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

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation. It is a part of a much larger picture that the Government of Canada has entered into since the last federal election.

In the last federal election, members will recall that the debate during the election, and the greatest concerns Canadians had, were with respect to economic security and a sense of sovereignty. I would argue that we had the right person, at the right time, leading the Liberal Party. We had a prime minister who understood how important it was to secure an economy that was going to deliver for Canadians even at a difficult time, when we had issues with President Trump and the negotiations and discussions around trade with Canada's single greatest trading partner. That was the issue in the last election, and we had a prime minister who articulated exceptionally well just how important it was that we, as a government, look at opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. borders when it came to trade.

Following that election, we had a prime minister and a government that were focused on that issue. Part of that focus was to build toward a stronger one Canadian economy. That is why members will recall Bill C-5, which was all about taking down provincial barriers, working with provincial governments and building infrastructure, so that we would be in a better position to be able to export. That is what Bill C-13 is all about. It is a reflection of the need for us to have trading partners that go beyond Canada and the U.S.A. As a prime minister, someone who has been the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England and has impeccable economic credentials, he understood just how important that was.

That is the reason we have seen our Prime Minister, along with a number of different ministers, including the minister responsible for introducing this legislation, aggressively look outside of Canada for export opportunities. I have been a parliamentarian for many years and can say that I have never witnessed such a motivated Prime Minister and cabinet, solely focused on increasing exports and building a stronger and healthier Canada.

What I see in Bill C-13 are tangible results with respect to Northern Ireland and England as economic trading partners. Let us look at one aspect many people may not be aware of. We export gold to England. Virtually every region of our country participates in gold exports. Securing markets matters and also assists in building relationships. Whether it is the Prime Minister or virtually any minister who has been travelling on behalf of Canadians, looking to expand that market and to diversify our exports, every single one has commented on how the world wants more Canada, because Canada really and truly has so much potential.

That is one of the reasons I disagree so much with the Conservatives who say that Canada is broken when they tour the country. All they need to do is to go anywhere, to virtually any one of our allied countries, any of the G7 countries or any of the G20 countries, to find that there is a strong desire to have Canada involved or engaged in their respective economies and to build a stronger and healthier relationship.

If we were to put partisanship aside and just look at the number of countries that the Prime Minister has been to, it is a fairly lengthy list. I would ultimately argue that the greatest asset any country has when it comes to expanding exports is its leader. That is why I say we have the right person at the right time, someone who really and truly understands the economy, how it works, the advantages of international trade, and why it is so very important that we expand beyond the Canada-U.S.A. relationship and that the Prime Minister travels.

Today we are talking about an agreement with England and Northern Ireland. One of the industries in Canada that would benefit is the gold industry, but there are other industries as well. It is important that we expand that trade file into the many different industries that are before us.

Yesterday, a member of the Conservative Party was talking about trade and the pork industry. That is an $8-billion industry for Canada, with tens of thousands of good jobs throughout Canada, in particular in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. In Manitoba, we have Maple Leaf, HyLife and other producers, not to mention the hundreds of farmers who support that particular industry in indirect jobs.

I raise that because the Conservative member was talking about a trade agreement with Indonesia, the legislation that we had before us. Some other Conservative members were saying that it is a relatively small percentage of trade, but we have to look at the cumulative total. In Indonesia alone, with the trade agreement that was being debated yesterday, we are talking about billions of dollars in merchandise trade. That is one of the faster-growing economies in an area of the world where we are looking for more opportunities.

The member opposite was talking about the pork industry and saying that there are concerns in Europe, and I agree. There are some concerns with regard to Europe, but we also need to recognize that we have a Prime Minister who has been proactive in virtually all areas of the world.

Representatives of the pork industry in Manitoba were quite pleased to hear about the Prime Minister going to Japan. HyLife has a wonderful processing centre in the community of Neepawa. HyLife is bringing a lot of economic opportunity back to a small, beautiful community in rural Manitoba. I can assure members that the community of Neepawa sees Japan as a wonderful opportunity to continue to grow and expand and be the beautiful community it is.

I could talk about Maple Leaf, which has a huge plant in the city of Winnipeg. The best bacon in the world comes out of that Maple Leaf plant in Winnipeg. Actually, 50% of all bacon consumed in Canada comes from that plant in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

[An hon. member]

What about Neepawa?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just talked about Neepawa. If members want to see how efficient a plant can actually be at processing hogs, they can take a tour of the Brandon plant.

[An hon. member]

Have you?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have taken the tour, right from where the hogs go in to where the final product goes out, and some of that product actually goes to Maple Leaf in Winnipeg. I understand the pork industry.

When we talk about world trade, what we are seeing today is a good example of a Prime Minister who has incredible connections. There are other world leaders who are anxious to actually meet with our Prime Minister. I think in terms of when he was down in Asia and he met with the President of the Philippines. Between the President and our Prime Minister, there was discussion about seeing whether we can achieve a trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines. There are all sorts of opportunities, whether it is coconut water coming from the Philippines to Canada or pork going to the Philippines from Canada. I hope I said that right: coconut water from the Philippines to Canada and pork from, ideally Manitoba but certainly Canada, to the Philippines. There are wonderful opportunities.

I take a look in terms of what happened with the Prime Minister's going to India. Do members know how much all of Canada would benefit by that, but in particular the Prairies? India wants energy. We have seen a government that is focused on delivering energy to the world and being a leader.

I would suggest that it is so critically important for those who are interested in following the debate on trade and the importance of trade to take a look at what the Canadian government is doing today and realize that, if we look at the world population and Canada's population, we make up about 0.5% of the world population. On the other hand, when we think of world trade, we actually make up about 2.5% of world trade. Those numbers alone clearly demonstrate why it is so important that Canada be engaged in trade. If we want to improve the conditions here in Canada, we must look at the impact that world trade has and continue to look for opportunities.

That is why the circumstances between Canada and the United States have heightened the importance that we not be as reliant on the United States. I love the United States. Americans and Canadians have had a super fantastic relationship for many years, but as the Prime Minister has indicated, things have changed and Canada needs to look at alternative ways we can provide that sovereignty and sense of security, so that Canada is in a better position going forward and cannot be intimidated by a much larger southern neighbour. That is a huge motivating factor.

People across the way, from the Conservative Party, will ask us to show them the deal. It is important for all of us to realize that we need to have a united front. We need to actually approach the United States in a united team Canada fashion, to be able to argue from a position of strength.

One of the ways we do that is by showing that we have trading opportunities in many other countries that want to increase trade with Canada. We have seen an example of that. If we went back generations, I would challenge whether other prime ministers did this 40 or 50 years ago. I would not go far back, but I can tell members that we have an aggressive agenda for building Canada strong. A major part of that, as we are talking about today, is world trade.

This is just one piece of legislation that deals with Northern Ireland and with England. These are trading partners we have had for a long time. Whether it is with trading partners like these or trading partners into the future, I believe there are opportunities. There is a heightened sense of awareness from exporters that want to be a part of world trade and export beyond the United States, and beyond even Canadian borders, obviously.

I had the opportunity to travel to the Philippines on a trade mission of sorts. There were literally hundreds of business representatives and entrepreneurs gathered in Manila to talk about trade opportunities between Canada and the Philippines. Another time when I was in the Philippines, we opened up the Agri-Food Office. That headquarters serves, I believe, 35 countries in the Pacific area for agri-food products. I had a tour of a grocery store in the Philippines that was highlighting Canadian-produced products—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is rising on a point of order.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speech by the member opposite from the beginning. I am rising because we are supposed to be discussing Bill C-13, which deals with the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. However, most of the member opposite's speech has been focused on relations with the United States, the Philippines—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows full well that the Chair gives a lot of latitude when it comes to the nature of the speeches that can be given, and the parliamentary secretary has referred several times to the agreement and to trade with the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I would therefore ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to resume his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I understand and respect the comments, but I think we need to take a look at the larger picture, which is why I also made reference to one of the greatest exports Canada has. The member represents a Quebec riding, and for the province of Quebec, one of the biggest exports, which I referenced, is gold. Gold is produced in virtually all regions of the country. It is one of the biggest trading things that go towards this particular agreement.

This is important, because when we talk about trade agreements, as we have today and as we did with respect to Indonesia yesterday, I think it is widely accepted that members understand the true value of trade, which is why there is support for legislation of this nature. I would hope that we would continue to have that sort of support going forward. I really do believe that Canada needs to be and should continue to be a leader when it comes to trade.

The European Union and the U.K. are very strong allies of Canada, but we should also be looking at creating relationships with other nations, whether it is G20 countries, countries in Asia, or many more. Part of the G20 includes countries from Asia. We need to look at ways in which we can enhance trade opportunities, because that means a stronger, healthier Canada that is able to provide the type of jobs we want into the future. It is good for Canada to get trade agreements passed through the House of Commons.

It was a pleasure to share a few thoughts on the issue.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Winnipeg North speak about the Canadian pork industry. I think he raises some valid points, but unfortunately he left out the real and pressing issues that Canada has with the United Kingdom as they relate to non-tariff and trade irritants specifically for the exportation of pork.

The Library of Parliament outlines that Britain exported 5.6 million dollars' worth of pork to Canada in 2023, 9.1 million dollars' worth in 2024, and 3.6 million dollars' worth in the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported no pork to the U.K. in 2023, 75,000 dollars' worth in 2024 and only 122,000 dollars' worth in 2025.

The Canadian Pork Council outlines that the reasons it cannot export to the U.K. are trichinosis testing and animal production and processing rules that prevent the great pork producers in the member's riding and across the province of Manitoba from doing so.

Why did the Prime Minister not use this opportunity to remove those trade irritants and include them in Bill C-13 so Canadian pork producers in Manitoba could sell more product on the international market?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Canada, like the United States, has a different process for pork processing, which has proven to be very difficult in getting our pork to market in the EU and the U.K. That is well established. It was there prior to the current government, and it is something that, I would suggest, is a work in progress.

While we work on that area, it is important to consider Japan and other countries, such as the Philippines, because this increases the overall export of pork. That is what we want. If members were to check with HyLife in the community of Neepawa, for example, they would find that its biggest concern is actually Japan. There are literally hundreds of jobs in Neepawa through HyLife, and its interest is in Japan.

Yes, we have some concerns in Europe in regard to pork, just like the United States has concerns—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Riding Mountain is rising on a point of order.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about a different country altogether, versus the actual—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I understand. I think the hon. member was trying to make a comparison.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to dig a little deeper into the subject I touched on in my point of order earlier. The Chair did not consider it a point of order, so I imagine this will be fine as a point of debate.

In his speech, the member talked almost exclusively about our relationship with the United States and with the Philippines. He actually had a lot to say about the Philippines. I think it was the topic of almost half of his speech. Honestly, I have nothing against the Philippines. My partner is from the Philippines. However, Bill C‑13 is about the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The member makes endless speeches in Parliament. He talks about all kinds of things, but I get the impression he is not very familiar with the subject we are discussing today because he did not talk about it. Here is my question for him. Maybe, if he is unfamiliar with a subject, he could give other members who are familiar with it an opportunity to talk because he gets so many opportunities to talk.

What are his thoughts on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member is trying to hurt my feelings, but I thought I was very clear. There is a very strong and healthy relationship between the United Kingdom and Canada. I highlighted what I thought was a very important industry from which Canada has benefited immensely, which is the export of gold. If the member wants to challenge that thought, he is welcome to do that. If he wants to highlight other industries, he is welcome to do that also.

Yesterday we talked about the Indonesia trade agreement. There were discussions in regard to an area of trade that I am very much interested in, that being pork. I am surprised at the member opposite, because the pork industry is so important to the province of Quebec. I know that. I would have thought he knew that and would have been interested in hearing me talking about pork, because it matters in Quebec as it matters in the province of Manitoba.

The general gist of my discussion was to talk about how important trade is to Canada. Trade means jobs, whether in B.C., Manitoba, Quebec or Halifax, or up north. That is what we should be talking about: the principles of it. We all know, care and understand the benefits of the EU—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Riding Mountain.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has brought up a lot of good points about trade, but I am wondering whether, in the trade agreements, there is any commitment to get our own house in order as a nation.

The member referred to the plant in Neepawa. The biggest limiting factor for that plant is the requirement to have veterinarians and to maintain the Canadian national standard. We can make all the promises in the world, travel all over the world and say what we have for sale, but if we cannot get our own house in order, there are big problems. The Canadian agriculture industry has hit these roadblocks several times in the past, putting in question how much of a reliable supplier we are.

In this agreement, is there any commitment to analyze our own Canadian system to help veterinarians and to get our own production systems in line?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, within this specific agreement, the short answer would be no, not that I am aware of, but I could be wrong on that. At the end of the day, when we look at trade as a whole and what the member is referring to, this is an issue about which I have had discussions with both the Government of Manitoba, in particular the minister of immigration, and federal ministers. Veterinary services play a very important role in our agricultural community.

A question was asked about why we cannot export more pork to Europe. Part of that is about trying to break down some of the barriers, and we are not alone. The pork industry in the United States has the same issue. How do we try to continue to produce in a way that we are very familiar with and work with, and get the EU and the U.K. to accept the pork as we are producing it? That is a challenge in—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Québec.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested to listen to our colleague's speech and also to compare it to what we heard yesterday on the topic of Indonesia, when we heard some Conservative voices saying that we were spending or wasting too much of members' time talking about trade.

Does the member believe we are spending too much time in the House investing in trade relationships and building a stronger economy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague because I really and truly believe he, as do I and members of the Liberal caucus, understands the true value of trade. We heard that yesterday during debate on another trade agreement, the Indonesia trade agreement, when Conservatives stood and said there is such a small amount of trade between Canada and Indonesia. I believe they support the agreement, but they were downplaying it because of the amount of trade.

What we are talking about with that particular agreement is billions and billions of dollars in merchandise trade today and how we can continue to enhance that. We want to trade with the world because that is how we are going to build a stronger and healthier Canada and provide jobs into the future.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, this debate exposes Parliament's limited ability to amend treaties. Amendments can be made only to the bill and not to the treaty itself.

In the United States, the U.S. Congress grants negotiating mandates, making it more difficult for negotiating teams to conclude unsatisfactory agreements. In Canada, the executive branch acts alone, without any parliamentary oversight. In most industrialized countries, parliaments adopt treaties. This forces executive branches to maintain an ongoing dialogue and perhaps even reorient negotiations. In other words, Canada has a democratic deficit.

I am running out of time, so I will ask my question. Does my colleague not think that we should review how Canada and Parliament approach treaties, instead of allowing the executive branch to act alone?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is no. The Bloc has tried to bring forward legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke has the floor.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the cattle producers in the farm-filled riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-13, an act to bring the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership.

Canadians who were watching TV in the 1980s may remember a popular Wendy's commercial that asked a simple question, “Where's the beef?” It was such an effective commercial that the slogan became a cultural catchphrase for a lack of substance. For beef producers in my riding and across the country who look at this bill, the question, “Where's the beef?” is quite literal.

For over a decade now, the Liberal government has failed to reach a deal with the United Kingdom to end the unfair treatment of Canadian beef. This bill is our leverage to end the U.K.'s non-tariff barriers on our beef. Currently, the U.K. does not approve of a carcass wash applied at Canadian processing plants. The U.K. also opposes growth promotants in beef or pork production. These objections are not rooted in scientific evidence. They have evolved to keep Canadian products out of the U.K. market.

The results are clear. In 2024, the U.K. exported over $42 million to the Canadian market. That same year, we exported $25,000 in beef to the U.K. That is not free trade. That is not fair trade. This is another Liberal failure.

In the last 360 days, our anglophile Prime Minister has met with the U.K. Prime Minister at least four times. That is not even including their late-night phone calls sharing the latest London gossip. Since the U.K. left the European Union, its five successive prime ministers have been desperately searching for new trade partners. Of all the people we would expect to understand the leverage Canada has over the U.K., we would think it would be the U.K.'s former central banker, yet despite these four meetings and another planned for this weekend, there has been no deal reached to end this unfair treatment.

Maybe all those years living in the U.K. have given our Prime Minister a preference for furry Scottish beef. We can only speculate. After all, it was the Prime Minister who sold himself to Canadians as the ultimate insider, with his central banker superpowers of negotiation, yet despite holding all the cards, he keeps folding. His 24 foreign trips as Prime Minister have been a capitulation carnival. Only one new trade deal has been reached, but do not worry, Canada, we have six new strategic partnerships.

On the Prime Minister's fourth international junket, he signed a new strategic partnership with the European Union. On his sixth trip, he signed a strategic partnership agreement with Poland, which, last we checked, is in fact part of that European Union. On his ninth trip, he signed a strategic partnership with Mexico, Mexico of course being a country that we have two trade deals with, both CUSMA and the trans-Pacific partnership. On his 21st trip, he infamously formed a strategic partnership with the Communists who control China. He even promised this partnership would lead us to a brave new world order. Just this month, he signed a new strategic partnership with Japan.

Unfortunately for my grandsons, there was no promise of a Super Mario World order in that agreement. That we could have a strategic partnership with both China and Japan or with the EU and an EU member is telling. Canadians are right to ask, “Where's the beef?” These fake agreements are all bun and no patty.

The term “strategic partnership” is a major victory for the consultant class. It sounds meaningful, but it signifies nothing. It is the empty suit of international agreements. It is the perfect metaphor for the Prime Minister: all hat and no cattle.

Aside from this bill being a painful reminder of the government's failure to support farmers, it opens another window into the government's latest gaslighting of Canadians. The cynicism of the Liberal Party can be quite shocking at times. It picked a self-professed globalist for its new leader but then ran on an overtly protectionist and national campaign platform while denouncing the protectionist national U.S. President. To much fanfare and fawning headlines, the Liberals announced they were implementing a new buy Canadian policy. Here is what the Prime Minister said during the announcement of this cynical policy: “Canada's public procurement is following outdated rules of free trade order that no longer exists.”

This is another example of how the Prime Minister's soaring rhetoric puts him over his skis. How can he claim that free trade order no longer exists while tabling a bill to expand the free trade order? The bill would bring the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement, but one of the major provisions of this deal is that we cannot have procurement policies that discriminate against companies from partner countries. The Prime Minister knows this very well, yet he is willing to bet that the bought-and-paid-for media will never call him out on this. This is a profound mistake.

What is worse is that the mistake has been made before. The Davos classes learned nothing from the nationalist backlash to globalization. All too often, cynical politicians have used trade agreements as political cover instead of doing the hard work of defending the principle of free trade. The benefits of globalization have not been fairly shared. Those enriched by globalization have used their wealth and privilege to enact policies that make the situation worse. They erect new gates and hire tens of thousands of new gatekeepers to protect the value of their assets. They outsource compassion and charity to the state, freeing up their time to earn more money while workers lose time stuck in traffic, commuting from affordable exurbs such as Arnprior.

It used to be that a single blue-collar worker could provide enough income to own a home and raise a family. Now every family needs two incomes just to cover the Liberal tax bill.

Many of the hard-working Canadians in my riding and in ridings just like it are proud Canadians who will hear the Prime Minister's promise of buy Canadian and believe it. They will believe it right up until the minute they learn that the company they work for was underbid for a government contract by a company in the United Kingdom. That does not just make them lose faith in Liberal politicians. It makes them lose faith in democracy.

The Prime Minister chose a cynical approach because he is a coward. He could not find the courage to defend his beloved consumer carbon tax. He hides behind buy Canadian slogans while signing strategic partnerships to buy communist. He builds his majority coalition of cowards—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in regard to parliamentary language. I do not think that associating the word “coward” with the Prime Minister is appropriate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I agree. It does cause disruption.

I would like the hon. member to please withdraw the comment.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that and try to think of another word. He builds his majority coalition, which is too afraid to face its constituents.

I withdrew.

There is an alternative approach. Instead of selling cynical policies, we can provide hope. I encourage Canadians to watch the Conservative leader's recent speech in London. They will see a politician who is not afraid to defend his beliefs in free trade and free markets, a leader who reaches for optimism, not cynicism, a leader who will give it to us straight.

The Prime Minister said he would explore the variable geometry of our alliances. We saw how he tried to square that one in Iran. He then tried to triangulate with the anti-American elements in caucus. All that Canadians saw was him going around in circles. The Prime Minister would rather twist himself into a pretzel than give a straight answer. With each flip and each flop, he strains his credibility, not just with Canadians but with foreign leaders, allies and enemies alike.

As he departs on his 27th foreign trip, he leaves behind a worsening economy and a deteriorating balance sheet. Meanwhile, the economic carnage adds up. Tens of thousands of public servants are laid off so he can give billions in corporate welfare to Brookfield. Lumber and steel mills continue to shutter. Our auto industry is out of gas. In a few weeks, he will hike taxes on carbon and alcohol. Our economy is shrinking while he is off to secure his next meaningless strategic partnership. His failure to secure a deal for our cattle producers is a warning that every Canadian should heed. His time is running out. With every backroom deal he makes and with every Italian holiday he takes, Canadians are watching him. A day will come when his polling numbers start to falter and Canadians will ask, where is the beef?

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

Madam Speaker, there were many fundamental flaws, I would suggest, in the member opposite's speech. She seems to take great exception to the fact that we have a Prime Minister who understands the economy and the benefits of trade and building relationships beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Understanding that has led to literally billions of dollars of investment coming into Canada.

We have also seen export opportunities created and enhanced, meaning jobs and a stronger Canadian economy. That is the reality. Whether Conservative members want to acknowledge that reality or not, quite frankly, from my perspective, does not really matter, because Canadians understand it and see the benefits of having a proactive prime minister who is going out and bringing jobs in.

Can the member provide her thoughts on whether or not her leader's travels are something she supports?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the question, although I am very disappointed in the member across the way, and he knows why. However, he can make it up to me by taking me to lunch at Odi's Kingburger in Renfrew, where we do not have to ask, “Where's the beef?”, like we do in Bill C-13.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a previous question, I mentioned to my Liberal colleague that when it comes time for Canada to sign international trade agreements, there is a serious democratic deficit because Parliament does not really have a say in the matter, unlike the United States, for example, and other industrialized countries.

Does my colleague not think that there should be a comprehensive review of how this government and this Parliament conclude international treaties?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's sentiment. I do not think the Liberal government can do that. We will have to wait until we have a strong majority Conservative government to get that done.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment for the hon. member, and I am sure she will agree with me. Based on a lot of the comments we have been hearing from Liberal members during the debate today, they keep imploring Canadians to trust the Prime Minister because of his résumé. I would like to look at the facts.

The facts are that the Prime Minister promised a free trade deal with the United States by last year, but it has not happened. I know forestry workers are among the many across the country who are facing the devastating results of that. The Prime Minister also promised that we would have the strongest economy in the G7 and we now have the only economy that is shrinking in the G7. There is certainly a difference in the rhetoric coming from the Liberal government and the reality that Canadians are facing.

I hear that in my riding, and I am wondering whether the member has any comments on it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, we definitely do see that. Canadians will see and feel that when each household's tax bill rises by $6,000 just to cover the $60-billion Alto mess that is on the way.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's response on that important conversation. With all the challenges we have, whether it is on trade or the economy, we can see continually that the Liberal members and the Liberal government are saying one thing and we are not really seeing any action as a result of it.

The Prime Minister has been in office now for a year but continues to say that he is new on the job. Canadians are noticing, and at some point we are going to need to see some results from the government.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, getting back to trade agreements, one of the trade agreements that we are looking at now is with the trans-Pacific one, but what concerns Canadians is the strategic partnership with China and allowing Chinese-owned companies to export 49,000 electric vehicles to start. There is a reason Canadians, and especially government workers, are concerned about TikTok. A Chinese-owned electric vehicle has far more security concerns than even TikTok. The Liberals should wake up. Does the Prime Minister not have his security clearance so he can get the NSA advisories?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to build on my colleague's excellent speech. The Prime Minister has spent a great deal of time travelling abroad, signing memorandums of understanding and participating in high-profile international events. While international engagement certainly plays an important role in advancing Canada's interests, it cannot come at the expense of the pressing priorities we face here at home. Canadians are looking for leadership that is grounded, focused, and attentive to the challenges facing families, workers and entrepreneurs across this country, but right now they are not seeing it.

Our trade agenda is only as strong as our domestic economy. The reality is simple: No agreement abroad will fix Canada's outdated tax system. No foreign handshake or high-level summit will modernize our regulatory structures. None of these trips will improve the service delivery of our public institutions, increase the personnel of our military or update our privacy and intellectual property laws to reflect a rapidly changing global environment. These are the tasks that require committed national leadership, leadership that begins here, not on the international conference circuit.

On October 22, 2025, the Prime Minister announced in Ottawa an ambitious goal: to double Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Conservatives take that objective seriously. We worked constructively with the government and granted the Liberals unprecedented authorities under Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, to empower the government to pursue those ambitions. We believe that if the government were prepared to act boldly, we could collectively position Canada for long-term economic strength, but a year has passed, and the patience of Canadian entrepreneurs is wearing thin.

Consider the economic picture before us. Over the last decade under the Liberals, approximately $500 billion in foreign capital has left Canada. This is not an abstract figure. It represents lost opportunity, lost productivity and lost confidence in Canada's economic direction. Investment that could have helped build industries, create jobs and support innovation has instead gone elsewhere, to countries like Ireland, where the Prime Minister has citizenship. Ireland has robust foreign direct investment through a modern taxation system.

At the same time, according to the Business Development Bank of Canada, Canada today has 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs than we did 10 years ago, even though our population has grown by 10 million. This is a staggering shift. It means fewer new businesses, fewer new ideas and fewer pathways for economic growth. For a country built on ambition, creativity and enterprise, this decline should ring alarm bells for every policy-maker in Ottawa, but is not being talked about.

Canada's economic challenges will not be solved through symbolism abroad or even by Bill C-13, but through practical action here at home. Therefore, if the Prime Minister is truly committed to strengthening Canada's economy, here is what I believe he must do right now.

First, we need to reform Canada's tax system. We need a system that rewards effort, investment and innovation rather than penalizes them. Entrepreneurs must see Canada as a place where risk-taking is supported and where success is not met with punitive tax burdens. That means revisiting profit-sharing models, capital gains rules and the taxation environment for start-ups so talented Canadians can build their ideas into thriving enterprises that scale up in Canada.

Second, the Prime Minister should work with the Conservatives to repeal anti-energy laws that have contributed to pushing investment out of this country. He knows these policies are not working. They have created uncertainty, discouraged development and weakened one of Canada's greatest competitive advantages. It is time to scrap them, not go over them and leave them in place, in order to reverse the capital outflow we are seeing. Yesterday I was pleased to support a private member's bill from the member for Calgary Signal Hill to do exactly that by removing the moratorium on oil tankers in British Columbia.

Third, we must move away from the government's habit of picking economic winners and losers. The Minister of Finance's experiment with large production subsidies for automakers has not delivered the results Canadians expected. We were promised a thriving auto industry less than two years ago in the House. This example should stand for all Canadians that big subsidies to big corporations do not result in better jobs for Canadian workers and families.

Fourth, we need to reform service delivery within the public service. The public service has grown exponentially, but we are not seeing the necessary results. We have to do that work.

Fifth, the government must outline and commit to essential infrastructure upgrades. The ports in British Columbia are wonderful. We love them. However, they are not performing at their capacity. We lack the strategic infrastructure investments across Canada to move people and goods in a way that is commensurate with a G7 economy. We have to grow up and get that work done.

The sixth thing is very important. The Prime Minister should dedicate as much time to engaging with first nations leaders here at home as he does with world leaders abroad. Why do I say that? The Supreme Court of Canada has made many rulings in the last number of years outlining the rights and titles of first nations. For economic reconciliation at large to take place, we have to look at new models of engaging with our first nations.

I believe in a Canada where first nations people on reserve are all millionaires, have more economic potential and economic drive than the average Canadian and are pushing new projects in rural Canada that are lifting up Canada's economy and contributing to our GDP in ways we never thought imaginable. The Prime Minister has a social license to do that right now, but he prefers to go on international trips than to engage with Canadians here at home.

On that point, seventh is that in B.C. we are facing some real and significant challenges on private property and fee simple land. B.C. is the gateway to doubling our exports abroad. If the Prime Minister does not take seriously the concerns of everyday British Columbians on ensuring that fee simple land and private property are essential to Canada's economy, people will continue to move their money outside British Columbia. We will not see the strategic mineral reserves developed nor exports grow; we will see the opposite. He has to be on top of this file. We cannot live in a society where private property is not protected, but this is the number one issue coming up in B.C. right now.

Finally, we must improve Canada's intellectual property laws and privacy laws. We are outdated, not modern, and it is hurting our entrepreneurs. We have to do better. The Minister of Industry needs to bring forward the requisite legislation to improve things like open banking, to ensure that children are protected on the Internet, and to ensure that we are giving our tech companies the biggest bang for their buck if they decide to stay in Canada.

Despite the challenges we face, Canada's potential is extraordinary. We are blessed with abundant resources like no other nation on earth is, but we are squandering a critical period in time when we could be doing so much more. By refocusing on the fundamentals, prioritizing economic growth at home and making the structural reforms to our economy that we can do only in the chamber, we can restore some confidence in Canada's economy, bring 100,000 entrepreneurs back into Canadian society and reverse the outflow of foreign direct investment. None of these trade deals will matter if we do not get our economic house in order.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the member points to the fact that we need to double our exports to non-U.S. destinations in the next few years. He also knows that Canada has what the world needs in that context.

I am surprised, however, to hear his leader say that the PM needs to stay at home; that if he were the PM, he would stay at home; that we should not travel to meet global and business leaders who will be investing billions of dollars into our economy and building a stronger Canada for all workers; and that we should not engage and meet people where they are in the world.

Does the member agree with that point of view of his leader?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Québec Centre's question was a great one. In fact, I think he is a great member of Parliament. I wish he were still in cabinet, because I believe he could make some real reforms for the public service that are not taking place under the Treasury Board Secretariat right now.

I will address the member's point. What I was outlining in my speech is that we are not focusing on the economic fundamentals here in Canada. We can sign whatever MOU or strategic partnership we want, but if we do not reform our taxation system and if we do not get our rules on energy development modernized, all that work abroad means nothing. If we do not have our economic house in order, we are failing as a nation. That is why I am encouraging the Prime Minister today to stay at home and to work on the economic fundamentals. He should not try to be a puppeteer but should roll up his sleeves and operationalize everything Canadians want right now.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate today. We are talking about international trade treaties.

There is one treaty that has already been ratified by most of the officials on both sides, the one with Taiwan. About six weeks ago, we heard the Taiwanese ambassador wonder why the Prime Minister has chosen not to sign this agreement, which has had the green light since last April. In Davos, the Prime Minister said that we need to forge alliances with stable and reliable allies, and I think that Taiwan is such an ally.

Could my colleague tell me what the Prime Minister is thinking by not signing this agreement, when all that is missing is his signature?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Bloc asked an excellent question about Taiwan. Indeed, Canada has a long history and a growing economic relationship with Taiwan. I think that is where we need a strategic partnership by recognizing its sovereignty in standing up to Chinese ambition, which may lead to a global conflict in the next 20 years. We need to be on the side of Taiwan, not on the side of Communist China as it relates to that sovereign country.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from British Columbia has really hit the nail on the head. We all stood in this place in support of Bill C-5, the major projects bill. That was more than eight months ago. We know that Germany was able to build an LNG facility in less than seven months; the Netherlands in six months; and Finland in four months. We have had MOUs. We have had photo ops. We have had press releases. However, we have had no shovels in the ground and no results. My colleague has outlined a number of practical actions that we can take to make sure our economy is ready to take advantage of the fact that Canada does have everything the world wants.

Maybe the member can elaborate a bit more on that.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the great honours I have in being a member of Parliament is that I get to meet with incredible entrepreneurs across Canada. They have heard the words of the Prime Minister and have been hopeful, but that hope is running thin. It is time to act. It is time to see shovels in the ground. It is time to use the advantages that we have been gifted in this country to our economic success.

For example, if we built a pipeline in northern British Columbia, that one project would exceed the total worth of all our trade with China today. How could we not take that opportunity right now? How are we not moving on that like those other countries in Europe have when action was required?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13. I always get these numbers mixed up. We always end up losing track because there are so many bills. However, as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade, I want to reassure my colleagues that I know what this bill is about.

This is an agreement that the committee I serve on was able to study. Although this agreement does not change much in the sense that it involves the United Kingdom's entry into an existing agreement, it is still a good thing. However, we are going to take a few detours and talk about several aspects of this matter that are different. Members will recall that this concerns the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, an existing agreement that goes back several years. However, since the United Kingdom regained its customs sovereignty, most of the agreements had to be redone.

Allow me to take a brief detour and draw a comparison with the situation in Quebec. For a long time now, Quebec has been having a great debate, which is still ongoing and will soon come to an end in the next few years. I am talking about Quebec's independence, of course. An important referendum was held in 1995. In fact, we just commemorated the 30th anniversary of this referendum last fall. At the time, we were told that Quebec would not automatically be included in the trade agreements that were negotiated by Canada.

Jean Charest could pass for either a Liberal or a Conservative these days, but he was a Progressive Conservative at the time. He used to speak on behalf of the “no” side while waving a Canadian passport that was not his own, because it was the wrong colour. As a federal member of Parliament, his passport should have been green. He was waving a blue passport, which was not his, to express his pride. His pride was based on being someone he was not. Now, let me get back to the matter at hand.

At the time, Jean Charest said there would be a transition period. He said that an independent Quebec could perhaps take part in NAFTA, but that there would nevertheless be a transition period during which Quebec would not take part in trade agreements. During that time, companies would not have the guaranteed market access that is provided for in the agreements negotiated and signed by Canada. Certain precedents did exist at the time, but they referred to multilateral agreements. There was no real precedent for what happens when a country wins or regains its trade sovereignty or what happens with agreements negotiated by customs unions like Canada or the European Union.

We got an answer to what happens in that situation in the form of Brexit, which happened a few years ago. What happened? Brexit proved exactly what one might expect, and that is, common sense prevailed. The trading partners of a country that regains its trade sovereignty will usually all want to continue doing business with that country. It makes sense. It is crystal clear. It is that simple.

Brexit came into effect on January 1, 2021. In 2020, the United Kingdom quickly copied and pasted all the agreements previously negotiated by the European Union. They were known as temporary agreements. They included the continuity agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada, which Canada debated right here at the time. This proves that, in record time, the United Kingdom was able to simply renew the agreements that the EU had negotiated and signed and remain in those agreements. As a result, there was no period of uncertainty, no period during which British businesses were disconnected from the partners with which the EU had signed agreements. That same year, the U.K. was even able to sign an agreement with Japan, which did not have an agreement with the EU.

A nation that regains its trade sovereignty rekindles the interest of outgoing partners and can even create new partnerships, as with the U.K.'s entry into the Trans‑Pacific Partnership. The U.K. is a relatively small country in terms of population; it is an island. This supports Jacques Parizeau's point that, regardless of a country's size, it is completely viable when it is in a large market.

We are pleased to see this, and I thank Canadian parliamentarians, because by supporting the U.K.'s entry, probably unanimously, they are defusing the very argument they might have raised a few years from now against Quebec's independence. I thank my good friends in advance.

Thanks to the lottery, my colleague from Jonquière tabled a bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, for which I was the critic, that sought to enhance Parliament's role in trade negotiations and in the process of ratifying the results of the negotiations. These agreements are like vampires, in that they turn to dust in the light of day, so the goal was to change that and find a way for us to know a little more about what was happening.

Speaking of the United Kingdom, I was once in a committee meeting in which we were asked to review the agreement with the U.K. without having the text in front of us. That is the Canadian monarchy at work. That is what happens when a Parliament only cares about the executive branch and a handful of strong ministers. It claims to be part of British tradition, where Parliament is king and master of everything, but in reality, opacity is the order of the day and nobody knows anything.

It is well known that, in the Canadian system, parliamentarians have to study an implementation bill in which hardly anything can be amended. In committee, every time I try to amend bills implementing agreements, the first thing that happens is that the chair tells me that my amendment is out of order because it goes against the intent of the bill or because it would require new funding, a new budget. When we suggest creating new committees, oversight committees or other types of committees, we are immediately told that that would be out of order because we cannot change the intent. Only a few pages of the implementation bill can be amended, but trade agreements sometimes contain thousands of pages of regulations.

Of course, the agreement has already been signed by the time it is even tabled in Parliament. In the end, we just rubber-stamp it, but then later, whenever we want to change or object to something in an agreement, we are accused of being against the very principle of trade. The logical fallacy could not be clearer.

Another problem is the waiting period. On paper, there is no law requiring a minimum waiting period between the time an agreement—which, I would remind members, can sometimes be thousands of pages long—is announced and the time it is presented to Parliament. Theoretically, it could be announced one day and be tabled in Parliament the next morning. Nothing in the law prevents that. This is one of the elements of the bill that the Bloc Québécois highlighted a few weeks ago.

I find it astounding that a majority of parliamentarians are saying that they do not want to do their job, that they are not interested in doing their job and that they are going to trust the government. Even the official opposition says that it will blindly follow the government into the abyss, if necessary. Studying trade agreements would be too much work. That should not happen. Talk about an official opposition.

Our bill would have enshrined into law the principle of a minimum waiting period of 21 days from the time an agreement is made public to the time it is brought before the House. However, I remember that representatives of the Liberal Party rose and said that that bill was not necessary because there was already an official policy that referred to this 21-day period. Well, a policy is not legislation, as today's debate proves, because only 15 days went by between the time the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom to the Trans-Pacific Partnership was made public and the time it was tabled in the House. That is proof that we need legislation and that it is not enough to just have a policy that mentions a minimum waiting period.

Shame on the government for doing this, thinking no one would notice. I am sorry, but I noticed. This shows why we need legislation setting out the minimum waiting period from the time an agreement is made public to the time it is presented and tabled here in the House. I think that is the bare minimum.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the Canadian Constitution that would allow a province that is opposed to an agreement to veto it. This stands in sharp contrast to Belgian federalism. In Belgium, if one region opposes an international agreement, the whole country cannot move forward, even if the Belgian parliament supports it. That is what open federalism really means. That is federalism that is respectful of its regions. Canada does not have that kind of federalism, and we have the proof right here.

There is also nothing that would allow Quebec or any other province to say that it would like its own negotiators, that it would like to nominate someone to sit at the table to negotiate agreements and defend its interests and values. There is nothing like that in there.

Now let us talk about the substance of the agreement. We do not have any major issues on that front. It is a free trade agreement. The U.K. is not generally associated with modern-day slavery. It will not violate human rights, nor is it responsible for major environmental disasters. It is a developed society. On the surface, there is no reason to believe it will engage in unfair competition.

The U.K. is also a country with a robust aerospace sector. It is Quebec's second-largest partner behind the United States. It is very far behind the U.S., but it is still the second-largest export partner. There is a lot of collaboration and exchange in the aerospace sector. The agreement is therefore welcome on that front. Members will recall that Montreal is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse, and it is one of only three places where all the parts needed to assemble an entire aircraft are available. We do not assemble entire aircraft, but if we wanted to do that in the greater Montreal area, we could. We have enough SMEs and large businesses and sufficient wherewithal to say that we can provide the parts to assemble an entire aircraft. The aerospace sector is extremely important. I am also troubled by the fact that Canada does not have an aerospace policy. It is the only country with such a large cluster that does not have an aerospace policy. The government has repeatedly promised a policy, most recently at the end of its last term. However, no such policy materialized, and that is simply disgraceful, given the importance of our industry and our sector. Nevertheless, as I was saying, we are okay with that part.

There are no further concessions on supply management, either. Unfortunately, some concessions were made under the CPTPP, but the damage is done. With regard to the quotas that have already been lost, there was an agreement that with the United Kingdom's accession, they would be distributed across what had already been given up. However, the problem is that each time new concessions are made on supply management, we are told not to worry because we are supposedly gaining something else somewhere. With the agreement with the EU and with the CPTPP, we were told that the Canadian meat industry was going to get access to the European market. We know that with the United Kingdom specifically, as well as the EU, there are non-tariff barriers. It is true that on paper, tariffs on pork and beef have been lowered for farmers, but there are all kinds of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in place that have no scientific basis. What we need is reciprocity of standards. We should negotiate with these countries to reach an agreement to make sure that when a product is imported, the scientific rules are actually based on science.

I moved an amendment during the consideration of the bill we are discussing today. The amendment called for the agreement to take effect after a sanitary and phytosanitary protocol with the U.K. had been negotiated and signed. Unfortunately, the two parties did not want to support my amendment, even though that is how negotiations work in real life. In a way, allowing the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP would be doing that country a favour, even though we will also benefit from an economic standpoint.

Canada has shown us time and again that it is an amateur when it comes to negotiations. I would think that a good negotiator takes time to sit down for preliminary discussions. If we say we are ready to allow the U.K.'s accession and that we know that we are doing the country a big favour, should we not at least sit and talk? Even more so considering that technically, the U.K. allows Canadian meat imports, but no Canadian meat actually gets into the country. It would therefore be appropriate to sit down and talk before allowing its accession to the CPTPP in order to reach an agreement to ensure that our meat actually gets into the U.K. Cheese from the U.K. has already been allowed into Canada. We have given them a few concessions here and there. In exchange, the U.K. has not allowed our meat into their country, so we should sit down and reach an agreement.

It is unfortunate that my amendment, which sought to prohibit the coming into force of this agreement before an agreement could be reached, was rejected. A case like this could have been dealt with very quickly. It is unfortunate that I saw the Liberals and the Conservatives carry on like the best of friends and reject an amendment that could have served our farmers and their interests.

I will now turn to my final point. I am still trying to understand why Canada signs agreements and why its official position is one of support for investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. I also spoke to that yesterday in my speech on Indonesia. I speak to that whenever trade agreements come up in the House. It always sounds very abstract, very legal and very complex. It seems very far removed from the concerns of average Canadians, but in fact, it is a huge deal. In practice, it is about giving multinational corporations sovereign powers and allowing them to sue states when governments or legislative bodies adopt measures in favour of better environmental protection, more social justice and stronger workers' rights.

For example, when Mexico imposed a tax on sugary drinks to combat the Mexican obesity epidemic, it was sued by a multinational corporation. When Egypt raised the minimum wage, it was sued by a multinational corporation. Canada is signing trade agreements that allow for clauses like this. When Australia moved to introduce plain packaging to limit cigarette promotion, it was sued by Philip Morris.

In my colleague's constituency, Lac‑Saint‑Jean, there is a lawsuit going on right now that was filed by an American company over the cancellation of Énergie Saguenay's Quebec LNG project. How much is it costing the government?

From a democratic standpoint, what does it mean when Canada proudly says it supports investor-state dispute settlement and supports self-censorship of its own policies? Why is it supporting the idea that, when Parliament stands up and overwhelmingly passes a law that aligns with the public interest, a profit-motivated multinational corporation can sue it before a tribunal established under trade agreements? Does that make sense? I really want to know. I do not think it makes sense, because peoples do have rights, after all. Democracies do have rights.

There may be other ways to resolve disputes. Before NAFTA made this mechanism so common, disputes were simply settled at the country level. If a company felt it had been wronged by a government policy in another country where it was investing, it would call upon its own country, its own government. Obviously, governments could misuse these mechanisms. Not everything is fair. However, it was more diplomatic, and if the dispute had to be resolved through a lawsuit, it happened between governments. I think that is much more sensible than elevating multinationals to the status of fully sovereign powers, which is very costly.

The two parties in the House that are friends of multinational corporations believe very strongly in the benefits of investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, so I proposed an amendment to this agreement, like the one I proposed to the agreement with Indonesia, which we debated yesterday. Since ISDS is so great, I proposed that the minister table an annual report on its costs and effects. The two parties that are friends of multinationals rejected that amendment. They believe so strongly in the benefits that they do not want to tell us what they are. That is just great. Good job, guys.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development reported that ISDS resulted in a win for the multinational or an out-of-court settlement in 60% of cases. That means that the multinational was able to completely or partially override the democratic will of the political system in 60% of cases. However, there is something that cannot be quantified, something that the figures do not show, and that is how this works upstream as well. Behind closed doors, political decision-makers must be deciding not to implement certain measures because they are worried about being sued. There is also an upstream self-censorship effect.

Once again, I do not understand why Canada is signing up for this.

I see that my time is up. We will continue this conversation with our our esteemed colleagues in just a moment during questions and comments.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel good about two things that my colleague mentioned in his remarks. The first is that we are once again debating a free trade agreement that is excellent for jobs across Canada, including in Quebec. The second is that the Canadian government and the Prime Minister are successfully working on economic security and national security. He rightly mentioned the aerospace industry.

Is he also aware that this work is having a significant impact on the shipbuilding industry in the greater Quebec City area? The Davie shipyard and its thousand suppliers are creating a major shipbuilding hub in the greater Quebec City area because of this combination of national security and economic security.

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

Mr. Speaker, the link between national security and economic security is obvious, especially at a time of grave geopolitical and economic peril like today. I would not call the Davie shipyard a success; it was a long time coming. There were many setbacks. There was a bipartisan consensus to create a lot of problems.

Having said that, I do not have a problem with the agreement itself. However, I would not call it a great success for Canadian diplomacy in this area, particularly for the reasons that I mentioned. When one knows how to negotiate and there is a major irritant with a country that is largely being given a favour and that will come out the big winner by being allowed to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the major irritant should be resolved. In this case we are talking about sanitary and phytosanitary barriers. That is what happens when one knows how to negotiate. Unfortunately, Canada does not know how to negotiate.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member.

There really are a lot of agreements, but no effort has been made to harmonize the specifications. Right now, we cannot send our meat to the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom can send its meat here. That is not good.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, a good part of my speech was about that, and I talked about it in my previous answer, but I have no problem repeating it.

Expanded meat access was one of the promises in the agreement with the European Union. Cheesemakers in Quebec were told to accept the breach, the slight setback, because in exchange, our meat could be exported to the large European market.

However, the European Union, or rather the United Kingdom, which has regained its trade sovereignty, is applying sanitary and phytosanitary barriers that are not based on actual scientific standards. Tariffs are indeed going down, but in reality, non-tariff barriers are preventing more of our meats from being exported.

If Ottawa knew how to negotiate, it would have ensured that there was an agreement or a real resolution to the issue of non-tariff barriers on Canadian meat before allowing the United Kingdom to enter into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has once again shown how well he knows his file.

In his remarks, he briefly alluded to Bill C‑228, which is sponsored by the member for Jonquière and which deals with international trade treaties. I would like the member to explain to our colleagues here today how that bill would change the way Canada drafts international trade agreements.

How would it actually change the way things are done right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, it would ensure that parliamentarians are not being played for fools, that they are not just here to rubber-stamp agreements. It is my understanding that we were elected by the people to represent interests and values, so doing actual work on agreements should be a big part of our responsibility.

What the bill would have done, for example, is set a minimum time frame to ensure that we have time to study an agreement before it is tabled and debated here in the House. There would be an actual study in committee. The idea is never to repeat what we went through in late 2020, when we studied an agreement without having the actual text of that agreement. It was beyond ridiculous. The bill would also guarantee Parliament's support for an agreement before it is signed, not just its rubber stamp after the fact. At the end of the day, this bill would ensure that parliamentarians do actual work on agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to truly thank my colleague for his speech on investor-state dispute settlement. I actually think that things are worse than how he described them in his speech. My colleague said that large transnational corporations currently have the right to take part in agreements, but it is worse than that. They currently have more rights than Canada does in such agreements.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that trade agreements do not always have to include an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when we examine a trade agreement implementation bill in committee, there is not much that we can amend, but this is one of the few things that we can change. Since the implementation bill has to change the legal system to recognize the ISDS, it is a legal clause. However, I am always just about the only committee member to vote against that clause. I vote in favour of most of the clauses in these agreements, and I generally vote in favour of the trade agreements themselves, but I always vote against this particular clause. In the past two Parliaments, when the NDP was a recognized party, its members usually voted with me against these agreements. I was not the only one to vote against them, but now I am. I do not understand how we can abdicate our sovereignty in this way.

As my colleague said, this likely puts these companies above states, but it also creates pressure upstream on public decision-makers. It creates a climate of self-censorship. It is also important to point out that the potential victims of the actions of multinationals do not have the same rights under trade agreements. There is no protection mechanism. The government often boasts about the chapters on the environment and workers' rights, but they are often purely symbolic. There is no legal mechanism for that, whereas the multinationals have a mechanism to protect their right to profit.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is interesting because the Bloc has consistently indicated that trade agreements should be debated well before they are actually signed off on. I think Canada is actually in a very unique situation. We are the only country of the G7 that has trade agreements with all G7 countries. Canada has been very successful in terms of world trade, and today is yet another example of how we continue to expand export opportunities. There are literally hundreds of trade treaties between Canada and other nations.

With all the consultation with stakeholders, provinces, industries and parliamentarians, I am not convinced that changing the process is in Canada's best interests. Can the member explain why he believes that is the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is enough time, but I would like to put a question back to him. What is the point of having an official policy if it is not followed?

My colleague tells us that there is no need for a change in procedure, and yet Canada's official policy made up a substantial part of the legislation that we introduced and that was unfortunately defeated. That policy can be found on the Global Affairs Canada website. I can no longer recall the exact title, but it was something like the “treaty ratification policy”. Canada's official policy involves a minimum period of 21 days between the time an agreement is announced and the time it comes before Parliament. In the case of the United Kingdom, it took 15 days. What is the point of having a policy?

It was the Liberals who adopted that policy, not me. That is the policy that they are normally proud of. It is supposed to be in force. In committee, we heard from senior officials who said that as far as they were concerned, the policy was in force, but that they had received a political directive. What is the point of having a policy if it is not followed? That is why we think that this policy ought to be made into law. Then, perhaps the government would follow it.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am very pleased to rise today as a proud member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. This is my fourth year serving on that committee and it is always very interesting. We have studied a number of free trade agreements. Today, I am rising to discuss Bill C‑13, which seeks to implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.

First of all, it is important to remember that this bill does not create a new trade agreement. The CPTPP already exists. Canada has been a member of it since 2018, along with 10 other major economies in the Indo-Pacific region. What we are doing today is welcoming a new partner into the agreement, a major addition. With the United Kingdom's accession, the CPTPP will go from 11 to 12 economies and will represent close to 600 million consumers, or around 15% of global GDP.

International trade is central to Canada's prosperity. Our nation is a trading nation. About one in five jobs depends on exports, and more than 60% of our gross domestic product is tied to international trade. Every year, Canadian companies export more than $780-billion worth of goods and services around the world. These exports support millions of jobs in every region of the country.

In an ever-changing world, it is essential for Canada to diversify its trading partners. Just look at what is happening south of the border. That is one of the main reasons we need to diversify our markets. It is therefore strategic for our country to open up more markets elsewhere in the world.

The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP is a step in that direction. The United Kingdom is the world's sixth-largest economy, with a GDP of over $3 trillion and a population of nearly 70 million. Bilateral trade between Canada and the United Kingdom already exceeds $40 billion annually. It is our third-largest trading partner. The United Kingdom is also one of the largest investors in Canada, with more than $90 billion in direct investment in our economy. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP will therefore strengthen these economic ties and open up new opportunities for our businesses.

This bill is also strategic for another reason. It positions Canada as an economic hub between Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. Canada is in a unique position given that it is a member of the CPTPP and has a trade agreement with the European Union. We are one of the few countries in the world that has preferential access to markets representing more than 1.5 billion consumers. This creates extraordinary opportunities for Canadian businesses. In my riding in the Lower Laurentians, which includes Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes, many businesses depend directly on international trade.

There is a very large aerospace industry in the Lower Laurentians, as well as a sizable agri-food and food processing industry. We have innovative small and medium-sized businesses, thriving manufacturers and entrepreneurs who export their products all over the world. Trade agreements are not abstract concepts for these businesses. They represent real opportunities for growth. They mean new markets, new partners and new jobs here in Quebec and Canada. Several key sectors of our economy will benefit from this expansion of the CPTPP.

As I mentioned earlier, the aerospace, agri-food, clean technologies, service and innovative industries come to mind. These sectors play a vital role in the Canadian economy. For example, the agri-food industry accounts for $140 billion in economic activity in Canada and employs more than two million Canadians. Aerospace, for its part, accounts for nearly 215,000 highly skilled jobs and contributes more than $28 billion to the Canadian economy. Access to new markets can therefore have a direct and positive impact on these industries.

I want to raise another point. As chair of the Liberal women's caucus, I want to highlight an important dimension of modern trade. International trade needs to be more inclusive. Today, a growing number of women are running businesses in Canada. Women-owned businesses account for 18% of Canadian SMEs and that number continues to grow. However, many entrepreneurs still face barriers when it comes to accessing international markets. Modern trade agreements, like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP, can help create more opportunities for women entrepreneurs by making it easier to access markets and by supporting the growth of SMEs. When women succeed in business, the entire economy benefits.

It is also essential that international trade reflect the values we stand for. The CPTPP includes important provisions on labour rights and environmental protection. These provisions help ensure that economic growth respects high standards and is in line with sustainable development. Trade can be a powerful driver of prosperity, but it must also be fair, responsible and sustainable.

In a global context marked by economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions and rapid changes in supply chains, it is more important than ever for Canada to strengthen its partnerships with countries that share our values. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP sends a clear message. It demonstrates that Canada believes in open international trade based on rules founded on co-operation between reliable partners.

This bill will open new doors for our businesses, support job creation, and strengthen Canada's position in the global economy. Trade agreements are not just legal documents. They are tools for prosperity. When they are well negotiated, as is the case with the CPTPP, they allow Canada to export not only its products, but also its values: high standards for workers, for the environment, and for fair competition.

That is exactly what this bill does today.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech.

There is a very important issue, and we have an opportunity to correct this situation. U.K. citizens who receive a pension and live in Canada do not receive the annual cost-of-living increase. In the U.S. and the U.K., they receive this increase, but not here.

Is there a possibility of adding that to this agreement?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that comes up often at the Standing Committee on International Trade: The pensions of British citizens who live in Canada are not indexed, unlike in the United States. I understand that this is a really important issue for them, but I do not believe this is the right forum to resolve this situation. However, that does not mean that we are not aware of what these people are experiencing. People who receive their pensions from Great Britain must continue to try to resolve this situation.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous speech, my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton referred to an amendment he proposed at a committee that he sits on along with my colleague, the Standing Committee on International Trade. This amendment called for an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures with the U.K. so that Canadian meat exports can enter the U.K. market. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable and extremely important amendment. However, my colleague voted against it.

Can she explain why she voted against that amendment when, I repeat, this proposal seemed entirely reasonable and even very sensible in the context of negotiations?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, reciprocity in health standards is always a delicate issue, and it came up when we negotiated the free trade agreement with Europe.

I must say that the quality of the products we produce here, whether it be poultry, beef or pork, is higher and meets higher standards. It was surprising that there was a problem with England, when we know very well that Japan is accepting our exports, because we have some of the best standards in the world.

We have not been able to really clarify this issue, but there is no doubt that products from here in Canada meet the highest standards in the world.

As a former grocer, I believe in our Canadian products.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can expand on that particular point. One of the reasons we have such a proactive government looking for ways in which we can expand trade opportunities that go beyond the United States' borders is that we have so much diversity and such high standards here in Canada with our exported products. That is something that all of us benefit from, and it is one of the reasons it is so critically important that we continue to do the things we are doing.

Our greatest asset today is the Prime Minister, someone who is recognized around the world as a genuine economist and as understanding how economies work. Trade really matters. It creates jobs. I wonder if the member could comment on how important this is, not just with regard to Ireland and England and how it has been incorporated into this trade agreement, but on the fact that trade is good for Canada.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Indeed, given that we were heavily dependent on our neighbours to the south, the Prime Minister is someone who will make Canada less vulnerable.

We need to open up more markets, actually ensure that we open up other markets. Adding the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, is certainly a good thing. However, we need to do more. We also have the Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which is a growing market, and the Canada-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement. We will be able to participate and exchange products, sell products, with Latin America. We have incredible expertise in aerospace. There are many companies in the Montreal area that are behind this, particularly in my constituency.

There is no such thing as a bad opportunity to make us less vulnerable to our neighbours to the south.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-13, legislation that would implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP.

At its core, this debate is about more than a trade agreement. It is about Canada's place in the world. It is about the kind of economy we are building and the opportunities we create for the people we are here to serve.

Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation. From the very earliest days of our history, Canadians have looked outward, building relationships, forging partnerships and connecting our ideas, our talent and our resources with the world. Trade is not simply a policy choice for Canada. It is woven into the fabric of who we are and how we grow.

In the modern era, Canada has shown extraordinary leadership in building a global network of high-standard trade agreements that open doors for our workers, our farmers, our entrepreneurs and our innovators. The CPTPP is one of the clearest examples of that leadership. When the future of this agreement was uncertain, Canada stepped forward. We worked with partners across the Pacific to preserve the ambition of the agreement and ensure that it remained a modern, high-standard framework for trade in the Indo-Pacific region. Because of that leadership, the CPTPP entered into force in 2018.

Alongside Canada, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership brings together a diverse group of economies across the Pacific and beyond. This agreement includes Australia and New Zealand, two advanced agricultural exporters with strong demand for Canadian resources and technology. It includes Singapore, a global financial and logistics hub that connects Canadian companies to Southeast Asian markets. It includes fast-growing Southeast Asian economies such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei, with their expanding manufacturing and energy sectors, representing rising markets for Canadian exports. In the Americas, our partners include Mexico, Chile and Peru, which are countries with strong mining, agriculture and industrial ties to Canada and growing two-way trade and investment relationships. It also includes Japan, one of Canada's most important trading partners in Asia and a major market for Canadians.

Japan has about 250 large companies here in Canada, and I can tell members that Mississauga, from the leadership of our former mayor Hazel McCallion, attracted over 100 of those companies. We have such a strong relationship with Japan, and through CPTPP, we continue to grow that. It means a world of difference to so many Mississaugans and so many in my community of Mississauga East—Cooksville.

Together, these partners, along with the first new member of CPTPP, the U.K., create a broad network of markets that supports Canadian exporters, strengthens supply chains and expands trade opportunities across multiple regions of the global economy. Put simply, in 2026, this agreement represents one of the most dynamic and forward-looking economic partnerships in the world, and the impact has been real. Since its adoption, trade between Canada and our CPTPP partners has grown significantly.

Canadian exporters, from seafood harvesters to grain farmers, manufacturers and technology companies, are reaching new markets and building new relationships across the Indo-Pacific. That growth represents opportunity for a family-owned manufacturer in a small town that is exporting its products for the first time, opportunity for farmers who are finding new customers halfway around the world, opportunity for Canadian innovators who are competing and winning on the global stage. That is what trade diversification looks like in practice, and it is why our government is pursuing the most ambitious trade diversification agenda in a generation.

Canada will always have a deep and enduring relationship with the United States. It is our closest ally and our largest trading partner. However, in a rapidly changing global economy, Canada must continue to expand its reach and strengthen its ties with partners around the world. That is why we have set an ambitious goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Let us think about what that means. It means more Canadian companies entering global markets. It means more investment in Canadian communities. It means more good-paying jobs for workers across our country. Reaching that goal does not just happen by accident. It will take determination, leadership and a true team Canada effort.

That is where Bill C-13 comes in. Welcoming the United Kingdom into the CPTPP would be a powerful step forward for the partnership and for Canada's trade diversification strategy. The United Kingdom is one of the world's largest economies and one of Canada's closest friends and allies. Our countries share deep historical ties, vibrant people-to-people connections and a common belief in democracy, transparency and the rule of law.

By joining the CPTPP, the United Kingdom would become part of a dynamic economic partnership that stretches across the Indo-Pacific and connects markets representing hundreds of millions of customers. For Canada, this would strengthen a partnership built on high standards, open markets and fair rules. It would create new opportunities for Canadian exporters in advanced manufacturing, financial services and the digital economy. It would strengthen a resilient supply chain among trusted partners and reinforce our trading relationship with a trusted and true Commonwealth partner at a time when those bonds are more important than ever.

Opening doors is just the beginning. The crucial work and next step is to ensure that Canadians walk through those doors. Achieving our goal of doubling non-U.S. exports will require every region in this country to be engaged, every province, territory, riding and community, because the potential to trade with the world does not belong to just one part of Canada. It belongs to all of Canada.

As members of Parliament, we each have a role to play. Yes, we pass the legislation that brings agreements like this into force, and many members on the trade committee have spoken about the legislation. We focus on reviewing the trade bills and completing studies centred on how we can improve Canada's trade ties. However, we can do a lot more than that. We can make sure businesses in our communities know that Canada has one of the most extensive networks of free trade agreements anywhere in the world. We can work hand in hand with our chambers of commerce and boards of trade to promote opportunities.

I do this whenever we have a trade agreement. I bring in all stakeholders to the Mississauga Board of Trade to ensure they understand the agreement and are able to capitalize on it and the opportunities it represents.

We can engage with our universities and colleges, which are nurturing the next generation of entrepreneurs, innovators and global business leaders. We can help connect Canadian businesses, especially small and mid-sized enterprises, with the tools and knowledge they need to succeed in these international markets. When they get that first order, organizations like Export Development Canada, our regional development agencies and more have programs and supports available to make that growth happen, so they can scale up to new heights. That is the team Canada approach.

Canada helped lead the creation of the CPTPP. We helped bring it to life. Today, we have the opportunity to make it that much stronger. By supporting Bill C-13, and welcoming the U.K. into the partnership, we would expand opportunity for Canadians, strengthen our economy and reinforce Canada's leadership in building a more open and prosperous global trading system. Together, with a team Canada approach, we can grow our exports, expand our horizons and build a future of shared prosperity for Canadians in my community, Mississauga and every part of our country. That is a future worth standing up for.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that trade deals are important. Sometimes we do not get the benefit we think we will get because the work in the details is not done to make sure our specifications, if they are different from our trading partners', are harmonized.

I am interested in the agreement that exists. Does the member have information about how much trade has increased since we got the deal and how much we expect to get as we add the U.K. and Northern Ireland to it?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have an ambitious goal to double our non-U.S. trade around the world over the next decade, and this deal is so important to that.

Let me give the member a clear example. I have spoken with the meat stakeholders. They have increased their trade through the CPTPP, from the beginning of the trade deal in 2018 to where we are today, by 122%. That means it was $338 million in 2018 and is now $751 million, just for that particular sector. We need to continue to do that. We need to double and triple that. We need to really double down on our efforts to make sure these agreements lead to diversification.

The member is right. As I said in my speech, it is not just about the agreement but about bringing the agreement to life and being able to get our exporters to open up those new markets.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that parliamentarians each have an important role to play when it comes to international trade agreements. However, Parliament and parliamentarians have a very limited role in examining these treaties. The amendments they propose can only relate to the legislation itself, not to the treaty.

Things are different in the United States and Europe, where parliamentarians have a much greater impact on treaty negotiations. Does my colleague not think that we should modernize and thoroughly review Canada's practices for signing and negotiating international trade agreements?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are leaders in trade negotiations. Other countries look to Canada to see how we provide expertise in our negotiations to get deals that are good for Canada and for Canadians. That is what we do. How we do that is by reaching out to stakeholders right across our country. We also do it here in Parliament and at committee. I sit on the international trade committee. We have stakeholders who come to committee to provide testimony. We take that feedback and are able to incorporate it into making our bills even that much better.

I can tell members that the world looks to Canada when it comes to trade deals. We have done it with CETA, we are doing it with the CPTPP, and we continue to do it with countries right around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there are many regions in Canada and many different countries throughout the world. Diversity is the key.

The member made reference to Mississauga and how successful the community has been with Japan, for example, as well as the United States.

I wonder if the member can pick up on that point, how the uniqueness of Canada's different regions has an appeal to different countries, and talk about why it is so important for the Prime Minister to go to all the different countries in the world to try to increase export opportunities.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to highlight what a great country we have. We touch every sector right across this country, whether it be the softwood lumber in British Columbia, our natural resources, our agriculture industry, the aerospace sector in the prairie provinces or our seafood, and I could go on. In Mississauga, of course, there is a lot of manufacturing that happens in my community.

The breadth of the countries involved with the CPTPP allows for complementary trade, which is a win-win, as we are able to help one another continue to grow our economies, provide good-paying jobs for our communities—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the residents of Calgary Centre to discuss this very important bill to acquiesce to the U.K. and Canada agreeing to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The U.K. is coming into this family of trading partners around the world, and we are, of course, at the lead.

The Conservative Party of Canada, the party of free and fair trade around the world, has upheld that in so many ways. Part of free and fair trade, of course, is fair trade for Canadians. Let us discuss some of that in the House today.

Before I do that, let us talk about what existed before the acquiescence to this new trade agreement with the United Kingdom. After the U.K. split from the European Union, we had the trade continuity agreement with the U.K., which has governed our trade between Canada and the United Kingdom since that point in time.

Now, interestingly, if we go back 10 years, and I know the government always talks about doubling trade with other partners around the world, except the U.S., over the next 10 years, we will note that, in the last 10 years, inflation has gone up 30%. As much as it is a big flag that the Liberals have put on the wall, saying we are going to double our trade with people outside the United States, is that double in Canadian dollars? How much is inflation going to continue to increase so that doubling actually amounts to about the same volume of trade? We are running such high deficits that the Canadian dollar will be worth less as far as the merchandise that trades around the world.

That is an important factor. We can measure these things by deflated dollars, as the government is deflating dollars for all Canadians, and deflated dollars mean less trade at the end of the day. We have to get ahead of what the government actually means, as opposed to just putting a flag up on the wall about doubling trade to non-U.S. partners.

Let us look at the trade we actually perform, trade actually exported from Canada to the U.K. The bulk of it is metals, and the biggest metal that we trade with the United Kingdom is gold. Canada produces a lot of gold and ships it. The U.K. is acquiring that gold. The U.K. is one of the world reserves where countries from around the world store their gold. The United Kingdom banking system has a long history with gold, including things like the gold fix. There were five banks around the world, five individual private banks, that more or less set the price of gold for over a century. Now that is shared somewhat with the United States, but gold is on a roll here.

Gold is at almost $7,000 Canadian today as it trades, because it is in demand around the world. As governments like Canada's current government debase their currencies with larger and larger deficits, precious metals like gold become more valuable. We are exporting that in spades.

Do members know what central bank around the world does not hold gold? It is Canada's central bank. The Bank of Canada holds no gold. It holds a bunch of U.S. dollars. It has increased its U.S. dollar sales by $60 billion already this year. This is not because the U.S. dollar is doing well; it is actually doing poorly compared to most other currencies around the world.

The Bank of Canada is acquiring U.S. dollars because it is manipulating Canada's currency. That is not supposed to be the goal, but I do not know the other goal. I was a former portfolio manager. The bank is buying dollars that are going down. It is buying U.S. dollars as they decline, which means it is failing as far as the value equation goes. There is another objective there, and the rest of the world knows that. The rest of the world is lightening up on the U.S. dollar purchases, and all their currencies are going up as a result. That is an aside.

Let me get back to the trade agreement. One of the things we have in Canada, thinking about a trade agreement, is foreign direct investment. Now, this is an important part, but Canada is so far behind as far as flowing money out. It is a net creditor to the United Kingdom, as far as money that has flown out of Canada towards safer investment jurisdictions around the world. The United Kingdom is one of those jurisdictions where Canadian dollars continue to find better prospects for investments around the world than they do in Canada. That is a fault of the government's policies.

There are no good returns here. Everything the government participates in means it has to backstop it in order for somebody to put a buck in in Canada. It is a government that has to have friends in order to get investment into the country because the rules do not matter anymore with the government's manner of running the Canadian economy. The regulatory system here is more burdensome and more expensive now than the actual cost of the capital projects to invest in Canada. That has to change, and we know that.

Getting back to the U.K., if I may, we are acquiescing to the United Kingdom coming here. It is a change from the trade continuity agreement to this new agreement, which we have with several other countries around the world, a comprehensive progressive agreement on trans-Pacific partnerships. That is important, but there were also negotiations. I do not know who does the government's negotiations. The government keeps bragging about the great Prime Minister and how he has great relationships with the United Kingdom, but what did we get from that trade negotiation?

I ask because there are a whole bunch of holes here that should have been filled and a bunch of industries across Canada asking why we do not have free and fair trade with the United Kingdom in certain key industries. One of those, of course, is in Alberta, where I am from, and that is the cattle industry.

The cattle industry has asked continuously for the cancellation of the trade continuity agreement because it puts Canadian cattle producers at a disadvantage to U.K. cattle producers. For relevance, as far as the size of the cattle industry goes, Canada has a cattle herd of about 11 and a half million cattle and the U.K. has a cattle herd of about nine and a half million cattle, yet the U.K. exports cattle to Canada. Does that make sense? Canada's population is much lower than the U.K. population. We have about 40 million people in Canada, compared to about 65 million in the U.K, yet the U.K. is exporting parts of a smaller cattle herd for our consumption in Canada, and the U.K. does not trade with Canadian cattle. Is something wrong with Canadian cattle? There is nothing wrong scientifically. We trade cattle with every other country in the CPTPP, so this something that should have been negotiated as part of the CPTPP agreement with the U.K.

I will also give some statistics as to pork. Canada's pork herd, at any one point in time, is about 13.9 million head. The U.K. has about 4.7 million head, yet it does not accept Canadian pork. Is the U.K. going to tell Japan, Korea, China and every other jurisdiction that Canada trades with, about the quality of Canadian pork and why it is not good enough for U.K. consumers? It is not good enough because there is a protective measure in place. The United Kingdom has to protect their industry at the expense of free and fair trading nations around the world, which we think includes Canada.

This is one of the opportunities that the government has missed. I do not know what their negotiators got in return for leaving that off, but one of the other issues that my constituents have repetitively told me about is pensions. There are a number of U.K. citizens in Canada, and 100,000 U.K. citizens draw pensions from the U.K. For some reason, pensioners in Canada do not get their cost of living adjustments, like they do in most other countries around the world. It is prejudicial to Canadians who got their pension from the U.K. and then moved to Canada. United Kingdom pensioners are not treated the same way in the United States. Why not? It is because Canada seems to have weaker negotiators.

I am going to ask the government about this again. I hear members pumping the tires of the Prime Minister, saying he is such a great negotiator and the man of the hour. Well, this seemed like a pretty easy asset to get over the line here, and he did not even accomplish that.

This is about fairness for these pensioners. They have earned this after spending their entire working lives in the United Kingdom. They then emigrate to Canada, and they do not get to collect the cost of living increases that every one of their compatriots around the world, as well as those in the U.K., get as a result. This is a shame and something that the government clearly missed. It did not even put it on the horizon, yet I and many of my colleagues have written to the government to ask it to please include that and make sure the Government of the United Kingdom pays attention to this because it matters to our constituents.

There are a bunch of other issues, but I am going to talk about something else here. I ask members to think about the United Kingdom's trade in energy products. I can tell members right now that, in 2024, the U.K. imported $19.5 billion of foreign oil from all kinds of countries, mostly Norway and the United States, all the way across the Atlantic to the United States. How much did it import from Canada? That is a big fat zero. Way to go. That is great negotiation and great availability of our product to our partners around the world. It is likewise with natural gas. The U.K. imported 39 billion dollars' worth of natural gas last year. How much of that was from Canada? It is another big fat zero because we have not been prepared. We have not done anything for our resource development for the last 10 years.

I should say that I am splitting my time today with a good friend of mine, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Manning. On that, I will yield the floor, with thanks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to a 20-minute speech. At the end of the day, I find that the member is somewhat misguided. When we think of foreign investment, outside of the United States, can the member give an indication of what other country has derived more foreign investment per capita?

I think the member would be very challenged to find that, and I think he is a bit premature. The Prime Minister has been in the Prime Minister's chair for a year. We can take a look at the results we have achieved within that year, with literally billions and billions of additional investments coming into Canada, including major projects and record amounts of LNG being exported out of Canada. There are all sorts of things that are actually good news.

I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the good news.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is exactly right. It is good news that we are finally exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada. It took way too long, and there is one plant. One plant is exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada, when we should have a significant amount more. There are now 12 coming from the United States, and this is in the same time period it took for us to get one up and running in Canada. That is a shame, and it is a failure of government, at the end of the day.

Let me give my colleague some facts. Canada's net trade position, net current balance with the European Union, which concludes in the numbers, unfortunately, that the U.K. is about a half-trillion-dollar creditor, where Canadian investment goes over to the U.K. That is a net number, with half a trillion more in Canadian money being invested in the European Union and U.K. than there is coming back from that jurisdiction into Canada. This is something that has to turn around, and that is because of the bad economic policies of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member of Parliament mentioned all of the foreign investment, but if we go back and look, every dollar of foreign investment is paired with the taxpayer dollars of investment. If we go back to the Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper days, companies would invest their own dollars, with no government money.

I wonder if the member of Parliament would talk about the value of that, where a business will just come here to make an investment because it makes business sense to make an investment.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been lost over the last 10 years in the government's approach to the economy is the rule of law and respect for the rule of law. That is contract law as well. Members can think about how many companies are not investing in Canada.

The government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, yet every company that would put that infrastructure into place has said, “Not a chance.” There is no chance that this has any clarity as far as investment in Canada goes. The government has even said that we cannot put government money into these projects anymore.

Therefore, there is a stalemate as far as getting our major projects built in Canada. It would require government money. It would require somebody knowing government and having a friend in government to get some taxpayer money to fund a project in Canada, because the rule of law is gone. The rule of contract law is gone. Companies do not want to invest in something because there is no certainty about the outcome in this country anymore, thanks to the policies of the government.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to what my colleague from Huron—Bruce said. He referred to the time when we had a Conservative government here, the Harper government. During that period of time, we signed 38 free trade agreements, alongside numerous foreign investment promotion and protection agreements. We know what that was worth and what the value was.

My question for the member is simply this: Has he seen a number from the government, from the Prime Minister, for what the quantifiable number is or what the impact of these trade agreements he has embarked upon in relation to what the overall trade is with the United States?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very quantitative question. I really appreciate it because the net effect of what the Prime Minister has done, going around the world at this time, has been his signing paper that means nothing. How do we get resources somewhere else when we do not have the ability to deliver those resources? Therefore, going there and signing a co-operation agreement with XYZ company results in zero effective trade with that country for the next Lord knows how many years, but we are all co-operating. Signing paper is easy. The government is one of announceology and of delivering absolutely zero for the taxpayers of this country.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the legislation before us: 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. That is a long name, but the acronym is the CPTPP.

Before I begin my speech, I want to make a small acknowledgement of a big win in my community. The Keremeos' Similkameen Sparks basketball team proved themselves to be the B.C. champions last weekend, among all schools province-wide. Our whole community is very proud of these amazing young athletes.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Bill C-13 comes before the House at a time of concern about global tensions in our trading relationships. Let us be clear that Canada is and always will remain a great trading nation. Trade is the foundation of every strong economy in history, and trade with the United Kingdom is a long and deep part of Canadian history.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about this just recently when speaking to British audiences about the potential to strengthen our relationship as allies. That does not mean that we, as a nation, should ever roll over for any agreement. Ultimately, we want to ensure that free trade is reciprocal. That is to say that it is fair. If we are going to give access to Canadian markets, then we need to see access to the other nation's markets in return.

Free trade and fair trade are not in conflict. They are in partnership, or they should be. Bill C-13 should have been a moment for Canada to show strength and strategic thinking on the world stage amid turmoil. Instead, it is another example of a government that consistently leaves Canadians with less than they deserve.

Let us be clear: The United Kingdom joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is not the issue. The problem is how little the government managed to secure for Canadians during those negotiations. When a country like the United Kingdom wants to join a major trade pact with Canada, that is leverage. That is leverage to get more of our products to market and to bring more products that we cannot produce in Canada to Canadians. This point of negotiation is when responsible governments push hard for their own workers, exporters and seniors. However, once again, the Liberals have negotiated a win for someone on the other side of the table when there was much room to secure one for us.

For the last decade, the government has acted as though it is unbothered by the severe trade imbalances with the U.K. British beef enters Canada duty-free and without limits. According to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 28.3 million dollars' worth of beef and 3.6 million dollars' worth of pork to Canada in the first half of 2025 alone. Meanwhile, Canada's beef and pork are forced into tight quotas and face trade barriers. Canada exported only 122,000 dollars' worth of pork and no beef in 2025.

The U.K. still refuses to accept Canada's meat hygiene system, even though it is internationally recognized and it has provided no scientific evidence against it. This was a perfect moment to fix that. The U.K. wanted CPTPP membership. Canada could have insisted on fair treatment for our beef and pork exporters. Instead, nothing changed. The same barriers remain. The same inequities remain. Why did the government not secure real improvements for Canadian producers? It had the leverage, it had the time and it had the opportunity. What the government did not have was the political will to fight for all Canadian interests.

I would also like to mention the thousands of U.K. pensioners living in Canada, including many in British Columbia, whose pensions remain frozen with no cost-of-living increases, no indexing and no adjustments whatsoever.

These are not all permanent residents. Many became the best thing a person can be: They became Canadian. Still, these seniors paid into the system. They worked in the U.K. They built lives in British Columbia and across Canada, yet they are treated unfairly compared to pensioners who seek benefits from other countries. This, too, could have been addressed at the table while the U.K. sought to join the CPTPP. Instead, there was silence, another missed opportunity. Given the Prime Minister's frequent boasting of a close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister and with the United Kingdom as a whole, one would think that he would have talked about this.

The Liberal government might have used this opportunity to advocate on behalf of our agricultural producers or the 100,000 U.K. pensioners during this cost of living and inflation crisis. This is a negotiating pattern with the government. The Liberals have a talent for walking into major trade discussions and walking out empty-handed. Whether it is softwood lumber, steel or aluminum, the result is always the same. Canada gives but gets very little back.

Softwood lumber is key in my riding, as many members know. Hundreds of jobs have already been lost in my riding during these tumultuous times. This is the opposite of negotiation. We are supposed to give something to get something. Families who rely on lumber jobs in my region have now seen an entire year of the Liberal Prime Minister's travels. He has travelled frequently to the United States and around the globe, promising deals but still not delivering for lumber.

Time is not on our side in the lumber sector. At a time of unrelenting attacks from the Trump administration on our softwood lumber industry through unjustified tariffs, sawmills are closing and communities are losing hope. The Liberal government offers a minuscule increase in domestic production and offers loans that will only be added to increasingly indebted lumber mills, which is why many are choosing to close instead. European lumber suppliers are trying to fill the gap in the U.S. market left by these tariffs. Potential Asian markets cannot cover this hole in the balance sheet for Canadian suppliers. A U.K. market would not fill this either.

Canada's lumber industry has the supply, talent and drive to thrive for decades, but only if these communities can stay together. I implore the Prime Minister and his government to work with forest communities, and with the MPs who represent them across all parties, to make an all-hands-on-deck effort in Washington, D.C., to end the decade-long absence of a softwood lumber agreement that has now lasted four separate presidential administrations, all on the Liberals' watch. We know this is possible. The Harper government secured a deal in only a few weeks. Families in my riding, in the Similkameen, Boundary and the Kootenays, cannot wait any longer.

Is what the House is looking for in any trade agreement not ultimately Canadian-specific gains? Where is the progress on the issues that matter to our exporters? Where is evidence that the government used this moment to deliver wins for Canadians?

This could have been the moment the government stood firmly for Canadian farmers and demanded the U.K. finally dismantle the non-tariff SPS barriers that block our products. It could have been the moment it stood up for seniors whose pensions have been frozen for decades. It could have been the moment Canada reminded the world that our market access is valuable and not something that is handed out for free.

Instead, we are left with a bill that updates legislation, cleans up tariff schedules and confirms access the U.K. would have received anyway, all without resolving the issues that matter most. It is very disappointing.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the debates on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, in 2018, the Conservative member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière said, “We will obviously work with the government to adopt the CPTPP as quickly as possible, because it is important to our industry and to farmers.” During debate on the original version of this agreement, the Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of it.

Today, we welcome the United Kingdom as our first new member. This is good news. Does the member agree that adding a G7 partner will strengthen this trade agreement?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we need to continue creating further trade partners, and that is a good thing.

What I mentioned in my speech was that there were things we could have brought to the table that were not brought, which is going to affect many people across this country, including in my riding. One that I spoke about was the softwood lumber and lumber industry. Another was the beef industry, the cattle industry, which affects my riding. What I think we are trying to say is that this could have been a moment in time when we could have really strengthened our trade negotiations, but unfortunately, that did not happen.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that we are talking about global trade and access to other markets apart from the United States. This is obviously a very positive thing. I think all Canadians understand that we need to diversify our trade. However, not all trade is equal, and not all trade can simply be replaced. I think that is true of forestry. The American market is very vital to our forest industry. I know in northern Ontario, many workers are now without work. They are looking for jobs, struggling to get by and unsure of when the next paycheque is going to come because of the inaction of the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister promised he would get a trade deal with the United States by last year, and of course that has not happened. There is a difference between the rhetoric coming from the Liberal Prime Minister and the reality that forestry workers are facing in northern Ontario and British Columbia. I wonder if the member has any other comments on that.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very detailed question and explanation of the situation we are in right now across the country.

It seems as if, with all the travels around the world, the Prime Minister has forgotten that there are whole towns all across this country that are shutting their doors. That is what happens in the lumber and forestry industry because the industry encompasses the entire town. We are not talking about one or two retail stores closing. We are talking about small towns across this country. That needs to be remembered, and we need to have sympathy for these towns, which have survived, many of them, for 100 years or more.

When we are at the negotiating table with any new partner, I ask the government to please bring up softwood lumber.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government is doing a lot of the work externally. The Prime Minister is seeking to build market access and trading relationships around the world.

Is there a country that Canada is seeking to deepen its relationship with and the member opposite disagrees with the direction of that?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should be negotiating with countries around the world that have the same moral compass as Canada.

I will give the example of my riding. Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has one of the longest borders with the United States in the country. I think the member is asking if we should be looking elsewhere. We should, but at the same time, we need to keep this relationship with the United States. Ridings like mine, where we have six border crossings, depend on trade with the United States, so we need to keep our trade and we need to keep negotiating with Washington, D.C. during these turbulent times.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kings—Hants.

I am speaking today at the third reading of Bill C-13, which aims to implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.

Before I start talking about international trade, I would like to say a few words about my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, because the decisions made here in Ottawa have a very real impact on our community. My riding occupies a strategic position in the Quebec City region and for Canada. It is located at the junction of several major transportation routes that connect the national capital to all of eastern Quebec and then extend to Europe. Every day, goods pass through our region on their way to the north shore, Sept-Îles, Fermont, all the way to Labrador. Trucks take Highway 40, then Route 138 and continue along the St. Lawrence River to supply the industrial and mining regions of eastern Canada. In concrete terms, this means that our region is part of a bustling economic corridor.

In Beauport, for example, proximity to these highways means that many service companies have been set up. Beauport is home to hotels, restaurants and transportation and logistics companies that, every week, do business with workers from all over: truck drivers, engineers, entrepreneurs and workers in the mining, forestry and even energy sectors. A truck transporting industrial parts to the mines on the north shore can very easily stop overnight in Beauport. A contractor coming to supervise a work site in Sept‑Îles can go through Quebec City to meet with partners. That is the economic reality in my riding.

Limoilou is even more of a hub due to its proximity to the Port of Québec. It is home to companies that deal with handling, warehousing, marine logistics and intermodal transportation. When shipments come in by ship or by train, whether containing minerals, forestry products or even wheat for European markets, they go through this network of companies and workers. These are real jobs for people in my riding.

This reality is a reminder of something important: International trade is a necessary step for every nation that wants to prosper, and sometimes for those just trying to survive.

Across the country, the economy is built on a network of local businesses, such as small family businesses that often go back generations, and firms in construction, transportation, manufacturing, professional services or processing. Some sell only locally, while many have the potential to sell elsewhere. For example, take Quebec's softwood lumber producers, aluminum companies in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, agri-food businesses that export pork, maple syrup or processed foods, and Canadian technology companies that are developing digital and industrial solutions. When these businesses find new markets, they grow, and when they grow, they hire.

We are currently in an international environment marked by a great deal of uncertainty. Geopolitical tensions are on the rise, and supply chains are changing, as are global trade rules. This means that Canada must act strategically. Allow me to make a simple comparison that I am particularly fond of and that I used in my last speech. Sometimes, international economic relations are a lot like chess. Chess players never think only about the next move; they think three, four or even five moves ahead. Each move is meant to strengthen their position, and every piece that is played opens up a new opportunity. Most of all, good players avoid relying on a single strategy. They come up with a variety of options instead.

For a country like Canada, trade diversification works exactly the same way. We cannot depend on one market. We need to have many partners, many avenues and many possibilities, because in an uncertain world, having options becomes a strategic force.

That is exactly what the expansion of the CPTPP represents. Since the agreement came into effect, trade between Canada and its partner countries has grown significantly. Why? It is because free-trade agreements create enough predictability that companies can invest while mitigating their risk.

Companies that want to invest large sums of money to retrofit a plant, carry out research and development or ship their merchandise over long distances need the support of banks for their financing. Having been a banker for close to 20 years, I know that the first aspect bankers examine, one of the most important factors they consider before investing, is the viability of a business. The predictability provided by this type of agreement reassures both businesses and banks in terms of investment. These agreements lower tariffs, eliminate a lot of red tape and allow businesses to invest while knowing exactly what the rules are.

Here is a real-life example. When a Canadian agri-food producer wants to sell their products in other countries, tariffs can be as high as 20%, 30% or more. Trade agreements can do away with those barriers, instantly making that Canadian business more competitive. That can be the difference between winning and losing a contract. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP strengthens that dynamic. The U.K. is one of the largest economies in the world with some 70 million consumers. It is also a partner that shares many of our economic values: the rule of law, trade transparency and predictable rules.

To apply the chess analogy, bringing the U.K. into the agreement strengthens our position on the global chessboard. It expands the economic space in which Canadian businesses can grow, and it opens new doors to our exporters. We have learned an important lesson in the last few years. Depending too heavily on a limited number of markets can make an economy vulnerable. When trade tensions arise, the fallout can be swift. That is why trade diversification is essential. It reduces risk, opens up new markets and creates new opportunities for Canadian businesses.

Now, at third reading stage, our responsibility is simple: We have to ask ourselves whether this bill contributes to Canadians' prosperity. The people of Beauport—Limoilou, like people in the rest of the country, are calling on us to act, protect and build. They want stable jobs, competitive businesses and a future filled with opportunities for their children. If our trade agreements allow our businesses to innovate, export and grow right here in Canada, then they are fulfilling their role correctly. However, this openness must always be paired with vigilance. We have to pay careful attention to sector-specific impacts, protect sensitive sectors and actively support and stand by our businesses so they that can take full advantage of these new opportunities.

The CPTPP expansion is more than a technical measure. It is a strategic decision to choose openness in an uncertain world, to choose diversification over dependency, and more than anything, to choose to create meaningful benefits for the workers, business people and communities that we represent. Like in chess, what counts is not just the next move; it is the position we are setting up for the years to come.

Today, this bill gives us the opportunity to strengthen Canada's position on the global trade chessboard. That is why I urge all members of the House to support Bill C‑13, which seeks to implement the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership for a more diverse, resilient and prosperous economy. In the great global economic game that is now under way, Canada is not merely defending its position, it is playing to win.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Haldimand—Norfolk, beef farming is a way of life and a significant contributor to our local economy. Beef farming in my riding has produced world-class Canadian beef, and beef farmers deserve access to global markets. Can the government explain to the farmers in Haldimand—Norfolk and throughout Canada why their world-class beef still cannot access the U.K. markets like it could before?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the CPTPP market is an incredible market for consumers.

Between 2018 and 2024, beef alone saw an increase from $338 million to $750 million. This is a market that is evolving and moving quickly. There is potential to diversify markets for all sectors.

We are zeroing in on a single sector, but if we consider all Canadian sectors, which is our role here, it is an incredible market. About 70 million additional consumers will be entering the CPTPP. This is good news for Canada and especially for market diversification, which is so important.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-13 has sparked another debate regarding the impact that parliamentarians from all parties, and in Parliament as a whole, have on the international trade agreements signed by Canada. As we know, the role of parliamentarians in that regard is pretty limited at this time. Amendments may be moved only with respect to the bill. They cannot affect the agreement itself. This is different than in the United States, where Congress assigns negotiating mandates. In some European countries, it is the parliaments themselves that adopt the agreements.

We agree with Bill C-13. Does my colleague agree that we should still modernize Canada's practices when it comes to international trade agreements? Is this not an opportunity to completely overhaul these Canadian practices in order to give parliamentarians and Parliament greater influence when it comes time to negotiate such agreements?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which I really appreciate. I am not sure I fully understood the question. I think it contained quite a few elements and was very complex.

Today we are talking about Canada and the United Kingdom, two reliable partners. The word “reliable” has come up a lot in recent months and years. It is important for our companies to do business with reliable partners. That makes a big difference. I talked about predictability earlier. That is a huge issue for our businesses these days. Look at wheat. Farmers have to plant it. They have to rotate their crops and plan what they are going to plant or not plant. That is why they need to know what is going to happen and what they will be able to sell six months down the line.

By bringing reliable countries like the United Kingdom into agreements like the one we are debating today, we increase predictability for the Canadian market.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which I support.

I would like to know this: In his opinion, what kind of growth potential does the CPTPP hold for our Canadian companies?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard.

We are talking about a market that is 99% tariff-free. When we talk about tariffs, people know exactly what we are talking about. The potential is enormous. Take, for example, Japan, one of the member countries. In 2023, we saw 60% growth in this market. In Vietnam, over the same period, growth was 110%.

These are growing markets with nearly 600 million consumers in the CPTPP zone. For our Canadian companies, having agreements and adding countries to them helps diversify markets. As a government, we are helping these companies do business over there and guiding them to these markets.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-13, that seeks to enable the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a partnership with 11 other countries. I will try to deliver my speech entirely in French. Some of it may be interspersed with English, but we will see.

I have family ties with the United Kingdom. My wife has Scottish heritage. I also have family ties with the United Kingdom on both sides of my family, specifically with communities in Scotland. I also chair the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association. Our parliamentary group includes Conservative and Bloc Québécois members as well as senators. Last week, we had the opportunity to attend a meeting with our British counterparts. We held talks with Prime Minister Starmer and with First Minister Swinney, the head of the Scottish government. The issue we are discussing today is connected to my work, my family ties and my community. Obviously, many people in Kings—Hants trace their heritage to the United Kingdom and Great Britain, which means we have very strong ties with these communities.

First, I would like to point out that the Canada-United Kingdom partnership is absolutely amazing. We have the same King and the same parliamentary tradition. Canada's Parliament is directly modelled on the Westminster system, in London. We also have family ties that bind us together. We fought side by side during the First and Second World Wars. We defended and supported Great Britain during these wars and, of course, we continue to work together through NATO. We have military partnerships with a number of countries, but also with the United Kingdom. Lastly, I believe that Canada and the United Kingdom share the same values.

This bill is fairly straightforward, and I believe that it has cross-partisan support in the House of Commons. At the very least, I believe that the two major parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, are going to move this bill forward because, overall, it is not complicated and it does not raise any major issues.

It is worth noting that 97% of the free trade in products, goods and services between Canada and the United Kingdom is tariff-free. That said, there are some relatively minor issues, which I would also like to point out. I think it is important for all parliamentarians to reflect on how to advance our other partnerships. I believe we have the opportunity to advance our partnerships, including in defence and procurement. For instance, I represent the riding of Kings—Hants in Nova Scotia. Halifax has shipyards where military vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy of the future are being built. We also have BAE Systems, which is managed with the United Kingdom.

There are many examples of our military procurement industry sending goods to the United Kingdom. Their system is the same. The governments in London and Ottawa now both want to increase their defence spending, and we have an opportunity to expand this partnership. I am also thinking about tourism. Nova Scotia has the largest Gaelic-speaking population outside of Scotland. Perhaps this could attract people who speak Gaelic or who have family ties here, for example.

I will now turn to some of the things that make the relationship difficult. We had conversations with our counterparts last week about rules of origin for the automotive sector. Many of the parts used to manufacture vehicles in the U.K. come from the European market, and the British are frustrated with the most favoured nation principle, which requires them to pay 6.1% tariffs to import auto parts from Canada.

However, as my colleague mentioned, we are somewhat frustrated by the lack of access to the beef and pork sectors. We are frustrated because of technical specifications, particularly when it comes to carcass washes, and the fact that our standards do not meet theirs. I understand why the government has raised these issues with regard to access for our farmers and why it wants to continue to raise them. However, I would like to add that, thanks to the work my hon. colleague has done with China, India and other countries, particularly with regard to beef producers, our farmers now have many opportunities.

In the time I have remaining, I want to highlight British pensioners and a little around the specifications in Europe. There are about 100,000 British pensioners in Canada. Their pensions have not been indexed, and this is a point of consternation in our bilateral relationship. British pensioners can go to the United States and have a fully indexed pension, but if they go to 50 of the 56 Commonwealth countries, their pensions are not indexed. There are differing amounts given for what the cost of this would be to the British Treasury, but as the chair of the delegation, I want British pensioners in Canada to know that this is something that was raised.

This is something we continue to press the U.K. government on. We understand there are challenges around their Treasury, but we think it ought to be something that all Canadian parliamentarians would support. We index Canadians on their social benefits and their pensions in the United Kingdom, and we think there should be reciprocity. I want colleagues in the House to know that is the position of the government, and it is something that our former minister of trade and our current Minister of International Trade have raised. It is a bit of an inflection point that we are hoping we can see some resolution on. It is something the government is raising.

Mr. Speaker, you come from a constituency that has a lot of agriculture, dairy, I believe, in Perth—Wellington. I want to raise the European Union regulations around SPS. This is something that the U.K. is in negotiations on right now with Europe. We ought to keep a close eye on those conversations, because Europe is increasingly narrowing the list of products that are available on critical farm inputs. We will continue as a government to make sure that we are raising that with the European Union, but as it relates to the facilitation of trade, particularly in agriculture and agri-food, that is some work that we can continue to do. We have great market access around the world, but this is the next stage.

This bill is not controversial. We should move it forward. The United Kingdom is a great partner, but there are some small, specific areas that we need to continue to focus on in the days ahead. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was a great speech, even though I had to listen to the translation for half of it.

I was surprised that the washing of the carcasses is still an issue in our trade agreement. I remember that before I was a parliamentarian here in 2019, that was a hot topic and basically a non-tariff barrier, so I am quite fascinated as to why it has not been resolved yet. I do not know what the Liberal government was doing all these years about trying to get that fixed.

Also, with respect to pensioners, I am surprised. We are talking about a trade agreement, but meanwhile we are asking the British government to increase taxes on people so they can pay pensioners over here more money. Is there an identical ask from the British government of our Canadian government in this trade agreement?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, regarding British pensioners, Canada actually indexed Canadians who are living in the United Kingdom with our requisite social safety and our pensions, so we are not unnecessarily having impacts. It is British pensioners in Canada who are not being indexed. There is, of course, a cost to government in the sense that, if this is something that is not addressed, it could be coming out of our treasury to disproportionately pay. It may be a relatively small amount. I assure the hon. member that this is something that is being raised. This is not a matter of political will to raise the issue and to drive it forward. This is a real sticking point. I raise it on the floor of the House of Commons here to be reasonable about what I see as a pathway that we need to continue to work forward.

Regarding the beef and carcass wash, again, on a technical basis, I would agree with the hon. member. There is no scientific basis for why that should not be accepted. We are pressing, but this is part of the political reality that we have to keep an eye on, including with the European Union.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, a Liberal colleague said that Canada was looking for reliable economic partners and that the United Kingdom was a reliable partner. I support that statement.

That said, in January, the Prime Minister shook hands with Xi Jinping when he signed a trade agreement with China. I would simply like to know whether my colleague considers the regime in Beijing to be a reliable partner.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is now important for Canada to have conversations around the world, particularly with governments whose systems and values may differ from ours when it comes to society in general. However, it is now very important to have very strong partners, and China is the world's second-largest economy and largest consumer market. It is important for Quebec exports, for connecting Quebec jobs and for access to markets in general.

Also, when we have disagreements, it is important to be at the table and to have this discussion with leaders. It has been nine years since the last meeting between the previous prime minister and the president—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his very eloquent speech, in which he explained the importance of the CPTPP.

Can he elaborate on how participating in this agreement will benefit Canada and Quebec?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical moment for Canada. We need to create different free trade ties with our partners and other countries. We need to build new relationships.

More specifically, this bill seeks to expand the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership by adding another reliable partner. This is good news for exporters in Quebec and across the country, as well as for British investment in businesses and projects here in Canada.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning, a great parliamentarian to work with, a thoughtful guy and a friend.

Today, we are debating trade, if members have been paying attention. There are few issues that are closer in the minds of Canadians at the moment. Across the country, Canadians are worried about their families and their savings and whether they will be able to make it to the end of the month. Some have already lost their jobs, and I think many are wondering if theirs are next. This is a reality that Canadians are facing. Some of it is entirely outside of their control, but many also understand that much of it is possibly within their control.

I want to be super clear about something as we dig into this. Canadians are not the ones failing. I think they are being failed. They go to work every day. They support their families. They contribute to their communities. They are learning new skills and just trying to create a better life. If anyone is failing them, it is the government, which fails on the promises it makes.

I will say this: Conservatives support free trade because we are a trading nation. That is very obvious. Our prosperity depends on selling goods and resources to the world, and for many of us in this place, we have no idea what life was like before free trade, especially with our biggest partners.

We also support, though, fair trade. This is where I want to focus in on the discussion. Fair trade means ensuring that Canadian producers have real access to markets that are open here at home. It means standing up for Canadian ranchers and farmers and producers when they are treated unfairly. I know there are a lot of people in this place who believe that food comes from a grocery store, but there are a whole lot of people who get it there, like those who raise cattle, those who grow our food and those who get it onto our tables. For them, this is what brings us to the conversation of the U.K. and why we should pay attention to this.

Under the trade continuity agreement, the U.K. imposed non-tariff barriers on Canadian pork and cattle that are not rooted in science, and that is a problem. The U.K. refuses to accept something called carcass wash, which is used safely in Canadian slaughter plants, and it has regulations against Canadian beef about the way that we do things in terms of our own regulations here. These measures have effectively kept these products out of the U.K. market. When we are talking about trade, it has to be equal.

The result of this is a glaring imbalance. I know that our agricultural critic has these numbers off the top of his head, but I had to look it up at the Library of Parliament. Britain exported 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, $42 million in 2024 and $28 million in just the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported only 85,000 dollars' worth of beef in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and none at all in 2025.

The story is the same with pork. Britain exported in the millions of dollars' worth, while Canada exported no pork to the U.K. in 2023 and topped out at just about $120,000 in the last year. This is not fair trade, and anybody who looks at the numbers can understand that.

After nearly a decade in power, there is real, big talk now of trade from the Liberal government. It failed to resolve these issues, and that matters. It matters for our producers, and it matters for people who consume those products here in Canada. This is about far more than agriculture. It exposes, I think, a deeper failure of the government and one that should make anyone question this new, big talk on trade. This is where we sort of get into the nitty-gritty details. Now the government is asking Parliament to approve the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP without reversing these barriers and without making it fair. It appears the government is preparing to grant new access to the Canadian market while leaving our farmers locked out of the U.K.'s. That is not strong negotiating, and everybody understands that.

There is another issue that the government has ignored. Despite the member's raising it, they are actually getting into this without resolving it, and that is the more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners who live in Canada. Unlike pensioners who retire in countries like the United States, their pensions are not indexed to inflation, and we all know what has happened with inflation over the last couple of years under the Liberals' watch.

The pensioners have been raising the issue for years and asking for the same treatment as pensioners in other countries, because that is only fair. Given the close relationship between the Prime Minister and his counterpart in the U.K., one might have expected the government to use these negotiations to advocate for Canadian farmers and for those 100,000 pensioners who are living here in Canada during a cost-of-living crisis. Instead, those issues remain unresolved.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-13, and the conversation in the House would lead us to believe that this is a brand new trade agreement, or that this is some major breakthrough. It is not. Bill C-13 is not a new trade agreement. It is simply legislation to update Canadian law, years after a deal was already negotiated. In other words, Parliament is not debating a new strategy on Canadian trade. We are being asked to stamp changes required for negotiations that took place years ago. Even though the government managed to delay the process, and I can understand the urgency now, this is participation medal stuff. This is not where we need to go in order to expand our markets at a critical time.

The Liberals often speak about the importance of trade diversification, yet Canadians were among the last CPTPP members to ratify the U.K. accession, and that delay matters. It matters for Canadian businesses, who waited longer for access to the U.K. market that this membership could have provided them with.

While the government celebrates the technical amendments of a trade agreement, the reality is that Canada's most important trade relationship remains deeply unstable. More than 70% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. We all know that, yet today that relationship is clouded, obviously, by uncertainty, tariffs, unresolved disputes and the lack of a serious trade strategy that does not ignore reality.

For Canadians, a lot of questions remain: Where are we in all of this? What is the plan? What does the Prime Minister think when it comes to American auto, or resources, or really everything? We may never know. We have news of the minister heading down to Washington and then radio silence about the whole thing. Canadians need an update, otherwise they get more of these debates in the House about technical amendments about accession to an agreement that was negotiated a long time ago.

I will add one more point. Trade agreements are important, but trade agreements alone cannot solve Canada's deeper economic problems. They cannot compensate for an economy that has been made less competitive with higher taxes and more regulation. Over the past decade, we have seen falling investment per worker and weak productivity growth compared to our peers. These are not abstract statistics that we talk about when we talk about trade, because trade is all about attracting partners here and getting our products elsewhere. They also translate directly into fewer jobs, slower wage growth and fewer opportunities for Canadians. When businesses decide where to invest and whether to expand at home or move elsewhere, those factors really matter. Building a competitive economy actually matters in all of this: one that rewards work, encourages investment and removes the unnecessary barriers to growth, which is how we get ahead in trade.

We intend to support expanding markets for Canadian products. We always have and we always will, but we will also scrutinize the government's failure to secure real wins and real results for Canadians, which is what this debate is about. We do not quite understand why we are signing on to something that makes us worse off. Why did the Liberals let something languish to the point where our pork producers, our beef producers and 100,000 U.K. pensioners are all worse off, and this still goes ahead?

Canadians deserve an agreement that works for Canada. That means for this agreement and every single other one. We are not going to celebrate with a participation medal something that should have been done a long time ago. That is why I wanted a say in this debate.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that the issue of British pensions extends back to far before the time of this government. The Harper government was not able to resolve it. We agree with what she is saying, and we are continuing to push.

The member is the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. She is certainly a fair dealer, and I am going to ask this question with the desire of getting an honest answer.

The government is doing a lot of work around the world to build relationships. I asked the last colleague this question as well: Is there a country that Canada has either signed a trade arrangement or worked with that the Conservative Party does not agree that we should have? If the answer is China, I am curious as to what she would say to farmers in the western provinces about why the government should not have engaged to remove canola tariffs.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is supposed to be a gotcha question, but this is the party of free trade. This is a party that signed more free trade agreements and had the richest middle class before the Liberals took over more than 10 years ago. We support expanding trade, but the matter here is that free trade has to be fair for all of the participants.

We also cherish our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and we are going to lead with those values in every conversation we have around the world.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals brought up the issue of China. The government operations committee today heard of hundreds of millions of daily attacks on the government's cyber system. The Communications Security Establishment points its finger at China as our number one issue.

I wonder what my colleague thinks about the government's focus and obsession with China as a strategic partner while, at the same time, its own security agency is saying it is the number one threat to our cybersecurity.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot written and said about the government's new focus on China. I think our U.S. counterparts would also be rather concerned.

The matter at hand is the difference between securing a trade relationship, opening markets to farmers, and creating a strategic partnership with a country that does not share our values or our national security interests and, frankly, has kidnapped Canadians and reached out its arm of transnational repression to our people here.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know the leader of the Conservative Party has made the decision to finally go to the U.S.A. to talk about issues in Canada. Another Conservative member, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, has already gone to the States. We will remember that he met with the President and the Vice-President, and then he came back and said that Canadians are having a hissy fit.

When can we expect the member's current leader is going to be meeting with the President and Vice-President, and will he come back and provide an informed report too?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Leader of the Opposition went to the U.K. and Germany, and that visit was received very well. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Prime Minister about his visit to the U.S. and stands ready to help. He is going to go to Michigan to speak about auto and to Texas to speak about our resources, to ensure that jobs are kept in Canada. We look forward to that visit.

I know the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition, and we stand ready to help in this relationship whenever possible.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I can never get over is that the Liberals, in the last two questions, took an opportunity, instead of talking about what Canada is going to offer and do for Canadians, attempted a gotcha moment and heckled us. Unfortunately, we are talking about a trade agreement that is going to enhance Canadians.

I asked the member for Winnipeg North this morning if there is anything in this agreement for Canadians, and he answered no. Can the member reply to that?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once in a while the member for Winnipeg North tells the truth in this House. I will leave it to them.

I laid out very clearly that free trade needs to be fair trade. Access of products to our market and fairness for U.K. pensioners should be at the centre of this conversation, and they certainly have not been.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure in the history of Canadian Parliament there have been bills with longer names, but we have to admit this one is a mouthful: 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. It is a very long name for a trade agreement. This does not flow easily off the tongue. I should think some bright staffer could have come up with a snappier title, something like the “let the U.K. join the club act”. I guess we will just have to refer to it as Bill C-13.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, is a free trade agreement enforced between Canada and 10 other countries in the Indo-Pacific region: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. In 2023, CPTPP parties signed an accession protocol with the United Kingdom. The CPTPP will enter into force for the U.K. once all the CPTPP members and the U.K. complete their respective ratification processes. Bill C-13 is a part of the ratification process.

Once the agreement is fully implemented, Canada will have duty-free access to CPTPP countries for 90% of Canadian agriculture and agri-food product exports, 99% of Canadian industrial product exports, 100% of Canadian fish and seafood product exports, and 100% of Canadian forest product exports. This is indeed good news for Canadian business. It is also good news that the U.K.'s accession would provide broader services access for construction, legal and veterinary services and longer visa durations for business visitors and investors than were set out in the Canada-U.K. Trade Continuity Agreement that was negotiated following Brexit.

It is not good news that the Liberal government has failed to address some of the outstanding trade issues with the U.K.

The CPTPP would provide limited practical gains for Canadian beef and pork exporters who want to access the U.K. market. Canada secured additional duty-free volumes for pork and beef into the U.K. over the previous agreement, but Canadian export volumes are unlikely to increase, given the U.K.'s non-tariff barriers relating to sanitary measures. It is worth noting that the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Pork Council have both indicated opposition to the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP due to that country's non-tariff barriers to Canadian pork and beef producers.

The U.K. is Canada's third-largest trading partner and ally, and with this new relationship I can see the opportunity for increased trade. However, there have been missed opportunities, and not only with pork and beef, but I will finish my speech after question period.