Bill C-13

An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

This enactment implements the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done at Auckland and Bandar Seri Begawan on July 16, 2023, by updating how that Agreement is defined or referred to in certain Acts and by amending other Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under that Agreement and Protocol.

An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for her kind words about the work I did on investor-state dispute settlement. I would also like to ask her about that.

How does she explain the fact that the two pro-multinational parties in the House, which have been trading power back and forth in Canada since the beginning, are constantly signing agreements with these archaic provisions? These provisions basically elevate multinationals to the status of sovereign powers, as though no other state-to-state remedies involving diplomacy exist. There is the World Trade Organization's dispute resolution body, for example. States are going to be facing off against one another.

Indeed, some countries are going to react badly to investments and behave in unacceptable and unfair ways, but that is where diplomacy comes in. There are adjudicative bodies. The notion of giving multinationals the right to subvert the democratic will of countries is outrageous. Does Canada condone the lawsuits brought against countries for anti-tobacco measures, minimum wage, carbonated drinks, the cancellation of pollution-causing projects and all kinds of other things?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, because the problem is that the major parties here, in this Parliament, despite their many political differences, all share the same high regard for big multinational companies, big oil and big pharma.

Big oil and big banks get the respect of Liberals and Conservatives always, regardless of who is leading the parties, which is at the base of giving them superior rights to Canadian corporations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, even though I understand the arguments the member is putting forward, I tend to disagree with them.

Having said that, I think Canadians have an interest in knowing where the Green Party actually might be on the issue of trade. We have numerous trade agreements that were signed in the past. We have a very ambitious trade agenda going forward.

The question I have for the leader of the Green Party is this: What is the Green Party's official position on trade agreements?

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

Mr. Speaker, as with all our policies, the member can find it online. We support trade that is respectful of environmental protections, indigenous rights and labour rights, in other words, fair trade.

In fact, for the record, we voted for the Canada-Ukraine trade deal when every single Conservative voted against it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

The focus of my speech today is going to be on what the difference is between free trade and fair trade. As members have heard today, Conservatives are not opposed to the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP. However, what we are frustrated with is that once again the Liberal government has backed down when Canadian business and industry need it the most.

We have heard a number of times from my Liberal colleagues today that they understand the unfair advantage that beef and pork producers in the United Kingdom and the European Union have over Canadian producers, and that they feel for them, yet once again, when the Liberals could have had some leverage to try to address the non-tariff trade barriers, the Liberal government has done absolutely nothing. In fact it has ignored the issue by trying to fast-track the accession of the United Kingdom into the CPTPP.

Let us be clear: There is some leverage. The United Kingdom cannot join the CPTPP without Canada on its side. A unanimous agreement must happen for a new member to join this trade agreement. To put our agriculture commodities, producers and farmers at risk as part of this agreement without resolving some long-standing trade issues is a failure of the current government.

In 2024, Canada exported approximately $100 billion of agriculture and agri-food products around the world. The sector employs 2.3 million Canadians and is $150 billion of Canadian GDP. To put that in perspective, that is more than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. That is the impact of Canadian agriculture. However, while we are seeing success in some parts of the world, we are seeing a reversal of our success in the United Kingdom and the EU.

I want to highlight just how stark the contrast has been with respect to what is going on with Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union. Under the trade continuity agreement, the United Kingdom has imposed non-tariff trade barriers that have literally shut out Canadian beef and pork exports to the United Kingdom and to the European Union. We are not just raising rhetoric here; the facts speak for themselves.

I will start with beef as the first example. In 2024, Britain exported 42 million dollars' worth of beef from the United Kingdom into Canada. Last year, in the first half of 2025 alone, that number was already at $28 million. The amount of beef imported into Canada has increased year over year.

In contrast, in 2024, Canadian beef exported to the United Kingdom was just 25,000 dollars' worth. Last year, the amount of Canadian beef imported into the United Kingdom was zero. While the United Kingdom's imports continue to flood into Canada, there is no reciprocal or fair trade going the other direction. The Liberal government has been at the helm for more than 10 years and has done nothing to resolve this, as we have seen the discrepancy in those numbers continue to increase.

Pork is no different. In 2024, the United Kingdom exported nine million dollars' worth of United Kingdom pork to Canada. In the first half of last year, that number was already at $3.6 million. By contrast, Canadian pork exports to the United Kingdom in 2023 were zero. In 2025, we were at $120,000, pennies on the dollar compared to what is being brought into Canada.

I want to highlight that it is not any different when we look at the numbers in the European Union, where the trade imbalance is just as bad. In 2024, the European Union exported 92 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada, while Canadian beef exports to Europe fell by 40%, down to only $14 million, less than a quarter of what is being imported into Canada. Pork is much the same. From the numbers we have seen, the discrepancy continues to grow.

This is yet another failure by the Liberal government to stand up for Canadian producers. It is signing onto these agreements or shepherding the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership without addressing any of these long-standing issues. The United Kingdom will not recognize our carcass-washing practices here in Canada, which are of a higher standard than what is done in the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is simply a non-tariff trade barrier that the Liberal government refuses to address. The United Kingdom does not recognize our breeding and hormone practices and animal livestock protection practices here in Canada, even though the standards are recognized around the world.

Instead of addressing these non-tariff trade barriers, the Liberals are willing to hold the hand of the United Kingdom, ignore those problems and ensure it is joining the trans-Pacific partnership. We do not oppose the United Kingdom's being a member of that critical trade partnership. What we are concerned with or oppose is the fact that the Liberals are not addressing any of the long-standing non-tariff trade barriers before being a partner to the United Kingdom's joining that trade partnership.

The secondary issue is that the CPTPP has been an outstanding trade partnership, in that all of the decisions in the trade relationships have been science-based. We have not had any of the non-tariff trade barriers and shenanigans that we are seeing currently between Canada and the United Kingdom. However, if the United Kingdom joins the CPTPP, our concern is whether it would be bringing that philosophy with it to the agreement. Into what has been a very solid partnership among a number of countries, we would now perhaps welcome non-science-based decision-making and non-tariff trade barriers, for all intents and purposes throwing a wrench into a wheel that has been running very smoothly.

However, this is not the first time we have seen the current Liberal government fail when it comes to Canadian agriculture and trade. Only a few years ago, for example, we had a deadline with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the World Organisation for Animal Health for Canada to get negligible risk status for BSE. I was at a conference with ranchers from across Canada and members of CFIA when CFIA said it forgot about the deadline, forgot to apply for negligible risk status and that it would have to wait until the next year. It made it sound like just “Sorry about that. The government forgot.” That cost Canadian ranchers tens of millions of dollars in lost market access. It took us more than 20 years to regain that access after the BSE outbreak.

We have also seen that when the Liberal government has said now and again that it will address the specified risk material, SRMs, which is once again an additional step we have to do in Canada. It costs our producers about $60 a head to deal with SRMs. The United States does not have to do it, and it puts our producers at a competitive disadvantage. Time and again the Liberal government says it is going to address the SRMs. Time and again it has failed to do so, and that irritant is still in place.

Every single time Canadian producers need the Liberal government the most, it is nowhere to be found, and now, when we need to be focused on research and development and sanitary and phytosanitary to push our standards around the world, the Liberal government's response is to close seven research centres across Canada. Two of them, in Lacombe, Alberta, and in Nappan, Nova Scotia, focus on the beef industry and the things we do here in Canada that we need to convince the rest of the world to meet or exceed their standards.

Last, I would be remiss if I did not mention the other issue that the Liberal government did not address, and that is British pensioners' not seeing their pensions indexed to inflation, which happens in the United States. Our cousin in the United Kingdom is not allowing the same rights to 100,000 Canadians who are suffering with that indignity here in Canada, including my wee mother-in-law from Scotland, who is also not seeing her pension indexed. I know she would like to be treated just like British expats right around the world.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member has spoken to anyone in the agricultural sector about this enhanced trade deal with the U.K., and if so, what opportunities they have identified and what their position is on this overall.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, who is doing a great job as the chair of the agriculture committee.

I spend time pretty much every day speaking to producers right across the country. I will say that there is guarded optimism. There is no opportunity to take advantage of these trade agreements, because they do not trust that the elements of those trade agreements will actually come true. We have seen that in what is going on with the United Kingdom and the European Union, in the games that have been played, certainly with China, and in the inability of the Liberal government to rebuild our most important trade relationship, which is that with the United States. More than 70% of our agricultural commodities go south across the border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought that my colleague's speech was very good. He demonstrated just how much of a failed negotiation this was. He explained that the government's negotiations failed with respect to meat exports from Canada and Quebec to the United Kingdom. It seems to me that when doing a favour for a country by allowing it to become party to an agreement as significant as the trans-Pacific partnership, one negotiates. However, there are sanitary and phytosanitary barriers that are not based on much science.

The Conservatives had one thing to do. In committee, I introduced an amendment to the bill. The amendment sought to prevent the agreement from entering into force until a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement was reached with the United Kingdom so that Canadian meat could enter the market. All the Conservatives had to do was vote in favour of that amendment. We would have done the work that the Liberal government did not do. However, the Conservatives preferred to give the government a blank cheque. Now they are crying for the farmers.

Will my colleague call out the hypocrisy of his Conservative colleagues?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I am not aware of the amendment that my colleague moved at committee.

However, I want to be clear that our agriculture stakeholders have changed their position. They want to support the United Kingdom, in good faith, joining the CPTPP. They are upset because the Liberal government should have addressed these issues before the continuity agreement expires and before the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP.

We are a party of free traders. Our agriculture groups are free traders. They rely on that. Again, our point is that the Liberals had the leverage to address this issue and failed to do so.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping my colleague can expand upon what is a failure in negotiations.

At the time of the announcement, Canada was going to be the first country to pass legislation enabling Britain's accession to the CPTPP. Looking forward, beyond this, we have seen the Prime Minister go and sign a number of agreements. While we support the diversification of trade, what other opportunities, particularly for the livestock sector, are we potentially missing in these negotiations, as we could have enhanced imports from other countries and not have reciprocal exports going back out the door?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up an excellent point. The Prime Minister has gone to the United Kingdom on a number of occasions, and he is on his way there again later this week or next week, I believe. It is his second home, for all intents and purposes. He keeps talking about his close relationship with the Government of the United Kingdom and the EU. He calls himself a European.

Why is he not resolving any of these issues? The Prime Minister says he has this close relationship, and our agriculture commodities could be taking advantage of these opportunities, not only in the United Kingdom but certainly around the world. The Prime Minister is a big talker, but there is no delivery. That is where we are seeing the frustration coming from Canadian farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would be hard-pressed to find another member of Parliament that advocates more for the livestock and agriculture industry than that member. I wanted to state that here. Agriculture is not a partisan issue, and this member has been a champion of that.

I want to say how important the conversation around the indexing of British pensions here in Canada is when we have any discussion on trade.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I ran out of time in my speech, but I agree with the member. The indexing of the British pensions in Canada is a critical piece of this, and I hope that is resolved.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock and to talk about the accession of the U.K. and Northern Ireland to the CPTPP.

As a bit of background, it has been frustrating for me to watch the government let one opportunity after the other pass us by as it governs Canada. It speaks on our behalf around the world. When Brexit happened, I thought that there was a major opportunity for Canada to fill in the void that was going to come from the lack of that EU agreement that had been in place, the free trade that Britain had with the EU. There was going to be a void of product that was going to be able to get into the U.K. from the EU, and there was an opportunity, given the fact of our shared heritage, that Canada could step up to fill the void immediately. All we needed to do was have that relationship nailed down and sorted out, coming into it. We could see for a number of years that this Brexit thing was coming. We could have seen that we could have had a free trade deal with the U.K., and when it did happen, we could have been the first at the table.

This was something that we talked about as Conservatives. We said, “This is happening. Get on it, Prime Minister.” That was 2020. That was five or six years ago, so we could have had a robust relationship.

I want to talk about a number of products that come from northern Alberta: beef in particular, but also softwood lumber. Many people do not know that Canada, for hundreds of years, was a major supplier of lumber to the U.K., and we have lost that position over the last number of years to the point that we are a minimal supplier of lumber to the U.K. We should be able to maintain that relationship.

Many of my colleagues have spoken today about beef, and I am going to talk about that as well. We apparently have this agreement with the U.K. to trade with them, yet we are happy to compete. Many of us talk about the difference in how much beef comes into Canada from the U.K. and how much does not get into the U.K. Actually, in a free trade system, we should not be too concerned if beef is only running in one direction and not the other, but when the beef is not running in the other direction, to the U.K., because the country is blocking it with particular regulations, that is when we get a little frustrated.

We could make the case that their farmers are more efficient, that their winters are less harsh than Canadian winters, that it is a little easier for them to make beef and that their beef is a bit cheaper than Canadian beef, hence it is coming into Canada. We might say, okay, but we are allowed to at least ship our beef into the U.K. We could say, okay, those numbers are not reciprocal, but we understand there are other reasons. However, when particular rules in the United Kingdom are preventing our beef from getting in, that is what gets us quite upset. That is the reality.

This has been a problem going back for a very long time, and I would point out that we have had Liberal governments for over 10 years that have failed to address this issue, even though they have had multiple opportunities to address these issues. Every time there is a change in the relationship, there are opportunities to say that, by the way, this beef issue or this pork issue continues to be a challenge for Canadian producers. We say that we have this free trade agreement with the U.K., yet the U.K. is using other mechanisms to block our beef and our pork from getting in.

Softwood lumber is a different story. We are being out-competed by the Scandinavian countries to get our lumber into the U.K. That is kind of understandable. It is not that they are blocking our lumber from getting in there. It is just that the Scandinavian countries overproduce for their own countries. They are much closer to the U.K., so shipping costs are less. All of that kind of makes sense. We have this free trade deal, and I think there are some tweaks that the Canadian government could do. Building code changes in the U.K. would allow for our style of dimensional lumber to get into the U.K. a little more easily, and there are a number of these things that the government could be working on to ensure that Canadian lumber can get in there.

On the beef side of things, there are blatant regulations that the U.K. has put in place that specifically block our beef and pork from getting in. This is a major frustration.

We hear from the Liberal government all the time that it is a new government and has a new Prime Minister. The Liberals are not wrong in saying they have a new Prime Minister who has a great relationship with the U.K. He was the governor of the central bank in the U.K. Certainly, he would have some contacts over there. It feels to me like this beef problem that we are having and this pork problem that we are having with the U.K. would just need a text message or a phone call for a guy who has a contact list like the Prime Minister does, who has been the Governor of the Bank of England. Certainly he would be able to sort this out in about five minutes.

I have pointed out the multiple opportunities along the way where we have had opportunities to change this. To be fair, that was under a previous prime minister, who may not have understood pork or beef production, who liked his fancy socks and things like that. Today, we have a Prime Minister who is very integrated with the U.K., who knows a lot of people over there, who carries a passport from that side of the ocean and who calls himself a European. Certainly, if there was a Prime Minister of Canada who could get this done, it would be the current Prime Minister. It is a total failure.

Today, we are being asked to accept the U.K. and Northern Ireland into the trans-Pacific partnership, which is something that we support, but this would have been another opportunity to fix some of the frustrations that we have.

We hear over and over again about concerns about unity in this country and frustrations from, particularly, Alberta, that Ottawa never listens to what their concerns are. Here again, we have another one. Alberta beef is the best beef in the world. Alberta produces a lot of beef for this country. Beef in Canada and Alberta beef are quite synonymous. Again, here we have one of the sticking points, one of the reasons that folks in Alberta get frustrated with the Ottawa government, which is that when the priorities of central Canada are a concern, if there is a risk to jobs in central Canada, the Liberal government bends over backwards and burns down the phone lines to get a resolution to these things. When it comes to western Canada's concerns, to get a pipeline to the east coast or to fix some of the trade friction around beef products or other agricultural products, canola exports and all these kinds of things, suddenly the government seems to say that there is nothing it can do about it. It seems to sit on its hands or just to completely forget about it.

Maybe that is the case. Maybe, when the Prime Minister is going over to England, he just fails to remember that there is the beef problem, which is an interesting thing, because he also says to us all the time that he is an Alberta boy. Alberta and Alberta beef are quite synonymous. One would think that, coming from Alberta, he would remember to bring up beef. Those are some of the major frustrations with the Liberal government that we have around a free trade agreement with the U.K.

I look forward to the U.K.'s accession and the agreement being brought in. I know that there are mechanisms within the bill for the resolution of some of these issues. I hope that the government is prepared and that, the moment the U.K. is recognized in the trans-Pacific partnership, we will start using some of these mechanisms for these dispute resolutions, so that we can get reciprocal agreements on beef and pork across the country.

I also hope that we can sort out some of the U.K. citizens' pensions here in Canada. This is another thing that was brought up. I know that many of my colleagues have brought that up. I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned it for the number of constituents in my riding who are facing this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to the member opposite. I have found, when it comes to the issue of trade, that there is a team Canada approach to dealing with it. It concerns me that the member somewhat promotes hatred toward central Canada and does not really justify it. With cattle exports, the product has a lot more to do with drought and so forth.

The Minister of Agriculture was in the Philippines promoting Alberta beef and invited people from the Philippines to Calgary for the Calgary Stampede. This government has been very proactive in the Prairies dealing with and promoting trade. Why would the member want to promote disinformation to cause people in the Prairies to be anti-Ottawa?