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

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member had a very thoughtful and well-researched speech.

I wonder if he could tell us why he supposes, for the 120,000 Canadians who were affected by the U.K. pension, the government did not deal with that when it had the opportunity? I have a lot of people in Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies who are in the same boat.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is inexplicable that the government did not use the leverage it had in this situation to advocate for and get a deal for the some 120,000 Canadians who are receiving an unindexed U.K. pension.

I want to thank my colleague for raising that question in the House. It is inexplicable. For much of the past 20 years, there was no opportunity to use leverage with the United Kingdom government to get this deal, but the U.K. was desperate to get into other trade deals, such as the CPTPP, as well as other bilateral and multilateral trade deals, precisely because of Brexit.

Because the United Kingdom had left the European Union, it was desperate to get into these other trade arrangements. This was a real opportunity for the Government of Canada to use this leverage to advocate for some 120,000 Canadians who are in desperate need of having these pensions indexed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak, especially on an important topic close to my heart, that being trade negotiations and free trade in Canada.

I just want to start by reminding members of the House what exactly we are doing here today. There has been some discussion that we are talking about accession, or letting the U.K. into the TPP. I am going to call it the TPP. I think we can drop the charade from the previous prime minister, who forced an unwieldy name on us. By letting the U.K. into the TPP, what we are doing here today, as Parliament, is deciding whether to change Canadian law to allow the United Kingdom preferential access to the Canadian market. This is something Parliament must do. The government can negotiate and agree to things in international law, but it is Parliament that ultimately has the authority and the ability to make the decision whether or not to change Canadian domestic law.

On this point, I share my concerns with my colleagues from the Bloc. With the government, there has been a lack of transparency in these negotiations, a lack of transparency in, in fact, all of the negotiations related to trade that the government is currently engaging in. I think more would be better. Normally, I would be getting up in the House to congratulate any government that wants to increase trade around the world. I am certainly a believer in that, but there is really not much to thank Canada for. Instead, we should be thanking the United Kingdom because it really is the United Kingdom and its hard work in negotiating an entrance into the Trans-Pacific Partnership that got us here.

Unfortunately, very little can be said about Canada's involvement in the U.K.'s ascension in joining this regional trading agreement. In my view, the U.K. is joining this in spite of Canada, rather than because of anything Canada has done. Indeed, as I will discuss a little more shortly, it has been obvious to most trade observers that Canada has been entirely uninterested in securing a new deal with the United Kingdom. In my view, this is part of a developing broader pattern with the government of an entirely unimaginative trade strategy.

As my hon. colleague the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North just mentioned, rather than seeking an ambitious new deal with the United Kingdom, which is an important and critical trading partner for Canada, Canada walked away from negotiations with the United Kingdom. Under the trade continuity agreement, we had extended the United Kingdom similar access to what it had when it was a member of the European Union. Of course, it was not a surprise to anyone that it left. Brexit was not a surprise. It left, and we negotiated what was called the TCA. We had that for some time, and we still have it now. We will have to decide what to do with that.

The TCA was in place to give the government time to move on to negotiate toward a more complete bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom, but the government walked away from that. This was an opportunity, truly a once in a generation opportunity, to redefine our trade with the United Kingdom. It is not every day that one of the largest economies in the world sets out to actively and positively rearrange its trading relationships, but the U.K. was doing that. Canada knew this. Everyone knew this. In fact, the United Kingdom has been on a tear, negotiating new trade agreements around the world, but we missed that opportunity, and now, we are paying the price.

The counterfactual here is that we would have had a more dynamic trading relationship with the United Kingdom. This would be great today. We could have had a brand new bilateral deal with the United Kingdom for years. In this current environment, where we need more friends and more trade, that would have been a benefit to Canada.

My colleagues across the way, the Liberals, have described this as some sort of expanded agreement. This is not an expanded agreement. This is actually a worse agreement than we had, or will have, under CETA, or the European union agreement, where we previously had trade with the United Kingdom. This is worse than if we had just come to an agreement to maintain that access.

CETA is more liberalizing than the TPP. CETA is deeper in terms of tariff elimination, deeper in terms of services and investment liberalization, and deeper when it comes to regulatory co-operation. CETA has better and faster tariff elimination. CETA has more quota for many of our agricultural products. CETA has dedicated provisions to respect veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary issues. CETA has broader coverage for subnational government procurement. CETA has stronger pharmaceutical IP protections. CETA has stronger and more enforceable labour protections. By most, if not all, important measures, CETA is a better deal for Canada than the TPP.

Even if we had held on to the terms of the European trade agreement, we would have been better off. However, unfortunately, the government walked away from that better deal, and now, we are left with this. As I said, this is part of a broader pattern of an unimaginative trade policy from the government.

The Prime Minister, just yesterday, attempted to rhyme off his so-called accomplishments with respect to trade, but it was quite a pitiful list, if I may say. There is a potential AI agreement with the U.A.E., a potential for an agreement or co-operation with Germany on some minerals and some sort of what the Liberals describe as an “action plan” with Mexico. I read through the action plan in search of some action, but I could not find anything. Instead, I found a lot of flowery language about co-operation, relationships, shared commitments, but no action. There are no binding commitments, no dispute resolution and no enforcement. All of these agreements, which are not much of an agreement, are piecemeal understandings that, for the most part, are completely unenforceable.

When I used to work in treaty drafting in my legal career, we would include this type of language when we did not want to commit to anything. We called it “hortatory language”. For example, we would say, “We shall endeavour to do something sometime, maybe in the future, if we get around to it.” That is how we would write it, and that is what the government is agreeing to. This is a Liberal trade strategy full of hortatory language. There is a lot of language and a lot of talk, but no action and no enforcement. That inaction has been harmful in securing a deal with the United Kingdom and has caused harm to Canadian businesses. I will give members one example.

As part of the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom, we had agreed to extend country of origin quotas to certain goods. Typically under free trade agreements, goods must originate within the meeting of that agreement, and there are various kinds of rules of origin that are applied to goods, including what are called “product specific rules”. Sometimes those rules are very hard to meet, and there are practical impediments to satisfying them. Therefore, sometimes countries provide quotas to each other to allow certain quantities of these goods to enter each other's markets duty free, even though they do not otherwise qualify. Canada and the U.K. did this through the trade continuity agreement. We provided, and the U.K. provided to Canada, country of origin quotas for certain products, including sugar products, chocolates, fish, fish food, seafood, textiles, apparel and some vehicles.

In the case of the U.K., these quotas were not meant to last forever. They were meant as a transition period until such time as Canada and the U.K. could reach a new agreement. Of course, as I said before, Canada walked away from that agreement. What happened to these country of original quotas? Well, they expired, and they expired over 18 months ago. Since then, Canadian companies have been exporting goods under these quotas. They had been accessing the U.K. market for free, and now they are paying duties on those goods. I will give members one concrete example.

A marquee Canadian company, Canada Goose, is one of the few companies in Canada that still has an integrated manufacturing base in the apparel sector in Canada. Last year, Canada Goose generated $75 million in revenue in the U.K., but due to the expiry of the country of origin quotas because the government walked away from a deal, Canada Goose paid $10 million in duties to the U.K. government. That is projected to be $15 million this year. That is a significant burden to growth for a marquee Canadian company in a foreign market. Canada Goose employs 3,000 Canadians.

In my view, these losses are a direct result of the government's failure to secure a deal in a reasonable amount of time. However, it need not have been this way. The continuity agreement specifically provided that, after the expiry of the quotas, “the Parties shall discuss and decide whether the period should be extended. If they agree, the application of the annual quotas set out in this Annex may be extended by decision of the Canada-UK Joint Committee.” This means that the Liberals could have negotiated a win. They could have negotiated more access for Canadian companies, but they did not, because they walked away.

In conclusion, I want to point out some things that the government can do. One huge issue that we have raised in the House is with respect to the ban by the United Kingdom on beef treated with certain types of hormones, which is safe to eat in Canada and other parts of the world, including in North America, but banned by the United Kingdom. Of course, a WTO panel, many years ago, found that this was inconsistent with the U.K.'s obligations, and that lasted until the conclusion of the CETA. Under the Liberals, we had additional quota access for hormone-treated beef. Of course, we walked away from that when the Liberals walked away from the agreement. To my knowledge, as of this afternoon, the government has made no indication of what it will do about that ban on Canadian beef and pork going into the United Kingdom.

This is, again, another example of the government's unimaginative trade strategy. It is merely along for the ride here. Canada needs to get off the ride, stand up for our industries, stand up for our farmers, stand up for the Canadian economy and negotiate a win.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to many of our colleagues opposite speak today, and the frustration of many of the Conservative members is palpable.

After 10 years of their sitting in opposition, there are numerous issues in which they are more or less in alignment with the government, yet for their own purposes they will get up and attempt to find differences or to criticize the government, when ultimately we are both in agreement with the best way to move forward for Canada and Canadians, whether on the question of free trade, which has been a core Conservative principle for decades, and this government is consistent with that vision; resource extraction and economic growth, which is the Prime Minister's overwhelming focus and which the Conservatives insist to us they also support; or investing in infrastructure, such as roads, rails, highways and ports.

Will the Conservatives just acknowledge that they support the government's agenda to grow the economy strong?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the flow of ideas in the House is actually from the opposition side to the government side, not the other way around. To the extent that the Liberals want to borrow from our institutional knowledge, wisdom and ideas, they can have at it. We will support those.

What I really want to see is a good deal, not a bad deal, and a win, not a loss. I want to see Canada play its strong hand instead of the weakness we have seen from the other side.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to my colleague's comment that every party here agrees with the government and that we are just opposing for the sake of opposing.

There is something that my colleague has not considered. Parliament is very poorly consulted on trade agreements. We have no mechanism that would give us a say during the negotiation period or the ratification period of trade agreements. Bill C-228 would change that.

I would like my colleague to speak to the House's lack of transparency when it comes to trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the Bloc raised a very valid point: the lack of transparency the government has brought to the House with respect to trade negotiations. The Liberals' lack of transparency in the TPP is not the only example. We have very little insight into any of the negotiations the government is undertaking. It is getting to the point where we have to ask ourselves what the strategy is, because all we have seen is more tariffs, more barriers to trade and more issues for Canadians trying to do business around the world.

I agree that we need more transparency, and I ask the government to give it to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the Liberals are confused today when they are giving their speeches. They are acting as if the deal were a new one. It is an old deal. There was CETA and, post-Brexit, there was the temporary agreement. There are over 10 years' worth of outstanding issues.

The Canada-U.K. deal would have been a chance to fix issues around beef and other issues. This may be a worse deal, but the member for Cumberland—Colchester talked about how it is the greatest thing. I bet if she were to take a closer look, she would find that the people in her riding are going to have less with TPP than they would have with CETA.

I wondered if the member could talk about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my view, the hon. member is absolutely correct. We are settling for something, when we could have had a generational opportunity to redefine our trade with one of the most dynamic and largest economies in the world. Instead, the Liberals walked away from that and said that they are not going to negotiate anymore. They let parts of the TCA, the trade continuity agreement, expire, to the detriment of Canadian businesses, and they were entirely uninterested in negotiating a new, bilateral win for Canada.

Now the Liberals want us to pat them on the back for doing this? I do not think so.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the new Prime Minister has taken an approach of reaching out globally. Even before agreements are reached, trade with Europe and Africa is up, exports with Central America and South America are up, and trade with Asia and the Middle East is up. Trade is down with the U.S.; there is no doubt, but that is a condition that is hard to control.

Are the Conservatives the only people in Canada not seeing the news?

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

Mr. Speaker, trade is hard to control, but what is not hard to control is how the government approaches it.

What I have seen with respect to the United Kingdom is the government's walking away from the negotiations, walking away from trying to negotiate a generational opportunity with a huge trading partner and ally instead of taking that opportunity for Canada.

We had a strong hand to play, but instead there has been weakness.

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

Mr. Speaker, it always interesting when we have debates relating to trade. The last time we had a significant debate on international trade, it was the debate on Ukraine and the need for a trade agreement. New members, like the member who just spoke, may not be aware of this, but during a time of war, the President of Ukraine actually came to Canada, addressed Parliament and talked about a prior signed agreement between Ukraine and Canada.

I thought it was going in a direction that would have received universal support from all members of the House. I was shocked, as were many of the 1.34 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention Canadians in general, that Conservative after Conservative stood in their place to vote against the trade agreement with Ukraine. In fact even the New Democrats and the Green Party member stood in favour of the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement.

To me, that speaks volumes about the general attitude coming from the Conservative Party members today with regard to trade. They just finished saying that the government did not do this and that; they were asking, “What about this?” and so forth, trying to give the impression that they could have actually done a better job.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

We could have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no, they could not have.

When we stop to think about the first trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, we should remember that Canada was holding firm, and the Conservatives were complaining and capitulating, saying, “Just sign the agreement.” They were concerned we would not be able to get an agreement. Minister after minister stood to say that we were not going to sign just any old agreement.

Just because the Conservatives were prepared to capitulate does not mean the government was prepared to capitulate. We received a great agreement that delivered for Canadians. We did not take the Conservatives' advice and capitulate, because at times, work and effort need to be put in, and we have to stand in the interest of Canadians to get the right deal for Canadians. This is what the current Prime Minister has been talking a great deal about.

We are concerned about President Trump, trade and tariffs, the three Ts: the Trump, tariff and trade issues with respect to the United States. The Conservatives are jumping all over themselves saying that we promised this and that in regard to the trade agreement. They want the government and the Prime Minister to capitulate, just like they advocated before.

I would articulate today, with reference to that particular agreement, that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada should stand firm on achieving the best deal for Canadians. If that means we have to hold off, then we should hold off. Yes, I would have loved to have seen an agreement a lot earlier, but I am not going to sell out Canadian interests in order to achieve that agreement. I believe that the position of the Prime Minister, the government and Liberal members of Parliament is that we will continue to strive for the best deal we can get for Canadians, first and foremost. We are not going to jump to the tunes of the Conservative Party.

Just as we are witnessing today, the moment there is an agreement signed, the Conservatives are going to ask about x, y or z thing, or whatever. That is fine, but they should not try to give Canadians the impression that they could do a better job. Well, number one, I would give a lot of credit to the efforts civil servants have been putting in over the years. We have first-class, world-class civil servants who negotiate trade agreements on behalf of all Canadians.

We have a Prime Minister who is genuinely and truly committed to what he said during the last election, which was to look at expanding opportunities that go beyond the United States. That is what today is all about.

Meanwhile, Conservative after Conservative stands up, trying to give a false impression. Does the House remember the member for Simcoe North? I think he was their second lead-off speaker. He was talking about what a bad government we are because we are selling off the gold reserves. That is not true.

The gold reserves were sold off over a decade ago, in essence when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Conservative caucus table. In fact, he was a minister and a parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister, who ensured that we continued to sell off the gold reserves. The member tried to give the impression that it was the current Prime Minister and government that were selling off the gold reserves. Why is that? It is because he was talking about the number one import for the U.K. coming from Canada. What does Canada export more to the U.K. than anything else?

[Marilyn Gladu]

Beef.