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

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an important and timely step forward in our country's trade agenda. We are debating the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP. As members of this esteemed House, we must reflect on the broader implications of this agreement, not just for the nation as a whole, but for the diverse industries, businesses and communities that form the backbone of our regions. In particular, I will speak to the potential impact on my own province of Nova Scotia.

The CPTPP, as many here are well aware, is one of the most significant trade agreements in the modern era. It brings together countries from across the Asia-Pacific region, encompassing nearly 13.5% of the global economy and giving access to a market of more than 500 million customers. Those numbers are more than statistics. They represent real opportunities for Canadian workers, exporters and entrepreneurs.

For Nova Scotia, this trade deal represents a tremendous opportunity to expand its economic footprint and open doors to new markets for its industries. I use the term “industries” deliberately, because we are not just talking about one sector or group of products; we are talking about a whole ecosystem of economic activity that stands to benefit. This includes everything from our renowned seafood industry, which is respected around the world, to our high-quality agricultural products, which reflect both tradition and innovation.

Nova Scotia has long been a hub of agricultural excellence, and one of its rising stars is the blueberry industry, a sector that combines rural pride with global potential. Our province, and indeed my riding, is home to some of the most fertile and productive blueberry-growing regions of the world. From the rolling fields of Oxford, often referred to as the wild blueberry capital of Canada, to smaller family-owned farms, our growers have invested years of hard work, research and environmental stewardship into producing some of the best blueberries on the market.

These are not just berries; they are the result of generations of expertise, of innovation in sustainable farming and of partnerships between farmers, scientists and exporters. Now, thanks to the CPTPP, these blueberries are reaching new and lucrative markets across the Pacific Rim, particularly in countries like Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, where there is already a high and growing demand for our products.

To put this into context, let us take Japan. Japan is not only one of the world's most sophisticated consumer markets; it is also a country where Canadian agricultural products, especially those from Atlantic Canada, are highly valued for their quality and safety. The CPTPP ensures that tariffs on frozen blueberries, which were once a barrier, are either significantly reduced or eliminated altogether. That means our farmers can sell more at better prices and remain competitive on the international stage.

This is precisely the kind of success story envisioned in the Prime Minister's commitment to doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. That vision is about creating more opportunity for every region and ensuring that Canada competes and succeeds in a world where new markets and new consumers are shaping the future of trade. Agreements like the CPTPP are key to achieving that vision, because they help diversify our trade beyond the United States, giving Canadian industries even more opportunity to shine globally.

Let us talk about some of the other benefits of this agreement.

Nova Scotia's seafood sector, for instance, is another major winner. Lobster, crab, scallops and other high-value seafood products are in growing demand across Asia-Pacific markets. With the CPTPP, tariffs on these exports will continue to fall, allowing our fisheries to compete more effectively and to grow sustainably. For our coastal communities, where fishing is not just a job but a way of life, this is no small matter. It means more stable incomes, greater investment in processing facilities and more jobs in both rural and urban parts of the province.

Our manufacturing sector also stands to benefit. Nova Scotia's manufacturers, whether they produce wood products, aerospace components or advanced materials, gain preferential access through the CPTPP trade agreement to markets like Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. These are countries with strong demand for the types of high-quality, value-added products we specialize in. Nova Scotia's wood products in particular are increasingly sought after in the Asia-Pacific, where rapid urbanization and a growing middle class are fuelling construction and consumer spending.

This aligns directly with our government's bold trade agenda, which focuses on building new trade corridors and empowering Canadian exporters to look beyond traditional markets. When we talk about doubling non-U.S. exports over the next decade, we are talking about creating lasting prosperity that reaches every community, from the wharves of Lunenburg to the factories of Dartmouth, and from the blueberry fields of Oxford to the research labs of Halifax.

Let us not forget the clean technology and digital innovation sectors. As the world continues to transition to more sustainable energy sources and more connected technologies, the CPTPP helps ensure that our innovators are not left behind. Nova Scotia's growing tech sector, driven by a new generation of engineers, developers and researchers, can benefit from improved access to international markets and collaborative opportunities.

Why is the United Kingdom's accession to this agreement so important? The U.K. is an economic powerhouse with a long and respected history of trade and diplomacy. It is a market of over 67 million people and a gateway to Europe and beyond.

Canada already shares strong historical, cultural and economic ties with the United Kingdom. Adding the U.K. to the CPTPP not only deepens those connections, but extends their benefits to include parts of the growing Asia-Pacific region. This is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which often face hurdles when trying to navigate complex trade agreements. By bringing the U.K. into the CPTPP, we are creating simplified, consistent and transparent trade rules that make it easier for Canadian companies to grow internationally without sacrificing their values or standards.

Equally critical is the U.K.'s alignment with Canadian values. The United Kingdom shares our commitments to environmental stewardship, labour rights and rules-based international trade. Its participation will only strengthen the CPTPP's standing as a progressive and inclusive agreement, one that puts people, fairness and sustainability at the forefront of economic growth.

The U.K. also brings a wealth of institutional knowledge and global reach to the table. With its long-standing trade networks and diplomatic relationships, the U.K.'s involvement enhances the credibility and global influence of the CPTPP. It signals to the world that this is not just a regional trade agreement; it is a platform for global leadership in fair and open commerce.

This broader vision, championed by our Prime Minister, is about making Canada a global trading nation that stands confidently on the world stage. Our goal of doubling non-U.S. exports within the next decade is not just a statistic; it is a statement of purpose. It means helping our businesses diversify, our workers thrive and our communities prosper through stronger international partnerships like the one we are debating today.

When we look at this agreement through the lens of Nova Scotia, the benefits become tangible. It is a win for many of our farmers, who can access high-value markets without prohibitive costs. It is a win for our exporters, who enjoy clearer rules and fewer barriers. It is a win for our workers, who benefit from new jobs and more secure industries. It is a win for our future, as we position ourselves to be competitive, innovative and sustainable in a changing global economy.

Trade agreements are often viewed in abstract terms, but at their core, trade agreements are about people, the livelihoods of families, the ambitions of our entrepreneurs and the vitality of communities. Let us not lose sight of that as we debate this important step. The U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP is not just a strategic economic move; it is a reaffirmation of our commitment to a fair, open and inclusive global trading system, one that works for Nova Scotians and one that works for all Canadians.

I am proud to support this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues across all parties to join me in recognizing the profound and positive impact it will have on our communities, our economy and our shared future.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague will know, part of what this agreement would do if it were to pass into domestic legislation is commit the Government of Canada to allowing U.K. businesses to bid on government procurement contracts, including at the provincial level. As my hon. colleague spoke about her own province, I am sure she will have checked with Nova Scotia to see if it agrees with allowing foreign businesses to bid on Nova Scotian contracts when we are trying to promote Canadian businesses. In fact, members across the way have been saying consistently that we need to buy more Canadian and support Canadian businesses.

Has she checked with her home province to see whether it agrees to provide access to its provincial government procurement?

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, competition is a good thing. Our government's mandate to build a stronger Canadian economy will bring about the opportunity to compete. That may make our companies more adaptable and agile in their dealings within our business environment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question that has sadly gone unanswered all day by my Liberal colleagues.

Canada probably has one of the least democratic legislative assemblies when it comes to trade agreements and international treaties. The House does not have the means to make a sufficiently informed decision when it comes to ratifying these types of treaties, a situation that Bill C‑228 seeks to correct. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any appetite for this on the government side.

I would like to ask my colleague if she is comfortable with the fact that the majority of trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors, without the House of Commons being informed of what is happening. I would like to know what she thinks of this.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the Prime Minister and his relationships with governments and leaders around the world. These discussions will lead to the best trade agreements for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's last comment. Look at the level of expertise our Prime Minister brings to the table. He was the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England. By the way, we are talking about trade with the U.K. He understands the economics. Having gone through the last election, he understands the importance of expanding our trade beyond the U.S.

Look at the amount of effort Liberal MPs and, particularly, the Prime Minister are putting in toward expanding trade opportunities. This is the way we will be able to generate jobs into the future.

I wonder if my colleague and friend could provide her thoughts on why all provinces ultimately benefit through trade, especially when we have a government that is focused on expanding it.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for the good work he does there.

Over the last decade, I have spent time working with small business owners through my work with the community business development corporation. Many of the business people with whom I worked were anxious to expand their business capabilities to trade among the provinces, which we have already accomplished through the dropping of interprovincial trade barriers, and to have the opportunity to trade internationally.

The government was elected with a mandate to support small and medium-sized enterprises, and this trade agreement would help support that initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North mentioned the so-called expertise of the Prime Minister. I have to disagree with that. If he were such an expert, we would have negotiated a win with the U.K. and we would have gotten to a bilateral agreement, instead of having to settle for the TPP agreement, which would provide Canadian businesses less access.

It has been 18 months since we allowed parts of the TCA to expire. In that time, many Canadian businesses have had to pay duties on products going into the United Kingdom because of it. Will the government make those businesses whole for the duties they paid because of the expiration?

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, things take time and negotiations take time. It is our intention to work with all businesses to help them be as successful as they possibly can be.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from York—Durham.

For most of Canada's history, the United Kingdom was Canada's largest trading partner. As late as 1941, the United Kingdom, not the United States, was Canada's largest export market. For those watching who wish to find this data, I found it in a Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce publication entitled “Canada's Trade Performance—1960-1977, Volume 1: General Developments”. It was published in October 1978 and is available on the department's website.

I welcome this debate on Bill C-13 because it gives us an opportunity to debate how we can increase trade and investment between Canada and the world. While the U.K. is no longer our largest trading partner, it remains an important one. Measured in two-way trade, the United Kingdom is Canada's third-largest trading partner, with two-way trade valued at $63 billion in 2024. Measured in terms of exports, the United Kingdom is Canada's second-largest export market. It is bigger than China and second only to the United States. According to Adam Murray at EDC, “As of 2025, the U.K. is Canada’s second-largest destination for total exports of goods and services, valued at $40.2 billion.”

There is a lot of opportunity to build on increasing exports to our second-largest export market, the United Kingdom, with agreements like the one before this House. There is an opportunity to increase exports with a country that is a western, liberal democracy. It is a country that not only shares our values, but shares very similar institutions, like this very House of Commons. For that second reason, it is good to increase trade with the United Kingdom.

While the United Kingdom is Canada's second-largest export market this year, it is important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of Canada's exports. The picture is not good. Canada's exports to the world, expressed as a percentage of our GDP, have massively declined over the last 25 years. Our global exports, expressed as a percentage of our GDP, went from 44% in 2000 to 32% in 2024, which is a massive drop.

I want to make three points about this big drop in exports. First, not all of this drop is attributable to a drop in exports to the United States. While global exports have dropped by about 12% of GDP over the last 25 years, not all of that is attributable to the United States. In fact, if we look at our global exports, excluding the United States, they, too, have dropped over the last 25 years by some 2%.

The second point to make about this massive drop in global exports is that most of it took place before the arrival of the Trump administration south of the border. That second point is a very important one to make.

There is a third point that I would like to make about this massive drop in these exports, most of which happened before the arrival of the Trump presidency and some of which happened to our exports outside of the United States. The big reason why this has happened, I would argue, is that Canada has become uncompetitive. No one would dispute the argument that we have become uncompetitive as a country. The fact is, as reflected by the decline in our exports over the last number of years, fewer and fewer people outside of Canada want to buy our products.

Fewer and fewer people abroad want to buy Canadian goods and services, and that is because government tax policies make it difficult to attract domestic and foreign investment, leading to a situation where Canadian companies invest in plant capital and equipment at a far lower rate than their foreign competitors. Jack Mintz argued in his paper entitled “A Proposal for a ‘Big Bang’ Corporate Tax Reform” that government tax policies have led to a situation where the marginal effective tax rate on the services sector in Canada is almost double that of other economic sectors in Canada, such as manufacturing, forestry and agriculture. The tertiary services sector, which is supposed to be the future of the Canadian economy, faces a marginal effective tax rate that is almost double that of many other sectors in the Canadian economy.

It is a result, I would argue, of regulatory policies that are stifling major investments, such as trade corridor infrastructure. Canada's trade corridor infrastructure is abysmal, and the current government has done little to address that fact. Let me highlight two examples of our abysmal trade corridor infrastructure.

To my knowledge, we are the only major OECD economy without a single national highway. In our case, we could have one running from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. In the United Kingdom, people can get on the “M” series highway and drive uninterrupted from Bournemouth all the way up to Aberdeenshire in Scotland on a four-lane, divided, limited-access highway. In the United States, people can drive from New York to L.A. on multiple four-lane, divided, limited-access interstate highways that began construction in the 1950s under the Eisenhower administration. In France, people can get on autoroutes that will take them from one side of France to the other on a limited-access, four-lane, divided highway system.

We do not have a single highway like that in Canada. In fact, what we call our Trans-Canada Highway is Highway 7, which leads out of Ottawa on the way to Toronto. The Trans-Canada Highway is a two-lane, paved road and much of it is interrupted by hundreds and hundreds of driveways, intersections and traffic lights. People cannot drive from Halifax to Vancouver in this country without encountering thousands of driveways, hundreds of intersections and dozens of traffic lights.

Another example of our abysmal trade corridor infrastructure is the port of Vancouver. The World Bank commissioned a study several years ago on the world's top 350 or so global ports, and the port of Vancouver ranked second to dead last in efficiency.

None of these issues are on the government's list of national interest projects. None of these issues are being addressed by the current government. That is, in part, why we have seen a drop in global exports to countries around the world, excluding the United States, over the last number of years. It is why global exports, expressed as a percentage of Canada's GDP, have gone from some 44% back in 2000 down to about 32% today.

I will finish with this final point. The government missed a huge opportunity when negotiating this deal with the United Kingdom to address the plight of some 120,000 Canadians living in this country and receiving U.K. pensions, which remain unindexed. It is an issue that has festered for a number of years. This was an opportunity for the government to address the plight of those pensioners. Pensioners who live in the United States, Spain, Germany and France receive indexed pensions, but pensioners living in Canada do not. The government missed a huge opportunity to address the needs of these 120,000 Canadians in negotiating this deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the leader of the Conservative Party's election platform, where he costs out having a four-lane, divided highway from coast to coast in Canada. Why not throw in the other coast while he is at it?

The member has littered all sorts of misinformation onto the record. He tries to give the false impression that people around the world do not want to invest in Canada. I remember standing in this very same spot in 2024, talking about how Canada was number one in the G7 and number three in the world in attracting foreign investment. People in companies around the world recognize the stability Canada has to offer and have been investing in Canada.

I do not know where the member is getting his statistics on exports from. Exports for Canada overall have been on the increase, not on the decrease. I question where the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills North.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the hon. member's question by simply repeating the facts, which were obtained from Statistics Canada.

Canada's exports, expressed as a percentage of our GDP, were 44% of our GDP in the year 2000. They were 32% of our GDP in the year 2024. By any analysis, that is a precipitous drop.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to listen to my colleague, who has thoughtful and well documented comments to share. It is always a pleasure.

I understand what he meant when he spoke about the decrease in exports caused by Canada's lack of competitiveness. However, I do not think this lack of competitiveness is the result of taxes alone.

We need only look at our forestry sector, which is going through an unprecedented crisis. The forestry sector does not generate enough added value. We send products and goods to the United States, and that makes us dependent on the American market. In the past 20 years, the federal government has never once shown any desire to support the forestry sector and help the industry to evolve and create increasingly more added value. Whenever anyone in the forestry sector asks the federal government for support, they are referred to Global Affairs Canada and nothing ever gets done. When it comes to forestry, they are so afraid of the United States that any government action becomes paralyzed.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this subject.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that not all the problems are related to the tax system. Part of the problem has to do with our rules around ports and commercial infrastructure. We are facing a major challenge when it comes to increasing our exports to Europe and Asia because of the lack of port capacity in places like Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver.

Forestry products, for example, compete with other exports and goods. Currently, we do not have the necessary capacity to significantly increase our exports through these ports.