, and they also seem to have no plan for Canada's finances.

After years of pre-pandemic deficits since forming government in 2015, with little to show for it, now the federal debt will be well over $1 trillion, and the Liberals are asking for substantive additional borrowing capacity in this bill, Bill C-14. The staggering asked increase of an additional $700 billion would put our federal debt just a stone's throw away from the $2-trillion mark. It took our country over 150 years to reach a trillion-dollar debt, yet the Liberals seemingly want to take us to nearly $2 trillion in the blink of an eye.

Conservatives have supported programs to help Canadian businesses and not-for-profits that have been struggling under the current government's failure to procure PPE early in the pandemic, sustain jobs, procure vaccines, ramp up domestic vaccine production and put data-driven plans together for rapid testing and at-home testing, all activities many other developed countries did.

Why is the government tabling a bill that has some good measures in it to help many people, and then tagging on raising Canada's maximum borrowing limit by $700 billion, a 56.8% increase? There is no reason, other than to play politics rather than getting real help to real people in a timely manner. The Liberals have not explained why they need to increase the total federal debt to $1.83 trillion. Companies do not operate this way; not-for-profits do not operate this way; households do not operate this way. Why does the federal government feel it can operate this way?

Pre-pandemic, the government had years of needless borrowing and debt the Conservatives had warned against, debt that led to a credit rating cut. Constituents I am hearing from in Kelowna—Lake Country are rightly worried about the challenges we are facing today under the COVID-19 pandemic. They are also terrified about the future we are leaving our children and grandchildren.

At every step of the way, the government has burdened our economy with taxes, investment-stifling regulations and red tape. It has refused to halt tax increases during the pandemic, including from escalator or automatic tax increases. To truly prosper, we must unlock the power of Canadian industry; remove barriers to innovation; remove interprovincial trade barriers; do everything we can to expand exports of agriculture, innovative technologies and manufacturing; and bring our resources to market around the world. This legislation would do none of that.

In November 2020, we learned that the federal deficit for that year alone was going to exceed $380 billion. We already have over $1 trillion in federal debt, and this legislation would allow the government to borrow up to $1.78 trillion. The reality is that under the Liberal government our country has been on the decline. We have had the highest unemployment in the G7. We have had indicators pointing to a debt crisis, dismal vaccine per capita numbers and investment leaving the country. Women have been especially impacted, with over 100,000 women leaving the workforce since the onset of the pandemic.

It is one thing to fund pandemic response programs, and we are willing to do what it takes to support Canadians during this time of crisis. It is another thing entirely for us to be willing to support unchecked borrowing for unspecified initiatives.

The past two weeks have been constituency weeks, and I spent time focused on connecting with residents and local organizations in Kelowna—Lake Country. I hosted three community outreach virtual round table meetings with a focus on three areas: small business, tourism and housing.

My official opposition colleagues who are the shadow ministers for those files joined me to hear from locals on each of those very important topics. I would like to thank the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, the member for Niagara Falls and the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

Groups in attendance included Tourism Kelowna, Kelowna Hotel Motel Association, Association of Canadian Independent Travel Advisors, BC Restaurant and Food Services Association, Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association, Festivals Kelowna, Big White Ski Resort, BC Hotel Association, Downtown Kelowna Association, Community Futures Central Okanagan, Lake Country Chamber of Commerce, Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission, Uptown Rutland Business Association, Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, Association of Interior Realtors, UDI Okanagan, Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, Canadian Home Builders' Association Central Okanagan, and Journey Home Society.

We received a substantive amount of insights, information and suggestions from what collectively represents well over 5,000 businesses of all sizes and from almost all sectors in Kelowna—Lake Country. There was a lot of consensus on the most important pressing issues that need to be addressed, and many solid recommendations.

Another issue I am hearing about from businesses is that they are advertising for jobs and no one is answering their ads. I was speaking to a construction company owner in Kelowna—Lake Country last week, who is advertising to pay considerably higher than what is the usual wage for the job. People are calling him and saying they will only come to work if they are paid under the table so that they can continue to collect the CRB. If not, they will just relax for a little while yet. He said these people know they will make more working, but they are prepared to stay on the programs as long as possible. How does that help the economy? How does that help that business owner, and how does it help those individuals, ultimately?

I spoke with another business owner, who laid off 30 employees last year, and as the economy reopens he does not feel these employees will be coming back. This is not just about creating jobs. At great effort and expense, he will likely now have to recruit, hire and train all new people. This is their reality.

In my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, our airport, YLW, is municipally owned, so not only does it feel the effects of the travel reductions, but it was also unable to obtain some of the government support provided to non-municipally owned airports.

Entertainment venues are also under threat. In my community, beloved institutions like the Kelowna Actors Studio and all those who work in the performing arts are in serious jeopardy. The many local arts and cultural organizations have been shuttered for a year. Doing virtual fundraising and a few virtual performances is not sustainable. Musicians have been hit particularly hard. I was speaking to a resident this weekend who told me that two professional musicians he knows in Kelowna—Lake Country are losing their homes right now. Businesses and not-for-profits are looking for a plan for recovery, not a plan to remain shut indefinitely.

The Conservatives put forth a motion asking the government to put forth a plan to safely and gradually reopen our economy when the time to safely do so is right, and the Liberals voted it down. The bill we are debating today, Bill C-14, fails to do so as well. It is only through ensuring that we are fully utilizing all the tools available widely to test and vaccinate those who wish it, as well as putting forth a solid recovery plan where people in all sectors and in all parts of the economy and the country are ready to go back to work, that we will have a meaningful recovery plan.

If there is one thing that we have learned so far from the Liberals, it is that it is entirely possible to spend billions of dollars and still leave millions of Canadians behind. Conservatives are working tirelessly to promote a recovery that benefits all Canadians, a recovery that provides jobs and growth in every sector of our economy, in every part of the country, to secure jobs, secure vaccines and PPE, secure our economy, secure mental health and get us back to a road to recovery.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Madam Speaker, I was very precise in saying that Conservatives had been prepared to work with the government on issues such as Bill C-18 and Bill C-24.

The member raises the issue of the government's desire to expedite legislation that would effectively undermine suicide prevention in this country. The government's new position on Bill C-7, which has been barely debated in the House and never studied in a House of Commons committee, would allow those whose primary health complaint is mental health related, who are dealing with depression or other mental health challenges, to be given suicide facilitation by the government.

That is a deadly serious issue. It is dead wrong, and it is strongly opposed by mental health advocates and disability rights organizations. I know that the member and many other members are receiving phone calls from constituents who have been blindsided by this rush to have state-facilitated suicide for the mentally ill. We will oppose that. That is dead wrong and—

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my excellent and hard-working colleague from Calgary Midnapore.

Today, we are debating Bill C-24. I have a couple of quick observations about the context of this debate. This is another example where we can clearly see the willingness of the Conservatives to work constructively on areas where we share a perspective on the need to move forward with the government on a particular bill. We saw this earlier this week: As a result of a Conservative motion, we were able to debate quickly and pass Bill C-18. Today, we have worked with the government to create a framework to move forward on Bill C-24.

In the case of both of these bills, there is a relevant deadline the government has ignored up until this point. The leadership of our party has pushed the government to move forward with things that are supposed to be its legislative priorities but have clearly not been. We see how the Prime Minister has been trying to spin a narrative that Parliament is not working, as a way to justify his plans for an election in the middle of a pandemic.

There is no doubt that the Conservatives do not support some aspects of the government's legislative agenda, and some require further study and debate. However, in this Parliament in particular, the 43rd Parliament, the Conservatives have worked constructively to quickly advance legislation when there is a shared sense of essential urgency on matters.

Bill C-24, like Bill C-18 and other legislative measures we have seen in this Parliament, is in the category of measures that we are supporting and have worked with the government to move forward. I hope the government, members of the media and the public will take note of the instances of co-operation that have taken place, often led by the Conservatives, and will point out the flaws in the narrative the Prime Minister is trying to spin to justify his pandemic election plans.

Bill C-24 is an important bill that expands benefit programs in the context of the pandemic, and the Conservatives are supportive of it. At the same time, we have highlighted the need for the government to have a broader vision of where our country is going economically in the midst of the pandemic and what we hope will soon be the economic recovery coming out of it.

While other parties are talking only about spending and the benefits, the Conservatives recognize the need to have strong economic growth as the basis for providing strong benefits. We have legitimately pointed out the issues around the significant debt and deficit we are accruing during this period of time. Other parties in the House want to present a false choice: either we support benefit programs and have dramatic growth in our debt and deficit or we do not have the debt and deficit and leave people out in the cold. We view that as a false choice. We believe it is very possible and indeed important to support a strong social safety net, but that exists on the foundation of a strong economy. If we support the development of a strong economy, with a vision for jobs, growth, opportunity and investment in this country that gives people the opportunity to work, then we also increase our capacity to provide people with support when they find themselves in situations where they are not able to work.

Our vision for an economy of the future is one that involves a strong economy, a strong community and a strong social safety net. We believe those elements need to exist in tandem. A strong economy means repealing some measures the Liberals have put in place, like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which impede the development of our natural resource sector. It means working to strengthen our manufacturing sector. It means taking note of some problems, like the slave labour around the world that is producing cheap products that come into the Canadian marketplace. That is obviously terrible from a human rights and justice perspective, but it also impacts Canadian workers. It is an economic issue and a justice issue when human rights violations are linked to unfair trading practices.

We need to stand up for Canada's manufacturing sectors that may be impacted by those kinds of practices. We need to support the development of our natural resource sectors. We need to expand access to markets, especially in like-minded countries. That is why the Conservatives support working to expand trade and partnerships around the world with like-minded partners in the Asia-Pacific region. We are also looking to expand our economic engagement with Africa, building on some of the trade agreements we have signed previously, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Canada-EU free trade deal negotiated under the previous Conservative government.

We need to think about rationalizing regulations and approving projects that make sense so that Canada can once again be seen as an optimal destination for investment and growth. If that plan for investment, growth and jobs includes an appropriate respect for our natural resource and manufacturing sectors, we will be able to create the conditions that allow unemployed Canadians to get back to work.

That is the strong economy piece. Of course, a strong economy helps to generate the revenue for governments that allows governments to provide support to people without creating the kind of unmanageable deficits that we currently face. Having a strong economy is therefore very important.

I talked about a strong economy, strong communities and a strong social safety net. For many people who face challenges, whether they are unemployment challenges, health challenges or personal struggles of various kinds, the first line of support is the communities they are a part of. In recent decades, we have seen a decline in the strength of community ties, a greater social atomization. As a society, we need to think about how we can strengthen the forms of local community that are such a vital form of initial support. We should think of a big society, a strong society and strong community as being the first line of support and defence when people are confronted with various challenges in their lives.

Part of how the national government can be a part of supporting the idea of strengthening the community is to work constructively in partnership with community organizations and look for opportunities to learn from what communities are doing. These could be cultural associations, faith communities or service clubs. We should better partner with local organizations in the delivery of public services.

There are so many ways this applies. One thing that has been a great interest of mine is the model for the private sponsorship of refugees. Through it, the government works collaboratively with private organizations that are sponsoring refugees to come to Canada. We know that those who have community connections through private sponsorship generally have better outcomes than people who are publicly sponsored, because those who are publicly sponsored are not immediately brought into an existing community that knows them and wants to work with them. Across the board, whether it is combatting addictions, supporting families, addressing joblessness or addressing recidivism, the government needs to have a much better vision of the opportunity for partnership as a means of addressing challenges and building strong communities.

As I said, we need a strong economy, a strong community and then a strong social safety net. If we have the strong community and strong economy pieces in place, we will also be in a position collectively to put the full extent of our resources into supporting those who fall through the cracks with a strong social safety net.

The Conservatives are very supportive of that. We believe, though, that if we neglect the strong economy and the strong community pieces, it will become much more difficult to have a strong social safety net while preserving some degree of fiscal sanity. What we see with the government is a desire to push forward spending on the social safety net, but a lack of vision for the strong economy and strong community pieces.

The social safety net needs to be there for those who are not able to benefit from a strong economy or from strong community structures that are in place. However, if we only have the social safety net piece, and not the economy piece or the community piece, then the pressure that falls on that social safety net will be so significant that we will find ourselves in an unsustainable fiscal situation. That is the challenge we need—

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, March 9, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-18.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Workers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my speech, I talked about how the Conservatives continuously try to spread misinformation. I cited a couple of examples of the airline industry and of charitable groups using specific quotes from the critic for finance. He, and through him the Conservative Party, tries to give Canadians the impression that the government is not there to support small businesses in Canada. Once again, nothing could be further from the truth.

When we look at the initiatives we have put in place, whether the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program, the Emergency Business Account, the credit availability program or relief and recovery funds, the government has been there for small businesses and will continue to be there for small businesses.

The second problem I have with the Conservatives is frustration with how the Conservative Party continues to play a destructive role inside the House of Commons, on the floor of the chamber, by not allowing things to be done. Talk is cheap. Action is what we want to see.

I was encouraged when the opposition House leader indicated moments ago that the Conservatives were prepared to pass Bill C-18, which is a trade agreement. That means they support the legislation with no issues and they are going to pass it through. I suspect, as I indicated previously, that the only way to get things passed through the House of Commons is to shame the Conservatives so that they feel so uncomfortable that they feel there is more than an obligation to allow legislation to go through.

A good example would be the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She is the critic for workforce development and she tweeted that time was running out for Canadians with expiring EI benefits. That is Bill C-24. It is one of the pieces of legislation that we want to see pass through the House of Commons. If the leader of the Conservative Party would actually listen to some of the members of the Conservative caucus, we might even see that bill pass.

I would encourage the opposition House leader to take the initiative and look at what that bill is actually saying and proposing to do. Maybe he could consult with his Conservative caucus colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, and recognize how that bill is going to help Canadians. As I indicated, actions speak louder than words when it comes to the Conservative Party.

On Bill C-14, another bill that ultimately helps small businesses, they have been filibustering, yet today there is a motion on why we are not doing enough to support small businesses. Do we see some irony there? I see a great deal of irony there. From the destructive force better known as the Conservative Party, we have seen that many issues are not being dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons because of the role that they have decided to play. It is politically charged, instead of serving Canadians by fighting the pandemic.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House, 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 deemed concurred in at the report stage; that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-18 at third reading; that, when no further member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill; that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions tomorrow, Wednesday, March 10, 2021; and that the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

International Trade

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, happy International Women's Day.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all for your attention.

I'll just outline what we have before us.

For upcoming business, we have the estimates, which were referred to the committee by the House on February 25. The ones we have received are on the Invest in Canada hub. I've already asked that an invitation be extended to Minister Ng and her officials to appear so that the committee will be in a position to report on the estimates prior to May 31.

Next, on WTO reform, we've had two meetings up until today, and we are scheduled to have another 60 minutes on Friday. Last October, though, we did talk about having three meetings on the WTO issue, so I would appreciate some direction from the committee members. If we want to have a third meeting, we'll need to make that decision so we can organize the calendar.

We have two draft reports that we're going to have to go over.

The first one is on trade between Canada and the United Kingdom. The potential transitional trade agreement study was distributed last Friday and is ready to be reviewed by the members. Following the vote this afternoon, I will be tabling the Bill C-18 report as well.

The second draft report that's being worked on is “Canada's International Trade after COVID-19: Changes, Federal Supports for Exporters and Trade Agreement Priorities”. It is scheduled to be distributed to members by March 26.

Next, we expect to have Louis Plamondon's private member's bill, Bill C-216. It may come to a vote in the House this week and, if carried, is going to be referred to our committee.

One other thing, as a reminder, is that last October 23, when we had a committee business section, we did adopt a motion to hold a minimum of two meetings on “Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: Selected Impacts”.

In addition to that, we have several motions from Mr. Sheehan and Mrs. Gray, which have also been referenced today, and other motions that are already tabled.

The question for us is how we would like to proceed today.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We don't need a reprint because there were no amendments adopted. That's wonderful.

Thank you all very much. Congratulations. We have moved C-18 through our committee and into the House.

I want to thank all of our witnesses and everybody who helped us get through this afternoon. It's very much appreciated.

For the interest of the committee, when we return on March 8, I'm going to suggest that we have the WTO reform for that week and committee business at our first meeting as well so that we can further discuss any other upcoming studies we want to do.

Thank you all so much for your co-operation today and your help. We got another bill through, so we're pleased.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll have a recorded vote on the bill itself.

(Bill C-18 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to start off, because I will be referring to some of the important testimony that we've heard, including the very important testimony today relating to the importance of moving forward with Bill C-18 and not going back to the negotiating table, which, unfortunately, the amendment proposed by our colleague from Green Party would require us to do.

It comes back, of course, to his initial opening statement that he is not present at committee. Just speaking for myself personally, I think that is unfortunate, and I certainly would have welcomed, and I believe all the committee members on this committee would have welcomed, his participation through our the debate and witness testimony period of this study.

In order to complete the point on the reason why I will be voting against this amendment, to sum up, we have heard very convincing testimony from business community leaders and from civil society as well, that this transitional agreement needs to move forward in order to provide predictability and certainty to Canadians, especially Canadian exporters.

We've also heard from officials and others that there are many incentives to bring the United Kingdom back to the negotiating table. The United Kingdom has also indicated that it is looking forward to coming back to the negotiating table, and there is a clause in the TCA that requires the parties to come back to the negotiating table.

We will, in the context of negotiating that free trade agreement, be conducting extensive negotiations. We've already had exchanges with witnesses on how they would like to see those negotiations move forward. We have already indicated, as has the minister, that she plans on making this as broad a consultation as possible, and that is something entirely within the control of Canada. It does not need to be added into the agreement itself.

I would invite the colleague opposite to contact me if he has specific civil society organizations that he would like us to consult prior to the negotiation of the comprehensive free trade agreement.

For all of the above reasons, I will be voting against the proposed amendment.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to briefly put on the record that the Green Party MPs object to the larger parties in this House reducing our rights. The motion passed by this committee under the terms of which I appear today is not a favour to us. It is not an opportunity we requested. But for this motion, we would have the right under House of Commons procedures to move substantive amendments at report stage, subject to a vote of the House as a whole. The motion passed here and in every committee is the first time in the history of the Canadian Parliament that large, recognized parties acted to reduce the rights of a national party with fewer than 12 seats.

Further, we are the only Westminster-style Parliament that sets a minimum number of seats for a party to be recognized as a party in the Parliament. Our rights are restricted by this motion that this committee has passed. That motion obliges us to bring amendments here with no right to move the amendments, vote on the amendments nor speak to our own amendments other than in a proscribed and limited fashion.

With that, I will bring forward my amendment.

This amendment to Bill C-18 adds a sunset clause to ensure that the new agreement is negotiated and that the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement does not just continue on with all of the provisions of the EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, or CETA. In the view of the Green Party, there are many flaws in the EU CETA that we would not like to see carried over in this Canada-U.K. agreement. If this agreement is extended by resolution, then a comprehensive and transparent review will be triggered and must include local communities, indigenous peoples and civil society organizations.

I propose that Bill C-18 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following new clause, clause 15.1:

(1) Sections 1 to 15 cease to have effect at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this subsection unless, before the end of that day, the operation of those sections is extended by resolution—whose text is established under subsection (6)—passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (8).

(2) The related amendments enacted by sections 16 to 49 also cease to have effect upon sections 1 to 15 ceasing to have effect.

(3) A comprehensive review of sections 1 to 15 and their operation must be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

(4) The comprehensive review of sections 1 to 15 and their operations must

(a) take into account the perspectives of various groups, including local communities, Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations such as registered charities, non-governmental development organizations, labour unions, environmental organizations, community groups, human rights organizations and advocacy groups; and

(b) include an assessment of their impact in relation to Canada's sovereignty, the economy, jobs, trade balances, regulatory capacity, human rights, labour and environmental standards, the conduct of foreign investors in Canada and of Canadian investors in the United Kingdom, as well as on the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

(5) The committee referred to in subsection (3) must, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to both Houses of Parliament, including its recommendation with respect to extending the operation of sections 1 to 15.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague Ms. Kwan for moving this proposed amendment, but I believe that she and all members understand that the Constitution holds primacy over all other domestic legislation that we implement, including Bill C-18, and that the Constitution does recognize exactly what is being proposed in this amendment, so it is unnecessary. I would mention as well the importance of not including unnecessary additions into our agreements, because at that point, you can ask yourself the question, “Why aren't other constitutional rights, which are similarly important to all Canadians, not also mentioned specifically?”

I would also note that I did just this week speak to the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. I am working hand in hand with indigenous groups in order to ensure that their voices are heard in all trade negotiations, and have specific requests from that association to move forward on our negotiation of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and while I appreciate the intent of my colleague's proposed amendment, I will not be voting in favour of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'll call the meeting back to order for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18.

With us for witnesses, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Doug Forsyth, director general for market access and chief negotiator, Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement; Allison Trenholm, deputy chief negotiator, Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement; and Torsten Ström, general counsel, trade law bureau. We also have Brad Norwood from the Department of Finance. I believe he is going to be joining us as well.

Thank you all very much.

As we move forward on this, let's all be patient and go slowly.

We have our analysts with us. We have all of our advisers there to make sure we're going in the right direction with this, too, if we have any questions.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

I will now call the clauses.

Do I have unanimous consent to group the clauses when there are no suggested changes?

Is everyone in favour of that? All right, I will—

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

However, you have talked about other issues with Bill C-18. Is that true? People have brought issues to your attention about the bill and the concerns about delay?

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

Nobody in your group has raised concerns about a delay in the implementation of Bill C-18 because of a non-derogation clause with respect to indigenous rights. That hasn't come to your attention.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Thank you.

You did cut out briefly but I think I got the gist of your question.

Absolutely, we'd like to see Bill C-18 ratified quickly. Again, there are lots of ongoing trading relationships that are reliant on the rules that have been in place for the last few years with CETA. At the very least, we need to minimize disruption at a time when things are very challenging for many businesses out there. Moving into a new agreement, relatively quickly, I think, is also really important.

Again, we need stability and certainty when it comes to the trading relationships that are happening. Knowing that something is coming and that it's not going to dramatically change, or if it does, it will be to improve what's already been out there, is going to be an important message that has to be delivered as these negotiations go on. The quicker it can happen, the better, because that certainty is important.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Absolutely. I certainly concur with your comment with respect to not having this drag on.

If I may turn to the CFIB, I think you can see me coming already. Let me just begin by saying that you were mentioned a few times in question period today. We certainly appreciate your engagement on behalf of small businesses and also your encouragement that we should swiftly pass Bill C-14, which would continue to support our small businesses.

With respect to Bill C-18, which is before this committee today, I note that you would like to see a continued focus on SMEs, that you are happy with the chapter on removing technical barriers to trade in this transitional agreement, but that you would like to see a dedicated chapter for small businesses in a final free trade agreement. That certainly has been noted.

With respect to where we are today and the ratification process, you said that trade will be key to our economic [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Would you also urge us to move quickly on the passage of Bill C-18 and avoid any possible return to the negotiation table at this stage?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Let me also say that we, too, are hearing a lot of interest on the part of the United Kingdom to return to the negotiating table, and as a government we certainly look forward to consulting you and the Business Council of Canada before entering into those negotiations.

If I can move quickly to Mr. Poirier and the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, I did note with great interest some of your recommendations around communications and the importance of supporting the scale-up of our manufacturers in this country. I really do thank you for being so eloquent on those points.

I also heard you mention that you urge the swift passage of Bill C-18. What do you think about the possibility of having to go back to the negotiating table? What effect would that have on the manufacturers you represent? Do they want us to move forward in a way that provides certainty?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Ng, for your presentation.

Honestly, I get the impression that softwood lumber is often used as a bargaining chip in trade agreement negotiations. I'll tell you why I get that impression.

Not too long ago, as part of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, Canada's chief negotiator appeared before our committee. I asked him why the softwood lumber issue hadn't been addressed. He told us that it wasn't a priority for them at that time. Canada's chief negotiator told us this.

Also not too long ago, when I was talking to him about softwood lumber, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, as part of the study of Bill C-18, told me personally that trade agreements involve compromises. This leads me to believe that, when Canada negotiates trade agreements with the United States, compromises are often made with regard to softwood lumber.

I get the impression that you've never really fought to ensure that our American neighbours respect this industry. I'd like you to tell us more about this.

[Matthew Poirier, Director, Trade Policy, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to participate in today's discussion.

It's my pleasure to be here on behalf of Canada’s 90,000 manufacturers and exporters, and our association's 2,500 direct members to discuss Bill C-18, the implications for Canada’s manufacturing and exporting sector, and the future of this vital industry.

Our association’s members cover all sizes of companies, from all regions of the country and all industrial sectors. We represent the majority of Canada’s manufacturing output, as well as Canada’s value-added exports.

With over $20 billion in exports, the U.K. is one of Canada’s largest export markets. Canada-U.K. trade was one of our very first trade relationships and traditionally has been our doorway to the European market. According to our management issues survey, which is a large biennial survey of Canadian manufacturers, the European Union, and the U.K. in particular, is one of the top three markets that exporters see as having the most potential in the next five years.

As the committee knows, this is a unique situation. We've had a free trade agreement with the U.K. for many years under CETA, so the discussion today is all about maintaining that access and then, we hope, a discussion on how Canada can take advantage of a new bilateral trade agreement between Canada and the U.K. We, therefore, fully support the Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement, and we urge swift passage of Bill C-18. This interim measure is required, obviously, while our negotiators hammer out a more permanent Canada-U.K. agreement, and like my fellow panellists, I urge that it happen as soon as possible as well.

However, beyond these mechanical trade agreement issues lies an even bigger problem that I must raise. That is the problem of our declining value-added export performance, a decline that has been accelerating despite signing more and more free trade agreements across the globe.

Let me explain what I mean. Two-thirds of Canada’s value-added exports, the types of exports that Canada makes the most money from, are manufactured goods. In other words, Canadian manufacturers take the raw ingredients, transform them into something of higher value and then sell these goods abroad. This “bigger bang for your buck” type of trade has been declining for years. In fact, with the U.K., manufacturing exports have been declining steadily for five years, even after we signed CETA. Canada can no longer afford to ignore the lost economic potential that the decline in value-added exports represents. It's simply not sustainable.

How do we fix that? We have ideas.

Simply put, Canada’s manufacturer-exporters are too small, and at full capacity. Generally speaking, Canada has a higher proportion of its businesses being smaller SMEs than most of our global competitors. From a fundamental structural perspective, we need to get our companies to invest in their businesses and help them grow and scale up. Larger companies are simply better positioned to take advantage of global trade. CME’s manufacturing survey results back this up. When asked what is holding them back from exporting to new markets, they told us that the risks are too high because they lack a competitive edge with foreign companies. They simply feel that they can’t compete and don’t bother.

It's important that we agree that this structural domestic business problem is driving our export underperformance. Landing new global customers through FTAs is rather pointless if we cannot produce the goods to sell to them at competitive prices.

Now, you might ask yourselves, isn’t this the point of EDC, BDC, CCC and the trade commissioner service? Aren’t they supposed to help derisk exporting and help SMEs get out there? The answer is yes, and we would argue that they are all quite good at doing that. The problem is the disconnect between these great programs and exporters knowing that they exist. When we polled manufacturers, we found that those who used these agencies and programs loved them, but a majority of respondents couldn’t even identify the agencies, let alone the programs they offer. This is a big problem.

Therefore, we have the dual challenge of our exporting companies being small, underinvested in and uncompetitive, and a big gap between government assistance and companies using that assistance.

Here are some concrete actions that we would like to put forward to address some of those problems.

Number one, create a manufacturing and export strategy for Canada that focuses on modernizing and growing our industrial sectors. It needs to help companies invest in the technology that will help them scale up and truly become global players. We happen to have such a plan, which we discussed with many of you in the past, and I would be happy to leave a copy with the clerk.

Number two, launch a made-in-Canada branding exercise at home and in international markets to celebrate our manufactured goods. This will boost awareness of Canadian capabilities and technologies as well as sales and exports. The maple leaf is a global brand with a sterling reputation that we don't take advantage of enough.

Number three, bridge government export agencies and exporters by leveraging the vast networks of business trade associations. This can be done by investing in Canada's trade associations' capacity to link the two sides and act as a concierge service for exporters. The government used to support these types of initiatives to great effect. We think they should again.

Number four, expand our efforts on SME exporter mentorship. Organizing and managing private peer-mentoring networks is another way Canada's trade associations can be used to maximize company-to-company learning.

All these actions are table stakes if we want to play a bigger role in global trade. They will also go a long way to helping current manufacturers maximize their export potential for years to come. However, while we at CME believe these solutions are something we need to work on now, the priority, of course, is ensuring we maintain current global market access.

Let me reiterate that CME fully supports Bill C-18. We need a transitional agreement in place between Canada and the U.K. as soon as possible and, in time, a permanent trade agreement between our two nations.

Thank you for inviting me. I look forward to the discussion.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Senior Vice-President, National Affairs and Partnerships, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to share the CFIB's perspective on Bill C-18.

You should have a slide presentation that was sent to you by the clerk. I'm hoping to walk you through it, so I hope you'll have that in front of you as I present my speaking notes over the next few minutes.

First, I just want to say that the CFIB is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that represents about 110,000 small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. They come from every sector of the economy and are found in every region of the country.

It's important to remember that, normally, Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises employ about 90% of Canadians, and they're responsible for the bulk of new job creation. However, the last year has been particularly challenging for many small businesses right across the country, as they had to deal with shutdowns and limited capacity to help Canada deal with the pandemic.

As of early February, you should know that only 51% of businesses in Canada were fully open, that only 39% were fully staffed and that only 25% were back to normal revenues. The CFIB also released some new data just yesterday that found that seven in 10 businesses have taken on new debt during the pandemic, with the average debt being almost $170,000 per business.

I share these staggering numbers to highlight why it is so important to continue to find ways to bring stability and continuity to businesses trying to operate in these challenging times. I think that is what Bill C-18 aims to do.

I also believe that trade, both domestic and international, will be key to Canada's economic recovery. Agreements such as this one are essential in making sure that small and—to be fair—large businesses, as well, have some certainty when dealing with some of our largest trading partners.

To better understand why this is so important to small businesses, I'm going to be referring to a survey that we did back in 2017 that got almost 4,400 responses. As you can see, 31% of survey respondents had some experience with exporting, and 71% had some experience with importing.

These may be slightly higher than what is actually out there, as the survey likely attracted those, but they're not going to be too far off from what's actually the experience of many small businesses. For some, though, it's only an occasional thing. They maybe do it a couple of times a year. Others, though, do engage in trade daily. What's important, though, is that, regardless of the frequency of their trade experience, it needs to be as seamless and as easy as possible if we are to encourage more small businesses to continue to trade internationally.

Which countries do they trade with? Not surprisingly, the United States, of course, dominates the trading experiences of small businesses in Canada. However, as you'll see, more than 5% of small business owners import goods and services from the United Kingdom, and slightly more—closer to 6%—export to the U.K. In fact, amongst small firms, the U.K. is the third most likely region that Canadian small businesses will be exporting to—behind only the U.S. and the EU—and it's the fourth most likely country that Canadian small firms import from. Clearly, it's an important trading partner for small businesses.

We know also that governments around the world are interested in getting more small businesses involved in international trade. Therefore, understanding what motivates them to get involved in trade is still an important question. As you can see, most do it because they see a growing market demand for their product or service, want to expand their business or see good potential market opportunities. However, more than a third—36%—are also citing favourable trade agreements as having an influence on their intention to export. Having trade agreements address small and medium-sized business trade priorities would encourage even more to engage in trade.

That's why we've always welcomed the small business—or SME—chapters that were included in the CPTPP and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, as they're a starting point in recognizing some of the challenges that may be unique to smaller firms.

While CETA did not expressly have an SME chapter, there was some work done through a joint committee to recognize the unique needs of small firms. We would strongly encourage a continued focus on SMEs in this trade continuity agreement. We would also highly recommend that the new Canada-U.K. negotiated trade agreement include a small business chapter that has within it the development of such tools and activities aimed at assisting smaller firms with their trading challenges. It's these types of initiatives that will ultimately encourage more smaller firms to engage in trade.

At the very least, of course, trade agreements have to help small businesses overcome some of the barriers they face. Those challenges can include everything from currency fluctuations to the cost of shipping, but they also include dealing with various duties and taxes and understanding rules and regulations—basically those non-tariff barriers.

We are pleased to see that Bill C-18 will honour the tariff elimination agreements made under CETA, which includes the elimination of 98% of tariffs on products exported to the U.K. right away. That, of course, will go up over the next couple of years.

We're also pleased to see that chapters remain on improving technical barriers to trade, as well as an emphasis on working together on regulatory co-operation. Also, it's important, though, to improve customs and trade facilitation, as this is often where small businesses can get discouraged. Efforts to help them better understand all the various rules, all the various customs processes, will be an important component of making this trade agreement and others really work for small businesses.

While much of the information I'm sharing today comes from a survey done prior to the pandemic, I did want to share some more recent data that illustrates that these issues remain important for small businesses, even during troubling times.

A survey was conducted just last August. In it we asked what the federal government priorities should be or what it should focus on. As you can see, over one-third wanted the government to focus on ensuring favourable trade conditions for small businesses. This actually jumps to more than one-half among manufacturing firms. This is despite all the challenges that were in place at the time.

We want to ask that you ratify Bill C-18 and then move quickly to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement with the U.K. The trade agreement to be negotiated should include a small business chapter that addresses their unique needs and provides them with tools like a centralized website that has relevant information in plain language. It also should ensure that Canada and the U.K. provide tailored information for small and medium-sized enterprises on what changes to the agreement may impact their existing trade relationships, and how small businesses can benefit from the agreement. It should also focus on making customs processes easier, as this is often where the greatest stumbling blocks are for smaller companies.

Incorporating some of these ideas and moving quickly on this agreement will help make sure that businesses already trading into the U.K. can continue to do so with limited interruption, and could potentially attract even more smaller firms that are looking to expand into new markets to engage in trade.

I want to thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions.

[Trevor Kennedy, Director, Trade and International Policy, Business Council of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part in your meeting on Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom.

The Business Council of Canada is composed of 150 chief executives and entrepreneurs of Canada's leading enterprises. Our members directly and indirectly support more than six million jobs across the country and hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Representing different industries and regions, these men and women are united in their commitment to make Canada the best country in which to live, work, invest and grow.

It's been said many times before, but it bears repeating, that Canada is a trading nation, and many Canadian companies rely on the rules-based trading system, as well as our networks of bilateral free trade agreements, to provide certainty and access to global markets.

Given its prominent role in the economy, we expect international trade to be an important part of Canada's economic recovery. The facts speak for themselves. Merchandise exports to the world fell by 12.3% in 2020 because of the pandemic, a decline of $70 billion. Canada needs to work hard in the years ahead to restore and grow our exports from precrisis levels.

The potential loss of preferential market access to the U.K., secured under CETA, presented a serious risk to the recovery for Canadian exporters. The U.K. is Canada's third-largest merchandise export market. It was also one of the few markets in the world in which we were able to sustain our exports from last year despite the crisis.

The U.K., as part of the EU, has been a critical component of Canada's fast-growing transatlantic trade relationship. Before the pandemic, it accounted for 40% of Canada's merchandise exports and 36% of service exports to the EU. Merchandise exports to the U.K. grew by nearly 12% since provisional application. Canadian exporters had momentum in the U.K. before the pandemic, and it's important that we continue to grow our trade.

When I spoke to the committee during negotiations, I mentioned how time-sensitive a Canada-U.K. trade deal is. Not only did we risk losing preferential market access by reverting to the WTO most-favoured nation tariff rates, but many of our peers were negotiating bilateral deals that would have undermined our competitiveness in the market.

Given our existing trade relationship with the U.K. under CETA, and the uncertainty surrounding the future of U.K.-EU relations during the negotiations, the transitional trade deal approach taken by our negotiators was the best approach for Canada. The transitional approach provided Canada with an opportunity to take this new relationship into account when we negotiate a long-term trade deal.

As with Canada's existing free trade agreements, we want to ensure that we reach a conclusive deal in the future with appropriate consultation and assessment of the market opportunities for Canadian firms. The transitional approach will also allow us to do that while we maintain our position in the market.

We were pleased to see that a Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement manages to preserve our gains under CETA. Like CETA, the TCA's benefits include the elimination of 98% of tariffs on Canadian merchandise exports to the U.K. and will eliminate 99% within a few years. This is in addition to important market access opportunities in government procurement and services, among others.

At the same time, because Canada and the U.K. agreed to negotiate a new deal in the future, the TCA does not require that our future trade relationship be based exclusively on our existing EU agreement.

Our priority today is to quickly ratify the TCA. The existing memorandum of understanding between Canada and the U.K. is a helpful stopgap measure but it is time-sensitive. The U.K. is retooling its international relationships and there is a clear opportunity to reimage our bilateral trade and investment ties with a comprehensive and ambitious trade agreement. We hope both parties can start working on this with stakeholders as soon as the TCA is in force.

The Business Council of Canada reiterates the importance of swiftly ratifying the TCA. This agreement provides certainty for businesses at a time of great uncertainty. It will help our economy to recover by driving trade and attracting the capital needed to innovate, grow and improve Canadians' quality of life through the creation of well-paying jobs.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee. I look forward to answering questions.

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

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 17, on Friday, February 26. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 1, 2021, we are studying Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Today's meeting is webcast and is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021.

Welcome to all of the committee members, the staff and our witnesses. From 1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m., we have the following witnesses who will be presenting to the committee.

We have, from the Business Council of Canada, Trevor Kennedy, director, trade and international policy. From the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, we have Ian Andexser, chairman. From the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, we have Fawn Jackson, director, international and government relations; and Doug Sawyer, co-chair, international trade committee.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Corinne Pohlmann, senior vice-president, national affairs and partnerships; and from Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, we have Matthew Poirier, director, trade policy.

Welcome to you all.

Mr. Kennedy, if you'd like, please lead off.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think any of my colleagues, from either side of the aisle, would disagree with me when I say that this bill is incredibly important to Canadians.

We are now over a year into this pandemic. I know that the first case in Canada was confirmed in January 2020, and the first recorded case of COVID-19 in Alberta was in March of last year. However, I do not know when the first plan to get back to normal will be presented, either to Canadians, or to the House of Commons. I honestly cannot believe that I had to say those words.

We are now over a year into this pandemic, and the government has not yet presented a plan. I do not think there is a way for anyone to easily describe how disappointing that is, and how disappointing it is that the bill before us does not present any sort of plan either. Of course, this raises the question of what the government would do if it did have a plan.

I am not asking about policies here. I am asking about how the government expects to get its plan through the House of Commons. While I and many of my colleagues appreciate the time we have had to go through the contents of the bill before us, I have to seriously ask what the government is thinking. The fact is that we are debating the 2020 fall economic statement in the winter of 2021. Obviously, we had our winter break, which contributed to the delay, but the government has a bit of a secret that I would like to let members in on.

The Liberals are big procrastinators. They love to leave some of their most important bills, the ones Canadians are asking for, until the last minute. They will also introduce a bill, have the first reading, and then sit on it for weeks on end until it finally goes to second reading. That is the tactic of this government.

There are far too many examples of this for me to list. However, there are plenty of examples from this very parliamentary session. I will start with a big one, which I know my colleagues from the Standing Committee on International Trade have heard me ask about plenty of times. I am referring to Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As the title of the bill so clearly lays out, it would implement a trade deal worked out between Canada and our close friends and allies the United Kingdom. Originally, we were going to lose many of our preferential tariff levels with the United Kingdom by the end of last year, and we had to pass the bill to ensure that would not happen.

What did the government do? It introduced the bill about a week before we rose for the winter break. As I am sure members are aware, we only voted on the second reading of the bill on Monday, February 1, 2021. The only reason we still have those preferential tariff levels with the United Kingdom is because the government realized its folly and signed a memorandum of understanding that temporarily extends those levels until we pass Bill C-18. Believe it or not, this is not the only bill the Liberals have delayed on.

I am sure all my colleagues, and of course many, many Canadians, are very familiar with Bill C-7 by now. We had a court-imposed deadline to pass this bill, which was December 18, 2020. I am sure my colleagues opposite will try to blame the opposition for it taking a long time to get to the other place, but it was nearly two weeks between the Speech from the Throne that kicked off this session and the bill being introduced. I wonder why.

This was not a surprise. The court decision that mandated the law be changed was made back in 2019, but it took two weeks to reintroduce this bill. On top of that, last February was the last time we looked at Bill C-7, an act that would amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying. That is right, it was February of 2020.

Why was this not introduced right after the 2019 federal election, as soon as we returned in December of 2019? Why not in January of 2020, or early February? The answer is that the government loves to delay the introduction and debate of important pieces of legislation. The bill we are debating today, Bill C-14, is no different.

Obviously she needed some time to be introduced to the job, but why did the Minister of Finance wait until November 30, 2020, to introduce this bill? By that point, Canadians had been asking for a plan for eight and a half months, if not longer, depending on the province. Why did she wait for two whole months after the start of the second session to introduce this bill?

It was certainly not to give my colleagues in the opposition and I time to study the bill. The Minister of Finance complained on Twitter that we were allegedly delaying this bill, but I think the answer is a little different. I think it was simply another example of Liberals leaving important business until the 11th hour.

I know my Conservative colleagues and I welcome some of the parts of this bill, such as the Canada child benefit top-up, which our leader has been calling for, but we want to make sure we have time to discuss it. The Liberal government has had plenty of poorly written legislation during this pandemic. How else does one explain that this bill would do such things as amend the rent relief legislation for the second time? This is the third try for the rent relief legislation. I know Canadians across the country are hoping this third time will be the charm, but I am not sure.

Liberals like to blame Conservatives for everything, and I know they love blaming former prime minister Harper for everything too, but in the case of Bill C-14, I am pretty sure any and all problems are their fault and theirs only. At this point, it is unacceptable that the Liberals still cannot get anything done.

I know all my colleagues in this House want to support Canadians who are still struggling against this pandemic, but the Liberals are still playing their classic game of delaying and blaming the Tories, and it is doing anything but helping Canadians. The Prime Minister and his party are just busy preparing for a snap election. They are not busy making sure the lives of Canadians are better. A fiscal update has to be in place so we know where we are going in these tough times.

[Brad Chandler, Chief Executive Officer and President, Hensall District Co-Operative Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair and the members of the committee, for this invitation to appear before the committee.

I represent Hensall Co-Operative. We are one of the largest farmers co-operatives in Canada with over 6,000 farmer members and owners, and we have over 30 locations across Ontario and Manitoba.

Our business is very diversified; it's made up of animal nutrition, crop services, energy, freight-forwarding logistics, grain marketing and marketing of ingredients.

The largest section of our business is made up of our food products, which is our dry bean and IP, non-GMO soybean business, which is an export-type business.

Our growth has been tremendous. Some history is $300 million revenue with 250 employees in 2010, and today, 2020, we stand with over $800 million of revenue and 650 employees, and the biggest growth sector has been in export.

We have entered into commodity and value-added contracts with more 2,500 growers. We have contracts of between 300,000-350,000 acres annually for higher-value human grade soybeans, edible beans and identity preserved soybeans, all going to the U.K. and Asia.

Currently we ship 80 food-grade containers a day of food products out of our facilities to over 40 countries globally. We have invested more than $100 million in hard assets across rural communities in Ontario, and these are primary investments to improve our facilities and our services and to expand our geographical footprint.

Quality, of course, is critical to our success. We ensure that all our food production facilities have quality accreditations, including SQF. Also, with all this shipment globally and to Asia and the U.K., it allows us collaboration with our freight-forwarding business, Hensall Global Logistics, which is one of the largest freight-forwarding businesses in Canada and in the top 10 in North America.

To give you some background, edible beans, human-grade soybeans, represent a critical sector between IP soybeans and dry beans. They represent $300 million-$350 million of our $800 million gross revenue. It's been a key driver of our growth. It's provided a launch to our successful global logistics business. Looking back, we have edible beans and identity-preserved soybeans. The edible beans are our biggest product going into the U.K.; identity-preserved soybeans would be going into Asia.

When we're marketing these with our Canadians growers, we're a totally independent, all-Canadian co-operative, and we try to represent value added to these contracts so growers will grow these dry beans and IP soybeans, which brings another $22 million-$25 million into the farmers' hands and in their sectors. This is all based on export-type business.

As for our customers globally, we have developed long-standing trade with over 44 different countries. These relationships act as a springboard to allow us to offer higher value-added contracts to our Canadian growers.

Our customer list contains many names that you may recognize: Heinz beans, Princes beans and Kikkoman, which is soy sauce. Heinz and Princes are both U.K.-based, and they make up the biggest part of our dry bean business. When I say dry beans, I'm speaking of white beans, which are baked beans, kidney beans, different types of black beans and anything in that type of food sector.

We are also one of the sole major suppliers to Princes Foods in the U.K. We also have customers like Campbell's soup, and many may know that, if you eat Tim Hortons or Wendy's chili, those are our customers also, so you can see how we are diversified across the food sector.

The opportunity today and in the future is the growth of plant-based protein and meat alternatives, today projected to increase from a $4.6-billion industry to an $85-billion industry in 2030. This is an increase of 18-20 times, so you can see what the importance of CETA and Bill C-18 means to our business and Canadian growers.

Our Canadian climate is growing regions with access to arable land and water, a unique opportunity for favourable conditions for growing wide ranges of crops such as IP soybeans, non-GMO, pulses and dry beans.

Canadian agriproducts have a solid reputation all across the world, especially in Asia and Europe, giving us a unique opportunity to create advantages and opportunities for our Canadian growers.

Imperative for our success is that we must have free trade. Quotas will limit our growth opportunities. Duties and taxes can destroy markets since there is price sensitivity to food products and the retailers.

We must deliver our products to our customers on time, making reliable transportation infrastructure vitally important, and that includes ports, rails and roads.

Our primary ports are Montreal and Vancouver for outboard exports to the U.K. and Asia. Our bean-processing facilities are in southwestern Ontario and Manitoba, both utilizing rail and truck, so that's important.

Labour disruptions and blockades and heavy activity at ports and on our rail lines can be catastrophic to how we are viewed by our customers around the globe. Every time we miss a shipment or our product isn't the highest quality, it puts our business at risk.

Local access to employees and affordable housing [Technical difficulty—Editor]. We'd like to see fair access to improved broadband services and support for more innovative projects geared towards agricultural and food processing. The more value we add, [Technical difficulty—Editor] are for others to enter.

We deliver anywhere from 50,000 to 65,000 metric tons of beans annually to the U.K. market, which represents about $150 million to $200 million. This represents probably 50,000 to 80,000 acres of contracts and value-added crops for our Ontario and Manitoba growers.

Today in the U.K. we ship into Liverpool, Felixstowe and Southampton. We are currently seeing issues related to Brexit impacting congestion at some ports, which is an unintended consequence but a consequence all the same. We currently enjoy no tariffs on our products entering into the U.K.

Concerning Bill C-18, in the near term we currently have large trade with the U.K. Failure to put a CETA replacement in place will put substantial revenues at risk for our business, exporters in Ontario and the farmers we all represent. We are owned by 6,000 farm members. For the longer term, our history has proven that we can be leaders capturing share in growing markets of agricultural products. Canadian growers have a solid reputation around the world for quality and stewardship. We have this arable land, access to water, and weather to strengthen our position in the market for agricultural products, in particular dry beans, IPs and pulses.

Other countries have the same access to land and water, so we need to have a solid trade policy that promotes free trade and limits duties and excise taxes. We also need a very reliable transportation infrastructure. Having these will allow us the opportunity to take advantage of our current leadership in the sector, coupled with the reputation of growers.

In short, we need tariff quota-free trade with the U.K. to capture our share of the growth forecast for the pulse sector over the next 10 to 15 years. The benefits to Canadian farmers will be stronger rural communities and a stronger contribution to Canada's economic growth.

Thank you.

[Mark Agnew, Vice-President, Policy and International, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for the invitation to speak as part of the committee's Bill C-18 study. It's a pleasure to be back. Certainly quite a bit has changed since I last appeared, in the autumn. While on the one hand we do have an agreement signed, certainly it's not yet been implemented. Hopefully, we can talk a bit about that this afternoon.

It won’t surprise members of the committee to hear me say that the Canadian Chamber strongly supports the passage of Bill C-18 in an expeditious manner. The U.K. is a significant trading partner for Canada for all the reasons that we all know, including being both our third-largest goods export market and our second-largest destination for FDI abroad. Despite those rankings, it still remains a small overall proportion of our trade flows, behind the United States. I think this actually means that there's room and potential for the relationship to grow.

Since December 2020, Canadian companies have managed to avoid going off the cliff and having tariffs reimposed, either for exports going to the U.K. or companies that are sourcing products from the U.K. into Canada. However, this doesn't mean that the current arrangements are perfect. We have an MOU implementing remissions orders to apply parts of a transitional agreement that's based on a provisionally applied CETA. As you can imagine, that’s quite a mouthful for a lot of companies to be able to understand.

Therefore, while the execution of remissions orders has been a welcome relief for our members, we should not coast. Bill C-18 provides an ability to simplify the architecture that governs the trade between Canada and the U.K. as well as limit any operational questions that companies may come across during this current period.

I will highlight some of the benefits that we see from the TCA, which I did have a chance to speak to in more detail at my last committee appearance. Number one are the tariff eliminations on such products as lobster, plastics, vehicles and beef.

The second main benefit we see is in and around regulatory co-operation. As I said at my last appearance, CETA provides a critical framework for regulatory dialogues to occur on agriculture and industrial product non-tariff barriers that are keeping our products out of the market in terms of being able to use the CETA preferential tariff rates that were granted in the negotiations.

The third area of benefit we would point to in the TCA is in and around services. CETA’s temporary entry chapter had provisions on intra-company transferees. That enabled Canadian companies to bring in specialized talent from the U.K. to service their Canadian operations. The contractual service supplier provisions mean that specialized skills can be brought in to fill niche supply chain gaps that companies aren't able to fill in-house. The CETA provisions on these entry categories reduce the business burden for bringing in these specialized talents. Without them in a U.K. context it will have a negative impact on Canadian businesses. This is not an area that currently is part of the MOU, as was discussed in the first half of the committee meeting.

As the government’s economic assessment notes, the TCA will preserve an estimated $2 billion in bilateral trade. At a time of significant economic uncertainty, we need to leave no stone unturned for Canadian businesses to find ways to grow our economy. Trade agreements are a way for governments to support growth at a minimal cost to the public purse.

As I noted when last appearing before the committee, if CETA matters, then transitioning it to a bilateral agreement with our largest trading partner in Europe also matters. As we approach March 31, we hope the TCA can be implemented rather than the two governments needing to roll over the current MOU.

Bill C-18 is fundamentally about preserving market access that we already have. Now is not the time to rock the boat on that. From a forward-looking perspective, drawing a line under Bill C-18 will enable us to devote our efforts to focusing on the issues that will allow us to actually expand and improve our market access. This includes such issues as digital trade, regulatory co-operation, trade facilitation, labour mobility and others.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to taking your questions.

[David Chartrand]

I will just put in the IM's recommendations: Develop an industrial policy that includes a national aerospace policy to support the industry nationally; support the industry in remaining globally competitive in accessing global markets; ensure under Bill C-18 that there are Canadian content requirements in public contracts; review and revise problematic CETA chapters, such as labour rights, public procurement, trade regulations and quotas.

Thank you.

[David Chartrand, Quebec Coordinator, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers]

Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to share the position of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers on this important matter.

The IAM is the leading union in the aerospace sector and air transportation industry. We represent over 55,000 members across Canada of whom 22,000 work in the aviation, aerospace and air transportation sector. We also have members who work in a range of sectors and industries, from screening services across airports in Canada, automotive parts manufacturing, the hospitality sector, health care, custom paint additives, industrial pump manufacturing, plastics manufacturing to woodworking. We are as diverse as our membership and take every opportunity to advocate on issues that impact our members and workers across Canada.

The U.K.'s departure from the European Union has far-reaching ramifications, and securing a transitional agreement provides for continued trade and stability in trade relations between Canada and the U.K. This is irrefutable. The IAM unequivocally supports efforts to diversify and expand trade opportunities since healthy industries provide jobs Canadians can rely on. But with opportunities come challenges and today, on behalf of the IAM, I would like to highlight where we see both opportunities and shortcomings under the proposed agreement.

We strongly recommend that CETA not be continued in its original form and that the federal government address problem areas before proceeding with Bill C-18. In this interim period, we see an opportunity for the federal government to improve CETA through Bill C-18 and ensure the best possible trade deal for Canada and Canadians.

The contribution of Canada's aerospace industry should not be ignored. The aerospace industry has irrefutably proven to be the driver of innovation and technology across sectors. For decades, Canada's expertise, knowledge and skill base has been world renowned. In fact, the Canadian government relies more on this industry for revenue than Canada's competitors. Aerospace is a large contributor to the Canadian economy, some $28 billion annually, and as a large contributor to our GDP, it's an export-extensive industry. Ninety-three per cent of aerospace manufacturing firms were exporters, which is 44% higher than the manufacturing average. Aerospace manufacturing firms also have more diversified trade than the manufacturing average, underlining the importance of trade to this industry, which must be on favourable terms.

The industry is also a source of well-paid, stable, unionized jobs that support middle-class Canadians. In the Canadian labour market, the aerospace industry employs more workers than the auto industry by a large margin: 208,000 versus 123,000 workers or 60% more workers than auto. Yet, to date, the industry has seen little direct support as a whole. We advocated for support in this industry prior to the pandemic and we support all efforts to grow Canadian aerospace, making us more competitive. Certainly, trade opportunities open doors for growth and exposure.

There are opportunities in the U.K. aerospace market. According to a study done by the trade commissioner, there is a niche for Canadian aerospace in the U.K. market. Although we make up a small portion of the U.K.'s trade portfolio, approximately 1.6%, we believe the Canadian aerospace industry should take advantage of opportunities afforded by the transition agreement.

The trade commissioner has identified opportunities for Canadian aerospace companies, which would be supported by the continuation of agreement terms under CETA. Disruptions in global markets due to the pandemic are inevitably leading to mergers and acquisitions with the aerospace and defence industry having been flagged as the most susceptible. The trade commissioner advises Canadian companies with cash flow to consider acquisition targets and to invest in the U.K.

Other opportunities of interest are software solutions that support the digitization of supply chain management, as well as technology supporting the transformation of industry due to the coronavirus crisis, such as cyber solutions, monitoring solutions and CBRN-type capabilities that support disinfection.

We need to position the aerospace industry for success in the U.K market by the development of an industrial policy. Globally, economies have been shaken by the pandemic, paralyzing several industries. Government spending has increased in efforts to sustain both workers and businesses during this challenging time. It's clear a recovery will take years, and we recommend the development of a thorough industrial policy targeted at supporting and stimulating hard hit sectors, such as aerospace, aviation, tourism and related industries. Getting the economy back on track will not only require funding, but a comprehensive and well-thought-out plan to ensure a strong and full recovery in the form of an industrial policy.

We need the development of a national aerospace policy. A pan-Canadian aerospace policy would address several issues that Canadian aerospace faces. Canada's largest aerospace cluster is centralized in Quebec, however practically every province has an aerospace cluster. The industry is often caught between provincial and federal governments, which has made a cohesive funding framework and fostering of regional clusters difficult. The approach the government has taken is to fund individual aerospace companies and randomly transfer money to provinces with aerospace clusters.

This is neither an efficient use of money nor an effective means to ensure that Canada remains globally competitive, despite being unsurpassed in production of flight simulators, civil aircraft engines and MRO.

On support for regional clusters, practically every province has a regional cluster, yet there is no coordination amongst them. A healthy level of competition within an industry is beneficial. However, as an industry of national importance, there must be some level of coordination and cohesion at the national level. Simply put, strengthening the domestic industry supports its global competitiveness.

With regard to support in the procurement process, we recommend that Bill C-18 outline stipulations for Canadian content requirements in public contracts. Additionally, measures that allow the Canadian government to support and guarantee economic benefits must be part and parcel of the new agreement. The IM also recommends that a form of insurance framework be included, with the goal of protecting struggling economic sectors such as aerospace in the current climate, without facing penalties for breach of contact.

On CETA's gaps and erosion of labour rights, labour groups rang the alarm bells before CETA was adopted, highlighting the agreement's shortcomings in protecting labour rights. For instance, CETA's chapter 23 is excluded from general dispute settlement, meaning that labour disputes couldn't be resolved through a formal mechanism that involved penalties. While investors can rely on a binding investment court system, labour disputes are resolved through a non-binding process of co-operation and recommendation, which companies can ignore without penalties.

Furthermore, labour provisions did not provide for any binding or enforceable labour provisions for implementation of core international labour standards. International labour standards prevent the erosion of standards and a race to the bottom, which is likely, given that CETA allows parties to shift investments to areas where labour standards are lowest and through challenging new regulations that would negatively impact investments.

CETA also allows certain classes of workers to move between countries and bypass the Canadian immigration process. CETA limits government's ability to put limits on migrant workers in areas of high unemployment, even if local workers are available. This provision clearly undercuts government's efforts to train and hire local workers.

Last but not least, temporary entry provisions do not provide a path to permanent residency or immigration, as is the case in other European trade agreements. Moreover, this provision is expected to have a greater impact on Canada than the U.K.

CETA also imposed a condition on the Canadian government to treat foreign suppliers at least as well as domestic suppliers, which, in some cases, would disadvantage domestic businesses. Under the original agreement, our government's ability to regulate entry and activity of foreign firms was limited, even in instances when such regulations didn't discriminate between foreign service suppliers and domestic service suppliers. This places emerging domestic businesses in a precarious position, such as the majority of the SMEs in the Canadian aerospace market.

With regard to public procurement, CETA allowed procurement rules to apply to Canadian municipal and provincial governments, in addition to the federal government. Local bodies are prohibited from favouring local suppliers and even applying local content requirements to procurement contracts, as it would infringe on non-discrimination provisions.

What is more concerning is that CETA's provisions give unconditional access to Canadian procurement markets to European companies. Moreover, procuring entities are not able to obligate foreign suppliers to contribute positively to local economic development.

Under the new transition agreement, we recommend that Bill C-18 outlines stipulations for Canadian content requirements in public contracts, a measure that allows the Canadian government to support and guarantee that economic benefits be part and parcel of the new agreement.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

We are here to make sure that our businesses get the continuity they need through this agreement. We of course hear that there are issues, but the purpose of Bill C-18 is to replicate CETA, and I would remind you that while the EU was still a part of the CETA, they were not able to undertake new international trade negotiations, so the discussion that has taken place with the U.K. is in terms of replicating CETA on a bilateral basis, which is what we've got here.

We're going to continue to work very hard for the agriculture sector, and indeed all sectors of the economy, so that in this new set of negotiations, we are considering what they are looking for and how we will pursue that in the next set of negotiations. I'm looking forward to ratifying Bill C-18 as quickly as we can so that we can begin those negotiations once Bill C-18 is ratified.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely, it's really important that we get this bill ratified.

You pointed out that the access to $118 billion of the U.K. procurement market is but one. I would also say that the numbers that I read out earlier, in answer to a question, around the benefits of CETA with the EU—and that includes the U.K.—such as the 16.6% increase in export levels to pre-CETA time, are one reason we continue to provide as much certainty and as much predictability as we can to Canadian businesses.

Certainly the business groups and the workers they employ are really counting on all of us to speedily pass Bill C-18 so that predictability and that certainty can be had for workers.

On that, I want to thank everyone for their terrific hard work. I'm looking forward to continuing to do that, because it is absolutely crucial to the stability that businesses need, and they're looking for us to do that with the passage of this legislation.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you so much, MP Gray, and it's very nice to see you here today as well.

The timeline and the work that lies ahead, I think behooves all of us as parliamentarians. This is about getting Bill C-18 through the parliamentary process, both in the House of Commons as well as in the Senate.

I take, with absolute urgency, the request by our many businesses and workers who are looking to the ratification of Bill C-18 so we can continue to protect those Canadian jobs and that stability and the certainty—

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Yes, I will try.

Point number one, we will always negotiate in the interest of Canadians. Point number two, what is before us today—and I hope all colleagues will agree and I hope we will continue—is to accelerate this work as best we can to ratify Bill C-18 so we can get on and pursue new agreements. Point number three, the commitment to speaking to Canadians is very real and we intend to do that and I am looking forward to doing that in due course after the ratification of Bill C-18.

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

Of course, Minister, you know that C-18 is about implementing the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement which, itself, is about a five-page document. Fully one page of that document is devoted to ISDS provisions and trying to massage the ISDS provisions of CETA. It struck me as strange that a government with a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement clauses would have spent 20% of the effort drafting this trade agreement on investor-state dispute settlement clauses, which is why I ask the question: Does the government have a principled objection to investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I think what's important, and in front of us, is a ratification of C-18 as quickly as possible so that we can get back to the negotiating table. Of course, as part of that process, we need to take the time and the opportunity to speak to Canadians and businesses and workers on what is important.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I am happy to have officials provide you with that information.

As a point of clarification, again, we are working on the—I hope—continued speedy passage of Bill C-18, which is the legislation that will give into force the continuity agreement between Canada and the U.K. so that the provisions of CETA continue.

Let me just remind you of some of the benefits of CETA over the last two years of CETA's entry into force. Canadian merchandise exports to the EU, including the U.K., averaged $46.6 billion in 2018. That was up 16.6% compared to pre-CETA levels.

This agreement is really important to Canadian businesses and exporters. We're looking forward to working with members on all sides of the House, so that we can all ensure that Canadian businesses and exporters continue to have the benefits of this important agreement.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

While CETA will continue to govern Canada-EU trade, this continuity agreement will provide predictability and remove uncertainty for Canadian businesses doing business with and in the U.K.

I'm thrilled to have the support of Canadian business and industry for the quick ratification of Bill C-18. These are organizations such as the Business Council of Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters.

When it comes to the critical nature of Bill C-18, I would like to quote the shared statement from these businesses directly:

...we ask all parties to support the ratification of the Trade Continuity Agreement by quickly passing Bill C-18. Doing so would protect thousands of Canadian jobs and provide stability and certainty for workers, employers and investors. Without an agreement, $2 billion worth of bilateral trade will be at risk.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on all sides of the House to ensure a smooth continuity of Canada-U.K. trade relations and, in the near future, working toward further deepening this important trade relationship for the benefit of all Canadians.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions and our discussion.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear once again before the House Standing Committee on International Trade to speak on behalf of Bill C-18, an act to implement the trade continuity agreement, TCA, between Canada and the United Kingdom.

For Canada, international trade is central to our economic success and prosperity, and there is no doubt that trade will play a crucial role in our inclusive and sustainable recovery from COVID-19. This is why it is important for Canada not only to develop new trading relationships, but also to strengthen existing ties.

The U.K. is our largest trade market in Europe, and in 2019, it was the third-largest destination for Canadian merchandise exports worldwide. It is also a key source of innovation, science and technology partnerships. Two-way merchandise trade between Canada and the U.K. totalled $29 billion in 2019, making it our fifth-largest international partner. The U.K. is also Canada’s second-largest services trade partner, behind only the United States, amounting to exports of nearly $7.1 billion last year. The U.K. is Canada’s fourth-largest source of foreign direct investment, valued at $62.3 billion in 2019.

It is clear that our trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom is critical to Canadian jobs by preserving a key enabler to our strong economic partnership—and that is CETA. The trade continuity agreement before you today ensures Canada and the U.K. can sustain and build upon our trade relationships by preserving the main benefits of CETA. As this agreement is based on CETA, a trade agreement Canadians are already familiar with, it will provide continuity, predictability and stability for Canadian businesses, exporters, workers and consumers. This is more important than ever as we all grapple with COVID-19.

Once the agreement is fully implemented it will carry forward CETA’s tariff elimination on 99% of Canadian products exported to the U.K. It will fully protect Canadian producers of all supply-managed products and maintain our priority market access for Canadian service suppliers, including access to the U.K. government’s procurement market, which is estimated to be worth approximately $118 billion annually. It will uphold and preserve CETA’s high standard provisions on labour, the protection of the environment and dispute settlement.

At the same time, while this agreement is largely a replication of CETA, it provides no new market access for dairy or any other supply-managed products. This outcome fulfills the commitment made by our government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to not concede any additional market access for supply-managed sectors in the trade agreements this government signs on to.

When it comes to the U.K., we have a particularly special connection and enjoy a robust trade and investment relationship. Canada and the U.K. enjoy a deep and historic relationship, and both sides are keen to work together to maintain our strong trading relationship post-Brexit to ensure stability and continuity for our businesses.

When the United Kingdom held a referendum and, guided by the decision of its citizens, decided to leave the European Union, that decision not only affected the U.K.’s trade and economic relations with its largest partner, but it also meant that the United Kingdom can no longer be a party to CETA with Canada. Obviously, this had the potential to affect Canadian companies, especially if the U.K. chose to re-evaluate its trade priorities.

That's why this trade continuity agreement is so important.

Canadian businesses and workers in many sectors rely on our interconnected trade relationship, from farmers to fish harvesters to innovators. They have told us that what they want the most at this time is stability. This agreement provides exactly that.

The TCA ensures that Canada and the U.K. can both sustain and build upon our important relationship by preserving the benefits of CETA on a bilateral basis, fully protecting our closely integrated supply chains.

Madam Chair, this continuity agreement is good for workers and for businesses. It's good for both Canada and the United Kingdom. Without the TCA in place, Canadian businesses would have faced the uncertainty of new barriers and higher costs of doing business, particularly our agriculture, fish and seafood industries. With this agreement we can build a better future for both countries.

The TCA includes a commitment for subsequent negotiations to begin within a year of this agreement coming into force. My U.K. counterpart, Secretary Truss, and I have publicly committed to these negotiations.

We will, of course, seek the input of Canadians on their interest in a new bilateral discussion with the United Kingdom. I am looking forward to hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast through public consultations. I'm looking forward to working towards a high-quality, modern and comprehensive agreement that includes ambitious chapters on the environment, women's economic empowerment, labour and digital trade.

To those who have pointed out areas where improvements are sorely needed, we hear you. I am eager to get to work on those issues. We will return to this House when we are ready to table negotiating objectives for this new ambitious effort.

Right now, while we work to ratify this agreement both in Canada and the United Kingdom, we have signed a memorandum of understanding between both countries so that trade can continue to flow while the agreement makes its way through domestic approvals.

The TCA will provide stability and will remain in place until a new agreement, which we aim to reach within three years, is ready.

To sum up, Madam Chair, this trade continuity agreement is like no other trade agreement Canada has negotiated. We've heard from Canadian businesses and industries, as well as provinces and territories, about the importance of maintaining a preferential trading relationship with the United Kingdom. The successful ratification of Bill C-18 will go a long way to minimizing disruptions for Canadian businesses at this critical time.

Throughout the ratification process, and once this agreement is in place, Canada will continue to support Canadian companies doing business with and in the U.K. and the EU through what I call a “team Canada” approach to trade.

This is critical to Canada's economic recovery and future prosperity. As we look to turn the corner and build back better, it will be even more important that we continue to provide Canadian businesses with as many options and opportunities as possible.

This agreement maintains crucial ties and preferential trade terms with one of Canada's key trade partners. It ensures that Canadian businesses do not face yet another disruption or challenge at this time. Indeed, if this agreement were not in place, it would be another setback that Canadian businesses cannot afford.

This is why I urge all members to consider the benefits of the TCA and of maintaining preferential trade with a key partner, and show their support for Canadian businesses and our exporters.

Madam Chair, let me conclude by saying that the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom is good for Canadians, good for the people of the United Kingdom, and good for the strong, mutually beneficial relationship that our nations have built over the past 150 years.

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

Good Monday morning to everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 1, 2021, we continue our study 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.

Today's meeting is being televised, and is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. I would like to take the opportunity to remind all participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted. To ensure an orderly meeting, I need to outline a few of the rules that I know you've heard before.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on your microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

My apologies for last Friday, and not being able to get our meeting started when we had our witnesses there, but we're very pleased that you are able to be with us today.

We have Minister Ng, Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade.

As witnesses with her, we have, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Doug Forsyth, director general for market access and chief negotiator, Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement—someone who's well-known to all of the committee. We also have Allison Trenholm, deputy chief negotiator, Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement; and Torsten Ström, general counsel, trade law bureau.

From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Aaron Fowler, chief agriculture negotiator and director general, trade agreements and negotiations.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for rearranging your schedules from last Friday to be with us today. We appreciate it very much.

We move on to Minister Ng for your opening statement, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thanks very much, all of you.

It being 2:58 p.m., I want to thank all of the witnesses for their very valuable information. We no doubt will be in touch in the next while, as we have additional witnesses coming before the committee. Thanks, all of you, and thank you to committee members.

I will work with the clerk to send out a proposed working schedule for how we might want to deal with Bill C-18 over the next several weeks. Please respond to it. If you're okay with it, please let us know. If you feel that you would like to have additional meetings, please communicate that to us. If that's all right with everyone, the clerk will be sending that out shortly, and I would appreciate your comments back to us.

Thank you again to all the committee members and to our translators and our clerks. Take a few days' rest now and come back better, stronger and ready for the continued work that we do on behalf of all Canadians. Thanks very much, all of you.

I move adjournment.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

I know it doesn't pertain directly to Bill C-18, but a number of other members have raised questions related to the U.K.'s interest in joining the CPTPP. I am wondering if you can clarify for all of us the process involved for our country to join that multilateral agreement. It's my understanding that it is complex. I am wondering if you can take us through that process.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank Mr. Forsyth for giving the outlook for British Columbia.

Another question raised during the debate on Bill C-18 in Parliament was that this agreement, or our other agreements in general, would not help with small and medium-sized businesses. In Surrey, for instance, I think Randeep would agree that most of the businesses here are small and medium-sized businesses.

I would like to know how this will help small and medium-sized businesses, and particularly how it will help female entrepreneurs.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

A question that will come at this time is whether any vaccine supplies will be affected by Bill C-18, which we're looking at right now in Parliament. Have you thought of that?

[Doug Forsyth, Director General for Market Access and Chief Negotiator, Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade to address Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We thank the committee for its ongoing interest in Canada’s trade relationship with the United Kingdom and its attention to this bill to implement the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement, TCA.

In my remarks today, I will provide a brief overview of the context for the TCA and the highlights of the concluded agreement. My colleagues and I then look forward to taking your questions.

Turning to the context for the Canada-U.K. TCA, as you are aware, the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union has had a real impact on our bilateral trade relations, because it means that the U.K. can no longer participate in our existing preferential trade agreement, the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA.

The express aim of the trade dialogue, and the trade continuity agreement that resulted, was to substantively replicate the CETA on a bilateral basis in order to ensure a seamless transition of our trade relations and seek to avoid potential cliff edges for business.

While still an EU member, the U.K. was not legally able to negotiate new trade agreements. However, it could discuss replicating the terms of existing EU agreements as it prepared for Brexit. Therefore, negotiating a transitional trade agreement based on CETA offered the best opportunity for Canada to provide as much predictability and continuity as possible for our stakeholders. However, the exercise to replicate CETA was unlike any other trade negotiation Canada has undertaken. The Brexit process was not straightforward either, as the departure date shifted multiple times and the U.K. contemplated changes in its post-Brexit trade approaches.

For Canada, in order to finalize our trade continuity agreement and discussions with the U.K. and to reach an agreement that was in the best interests of Canadians, we needed as much clarity as possible. In May 2020, the U.K. published its most-favoured-nation applied tariff schedule that would take effect when its departure from the EU was complete. In June 2020, the U.K. provided formal notification to the EU that it would complete the departure by the end of 2020 without opting for a one- or two-year extension where CETA would have continued to apply to the U.K.

These two developments were key to informing Canada’s interests in finalizing the trade continuity agreement with the U.K. last November. With the ratification process for the trade continuity agreement ongoing, and seeking to mitigate the effect of a gap in preferential trading terms where possible, we subsequently signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom on December 22 to provide reciprocal tariff preferences on an interim basis.

It is important to note that these mitigation measures, by way of duty remission orders by Canada and the U.K., cover trade in goods only. Only the ratification and implementation of the TCA will provide the certainty that stakeholders are currently seeking as well as coverage across both goods and non-goods areas, as replicated from CETA.

Turning to the Canada-U.K. TCA texts, in reference to the CETA replication you will see that the TCA incorporates CETA by reference into a short-form treaty format and identifies the necessary modifications to the CETA provisions in the annexes to the short-form treaty. As such, the TCA text needs to be understood in conjunction with CETA. In most areas, the TCA is a replication of CETA, which means it is therefore a known quantity to stakeholders, provinces and territories, exporters and members of Parliament.

A small but important list of chapters required intensive negotiation to turn the CETA obligations into Canada-U.K. obligations. For these areas, we undertook targeted consultations with stakeholders in those implicated sectors and kept them informed of developments. In addition to providing stakeholders with updates on progress throughout the trade dialogue, we have also been keeping provincial and territorial representatives informed via the committee on trade, or, as we call it, “C-Trade”. What we heard from both groups was a strong interest in ensuring continuity of our trade relations with the U.K. and the ability to return to the negotiating table to discuss a future FTA that would be tailored to the bilateral trade relationship.

I'll now outline some of the highlights of the TCA.

In goods market access, the TCA carries forward 100% of CETA tariff elimination commitments, immediately eliminating tariffs on 98% of Canadian exports to the U.K. Canadian exporters across all sectors—agriculture, fish and seafood, and non-agriculture—will benefit from continued preferential access to the U.K. market, with access to the same tariff rates as they have to the EU market under CETA.

For tariff rate quotas, like CETA, Canada maintains duty-free quota access for eight Canadian agriculture and seafood products that are subject to transitional or permanent tariff rate quotas, TRQs. The agreement provides commercially meaningful access for all Canadian products, subject to transitional and permanent TRQs. In addition, under the TCA, the TRQ administration process was streamlined for beef, pork and wheat. These exporters will no longer face import licensing requirements and will have access to the U.K. market through a first-come, first-served system.

With respect to supply management under the TCA, Canada made no new market access commitments for cheese or any other supply-managed products. Canada has agreed to a temporary outcome that will provide continuity to the U.K.'s access under Canada's WTO cheese tariff rate quota until December 31, 2023. The total amount of market access Canada provides for cheese remains unchanged.

With respect to rules of origin, the TCA allows for accumulation with the European Union. In other words, materials sourced from the EU that are used in the production of goods in Canada or the U.K. will count towards the originating status of those goods for purposes of Canada-U.K. trade.

The TCA includes origin quotas with the same volume to CETA for trade, textiles and apparel, and for certain seafood products. The origin quota volumes for certain agriculture and seafood products as well as for motor vehicles have been revised, but remain significantly higher than recent Canadian exports of these goods.

Provisions on accumulation with the EU and the origin quotas are set to expire in three years unless Canada and the U.K. agree to extend them. Without the ability to accumulate with the EU, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for many U.K. goods to qualify for preferential treatment under the TCA. This provides a real and meaningful incentive for the U.K. to negotiate a subsequent FTA with Canada within three years of entering into force.

The areas I've just covered are currently in effect by the duty remission orders and the MOU that is in place on an interim basis. These provisions are not in place with cross-border trade services.

With respect to cross-border trade services, the TCA fully preserves the benefits of CETA and includes key obligations such as non-discrimination and market access. The TCA will continue to guarantee comprehensive access to the U.K. for Canadian service providers, which remains among the best commitments that the U.K. has ever signed with a trading partner.

As with CETA, the TCA also ensures that Canada maintain flexibility to take measures regarding sensitive sectors such as health, public education and cultural industries.

The investment chapter is a technical replication of CETA. Canadian investors will continue to enjoy the right to establish, acquire and operate investments in the U.K. on an equal footing with domestic and other investors. Investment obligations are carefully formulated such that Canada and the U.K. fully preserve their right to regulate in the public interest, including through exceptions and reservations. However, the replicated investment dispute resolution provisions will be suspended upon the entering into force of the TCA, pending a review by the parties, which is to commence three months after entering into force.

The purpose of the review will be to consider the approach to investment dispute resolution that best reflects the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.K.

With respect to government procurement, Canadian suppliers will have guaranteed and predictable access to opportunities to supply their goods and services to all levels of government in the U.K., including regional and local governments, bodies governed by public law—for example, hospitals and universities—as well as a number of entities operating in the utility sector and public services. The U.K. market on access commitments, under the TCA, is estimated to be worth approximately $118 billion.

Looking forward, a subsequent negotiations clause in the TCA commits Canada and the U.K. to enter into new trading negotiations within a year of entering into force, and to strive to conclude a new agreement within three years from the TCA's entry into force.

The government will undertake public consultations with Canadians ahead of any formal launch of subsequent negotiations with the U.K. and fully intends to follow the revised policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament with regard to a new comprehensive FTA initiative.

Along with my colleagues here today, I look forward to your questions and our discussion.

Thank you very much.

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

I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 1, 2021, we begin our study 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.

Before I go to our witnesses—we're waiting for two others to join us—I would remind the committee that we mentioned we would confirm how many meetings the committee wanted to have on BillC-18. Does anyone have any suggestions? Do we want to agree to go with three meetings on Bill C-18, or do you feel that more are necessary?

Ms. Bendayan.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic Relationship

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, this time last week, almost to the minute, the parliamentary secretary was talking about Bill C-18. He said that the Bloc Québécois members are always antagonistic, that we complain about not having this or that in trade agreements, and that we should understand that in order to reach an agreement, compromises have to be made.

Still, when I look at Canada's relationship with the United States, I have to ask, who is always making these compromises? In the supply management file, it is Quebec. It is Quebec that had to fight tooth and nail against the lack of protection for aluminum in CUSMA. Regarding the forestry industry, the chief negotiator who appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources told us that that industry was not a priority. As for aerospace, we never hear anything about it.

When the parliamentary secretary tells us that we need to get on team Canada, my response is that Quebec is often the one to make compromises for team Canada.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-18.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-18, an act to implement the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement. I will say at the outset that I support the passage of this legislation so that the agreement can be studied at committee. I will also say, in unequivocal terms, that it is absolutely vital for Canada to achieve a permanent comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom. It is vital for jobs. It is vital for trade stability, given the fact that the United Kingdom is Canada's fifth-largest trading partner and third-largest export market. It is vital given the special relationship that Canada enjoys with the United Kingdom.

Our countries share a common history and common values. Indeed, I can think of no more special of a relationship that Canada enjoys than that with the United Kingdom, other than perhaps that with the United States.

In light of that common history and common values, and the fact that trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is a big deal, with $29 billion of two-way merchandise trade in 2019 and opportunities to expand, five years after the Brexit referendum the government has failed to achieve a permanent comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom. What we have instead is a transitory agreement that merely continues the terms of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom from CETA.

Let me be clear. CETA was a groundbreaking agreement, negotiated under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper by my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, while he served as Minister of International Trade. On the whole, it has been a win for Canada regarding trade with the European Union broadly and in the context of trade with the United Kingdom. That being said, CETA was negotiated several years ago, and in that regard I would submit it constitutes the floor: We could do better, and we have not yet to date.

Why have we not done better? It seems that the basis for not doing better is the government's set of priorities. For much of the past five years, the government has been focused, when it comes to trade, on a trade deal with Communist China, an unreliable trading partner that does not share our values, instead of focusing on a trade agreement with countries like the United Kingdom that are reliable trading partners and share our values.

In March 2019, at the very first opportunity, Canada walked out of negotiations with the United Kingdom. The government then proceeded to sit on its hands, not just for weeks or months, but for more than a year. The government continued to sit on its hands even after the EU-U.K. withdrawal agreement took effect in January 2020. The withdrawal agreement set in motion the date upon which the European Union and the United Kingdom would sever their ties and, consequently, the United Kingdom would no longer be a party to CETA. That date was December 31, 2020.

Notwithstanding that, while other countries secured permanent trade agreements with the United Kingdom, the current government instead chose to let the clock tick: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, and achieved nothing. In November, we got this trade continuity agreement: a copy-and-paste of CETA, the floor for it, rather than something closer to the ceiling. The government then dithered yet again and failed to bring forward enabling legislation until two days before the House rose for Christmas. That made it virtually impossible to ratify the trade agreement by the December 31 deadline.

As a result of the government's mismanagement, Canada was put at the precipice in its trade relationship with the United Kingdom, with no trade agreement in place but a trade relationship that would be governed by WTO rules. It was a completely untenable situation that was only averted as a result of a memorandum of understanding the government entered into on December 22, nine days before the December 31 deadline. Talk about cutting it close. Talk about a lack of a plan. Talk about a lack of prioritizing Canada's important trading relationship with the United Kingdom and, more broadly, the very special relationship we enjoy with the United Kingdom.

As I say, maintaining the CETA terms does provide stability. It provides continuity for the exchange of goods and services between Canada and the United Kingdom, and that is a good thing. However, we could have done a lot better. We could have addressed a number of issues with CETA, including non-tariff barriers; opportunities to expand the export of agricultural products and goods, particularly beef and pork, where we have had significant challenges with the European Union; and opportunities to expand investment and to achieve greater regulatory alignment and to make closer the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom.

It is true that this agreement does contemplate that within a year of its ratification, negotiations will commence toward a comprehensive trade agreement to be concluded within three years. However, there is no mechanism to require that to happen. There is no sunset clause to this agreement.

Consequently, what we have is a purportedly temporary agreement that might in fact be a permanent one. I hope it is not. I hope the government refocuses. I hope it prioritizes getting back to the negotiating table, something it largely failed to do over the last five years, and engages with the United Kingdom, as described by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, correctly, I believe, as an “open, generous, outward-looking, internationalist and free-trading” country.

Let us get back to the negotiating table to negotiate a permanent comprehensive trade deal that will be a win-win for Canada and the United Kingdom.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, I am honoured to be given the floor by this new chair occupant.

First, I would like to thank someone who worked very hard on this file on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and that is my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot. I would like to thank him for the work he did in committee to defend the views of the Bloc Québécois and all the work he did for Quebeckers to help them better understand the issues related to trade agreements, something that many people feel is far removed from their daily lives. However, as we saw during the debate, these issues have a very real impact on people's lives and even affect the issue of independence, which is something that our party cares a lot about.

What is more, I would like to thank those of my colleagues who, like the member from Berthier—Maskinongé, spoke to Bill C‑216. We see that everything is related and that the work of the Bloc Québécois, what we are going to do to defend agriculture and food sovereignty, is essential. I therefore thank my colleagues for demonstrating how this teamwork helps Quebec to be better heard and defended.

It has been said before, but I think it bears repeating: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑18. We are not questioning the need for trade agreements and treaties that have been around since the beginning of time and that improve people's lives from an economic, social and cultural perspective.

This debate is about a bill to implement a temporary agreement that will be in effect until a permanent trade agreement is signed. This historic example is proof that there is no black hole when at state decides to reclaim its sovereignty. Everyone wants to keep the trade channel open so we can reassure our businesses and our economy that there will be a smooth transition. Because this agreement is temporary, we can make improvements. Having to renegotiate is not a bad thing; it actually provides opportunities, including the opportunity to work on one of the issues that came up today, dispute resolution mechanisms. We will have no choice but to renegotiate in the coming months, and that is a good thing.

Here is the first thing I would like us to focus on now: transparency in all its forms. I feel like I have talked about this concept repeatedly during this Parliament and the previous one. I am going to talk about how the committee work played out and how we ended up studying this bill. I found the whole process totally ridiculous, and I want to stress that.

I will use an analogy to put the situation in context. In our personal life, when we reach an agreement or sign a contract to buy a car—a very practical example—or to get married, which outside of love may be very practical as well, the stakeholders, those who are affected by the agreement or the contract, have to be heard. They must be able to express their interests and their wishes and to discuss them. For there to be agreement, the people involved have to be able to talk to one another. The bill was tabled on December 9 at the Standing Committee on International Trade, just two days before the House rose for the break.

As my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot put it so well, it really is like a theatre of the absurd. What is even worse is that the Liberals have no idea they live in such a world, although everyone else sees it.

The government brought this bill before the committee and asked that it be reported back. In this case, committee members were to examine a trade agreement and submit a report.

Without access to the text of the agreement, they had to take part in the deliberations, express opinions, take considerations into account and ask all their questions. This is completely absurd, even beyond absurd. This calls into question the very privileges of parliamentarians.

We are talking about legislating, deliberating and holding the government to account when we cannot even express our views on a bill. I do not think my constituents would be very pleased with me if I told them I voted for a bill without having any idea what it was about or what impact it might have. They would not understand that, like a good, obedient opposition member, I trusted the government, which has fooled us many times with these kinds of trade agreements. I do not need to name them, because they include last three agreements.

I believe that we have the right to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. However, to do this properly, we need all the information.

I find that the government is irresponsible. As parliamentarians and citizens, we must always learn from our mistakes, find solutions and do better. I am urging us to do so as we move forward. As this is a transitional agreement, we should not wait until the last minute again. We must renegotiate and we can establish a timeline so that this happens very quickly.

I would also like to talk about the historical perspective, which we as separatists have a keen interest in. I have already thanked my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for his analysis of Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It represents a true precedent for Quebec. We are seeing the will of a nation to take back its sovereignty. We are moving from theory to reality.

How many times have we heard economic threats directed at separatists, telling us that we cannot make it without Canada? I think we have often seen that we are very capable of making it without Canada. My colleague from Saint‑Jean noted earlier that Quebec does not wish to be independent solely for economic considerations.

This is a practical, and not theoretical, example of what happens when a trading nation decides to take back its sovereignty. The United Kingdom's experience is a prime example. There was no black hole at the end of these agreements during the transition period. The United Kingdom has already restored 60 of the 70 trade agreements that had been signed with the European Union. I think it is worth noting that the Brits now have an agreement with Japan, which they did not have before.

Earlier the notion of turbulence came up. In response to that, I want to point out that no matter where you fly, your plane will go through turbulence, and yet you always get to your destination. I am happy to get on that plane, whether it is headed towards Ottawa or towards Quebec's independence.

As a final note on the topic of sovereignty, decision-making and the opportunity to do things on our own, I want to stress that our principles and our values are not for sale. Topics such as health, workers' rights, the environment, food sovereignty and democracy are all things that a sovereign state can protect. When we step up to a bargaining table, we do not negotiate over issues that are important to us, that make us who we are or that bring us together to work as a people, as a whole. That is why we want to sign our own trade agreements.

We could then protect supply management, softwood lumber, aluminum and all of the issues that make Quebec what it is. This is what my constituents want.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Let me first clarify something. I want to make sure my colleague understands that the study we did in committee was a pre-study on the possibility of signing a transitional agreement with the United Kingdom, and that we are awaiting the passage of Bill C-18 at second reading before we begin our study of the legislation and the text of the agreement.

Did we stand up for our dairy farmers? Personally, I think we did. I also think that members from Quebec should take a moment to celebrate the fact that we kept our word and protected the dairy farmers of Quebec and Canada.

When Mr. Gobeil appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, he thanked the Prime Minister and the minister for keeping their promise and protecting our agricultural sector.

Would my colleague agree that we have done that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom.

The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of free trade, so it will come as no surprise that we are in favour of this bill to approve the agreement and make the necessary legislative changes for the transitional and coming into force provisions. It is important to realize from the outset that the purpose of the agreement is to keep trade flowing. Maintaining the flow of trade is of the utmost importance to our businesses, in Quebec in particular.

What does the agreement do? It keeps 98% of goods tariff-free and preserves access to government procurement, which may seem restrictive in some ways, but which gives us access to a market worth $118 billion annually. Agreements on services, investments, intellectual property, sustainable development, environmental protection and labour standards are all renewed. It is all good, and that is why we are in favour of the bill.

However, we have to anticipate greater competition in the U.K. because the reality has just changed. That country will be perfectly entitled to change its tariff rates on other trade partners, including those that are members of the World Trade Organization.

Nobody will be surprised to hear me say a few words about agriculture. Fortunately, this agreement does not increase access to our supply-managed sectors. Unfortunately, that is only for the time being. Let us be realistic. This is a transitional agreement while we await a permanent one.

Consider the side letter about cheese, which states that cheese originating in the United Kingdom shall continue to be imported into Canada under the tariff rate quota for the European Union until 2023. It will then be up to the U.K. to negotiate a new reserve and to talk to its trading partner, Canada and Quebec, about what it can export here. I do not want to be pessimistic, but I have a feeling the U.K. will ask us to let more cheese in. Our answer must be a hard no. We must and will be vigilant. Regardless of what happens with the United Kingdom's cheese exports, it is not up to producers in Quebec and Canada to pay for Great Britain's choice. That must be clear from the start.

We know that our farmers across the country, particularly in Quebec, have demands. Through its president, Daniel Gobeil, the Producteurs de lait du Québec is calling for “the federal government [to] continue to keep its promise to stop making concessions in the dairy sector in other trade negotiations, just as it did in the transitional agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom”, the agreement we are talking about today. Obviously, Mr. Gobeil is talking about the dairy industry, but other associations, such as those representing egg and poultry farmers, feel the same way. It would also be good to hear what processors have to say since they are always left out when it comes to compensation.

Let us be vigilant and protect key sectors of our economy, such as dairy production, in the case of Mr. Gobeil, which represents a significant portion of our GDP, or $6.2 billion to be exact. We can do that by passing Bill C‑216, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois and seeks to exclude supply-managed sectors from future trade negotiations. Of course, we understand that some people are concerned that doing so could negatively impact a future agreement. However, every country has sectors that it needs to protect and, in our case, these sectors have already given enough, since the dairy sector alone has already given up 18% of its market.

This fight must continue. Once again, I invite all parliamentarians to support our bill. Even if theirs minds are made up, they can change them.

In response to my question about compensation and promises, my esteemed colleague from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food said earlier that we need to promote our agriculture. What a great idea. The next time we are negotiating a trade agreement, let us promote supply management rather than cutting it up into pieces and tossing it all over the place.

Let us teach others about this effective, amazing system that is working well for our farmers. Let us show others the way.

We have the right to assert ourselves. Once in a while, it is good to stand firm and stop giving in. I apologize to those who have already heard me say this, but I really like this sentence by Pierre Falardeau, who said, “If you lie down, they will stomp on you. If you remain standing and resist, they will hate you, but they will call you 'sir'.”

We have to protect our sectors from time to time. I therefore urge my colleagues to support Bill C-216. I was not planning on talking for so long, but I could not help myself.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we support the agreement, but we denounce the lack of transparency.

Since the debate began, I have heard my colleagues repeat that it is not right that the text was unavailable. Remember, the Standing Committee on International Trade sat seven or eight times last fall without seeing the text. The meetings that took place over the summer also took place without the text. Committee members were not able to read the text until the day they were to submit their report.

I do not have the right to show my colleagues the document, but I would have liked to do so. It is not just a two-page letter. It is a very thick document written in small font. The situation is completely ridiculous. This government is always putting us in a position where urgent action needs to be taken at the last minute. It does not make sense.

Members need only think about what happened in the fall. We had to quickly vote on a Friday to extend the support measures that were expiring that Monday just because the government chose to shut down Parliament to cover up scandals.

I would like us to be able to do our job properly. The Bloc Québécois has not changed its views on that since October 2019. Of course, we come here to promote Quebec's independence, but we also come here to work in a constructive way and to make progress. We come here to work for our constituents, to keep the economy going. We cannot work if we do not know what is happening. Think about all of the improvements that we could make.

Even when we get commitments from the House, there is no follow-through. The Canada emergency student benefit is an example of that. We got a formal commitment from the House, but it took months for anything to actually happen.

The NDP secured an agreement for advance access to the CUSMA documents. This time, we did not get the documents. Transparency is very important. Not having access to the documents is preposterous, and so is getting them at the last minute. We need to think about revamping the system. I encourage my colleagues in government and the other parties to start thinking about that.

Let us come up with a process. We cannot keep acting in this bad movie where we are forced to vote for agreements with our backs to the wall and a knife at our throats without having read the documents, purportedly to prevent people from running out of grocery money. That is preposterous. The same thing happened with this agreement.

We also need to find a way for the provinces and Quebec to participate. My colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, suggested to the committee that Quebec be invited to participate in the negotiations. His suggestion was turned down. In fact, it was turned down by many of the members, including the Conservatives. They have been sucking up to Quebec in recent weeks, claiming that they will give us everything we want. Apparently that is not really true.

In closing, I want to say that what I like about Brexit is the independence aspect. This is a clear, powerful example of a state reclaiming its trade bargaining powers overnight. The fearmongering federalists want us to believe that this would be a horror show, but the Brits signed agreements with 60 of the 70 countries with which they had relationships before leaving the European Union.

Since Canada always waits until the last minute, it is not one of the countries with which the Brits signed agreements. We are doing so now, but I want to point out that today is January 29 and we have continued to trade since Brexit came into force on January 1.

The evidence is clear, and it speaks for itself. It was not a disaster. There are, of course, some adjustments to be made, but it was not a disaster.

Canada ranks fifth in terms of trade with the United States. I might disappoint some people by saying that the United States will not stop trading with us if we become independent. Furthermore, we will be able to sign agreements and protect our key sectors.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to discuss Bill C-18, the continuity agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom. For a little background, I would like to take us through the relationship that we have had with the United Kingdom and how we have come to this point so far.

The United Kingdom is our fifth-largest trading partner and third-largest export market, with two-way trade between the U.K. and Canada worth $29 billion as of 2019. When the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020, a transitional period lasting until December 31, 2020, went into effect. If no Canada-U.K. agreement were in place by the close of the transitional period, CETA, Canada's trade agreement with the EU, would no longer govern trade between Canada and the U.K. Trade instead would be governed by the U.K. Global Tariff scheme. This would have been the worst-case scenario for Canadian business.

In July 2018, a notice was issued in the Canada Gazette that the government was intending to negotiate a Canada-U.K. trade agreement. Canada walked away from the trade negotiations with the U.K. in March 2019, only to return to the table in July 2020.

When questioned on the status of this agreement in early November 2020, the Prime Minister made a remark that the U.K. lacked “the bandwidth” to finalize an agreement, despite the U.K. having concluded negotiations with multiple countries.

On November 21, Canadian and U.K. officials announced that an agreement had been reached. The government finally tabled legislation to enact the agreement, Bill C-18, on December 9, 2020, just two House of Commons sitting days before CETA's application to the U.K. would end. During committee testimony, the minister stated that she had not coordinated with the Senate on this bill's passage and it was likely not to be ratified by the end of 2020. As the government did not have time to pass and enact the legislation before year's end, on December 22, Canada and the U.K. reached a memorandum of understanding to provide continued preferential tariff treatment until the Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity act is ratified.

I lay out these timelines because it is a continuing pattern with the government and it should be a worrisome pattern to Canadians. It seems that the government only takes action on files and on issues when it comes to the crisis point, and that is no way to govern. There are countless examples that lay out the government's pattern of basically waiting until the 12th hour and not making a decision until one is foisted upon it.

We saw it when it came to the negotiations for CUSMA, the new NAFTA. Our negotiators were late coming to the table. The United States was negotiating with Mexico before our negotiators were even there. I do not lay that at the feet of the public servants within Canada; I lay it at the feet of the government, this Prime Minister and the former foreign affairs minister, who waited and waited to get engaged and get involved with the administration in the United States on behalf of Canadians. We needed to have competent people at that table to fight to get us the best possible trade deal when it came to CUSMA. Unfortunately, they failed Canadians once again, because they waited until the last hour to try to negotiate a deal.

Unfortunately, we saw it recently again when it came to the cancellation of the Keystone XL expansion. We know that President Biden campaigned on this deal, so the cancellation should not have come as a surprise to the government. Not in just the four days before he was inaugurated, but in the months after he became president-elect and in the years before Mr. Biden went to Washington, our ambassador should have been promoting the idea of Keystone XL tirelessly, talking about how well our oil sector is doing environmentally, talking about how the Keystone XL pipeline would create jobs not only in Canada but in America as well. That is what we should be doing differently.

When I talk about Keystone XL, people ask what I would do differently. To start, I would be a proud advocate on behalf of our energy sector and an advocate on behalf of Canadian businesses. That would be the start of not always being the last one to the dance or the last one to the table, and trying to play catch-up every time there is a new decision that needs to be made.

We have seen this in other recent negotiations by the government. We saw it when the COVID pandemic outbreak started. I am new in the Chamber, and I am slowly learning the processes of what it takes to pass legalisation. However, there is a lot of people who have been here for a long time, especially on the government benches.

However, once again, the government has foisted a huge spending bill on this House, and because it was not prepared, it is saying that we need to pass it so that spending gets out the door. I remember we had four hours to debate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of spending because the government was not prepared. The government is not providing certainty to Canadians.

Time and time again, when it comes to providing opportunities to not only oppose legislation or oppose agreements, but also to take a fine eye and go through them to help the government make better decisions and come up with better trade agreements and legislation, the government has continuously been found lacking.

We are seeing this again with the crisis that arose with approving the continuation of spending. The government did not realize the COVID programs were sunsetting, and they needed to be continued. Where is the foresight? Where is the foresight for Canadians to ensure that the programs are there? Where is the foresight, when the government is making agreements with the U.K. or the United States, to be there earlier to talk and advocate on behalf of Canadian businesses and what Canadians want to see in the agreement?

The government could take a page from Japan's book during its U.K. negotiations. Japan's trade delegation was able to secure a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom on October 23, several months before Canada was ready to move ahead with an agreement.

Like Canada's agreement, Japan's agreement is very similar to what it had in place when the U.K. was still a member of the European Union. Unlike Canada's agreement, however, the U.K. and Japan were able to identify and eliminate enough trade barriers to result in an additional £15 billion, or over $25 billion, in trade between their two countries. They made sure that the agreement was already firmly in place before the trade agreement deadline of January 1, 2021. Not only did this give Japanese businesses and investors a head start over other countries, but they were able to take advantage of new negotiating positions and score big wins for its automotive sector.

I ask members to imagine a government that has the foresight to make trade deals sooner, and to make them better and in favour of the businesses in the country it represents. That would be a great country to be a part of, one with a government that actually cares about some of its industries.

We know that the Liberal government has difficulties with the philosophy of being an energy independent country. We understand that it does not like what we do in western Canada. It does not like the energy sector.

I remember when the Prime Minister let it slip that he wants to phase out the energy sector and the oil sands. Unfortunately, through the litany of promises he has made and broken, this might be the one promise in which he actually succeeds, the phasing out the energy sector across western Canada. That will not only damage those in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador, but it will also damage us across the country. When the energy sector does well in Canada, Canadians do well, and our economy does well.

It is imperative for people to realize we are being forced to make decisions in crisis mode because the government has continuously had a lack of foresight to do the groundwork necessary to make sure Canadians are getting the best deal. Whether it is the CUSMA, the Canada-United Kingdom trade agreement, or the cancellation of Keystone XL, the government continues to show Canadians that it does not have the ability to govern competently. That means we need a government that is working hard for Canadians, respects all industries in this country and wants to secure our future for generations to come

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of Bill C-18, the Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to share my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

In 1987, Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, with the United States and Mexico. The purpose of that free trade agreement was to reduce obstacles to North American trade as much as possible. The goal was to create a stable economic environment by reducing or eliminating tariff barriers, enabling the free flow of all goods and services and defining product standards, such as intellectual property. Since NAFTA, Canada has signed many more trade agreements with European, South American and Asian partners. Canada has access to most of the world's major markets.

Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom, is unique because it is a carbon copy of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union signed in 2017. The bill maintains the status quo in trade between Canada and the United Kingdom and provides time to negotiate a permanent trade agreement between these two countries. For reasons of stability in the current economic context, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-18.

This agreement is well received as it will kick-start Quebec's and Canada's economies after the current health crisis is over. This recovery will last years because Canada and Quebec cannot repay the tremendous debt we have accumulated without major consequences. As an aside, this crisis may lead to a major transformation of relations between Quebec and Canada.

The United Kingdom is an important market for Canadian exports. Our exports to the United Kingdom are estimated to total more than $18 billion. This market represents one-third of our trade with all European countries. The United Kingdom is one of our most important partners. It is not far behind the United States, Mexico and China.

A significant portion of international trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is in precious metals, such as gold. The mining industry is one of the largest in Quebec, and gold alone accounts for a large part of Canada's total exports to the United Kingdom. The mining industry is essential to the development of my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and for the economy of Quebec. Predictability is essential, and we achieve it through clear trade agreements that make it possible to identify the long-term benefits.

The Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement fully protects Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors. The agreement does not provide for additional access to the cheese market or any other supply managed products. It is business as usual. I do want to remind the House that the damage has already been done. Canada made concessions at the expense of dairy producers under supply management in the last three agreements signed, namely the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe in 2017, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2018, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement in 2020. In total, producers, processors and businesses lost out on nearly 10% of market share and more than $400 million because of these concessions.

That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-216 in the House. Unfortunately, the supply management system has become a bargaining chip for Ottawa in negotiations with its future international partners. On three occasions, even though the federal government promised to fully protect it, it broke its promise and created new breaches.

Producers want all their income to come from their work and do not want part of it to come from a compensation cheque. Our bill would ensure that the federal government could no longer make commitments that undermine supply management, whether in a treaty or an international trade agreement. The Bloc Québécois is calling for supply management to be protected in all other negotiations, including those that will be needed to make the agreement with the United Kingdom permanent. It is about the survival and sustainability of the Quebec agricultural model.

This agreement has some negative aspects, but we have to raise certain things.

The Bloc Québécois takes issue with the federal government's lack of transparency in the recent negotiations with the United Kingdom. How is it possible that the Standing Committee on International Trade discussed a transitional agreement with the parties directly involved without access to the document? Worse, the committee was supposed to submit its report on the transitional agreement the same day that it finally received the document.

It is hard to protect the interests of a population when the government does not provide all the information. This lack of transparency is unfortunate and in keeping with other international trade agreements recently negotiated by Canada.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is time to look at procedures we should implement here in Parliament to give the elected members of the House of Commons more control during trade agreement negotiations. For example, why not require the minister responsible for ratifying an agreement to table it in Parliament along with an explanatory memorandum and an economic impact study well before it is finalized? Why not require that same minister to inform the House of any intention to engage in trade negotiations 90 days before they begin and to submit his or her objectives 30 days ahead of time? That just makes democratic sense.

International agreements are binding not only on the Government of Canada but on all Quebeckers, all Canadians, and our businesses. Maybe we should invite citizens and businesses to be part of the decision-making process so they can have their say because, in the end, these free trade agreements affect our businesses.

The Bloc Québécois believes that parliamentarians and provincial representatives need to be more involved in the next rounds of talks leading to a permanent agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom. In fact, in order to be able to defend their own interests, the provinces should participate in the negotiations of all upcoming trade agreements between Canada and its partners.

In the upcoming negotiations leading to a permanent agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, the provinces need to take part in the negotiations on decisions involving provincial jurisdictions such as standards, government contracts and government procurement. The more Quebec is involved quickly in these negotiations, the better chance it will have at defending its economic interests. It is because Quebec knows what is good for Quebec that it is in the best position to defend its own interests.

We need to raise the Canadian federation's democratic bar. With Brexit, the United Kingdom is trying to reclaim its sovereignty, control over its economy, and its autonomy. There is an interesting lesson in there. With Brexit, the United Kingdom is reclaiming all its power to become an economic force once again. I find that inspiring.

However, in order to raise the Canadian federation's democratic bar, the provinces need to participate in the negotiations when there are decisions to be made that affect provincial jurisdictions. Why reject such common sense now? On the contrary, we need to develop mechanisms. The United Kingdom taught us a lesson in sovereignty. Can we use it to make the provinces' economies run even better and to protect our domestic economy?

In closing, the Bloc Québécois believes that we need to pass Bill C-18 on the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement. We need to avoid making the current crisis worse with sudden economic losses. According to some assessments, Canada's GDP could drop by $350 million and 2,500 jobs could be lost if we do not manage to come to an agreement with the United Kingdom regarding this trade continuity agreement. Action needed to be taken and Canada chose the status quo, which is wise.

However, the elected members of this House did not take the opportunity to change the approach when negotiating this agreement. Obviously, they did not take that opportunity because they did not have the chance to do so, but that is something that needs to be done. Elected members need to have access to the reports and assessment notes before voting in the House. It just makes sense. Elected members need to be more involved in the negotiating process and the provinces need to be able to negotiate on any matters that fall under their jurisdiction. Agriculture is a perfect example of that.

As members, we have the duty to make the voices of our constituents heard both in this Parliament and in every federal government process.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with this member of Parliament on the trade committee. He is a good member of Parliament, for sure.

The question I have for him is in regard to the timeline that he says is wrong. It is not wrong. The reality is that the way I portrayed it is exactly the way it happened. Another reality is that there was no consultation. In fact, if one talks to the bureaucracy, they consulted but the Liberal government did not consult.

If the member says the government consulted, and all these people were consulted, could he inform us how many meetings the Minister of International Trade had with different industry groups, specifically on Bill C-18?

How many consultation meetings did the trade committee have with stakeholders in the past year or two years in regard to Bill C-18?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation demonstrates how the Government of Canada continues to pursue trade opportunities for Canadian businesses and exporters while maintaining certainty and stability in the face of global geopolitical developments that are entirely out of Canada's control. The United Kingdom is Canada's fifth largest trading partner, with bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and the United Kingdom averaging $27.1 billion between 2017 and 2019.

However, I am not here to throw around these numbers that have been widely discussed in this House. Instead, I want to speak about the real-world consequences on Canadian businesses that rely on international market access if this bill is not passed.

Brexit was not something that Canada could control. As international allies of the European Union and the United Kingdom, we are bystanders who have always respected the democratic will of the nation's populace. That being said, this government had to immediately consider the short-, medium- and long-term impacts of such an exit.

Since September 2017, when the former U.K. prime minister landed in Canada to discuss the future trading relationship between our two countries, that is exactly what we worked on. In those initial meetings between the two prime ministers, it was agreed upon that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, otherwise known as CETA, would serve as a model for a new bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for several terms, I was privy to the negotiations that went into CETA, and I saw that it was a perfect template to provide a seamless transition in post-Brexit trade with the United Kingdom. This House spent years studying and debating CETA before it received royal assent in May of 2017, so to suggest that Bill C-18 is anything but transparent in terms of its details is nonsense.

Further, it has been suggested by members from across the way that Canada somehow dragged its feet on this agreement. However, once again, this is political posturing that does not reflect the reality of the past few years. The opposition is well aware that under European Union membership rules, the United Kingdom was prohibited from implementing a free trade agreement until it officially left the European Union.

As we all know, Brexit only became official on January 31, 2020. Of course, soon after that date, the world was hit with the global pandemic, which we are still battling in every corner of the globe.

To affirm the reality of what has happened over the past four years, our government has been in a working group with the United Kingdom in a transparent manner to negotiate our post-Brexit trading relationship as per the European Union's membership rules. Further, our government's timeline is completely in line with the significant dates associated with Brexit, as the transition period for the U.K.'s departure just came to an end on December 31, 2020. In spite of what has been said across the way in attempts to score political points, this bill and the continuity agreement are perfect examples of how nimble Canada has been in our trade negotiations across the world, despite circumstances, rules and regulations outside of our purview.

The bill is a necessity to ensure that tariffs are not applied on 98% of products we export to the U.K. This bill is needed to protect the supply management that the Canadian dairy, poultry and egg sectors rely upon. This bill is also significant for the access it provides to the United Kingdom government's massive procurement market, which is estimated to be worth approximately $118 billion.

These kinds of opportunities, particularly with the United Kingdom government's ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, are vital for Canadian manufacturers and service providers.

Most importantly, this bill completely acknowledges that this is a stop-gap measure by ensuring that, within 12 months of this continuity agreement being implemented, our two countries will hammer out a new comprehensive bilateral agreement that will be in place within three years.

Earlier in my remarks I mentioned the real-world consequences that would impact Canadian businesses and exporters if this bill was not passed. Extensive in-house modelling and analysis from Global Affairs Canada describes those impacts in stark detail.

Without this agreement, Canada would be subject to the U.K. global tariffs. These would be applied without any special treatment to all Canadian imports, and for service sector providers, all certainty that was achieved through CETA would be completely lost.

The preferential treatment that Canada has enjoyed with the U.K. represents billions of dollars that provide a direct infusion to the Canadian economy and labour market. In fact, Global Affairs Canada puts potential trade losses without this agreement in place at $2 billion, impacting the food, chemical, apparel, machinery and equipment industries dramatically.

This is a bill that recognizes the scale of trade between Canada and the U.K., and takes into account the looming January 31, 2021, deadline while still committing to a robust process for a future bilateral relationship with entirely new terms.

To conclude, this bill and support for it comes down to whether we support opportunities for Canadian businesses and exporters. This is particularly the case with the fact that we will spend the year after its hopeful passage negotiating new terms in close consultation with provinces and the Canadian business and export communities.

This bill is about how we, as a nation, can provide hope in the face of great global economic uncertainty, and reach into the future to continue to grow to the benefit of our country and our workers.

I encourage all members of the House to stand in favour of Bill C-18, which will only continue to blossom if we move forward as a nation that is unified in our pursuit of opportunity.

I want to thank the Speaker and all members for the opportunity to speak to this bill in the House of Commons.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hard-working hon. member for Sudbury.

Today I speak in support 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. This—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in 2021 in my office here in Prince Albert. It is nice to see everybody online. I am glad we are able to participate and speak to this important piece of legislation.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. She is a wonderful member of Parliament, and I look forward to listening to her speak after me. She will do a wonderful job.

The unfortunate part of this whole situation that we are dealing with here today in regard to Bill C-18 is the fact that it has only happened today. This should have been done last September. It should have been tabled in Parliament last September so that it could have gone to committee, been properly reviewed and been implemented before January 1.

Right now, it is correct that Canadian businesses are selling into the U.K., but not based on any trade agreement that is negotiated and finalized through Parliament, either here or in the U.K. It is based on goodwill, and goodwill is only as good as one comment by the Prime Minister to maintain goodwill, who has a history of not making good choices in his comments about some of our trading partners. Therefore, there is huge risk, and we have been trying to tell the government, going back two years, that this needed to get done.

As we look at the timelines and go back to this agreement, I want to highlight some of the things that have gone on here. We all understand the importance of trade. I live in Saskatchewan, where we build and grow more things that we could ever consume and thus have to trade those things around the world. We want preferential market access and fair trade deals. We want deals in which countries recognize each other as fair trading partners. We are all in favour of—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present. This is the first time I have presented in this format, and it is an interesting way to present a speech, but these are the circumstances we are in, and we will make the best of them.

Usually when I start a speech, I give my perspective on the economic context we are in. Obviously we are in unprecedented times. I was around in 2008 and 2009 during the last economic downturn. The circumstances were completely different from what we are faced with here today, but nonetheless there is pressure from everyone to perform and to deliver for Canadians from coast to coast, so that is where we are. We know where our deficit levels are and we know where our debt is going to roughly be at the end of this pandemic, so we know we have a tremendous burden to lift future generations from under the debt they are in.

I will go back to review some of the past trade agreements, such as the Canada-European free trade agreement, which includes countries like Switzerland, Liechtenstein and others; Canada-Honduras; Canada-Jordan; Canada-Colombia; Canada-South Korea, which was probably one of the best deals and advantageous for Canadian producers and farmers; CETA; and TPP. These were all deals that were negotiated by the previous government.

The former minister spoke, and Gerry Ritz is likely out there listening today as well. He was the agriculture minister for most of it. I thank them for all their efforts, and the current government here today is doing its best to work its way through Bill C-18 and eventually come to a long-term deal between Canada and the U.K.

There are some legitimate criticisms, I think, with some of the negotiations along the way. Was it always going to be a revision and an extension of CETA? Was it going to be something new, such a true free trade agreement between the two countries? Maybe we will get both here. That is the context.

I have some key points from my perspective as someone who lives in a rural riding where there is a pretty heavy agricultural footprint and impact on the Ontario economy, but these points would apply to farmers from coast to coast. One of them is that in a good, quality long-term Canada-U.K. deal, even though we are talking about a transition agreement, it will be very important that we get the edible bean sector right when we look at tariffs and non-tariff barriers and a number of different things with the U.K. In my riding alone, the Hensall Co-op, which is about 40 minutes north of London, Ontario, ships about half of the white beans for the entire United Kingdom, and they are sourced from all over southwestern Ontario. They are short-day beans, and they are some of the highest-quality white beans in the world, so we want to make sure that stakeholders like Hensall and other advocacy groups or industry groups are at the table when the consultations take place to make sure that we get absolutely everything right and improve upon what we have with the CETA deal.

To put it into context, they ship about 15,000 20-foot containers per year of edible white beans, so it is a huge number. I believe it is around 40 or 50 containers a day that they ship. It is a great bean for farmers to grow, because it is a short-day bean, which is good. As well, it also allows for cost savings and cost effectiveness in using the equipment. Farmers can use the same combine they use for traditional GMO soybeans. They would be able to clean it up and put it back out there or use it first and then clean it up, but they can use the same header for both the edible white beans and soybeans. That is a great bean for us to grow, and it is at quite a premium in our area.

Regarding the red meat sector, anybody who is on the trade committee has heard me complain about CETA and its outcome. When CETA was finally ratified or first announced, however members want to look at it, the trade for Canadian beef farmers would eventually end up at about $600 million a year, I believe, just in beef alone, but I think we are at about 1% or 1.5% of where we thought we would be. We thought we would be at least at the tariff rates. All beef cattle have hormones in them, and whether we add or do not add to it, they are going to have hormones.

There needs to be an understanding. Obviously there is an opportunity for beef farmers to grow beef on grasslands and maybe not add some of the different components used in beef farming today. Nevertheless, while the science proves out, it is very costly for farmers. Even if they wanted to grow beef cattle the way Europe and the U.K. are asking, it does not make financial sense. We need to take a close look at this issue. I would call this maybe a non-tariff trade barrier.

In addition to that, on the pork side, the situation has been even worse with the European Union. About $100 million a year in pork is traded between the European Union and Canada, and Europe has almost all of it. We ship about $2 million or $3 million worth of pork to the European Union, and the European Union ships about $97 million to Canada. People in Huron County or Bruce County or anywhere else in southwestern Ontario or across Canada are seriously scratching their heads at how we could have a deal with the European Union or the U.K. and have a trade deficit in beef and pork.

The issue with pork is around trichinella, and the way they are dealing with it does not make sense. In our negotiations, using experts and scientists, we have to finally come to a way to agree in order to move forward.

On country of origin labelling on beef and others, during the Obama administration we dealt with this issue for years. Now we are dealing with Italy on the same type of thing with regard to durum wheat. It is just not fair. I do not believe our negotiators are pushovers for one second, and I do not believe any government wants to be pushed around, but the evidence starts to mount after a while that we are in fact getting pushed around and are not being treated fairly.

When we look at some of the successes we have had with TPP, we see that the corn-fed beef program in Ontario has been a huge success. Korea is in the same boat. We are shipping product to Korea. Korea wants it, and it is a good, quality product, but what is happening in Europe is a little disappointing. It is shipping 100% of its tariff rate quota of cheese, while we are shipping 1.3% or 1.5% or 3% in beef, and that is unacceptable. That is the reality of the situation. It will be for the current government or whichever party is elected the next time an election rolls around to push our trade officials to do more and to do better. I will leave it at that.

Around the world, it is tougher times. With the new American administration coming in, immediately we saw Keystone being shut down. The next thing we will see is the buy America provision. We cannot help but be frustrated. I toured the Decast plant in Utopia, near Barrie, Ontario, and the number one complaint after the tour was the buy America provision and what we could do if buy America were not in place in the United States.

When we put it in context, the government recently negotiated the USMCA, and here we are right back at the table again, dealing with issues like buy America and other items like softwood lumber. It goes on and on. Finally and forever, we need these issues dealt with, and I hope we do that.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I also want to thank all the parliamentary leaders for their collaboration in developing a hybrid Parliament that can operate safely. I also want to thank everyone, the Speaker and his team, and everyone else who makes it possible for us to get together and debate.

As for my colleague's question, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debate 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, at second reading.

On Monday, we will have a day of debate on the Standing Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 51. This debate must take place between the 60th and 90th sitting days of a Parliament. We are in that period now, and the debate will take place on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

On Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-19, which provides temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of COVID-19.

Finally, next Thursday, February 4, shall be an allotted day.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House of Commons either on the floor or virtually.

I want to pick up on something the member said in one of his answers. He said that free trade was not a strong suit of this party or this government. The member needs a strong reality check. I would challenge that member to indicate another prime minister who has signed off on more trade agreements with countries than the current Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the government has signed off on more agreements than Stephen Harper did, and any other prime minister, from what I can recall.

Members of the Conservative Party talk about the importance of trade and try to give that false impression that theirs is the party that negotiates and is capable of getting trade agreements when history does not necessarily reflect that.

The Liberal Party has always recognized the importance of international trade. Trade does matter. It means good, solid middle-class jobs for Canadians. We will continue to look at ways to build that relationship between Canada and other countries around the world in order to continue to strengthen Canada's economy and our middle class. It has been about that virtually since day one.

When we took government in 2015, initiatives that might have been started by the Conservative government were picked up and carried over the goal line. It is all about trying to recognize how important and valuable it is to have policies directed at Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, whether it is budget actions, legislative actions or agreements such as the debate we are having today on Bill C-18.

When we talk about trade, I like to try to put it in a way that most people can relate to. I am very proud of one of the industries in the province of Manitoba, the pork industry. It is symbolic and embodies so many reasons why it is important the government pursue international trade.

Manitoba's pork industry would not be what it is today, by a long shot, without trade. If I were to guess, 90% of it would disappear if we did not have trade, whether within Canada or internationally. Manitoba has a population of 1.3 million people. At any point in time, we have double that number of hogs in our province. We are not consuming them. Those hogs are up for trade. We sell them.

The community of Neepawa in rural Manitoba is thriving today, in good part, because of the hog industry. HyLife is a healthy, growing company today because of international exports. Over 90% of what is being processed there is being exported.

Let us think of the ramifications of that. Each one of those hundreds of employees working out of Neepawa now require a place to live, a place to do their grocery shopping. They have vehicles. There are indirect spinoff jobs, not to mention the hundreds of jobs that are there today because of that.

That is just one aspect of the pork industry in the province of Manitoba.

We could go to Burns Meats in Brandon. My colleague from Brandon would be tell us how that plant adds so much value to Brandon's economy and society as a whole. That industry processes over 10,000 hogs every day, which is one number I heard, and this is somewhat dated. There are well over 1,000 jobs, good rural Manitoba jobs. We could go to the city of Winnipeg and see the same industry. I think Burns there employs over 1,500 people. The best pork in the world comes from the province of Manitoba.

Let us think about the farming communities and the impact that has for our farmers, not to mention the others who feed into our farms, to have those hogs produced.

When we think of trade, we can quickly understand the value of that trade when we look at an example of an industry.

I just finished talking glowingly about the hog industry. I could go on forever talking about Manitoba's bus manufacturing industry or other manufacturing industries, in the City of Winnipeg in particular. We might have one of the largest bus manufacturers located in the city of Winnipeg, which exports all over the place. Again, it is providing those valuable jobs

The government and the Prime Minister understand the value of those jobs. That is why a mandate has come from the Prime Minister to pursue these agreements. Even though the Conservatives did not sign off on CETA, they like to take credit for it. The Conservatives might have started it, but they did not sign off on it.

I remember Deputy Prime Minister travelling to Europe. People were saying that the deal was on the rocks, that it looked like was falling off the tracks. It was not because of Canada. All sorts of things were happening in Europe. It took a concentrated effort by this government in particular and today's Deputy Prime Minister, the minister of trade back then, to put it back on track. On behalf of Canadians, they were able to get it across the goal line so we would have that CETA agreement. Hundreds of millions of additional dollars have been realized through trade, generated in part because of that agreement.

That is not the only agreement we have had to deal with in a very short period of time. We could talk about Asia or our neighbours to the south, whether it is Mexico or the United States. The United States is our biggest trading partner. We need to trade. I would remind my neighbours in the south that many of their states' exports come to Canada. Both countries benefit.

It is absolutely critical that Canada has trading relations with countries around the world. In fact, Canada is probably further ahead on trade agreements than any other G20 country. In good part it is because of the mandate Canadians gave the Liberal government five years ago. The driving force has been that we want to build Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of the middle class. One of the ways we do that is by looking beyond our borders.

Let us think about the last year and the economic cost and impact the coronavirus has had on our country. It has been devastating. As a government, we have done whatever we can to support businesses, whether with the wage subsidy program or the rent assistance program or helping Canadians directly through the CERB program. Why are we doing this? In part, because we recognize how important it is for small and medium-sized businesses so that once we have fully dealt with this, we will be up and running.

It is a lot easier for us to recover in a better way if we have fewer bankruptcies and have more companies that did not have to lay off employees because of the pandemic. We want the population, as a whole, to have a larger disposable income as a direct result of not being able to work in order to protect and keep our society safer or because of demands for their services or products.

As much as the government was there for Canadians and continues to be there for them during this pandemic to ensure we minimize the negative damages of the coronavirus, we are also there to ensure we continue to grow. This means Bill C-18, the agreement with the U.K.

When the U.K. decided to leave the European Union, we had a responsibility and we took that responsibility very seriously. That is the reason we have this legislation right now. We want to ensure that a trading partner we have valued for over a century will always have a strong, healthy relationship with Canada. In good part, this legislation is all about that. At the end of the day, Canadian companies, businesses and Canadians as a whole, in all regions of our country, will be better served by the passage of the legislation.

I want to remind my Conservative friends of something. Other countries have acknowledged that we have some incredible civil servants on the trade file. One of the reasons for that is we have been so successful at negotiating agreements and working on these types of deals for a long time now.

The bureaucrats and civil servants are diligently putting in the effort to ensure our ministers and government as a whole, parliamentarians and politicians, have details we can go into the deals with, negotiate and try to bargain back and forth.

We listen to New Democrats and to the Bloc also. When I listen to the Bloc members speak, everything is what about this or that, or we did not get this or that. What do people think a negotiation is all about? For the NDP and the Bloc, they need a better appreciation for the fact that when we hit an agreement, it means there have been give and take.

The NDP traditionally does not support trade agreements. When I posed a question, a member mentioned “goldfish” memory and said that the NDP had supported CUSMA. However, the New Democrats did not support previous trade agreements with the U.S. and Mexico, but they were shamed into supporting this one.

Let us look at the number of trade agreements with the dozens of countries on which the New Democrats voted. They will say that it is because we did not get this or that, and they will have their list of things we did not get.

When we sit down and negotiate, we cannot expect to have everything. It is not like we ask for everything we want, put it on the table and then walk away and ask to be told when it is agreed to. It does not work that way.

When my New Democrat friends told me, as they did earlier today, that they are not supporting this legislation, I was not surprised. I was a little disappointed, but not surprised. I want to challenge the New Democrat members of the House of Commons to really think through the issue of trade. Earlier, I commented on why trade is so critically important to us as a nation. If members agree in principle with trade, I would suggest that the NDP members need to be more open-minded, and if they are not prepared to be more open-minded on it, then we could question how consistent they are with regard to the ethics of it.

They say that because of human rights not being protected in a trade agreement, we should not sign off on that trade agreement. We have had this discussion in the past. There are human rights issues in other nations with whom we have a considerable amount of trade. I do not see the NDP saying that we should stop all trade with China, though we have issues with China. I think that the NDP members do need to look at ways they can support progressive agreements. That is what this is, a progressive agreement, and they will have other opportunities to do so.

Members say that in this debate today, we do not have enough time or that there was not enough consultation. They should remember what the bill itself says. It is Bill C-18, an act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is actually what the bill says. It is not a permanent agreement. In fact, within a year after royal assent, from what i understand, we will be meeting our partners across the ocean, having ongoing dialogue and looking at ways we could even improve upon this agreement.

There is the opportunity for members to make speeches, now or into the future, or to write letters when they have opposition days. There are many opposition days coming up. They should have one of their opposition days about the content of trade agreements. They can say that they would like to see X, Y or Z as a part of a trade agreement and discuss that as part of an opposition day motion. There are all sorts of ways that members on all sides of the House, even members of the government, can do that. Many of my Liberal colleagues have continuing discussions with ministers or within caucus about issues that are important, including the issue of trade. I must say that the issue of the coronavirus is dominating these discussions, as it should, but there are many different avenues for people to have direct input on trade agreements.

I want to focus some thoughts on my friends in the Bloc. I have said in the past that I, for one, am a very proud Canadian. I think that we live in the best country in the world. All of our regions that make up our great nation are so critically important to how we evolve as a nation. For instance, I care about the aerospace industry in Quebec and the forestry industry. There are some things that we have in common, such as hydro as green energy—

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud of our NDP position that opposes Bill C-18 based on some very clear grounds, including the fact that it replicates much of CETA, which cedes Canadian sovereignty and capacity with respect to the pharmaceutical industry and will certainly deal more pain to certain key sectors in our own economy.

I wonder if the member does not see a need to take a hard look at the approach to trade in his government, and recent governments' approach to trade, where free trade deals seek to benefit corporations as opposed to average Canadians and people across our country.

Is it not the time to do trade differently? Is it not the time to make sure that we are increasing capacity in our own country? Right now, we are struggling with the fact that we do not have the capacity to create our own vaccines and our—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for that intervention.

Soon thereafter, our government undertook a trade dialogue to substantively replicate CETA on a bilateral basis as an interim measure in response to Brexit. I am happy to say the agreement before all hon. members today, including the member for Papineau, meets the commitment made by the Prime Minister in 2017.

Brexit posed a unique challenge for partners, such as Canada, that already had trade agreements in place with the European Union. Canada has shown adaptability and resilience in this unique challenge by achieving an agreement that mitigates potential disruptions for businesses due to the U.K.'s decision to leave the EU and CETA.

The agreement before us today ensures that Canada and the U.K. can sustain and build upon our very important relationship. This means businesses will continue to have an unprecedented access to the U.K.'s vibrant economy, which includes 66 million consumers and a $3.68-trillion market. It also means the continuation of lower prices, more choices for Canadian consumers, and a reduction or elimination of customs duties.

Since this agreement is based on CETA, an agreement Canadians are already familiar with, it provides the predictability and stability our businesses need, and have told us they need, as they grapple with the economic effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Once the trade continuity agreement is fully implemented, it will carry forward CETA's tariff elimination on 99% of Canadian products exported to the U.K.; maintain priority market access for Canadian service suppliers, including access to the U.K. government's procurement market, which is estimated to be worth approximately $118 billion Canadian annually; and uphold and preserve CETA's high standard provisions on labour, the protection of the environment and dispute settlement.

I am proud to say that this agreement fully protects our supply management system. In other words, there will be no additional foreign cheeses entering this country if this agreement is ratified.

Critically, this agreement will also continue to give Canadian companies a leg-up on competitors in countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the U.K. These are crucial advantages we can look forward to preserving with one of our most important trading partners once this agreement is in place.

This government knows that Canada's trade relationships are critical in supporting our prosperity through the economic recovery in a post-COVID global landscape. It is important for the government to remain engaged with Canadians throughout the negotiation to understand and address specific interests.

I will reassure my colleagues that the government maintained an open dialogue with businesses over the course of the negotiation of this trade continuity agreement. Prior to and throughout the negotiation process officials engaged with interested businesses through direct consultations. Furthermore, as the trade continuity agreement replicates CETA, it also relies upon the extensive consultations with Canadians that took place throughout the CETA negotiations. Throughout those consultations we received valuable feedback that enabled the government to negotiate with a comprehensive knowledge of Canadian interests and seek an agreement that was of benefit to Canada.

Once ratified, the trade continuity agreement will continue to be in place as we work toward a new bilateral comprehensive free trade agreement with the U.K., which can be best tailored to meet our mutual interests at that time. Input from Canadians will help to ensure those future negotiations are in the best interests of Canada, our future trade agreement is tailored to our relationship with the U.K. and that it will be able to respond to any post-Brexit developments.

This government recognizes the need to encourage businesses to pursue free trade opportunities and to support them in their efforts to do so. This trade continuity agreement maintains crucial ties and preferential trade terms with one of Canada's key trade partners and ensures that Canadian businesses will not face yet another disruption or challenge at this time. Indeed, if this agreement were not put in place, this would be another setback that Canadian businesses frankly cannot afford.

For these agreements to be fully realized, Canadian businesses need to be made aware of them and the benefits they offer. The goal of our ambitious export diversification strategy is to maximize opportunities for Canadians created by our existing trade agreements while pursuing new ones. That means continuing to attract and support Canadian companies doing business with the U.K. through a team Canada approach to trade.

This approach includes Canada's trade toolbox, which is made up of the Trade Commissioner Service network, Export Development Canada, the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the investing in Canada plan. These organizations are all working together, alongside our provincial and territorial partners, to help Canadian businesses navigate the aftermath of Brexit. They remain committed to continuing to assist Canadian companies, doing business with, and in, the U.K. and the European Union.

Finally, we have heard over and over again from Canadian stakeholders about the importance of maintaining a preferential trading relationship with the U.K. This government wants to ensure that Canadian businesses have the confidence and stability they need to continue to do business with the U.K. We can do that by ensuring that the crucial commercial relationship we have with the U.K. continues to flourish unimpeded. Our government looks to working with all members of Parliament to ratify Bill C-18 in the interest of our economy and Canadian businesses.

I believe I have about a minute or so left, but I do wish to thank our trade negotiators, who, over the last several years, have dealt with very intense negotiations, whether it was completing CETA when we first came into office in 2015; the renegotiation of NAFTA into CUSMA, where our negotiators faced long and intense negotiations with much uncertainty, but were steadfast and came out with a great deal and a great free trade relationship, maintaining stability and predictability with our largest trading partner; or the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom. I do wish to thank all those trade negotiators. They are unsung heroes for our country, our businesses and our workers.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure to rise in the House today in support 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.

Just as we welcome the recent signing of this important agreement, the government is very pleased to take the next step in Canada's domestic ratification process, so Canadians can take advantage of the agreement's benefits. I am proud to say that despite the turns in the road to Brexit, and the uniqueness of the Canada-U.K. replication exercise, we were able to secure a deal that is good for Canada, works for Canadian business and fully protects our supply-managed products.

Our strong trading relationship with the U.K. has grown rapidly under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. In fact, Canadian exports to the U.K. have increased by over $2 billion since CETA came into force.

The U.K. remains the second-highest value destination for Canadian direct investment abroad and the third largest destination for Canadian merchandise exports. Two-way merchandise trade 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. Once in force, the trade continuity agreement would preserve Canada's important trade relationship with the U.K.

Before I go further, I will elaborate on how this continuity agreement between Canada and the U.K. came to be over the past three and a half years and why preserving preferential access to the U.K. is a key priority for our government.

Following the U.K.'s decision to leave the EU, including the single market, the customs union and the free trade area, Canada engaged its partner in earnest to maintain our strong partnership post-Brexit and to mitigate potential disruptions in trade for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.

In September 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau and then U.K. prime minister Theresa May pledged to seek a seamless transition for our trade relations.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge.

It is great to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-18. As the chair of the international trade committee, I think we have a great group of colleagues to continue working on a variety of things. Of course, Bill C-18 is one of them.

For the information of my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, I had the pleasure of tabling the report yesterday on the Good Friday Agreement, which I know was so important to him. In case he missed it, I wanted to make sure he and the other committee members know that we got that done yesterday. I agree with it totally. It is very important.

Now we are dealing with this transitional continuity agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom and export promotion efforts behind Canada's free trade agreement. As we all know, Canada is very much a trading nation. As a medium-sized economy competing internationally, Canada relies on free trade and a transparent rules-based system to take advantage of global commercial opportunities and create economic prosperity at home.

Canada is one of the most open G7 countries, ranking second for both trade and foreign direct investment as shares of GDP, so members can appreciate how vital trade is to Canada's economy. The negotiation and ratification of free trade agreements reflect this government's commitment to international trade and to levelling the playing field for Canadian businesses, especially our small and medium-sized businesses, so they are able to compete and succeed in markets abroad. Allow me to elaborate a bit on this point.

Under the rules and protections of free trade agreements, Canadian goods and services benefit from a reduction or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, such as quotas or other protectionist obstacles. These barriers make exporting to another country costlier and time consuming for businesses.

If we take the trade continuity agreement before us today as an example, without this agreement in place, some of our Canadian businesses would face new barriers and higher costs of doing business, because the U.K. is no longer covered by the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the CETA. Overall, after Brexit, it is estimated that 1.04 billion dollars' worth of Canadian exports to the U.K. would have been subject to tariffs. These tariffs would disproportionately affect fish, seafood and agricultural exporters. In addition to the tariffs placed on Canadian products being exported to the U.K., roughly 25% of all products imported from the U.K. would also be affected, with Canadian importers paying higher prices to bring in these goods.

While each trade agreement reflects a specific set of Canadian interests, their primary objective is to create a more open and competitive marketplace that improves access to foreign markets for the vast majority of Canadian exports, thereby supporting economic growth and creating opportunities and new jobs for Canadians. These objectives were top of mind when we signed CETA in 2016 with the European Union, when we brought into force the CPTPP with 10 Asia-Pacific partners in 2018 and of course when the new NAFTA came into force last year. We can add to that the trade continuity agreement with the U.K. once it comes into force.

We have already heard from a number of industry stakeholders, as well as the provinces and territories, about the importance of maintaining a preferential trading relationship with the U.K. However, this agreement is not just about maintaining the status quo, although that is important enough for our businesses and most Canadians. It is also about setting the stage for our future bilateral relations with the U.K.

Having said that, all the benefits of free trade agreements do not matter if Canadian businesses are not aware of how to take advantage of them. For these agreements to be fully realized, Canadian businesses need to be made fully aware of them and the benefits they offer, which is a job that I think falls upon all committee members and in particular those of the international trade committee.

As hon. members present know, most Canadian exporters are small and medium enterprises, or SMEs, as we call them. Many do not have the luxury of time or the resources to remain fully informed of game-changing international business developments like free trade agreements, much less fully digest their implications. As a result, many have not been in a position to take full advantage of the access provided by these agreements to increase their presence in international markets.

The government recognizes the need to encourage SMEs to pursue free trade opportunities and to support them in their efforts to do so, which the minister has been very aggressive in doing. Accordingly, the Prime Minister has prioritized export promotion and development, particularly for small businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that flow from trade.

In this regard, our ambitious export diversification strategy seeks to maximize opportunities for Canadians created by our existing trade agreements while pursuing new ones. That means continuing to attract and support Canadian companies doing business with the U.K. through the team Canada approach that we often talk about. This includes the trade commissioner service network; Export Development Canada, or EDC; the Business Development Bank of Canada; the Canadian Commercial Corporation; and Invest in Canada. These organizations are all working together, along with our provincial and territorial partners, to help Canadian businesses navigate the implications of Brexit. They remain committed to continuing to assist Canadian companies doing business with and in the U.K. and the E.U.

These relationships are critical in supporting prosperity through the economic recovery from COVID-19 and beyond. For all of us, the economic recovery from COVID-19 cannot come quickly enough.

I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-18, which would allow the government to implement the trade continuity agreement, without undue delay, to support Canadian companies as they seek to take advantage of the benefits of this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Abbotsford.

I rise today to speak on Bill C-18, which seeks to implement the Canada and United Kingdom trade continuity agreement.

The United Kingdom is Canada’s third-largest export market, our fifth-largest trading partner and our oldest ally, with which we have $29 billion worth of bilateral trade annually.

Businesses want stability right now. I look forward to hearing debate on the bill and to seeing it come to committee so there are no delays for businesses.

How did we get here today, debating this bill after the deadline, when its ratification should have coincided with the United Kingdom no longer being part of the CETA and the European Union?

Unfortunately, the failure of the Prime Minister and his minister to take trade negotiations with the United Kingdom seriously now means that instead of securing a modern trade deal that is even better for Canadian businesses and workers, we are left with an agreement that has few amendments from the previous one with respect to addressing emerging trade issues, has no end date and has no clear dispute resolution process.

The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on June 23, 2016, four and half years ago. The government should have reasonably expected that a new trade agreement would need to be negotiated.

Through international trade committee testimony, we learned that negotiations had begun at some point during that time. However, we also learned that in March of 2019, the Minister of International Trade signed off on a decision to leave those negotiations.

I remember being in the House on Friday, March 13, 2020, when Parliament recessed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As one would expect, the focus of this House and of all parliamentarians had to change on a dime. Now the entire focus was on health, the economic crisis and emergency legislation.

As the months progressed, there was still other work to do, and important deadlines were looming. After all, the clock was ticking toward the moment when the U.K. would no longer be part of the CETA, and a Canada-U.K. deal needed to be struck.

In May 2020, when we all met as part of the COVID-19 committee, members of the Conservative official opposition started to question the Minister of International Trade on the status of the trade agreement. Let us remember that this was not Parliament but a committee with no power that was asking questions.

In the May 21 sitting of the COVID committee, my hon. colleague, the member for Abbotsford, questioned the minister on what steps had been taken to engage with the U.K. on a free trade agreement. The minister replied, “...we will continue to work with the U.K. to secure our strong and stable trading relationship”. This relationship was so strong and so stable that with only seven months left to secure an agreement, Canada had still not returned to the negotiating table and was not working with the U.K.

At the COVID committee held on May 27, my colleague, the member for Prince Albert, asked the minister if the government would “commit to having a new trade agreement with the U.K. in place by January 1” of 2021. The minister's response was that they were “monitoring the situation very carefully.” She went on to say, ”They are in discussions right now”, when in fact we were not back at the negotiating table yet.

At the COVID committee meeting held on June 2, my hon. colleague from Regina—Wascana questioned the Minister of International Trade by asking, “The United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have all started free trade negotiations with the United Kingdom. Why hasn’t Canada?” The minister responded that “...we will always act in the interests of Canadian businesses” and that “we will make sure that our further work will always take into account the interests of Canadian businesses.”

With just mere months remaining before the U.K. would no longer be part of CETA, affecting $29 billion in bilateral trade, we were still not at the table. Where was the sense of urgency to act in the best interests of Canadian businesses?

The official opposition had been calling for the resumption of all parliamentary committees starting in May 2020. However, this did not occur. The international trade committee could have been doing important work, such as studies and consultations, just as other committees were doing all spring and summer, safely, productively and virtually. However, from March until September, the international trade committee only met once.

The government finally returned to the negotiating table in August 2020, leaving only five months to negotiate a deal, write the text of the legislation, bring it to Parliament for its processes and debate, send it to committee for study and witnesses' opinions, and then go through the Senate processes.

We finally returned to Parliament in late September, after the prorogation of Parliament. This political manoeuvre set all timelines back.

My first question in the House of Commons after prorogation was for the Minister of International Trade on her government’s promise to notify the House within 90 days of negotiations starting on trade agreements, a notification her government promised to provide to win the support of the NDP during the ratification of CUSMA, the new NAFTA. Her response left us with more questions than answers.

The Prime Minister then made patronizing comments about the United Kingdom's government by saying the United Kingdom lacked “the bandwidth” to negotiate a trade agreement and put blame for delays on the United Kingdom. This claim was strongly rejected by the United Kingdom government and its Secretary of State for International Trade. Further to this, one U.K. trade minister stated that the Prime Minister's claims should be taken with a pinch of salt.

These comments made by the Prime Minister about the United Kingdom, one of our oldest and most steadfast allies, certainly could not have been helpful during live negotiations on a trade deal of such importance to our country. After all, the United Kingdom had been able to negotiate secure and signed agreements with dozens of countries already. How is this taking into account the interests of Canadian businesses?

Stakeholders from across many business and labour sectors testified at the international trade committee that the government did not consult with them prior to withdrawing from negotiations to see how this decision might affect them, nor was there a formal or robust outreach process during negotiations. What a lost opportunity.

Conservative Party representatives expressed concerns about the lack of formal consultations as a whole for this trade agreement. I have heard from industries that were looking forward to an updated CETA, including major economic drivers in our country like the cattle industry, which wanted a U.K.-1 trade deal, not a CETA 2.0.

While officials have stated that the agreement ensures that Canada and the United Kingdom will get back to the negotiating table within a year, there are no penalties in the agreement if one side decides not to. The lack of an effective sunset clause makes this transitional agreement no different, really, from a comprehensive or permanent one. Wide-ranging consultations on the original CETA occurred about seven years ago. Situations and challenges evolve with time, especially in this fast-paced world that we now live in with emerging economies.

The government's failure to address concerns raised by stakeholder groups, especially by the agriculture and agri-food industry, such as non-tariff barriers, will unfortunately continue. Those are very concerning, and there is no clear dispute resolution process in the agreement. Supply-managed sectors were happy to hear that there were no concessions made for their industries, and industries overall just want stability, although they would have preferred that trade issues had been addressed.

Canadians expect the government to secure good trade agreements for our exporters, agreements that spur job growth for workers and grow our economy. Many businesses and families are searching for stability, and we need to do whatever we can to ensure that all sectors in our communities can survive and thrive going forward.

A trade deal was first announced with a splashy announcement on November 23. I had a call with the minister shortly afterward, in which I highlighted the importance of the Canada-U.K. trade agreement and the importance of ensuring that Canadians were not left worse off than they were under CETA. We wanted something even better. Canadian businesses needed clarity on the requirements resulting from the new agreement.

One thing that has been clear through this process is the mismanagement and undisciplined management of this file. Only when pressed up against time, at the 11th hour, do we come to a place where resolutions happen. British trade officials were more forthcoming on this 11th hour aspect. They expressed concerns and actually said that if we failed to ratify by the end of the year, this failure might create damage and disruption for businesses. However, we are pleased that a memorandum of understanding came on December 23 and arrived in time to prevent tariffs.

Over the past year, we have been relentless as Conservatives in our pursuit to shed light on what has been transpiring on this file. Really, this was left to the final week of the final month of the final year, and it will be critically important for the Minister of International Trade to work closely with her U.K. counterpart to begin formal negotiations on a truly new and comprehensive free trade agreement. We need agreements that involve and protect Canadian businesses and address non-tariff barriers and other emerging issues, have a clear and functioning dispute resolution system based on accountability, and are even better for our exporters in Canada.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with great pleasure that I too rise virtually in the House of Commons today in support of our proposed legislation to ratify the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom. Just as we welcomed the recent signing of this important agreement, the government is also very pleased to take the next step toward ratification so Canadian exporters can take full advantage of the agreement's benefits.

As we know, Canada and the United Kingdom have historically enjoyed advantageous commercial relations, which we have built together over more than 150 years. Two-way merchandise trade between us amounted to $29 billion in 2019, making the U.K. Canada's fifth largest trading partner after the United States, China, Mexico and Japan. In fact, Canadian exports to the U.K. have increased by over $2 billion since the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, as it is commonly known, was provisionally applied in 2017.

Preserving this trading relationship means businesses will continue to have unprecedented access to the U.K.'s 66 million consumers and $3.68-trillion market. It also means lower prices and more choices for Canadian consumers and either a reduction or complete elimination of customs duties. Because this agreement is based on CETA, an agreement Canadians are already very familiar with, it provides the predictability and stability our businesses have told us they need as they grapple with the uncertainty brought on by this global pandemic.

The agreement on trade continuity brings with it significant, tangible benefits for Canadians. Once the agreement is fully implemented, it will carry forward CETA's tariff elimination on 90% of Canadian products exported to the United Kingdom. It will fully protect Canadian producers of all supply-managed products. It will maintain priority market access for Canadian service suppliers, including access to the U.K. government's procurement market, which is estimated to be worth approximately $118 billion annually. It will continue to balance investor protection with Canada's prerogative to regulate in the public interest, and it will uphold and preserve CETA's high standard provisions on labour and the protection of the environment.

This agreement will also continue to give Canadian companies a leg up on competitors in countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the U.K.

Indeed, Canadians welcomed the news of this agreement and the successful work of our negotiating team. I would like to expand on how critical our successful negotiation of this agreement is for the Canadian agri-food and agriculture industry.

Quebec is the home of the most dairy farmers in the country. It is followed by Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. We know that farmers working hard right across this country wanted and needed the stability that this agreement provides. This is also the case for our beef producers. The first thought that comes to mind for me is the incredible beef exported out of Alberta and Ontario. I had the opportunity to engage directly with our beef producers and cattle feeders prior to the conclusion of the negotiations to hear their needs and interests and make sure that they were taken into account.

I would also like to give much credit to the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA. As Claire Citeau of CAFTA said during her testimony before the international trade committee:

This is an important first step to ensuring that exporters preserve the existing access and benefits that are already in place. The temporary certainty and stability that a transitional agreement provides is welcome news for some of our members and the reason we call on parliamentarians to work together to pass this agreement....

I am urging all members to listen to the call of our agriculture sector to swiftly ratify this agreement. We have some incredible associations representing the interests of our Canadian farmers and producers. They are engaged. They are well informed. They are targeted, and they are in constant contact with us, as they should be. Their engagement has been critical, and I certainly look forward to continuing to work with them in the next phase of the negotiation process toward a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement.

I want to emphasize what a success this agreement is for our dairy farmers. Not one additional ounce of foreign cheese will enter the country under this free trade agreement.

As Daniel Gobeil, president of the Producteurs laitiers du Québec, so aptly said, “The government has granted no additional access to the United Kingdom, in keeping with the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture.... I therefore thank the government for keeping its commitment. This clearly shows that it is possible to enter into trade agreements without sacrificing supply management.

Canadian small and medium-sized businesses have also been very vocal. What they told us they needed most at this time, this turbulent time of crisis, is stability, stability in their trading relationships and stability in exporting their products, and this agreement fully delivers.

The agreement on trade continuity will enable many Canadian businesses that have come to depend on their U.K. clients avoid an unnecessary setback. Without this agreement, some Canadian businesses would come up against new obstacles and higher costs when doing business with the U.K.

Let me briefly paint a picture of what would have resulted if our government had not been as successful as it was, and if we had been unable to conclude a transitional trade agreement with the U.K. It is estimated over one billion dollars' worth of Canadian exports to the U.K. would have been subject to tariffs, and these tariffs would disproportionately affect our fish, seafood and agriculture exporters.

In addition to the tariffs placed on Canadian products being exported to the U.K., roughly 25% of all products imported from the U.K. would also be affected, with Canadian importers paying higher prices to bring in those goods, goods that our Canadian companies often need in order to operate, produce and grow.

Once ratified, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement will continue to be in place as we work toward a new bilateral comprehensive free trade agreement with the U.K. Indeed, this continuity agreement stipulates explicitly that within one year of ratification by both countries, the U.K. and Canada must come back to the negotiating table in order to conclude a comprehensive, longer-term trade agreement.

I know the minister and I look forward to leading a broad consultation process with Canadians from right across the country and in different sectors of our economy to ensure these future negotiations are directed in the best interests of Canada and respond to any post-Brexit developments.

With the time I have remaining, I would like to turn to some of the broader implications of our work as a government on international trade. Our Canadian government has been a leader among nations globally in advocating for free trade and stemming the tide of protectionist leanings. Indeed, we believe the contrary. Strong global trade partnerships, like our new agreement with the United Kingdom, are increasingly necessary and important, especially in these uncertain times, especially as other countries are looking to turn inward.

I am therefore asking all members from all parties to support Bill C-18's timely ratification and passage, and in so doing carefully consider not only the importance of this particular agreement for our Canadian farmers and producers, Canadian SMEs and all our exporters big and small, but also the message it sends to the world about the importance of keeping trade open and keeping Canada at the forefront of the advocacy on free trade. History will thank us for it.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise virtually in the House of Commons today in support 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.

The United Kingdom is our largest trade market in Europe, and in 2019 it was the third-largest destination for Canadian merchandise exports worldwide. It was also a key source of innovation, science and technology partnerships. Two-way merchandise trade between Canada and the United Kingdom totalled $29 billion in 2019, making it our fifth-largest international trading partner. The U.K. is also Canada's second-largest services trade partner, behind only the United States, amounting to exports of nearly $7.1 billion last year. Finally, the U.K. is Canada's fourth-largest source of foreign direct investment, valued at $62.3 billion in 2019.

It is clear that the Trade Continuity Agreement with the U.K. is critical to Canadian jobs by preserving a key enabler of our strong economic partnership, which is CETA. Because it is based on CETA, this agreement provides familiarity, continuity, predictability and stability for Canadian businesses, exporters, workers and consumers, which is more important than ever today as we grapple with COVID-19.

Once the agreement is fully implemented, it will carry forward CETA's tariff elimination on 99% of Canadian products exported to the United Kingdom. It will fully protect Canadian producers of all supply-managed products. It will maintain priority market access for Canadian service suppliers, including access to the U.K. government's procurement market, which is estimated to be worth approximately $118 billion annually, and it will uphold and preserve CETA's high standard provisions on labour, dispute settlement and the protection of the environment.

Canada has a deep and historic relationship with the United Kingdom, one of our closest allies, from NATO, the G7 and the G20 to the ties of shared history, values and respect for the principles of democracy. When the United Kingdom held a referendum and, guided by the decision of its citizens, decided to leave the European Union, that decision not only affected the U.K.'s trade and economic relations with its largest partner, but it also meant that the United Kingdom would no longer be a part of CETA with Canada. Obviously, this had a potential effect on Canadian companies and businesses. That is why this trade continuity agreement is so important.

Canadian businesses and workers in many sectors rely on our interconnected trade relationship, from farmers and fish harvesters to financial service providers and innovators. They have told us that what they want most at this time is stability. This agreement provides exactly that. The TCA, Trade Continuity Agreement, ensures Canada and the U.K. can both sustain and build upon our important relationship by preserving the benefits of CETA on a bilateral basis while fully protecting our closely integrated supply chains and continued access for our exporters.

This continuity agreement is good for workers, it is good for business and it is good for both Canada and the United Kingdom. Without the TCA in place, Canadian businesses could have faced the uncertainty of new barriers and higher costs of doing business, particularly for our agriculture, fish and seafood industries. With this agreement, we can build a better future for both countries.

International trade is central to Canada's economic success and prosperity, and there is no doubt that trade will play a crucial role in our inclusive and sustainable recovery from COVID-19. It is important for Canada to not only develop new trading relationships, but to also maintain and strengthen our existing ties. The TCA is not just about maintaining the CETA agreement. In fact, it sets the stage for an exciting new chapter in our future trade relations with the United Kingdom.

With the TCA, we will ensure immediate certainty for Canada-U.K. trade by replicating CETA on a bilateral basis, as the U.K. has left the EU. However, Canada has always said that, for the longer term, we are interested in the negotiation of a new, modern and ambitious agreement that can best reflect the Canada-U.K. bilateral relationship going forward.

The TCA includes a commitment for subsequent negotiations to begin within a year of its entry into force. My U.K. counterpart, Secretary Truss, and I have publicly committed to these negotiations. We will see input of Canadians from coast to coast to coast through public consultations on their interests in a new bilateral discussion with the United Kingdom.

I look forward to returning to the negotiating table within one year of the TCA's ratification to work on a new, high-quality, modern, inclusive and comprehensive economic partnership that includes ambitious chapters for small businesses, the environment, labour, digital trade and women's economic empowerment. To those who have pointed out areas where improvements are needed, we hear them, and I am eager to get to work on those issues. We will return to the House when we are ready to table negotiating objectives for this new, ambitious effort.

While we work to ratify this agreement both in Canada and in the United Kingdom, we have signed a memorandum of understanding between both countries so that trade can continue to flow while this agreement makes its way through domestic approvals in both countries. As we have negotiated both through the MOU and the Canada-U.K. TCA, businesses will continue trading at the preferential tariff rates under CETA with no additional paperwork. The TCA will provide stability and remain in place until a new agreement, which we aim to reach within three years, is ready.

With the TCA, we are seeking to ensure continuity. The last thing Canada and the United Kingdom would want to do is create any uncertainty for businesses and workers, particularly as we respond to the pandemic, restart our economies and begin to build back better.

The year 2020 has been incredibly difficult for workers and businesses across the country. For so many sectors, this agreement is exactly the continuity and stability that they have asked for. It is what we need to support Canadian jobs and families, and to grow our economy through trade and export with one of our closest allies at an economically challenging time. While CETA will continue to govern Canada-EU trade, this agreement will provide similar predictability for Canadian businesses that trade with the U.K., ensuring trade between our two countries continues to flow uninterrupted.

I will conclude by saying, as I have said before, that the trade continuity agreement with the U.K. is good for Canadians, it is good for the people of the U.K., and it is good for the strong, mutually beneficial relationship our nations have built over more than 150 years.

Therefore, I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-18 so that Canada can bring the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement into force as soon as possible.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to split my time with the member of Parliament for Outremont.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)