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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, for the Minister of International Trade]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill to enable the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

This is an important step in advancing Canada's trade diversification strategy and in strengthening one of the most ambitious trade agreements in the world. Before I get into the details of what this means for Quebec and my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, I would like to take a moment to talk about what this agreement represents and how the accession process works.

This modern trade agreement is based on clear rules between Canada and 10 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. It eliminates or significantly reduces tariffs, improves access to government contracts and investments, and strengthens the protection of services, labour and intellectual property. It is important to note that the agreement includes a structured accession process that enables other economies, such as the United Kingdom, to join it provided that they meet the high standards of the agreement and engage in bilateral negotiations with each member.

For Quebec, this agreement is not an abstract measure. It is a tangible gateway to high-growth markets of strategic importance that can transform our province's economic future. Many of Quebec's key sectors, including aerospace, agri-food, advanced manufacturing, aluminum, forestry and value-added wood products, as well as clean technology, are already benefiting from reduced tariffs and clearer and more predictable market access thanks to this agreement.

For businesses throughout Quebec, this agreement represents an opportunity for innovation, competition and the forming of new partnerships across the Pacific and beyond. Quebec exporters are now better positioned to grow in markets such as those in Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia, countries where trade barriers used to be high but are now in the process of being lifted.

It is not just the large multinationals. Small or medium-sized businesses, from Sherbrooke to Chicoutimi and from Trois-Rivières to Gaspé, are finding new international clients interested in their know-know, products and creativity. Whether it comes to maple products from the Lower St. Lawrence, aircraft components manufactured in Mirabel, fine cheeses and products from Lanaudière or advanced manufacturing equipment produced in the Eastern Townships, this agreement makes it easier for Quebec businesses to compete on the world stage under clear and enforceable trade rules.

These are some examples of ambition and excellence that define Quebec's modern economy, an economy that combines tradition with innovation and local pride with openness to the world. Quebec has always looked outward. From our first experiences with transatlantic trade along the St. Lawrence River to today's high-tech exports and green innovations, Quebeckers have always understood that prosperity comes from engaging with the world.

We are not strangers to trade. It is part of who we are. It is part of our history, our geography and our entrepreneurial culture. Our ports, railways and research hubs, not to mention our skilled workforce, all reflect this deep connection to global trade. Montreal, Quebec City and our regional centres have long served as gateways to Canadian trade, connecting North America to Europe and, increasingly, to the Indo-Pacific region.

Quebec's exporters embody that spirit of openness. They are backed by an economy that is recognized for its creativity, precision and excellence. Quebeckers understand why labour is essential. A recent Nanos poll on Canada's international trade approach found that Quebeckers were some of the strongest advocates for expanding free trade beyond North America. They view trade diversification not as a risk, but as a gateway to security and resilience.

In a world where global supply chains are transforming and protectionism is gaining ground, Quebeckers recognize that putting all our economic eggs in one basket, be it a single country or a single region, exposes us to greater risk. Diversification is not just an economic strategy. It is a strategy for sovereignty, stability and sustainable growth.

The bill before the House to ratify the United Kingdom's accession reflects that mindset. The U.K. is a G7 economy. It is a long-standing ally and a reliable trade partner that shares Canadian values on labour rights, environmental protection and the rule of law. Its accession will expand one of the world's most robust trade agreements, give it more purchasing power and make it more dynamic.

For Quebec's exporters, this means more opportunities to access new markets under one consistent framework. It means more integrated global supply chains in areas in which Quebec excels, such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence, clean energy, and processed agri-food products.

It means more certainty and more options in an increasingly unpredictable world. Members will recall that Quebec is home to many industries that define Canada's reputation on the global stage, including aircraft manufacturing in Mirabel and Saint‑Laurent, aluminum refining in Saguenay, forestry products and clean energy innovations developed in our research institutions. All of these exports rely on fair and reliable access to foreign markets.

Every trade agreement we sign and every barrier we break down supports real jobs here in Quebec and empowers our workers to compete based on skill, rather than political barriers. Quebec's economy prospers when it can go head-to-head with global competitors. It is driven by innovation, the ingenuity of its people, and a profound commitment to excellence. That is why trade diversification is so important. This agreement, which is now being expanded to include the U.K., provides Quebec businesses with more tools to connect with clients that value quality, sustainability and reliability, all the hallmarks of Quebec products.

There is a broader vision at work here. Our government has set a clear and ambitious goal: to double Canada's non-U.S. exports in the next decade. This goal cannot be met without Quebec. With its leadership in the clean energy, next-generation manufacturing, technology, agriculture and culture, Quebec's contribution will be vital. The province's export sectors already account for a significant portion of Canada's trade outside North America, and they are ready to grow even more as we strengthen our partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe.

Expanding the reach of Quebec's exports also means more opportunities for workers, for engineers in Longueuil, for machinists in Saguenay, for farmers in the Lower St. Lawrence, for software developers in Montreal, and for innovators at our universities and research centres.

When Quebec exports increase, all our communities prosper. More global trade means more investment here at home, more training, and more sustainable, skilled jobs for Quebeckers.

As we look ahead to the next decade, Quebec will be central to Canada's success in diversifying trade. Our industries stand ready. Our entrepreneurs are motivated. Our citizens understand the value of engaging with the world. With an agreement like this one, and now, with the United Kingdom joining us, we can ensure an open, predictable and level playing field.

Quebeckers can be proud that their province and their country are not content to simply participate in global markets, they are actively shaping them. They are setting the standards for human-centred innovation, sustainability and growth. When Quebec businesses succeed abroad, they also export our values, like respect for hard work, the environment, diversity and quality.

The positive impacts of this approach can be felt everywhere. They support rural regions and urban centres alike. They stabilize our supply chains, attract investment, and strengthen Canada's overall competitiveness.

They also strengthen our ties with countries that share our democratic values and our commitment to fairness. That is why this agreement is so important for Quebec and Canada and why the U.K.'s accession is such a positive development. It amplifies what is already working. It integrates our closest European partner into a peaceful framework that represents nearly 500 million consumers and more than 15% of global GDP.

For Quebec exporters in the aerospace, agri-food, manufacturing or digital services industries, this prospect will lead to increased growth, security and opportunities. Historically, Quebec has always been creative, resilient and open to the world. From our artists and innovators to our farmers and engineers, Quebeckers have proven time and time again that they can compete with the best, not by lowering standards, but by raising them ever higher. This spirit guides our approach to trade. We are committed to negotiating agreements that defend human rights, protect the environment, and promote transparency, values that are dear to Quebec.

In conclusion, let us reaffirm our commitment to the workers, exporters and communities that depend on open, fair and principled trade. Let us continue to build a diversified and forward-looking trade strategy that will lead Canada and Quebec to a more prosperous and secure future. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership has already delivered results. Now that the United Kingdom is joining it, it will be even more successful.

As the government pursues its objective of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade, Quebec will be at the forefront, confident in its strengths, proud of its people and ready to seize every opportunity that the global economy has to offer.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing our Prime Minister talks a great deal about is the importance of trade and broadening Canada's opportunities by looking elsewhere, outside the United States, for example. In recent days, he has talked a great deal about trade relations and the potential for trade relations between Canada and the Philippines. There are just over one million people in Canada of Filipino heritage, and using the diversity we have in Canada puts us in a great position to ultimately expand trading opportunities.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on why and how it is so important that Canada looks at ways in which it can increase trading opportunities around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to work at banks for over 20 years, in business for over 10 years and at the Quebec City chamber of commerce and industry for four years. To ensure the growth of our businesses, we need to open up the global market. We know this, and we have seen it. We need reliable partners, and we must diversify our markets.

As I said earlier, putting all our eggs in one basket is not the best economic solution. Today, we have the opportunity to open a market for all Canadian businesses.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions. I have had the chance to meet and work with him on the trade committee. He has wonderful insights, but I think he is missing a key component. Canada has agreed to allow the U.K. to join the CPTPP, but what did Canada get for allowing the U.K. to join? There are outstanding trade disputes with the U.K., especially with respect to our pork and cattle farmers, that are still unresolved. Nevertheless, Canada has now allowed the U.K. to join the CPTPP while still leaving these issues outstanding for our cattle and pork producers.

I wonder if the member could just give the House an example or point to one thing that Canada received from the U.K. in exchange for allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I hold him in high regard and I enjoy serving with him on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

We recognize the concerns of the beef and pork industries. We are committed to working with them to get rid of certain barriers. It is a fact that, currently, nearly one in five companies in the market does business abroad and relies on exports for its livelihood. We have always taken our workers and their families into account, and we will continue to do so.

The United Kingdom will enable us to continue and expand this export and growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the Liberal government.

A few years from now, the Liberals are going to tell us that there is no guarantee that a new country will honour the agreements it was party to when it left a customs union that had previously negotiated those agreements. By supporting the United Kingdom's bid to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Liberals are showing us that the opposite is entirely possible. I am grateful to them because this will give them one less leg to stand on in the coming years when they fight our move toward sovereignty.

That being said, last week, we debated Bill C‑228, a Bloc Québécois bill that would improve transparency. We were told that there was no need for it because there is already a policy that provides for a 21-day period after an agreement is tabled and before a bill is introduced, but the Liberals just violated that policy. The proof is that the bill was introduced 15 days later.

Does my colleague agree that we need a law rather than a policy, and that we now have proof of that?

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

Madam Speaker, during the last election, Quebeckers and Canadians were clear: They want action from us and they are tired of waiting. From its first days in office, this government has shown that it has heard their plea. We have rolled up our sleeves, put on our work boots and already started making agreements. That is what Canadians expect from us. That is what businesses expect from us.

With everything happening right now with our neighbours to the south, Canadians need us to diversify our markets and open up new ones. They do not need us to pass endless laws that only delay this new business.

The new government is currently helping businesses by opening up new markets. Diversification is part of the solution.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleagues have highlighted that there are outstanding issues right now in terms of our relations with Britain. Colleagues are well aware of the unfair treatment of British pensioners living in our country. Canada is home to 144,000 British retirees, yet their pensions are frozen at the rate first received because Canada does not have a reciprocal indexing agreement with the U.K. Seniors here are losing tens of thousands of dollars over the course of their retirement. That costs the Canadian economy over $1 billion annually and leaves many seniors in poverty. These include veterans, nurses, people who have lived in Great Britain and served their country.

We do not do that. We look after our seniors when they retire abroad.

Will this be part of the negotiations in terms of this agreement? When will the government make British pensioners a priority?

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

Madam Speaker, a trade agreement like this one is not the right framework for negotiating those kinds of things. Right now, people need diversified markets because of what is going on south of the border. That is what we intend to focus on.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing forward this bill, but it will forgive me if I do not give it a pat on the back for doing something it should have done years ago.

It was no surprise that the U.K. was going to need trade agreements with countries around the world. It had Brexit in 2017. We had a trade continuity agreement that the Liberals let expire, to the detriment of our businesses. They suffered by paying higher tariffs going into the U.K. because the Liberals let that continuity agreement expire.

Why did it take five years to get an agreement that is worse than the one we had previously? We used to have the CETA with the European Union, which provided better and more liberalizing access for Canada. Why did we have to wait five years to get a worse deal?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my colleague supports this agreement, that he supports its evolution and that he welcomes the United Kingdom's accession to it. It is good for Canadians and good for our businesses. I want to emphasize that the new government did not wait before taking action.

We have only been in power for six months, and we have already rolled up our sleeves to get to work serving Canadians. Our Prime Minister is already engaged in negotiations aimed at expanding Canadian markets.

I thank the Conservatives for supporting us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I found the last question interesting. I would emphasize to the member across the way that over the last 10 years, our government has signed off on more trade agreements than any Conservative government ever did. That is an absolute fact. We have a Prime Minister who, in a short period of time, has been negotiating all forms of additional trade opportunities. We already have a deal on the table for the legislature.

I am wondering if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts regarding how this government and, in particular, the current Prime Minister are aggressively pursuing trading opportunities for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that we can no longer count on the market predictability that we once had. Businesses need this predictability to be able to invest, but we no longer have it. We have two choices. We either sit back and wait for it to return, or we go out and find new markets. There is actually a good book on this subject that I often recommend called Who Moved my Cheese?.

We are going to open up the market for our Canadian businesses. That is exactly what our Prime Minister is doing.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today.

Before I get into my speech, I have to chuckle a bit about the last intervention by the member for Winnipeg North. At every opportunity, whenever there is anything negative to be said about the legacy of the last 10 years, the Liberal government says that was an old government and this is a new government. However, whenever there is something it wants to take credit for, its members are quite happy to remind us that it is the Liberals who have been in power for the last 10 years. They cannot have it both ways. They have to either accept the legacy or run away from it, and the member needs to decide which one he is going to do.

Canadians know exactly what the legacy is of the last 10 years. It is a higher cost of living, higher crime, inflation, a carbon tax and making life more unaffordable for Canadians. That is the legacy of the last 10 years.

It is nice to be here to talk about adding the U.K. to the CPTPP.

Before I get into my remarks, I would like to recognize some wonderful local individuals: Luke, Roy, who I sometimes call “the Emperor”, Reg and Kevin, who are great musical talents, and Mark and Kyle. Kyle is starting a new business, and I wish him the greatest of luck as he starts his new venture.

Trade is about reciprocity, and that means getting something in exchange for giving something. The fundamental question we should be asking the government, after it has had multiple years to consider whether it would agree to allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP, is what Canada has received in exchange for allowing this to occur. Our pork and cattle producers have had incredible difficulty accessing the U.K.'s market, while at the same time, beef exports from the U.K. into Canada have doubled in just one year. They were at about $48 million in 2024. We have now allowed the U.K. to join the CPTPP, while leaving these non-tariff barrier disputes, or trade irritants, with the U.K. to persist.

Why would the government allow this moment to pass without negotiating a win for Canadians? Does this sound familiar?

I was very pleased to see my hon. colleague from the NDP raise the U.K. pensioner issue. There are well over 100,000 U.K. citizens living in Canada, or maybe even as high as 140,000, who do not have a cost of living increase on their U.K. pension. One might ask what is so wrong with that. What is wrong is there is inequity and unfairness, because had that same retiree chosen to retire in a different country, like the United States, they would have gotten a cost of living increase on their pension.

Why has the government not made it a priority to solve this on behalf of this very large group of individuals, just as a matter of fairness? We are told that the Prime Minister is a master negotiator and has worldly relationships and a global network, which he was going to bring to bear to solve Canada's problems, yet we stand here today and the government has nothing to show for agreeing to allow the U.K. to join the CPTPP.

It could have solved the pensioner issue had it asked. It is unclear whether it has even brought this up with the U.K. In fact, in response to many questions to the former minister of foreign affairs and the Minister of International Trade, the answer has been that it is not a priority at this time. Have fun trying to tell that to the U.K. pensioners who believe that, as a matter of fairness, they deserve a cost of living increase, and they would be correct.

It is difficult to take that same position with our cattle and pork producers. They have worked very hard to expand their markets in the world, only to be met with unfair trade practices and non-tariff barriers to trade from the U.K. specifically, which prevent our producers' products from reaching U.K. shelves. At the same time, U.K. products are free to come into Canada.

Why would we allow this moment to pass without negotiating a resolution to these problems, or at least demonstrating that the government is aware of these issues and has a path to resolve them? The Liberals have been absolutely silent on resolving these problems. It is reasonable to assume that they have not even attempted to resolve them because they do not talk about them or acknowledge that they exist. The Liberals barely want to recognize that these issues exist because it would be an admission that they have had multiple years to fix them and have not been able to deliver.

These unfair trade practices, especially with respect to cattle and pork producers, are not rooted in science. I bet the first thing a U.K. citizen or diplomat does when they visit the wonderful Calgary Stampede is visit a steak house. I am sure they have no problem consuming our wonderful steaks in Alberta, Canada, but they want to work to keep that product out of the U.K. and off its shelves.

This is a government that is unwilling to do the hard work. The Liberals walked away from the bilateral trade negotiations, probably because they believed the U.K. was going to join the CPTPP anyway. They thought, “Why bother with the bilateral trade agreement?”

We had a trade continuity agreement. They let that expire, by the way, to the detriment of many businesses, including small, artisan cheese shops, for example. Many have struggled significantly and some have unfortunately closed, including one in Simcoe North. It was a wonderful operation, but because of the government's lack of ability to negotiate with the U.K., it had to close.

What has the government achieved by allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP? What did we get for it? These are questions that the public, the cattle and pork producers and the opposition want to know the answers to. In a negotiation, we give something to get something.

These are questions that U.K. pensioners deserve to know the answers to. This is a country with which we have a wonderful, shared history. Why is it that a U.K. pensioner living in Canada is treated differently from one living in the United States? It does not seem fair and I do not think anyone would think it is fair on its face.

If we break it down, we have a request from an ally to allow them to join a very large trade agreement. On its face, that seems completely reasonable. Canada believes in free trade and we are a free-trading nation, but we should also believe in fair trade and reciprocity.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the top 10 Canadian exports to the U.K. I will give members a hint for what the first one is. Madam Speaker, sometimes you like to wear it, and you look good in it. Gold is the number one export to the U.K., which leads me to another question: Where is all the gold in Canada? Where are the reserves? Canada has no more gold reserves at the Bank of Canada. Guess who sold some of those reserves. The Prime Minister did when he was the central bank governor. He sold them to the U.K., which is interesting.

Out of the top 52 countries in the world that have gold reserves, guess where Canada ranks. It is not even on the list, because we have zero reserves. While other countries around the world have been piling up their gold reserves, Canada has been selling them all. The U.S., China, Poland and Turkey have reserves, and the list goes on and on, but Canada has made the choice to sell its gold reserves, thanks to the Prime Minister.

In the Prime Minister's defence, he is not the only central bank governor who has sold Canada‘s gold; that has been going on for many years, but he continued it. It is funny that he sold it to the country of which he then went on to become the central bank governor. I guess he was okay to keep it when he was the central bank governor in the U.K; it did not sell its gold reserves.

If we think about the entire agreement, it might seem benign on its face, but we are left with some questions. What did Canada get? Why are our cattle and pork producers still left out in the cold? Why do U.K. pensioners still have their pensions unfairly lowered by the government's inaction on negotiating anything? Can the government even point to any wins it has achieved on any negotiating front, period, other than signing an agreement?

If we look at the Canada-U.S. discussion, we see that Canada has made a litany of concessions, although the minister of Canada-U.S. relations says he would not call them concessions. Actually, I have never heard anyone describe them as anything other than concessions. We gave in on DST. We withdrew complaints about softwood lumber. We have made significant other concessions to the U.S. in exchange for waiting for an answer, for basically zero agreement, not really even a path to agreement apparently. They are not even talking anymore.

The Prime Minister has also said we might be close on a deal on aluminum and steel. Well, that is nice. What about autos? What about lumber? What about the folks in the canola sector who are kind of caught between Canada and the U.S.? It does not appear that the government is moving with a sense of urgency.

I appreciate the intervention of my colleague just prior; the Prime Minister has said a very similar thing, which is that the government's goal is to increase Canada-U.S. exports by 50% over a decade. Well, golly gee, is that really the moon shot we think it is? What are we supposed to do for the next 10 years? How are we going to survive as a country if we have to wait 10 years before we can diversify 50%, increase our trade by non-U.S. exports by 50%?

What is going to happen to our industries over the next decade while we wait? How much is it going to cost the Canadian taxpayer? How much is it going to cost the auto workers and their families in Ontario, or the farmers out west, or the people who work in the lumber mills, the paper mills and elsewhere in that sector? What are we telling them?

We need to act now, but the government does not really act with any sense of urgency. If we just look at GDP per capita, on that basis Canada is poorer today than we were in 2019. The government does not seem to care about that, but everyone else recognizes that GDP per capita is a measure of living standards. We are going in the wrong direction.

It is nice that we are here debating free trade. As I have mentioned, of course, Canada's Conservatives support free trade, but we support fair trade. We support getting good deals for Canadians. In this case, we have given something and gotten nothing in return.

One might be asking why we are even debating the bill today. Is it because the government has not made a deal with our largest trading partner, the United States? Is it because the government would enjoy not talking about the failure to get a deal with our largest trading partner and closest ally? It has had multiple years to sit on this piece of legislation to consider moving it forward. Why are we moving it now? What did we get? What is coming next?

We are left with all these questions, and we are left wondering what Canada, Canadians and our producers receive in exchange for allowing the U.K. into the deal while the U.K. is still unfairly punishing our cattle producers, our pork producers and U.K. pensioners. We would think that the Prime Minister, who is very close personal friends with Prime Minister Starmer, would have been able to deliver some pretty big wins for Canadian industry and even for the U.K. pensioners living in Canada.

One would have thought that maybe the Prime Minister would have asked Prime Minister Starmer to do him a solid, asking whether he could give him something for allowing the U.K. to join the agreement. It is not clear whether there were even any negotiations about this. The government has not even disclosed whether it is on the radar. It has been brought up in the House multiple times.

Next week, the U.K. pensioners are going to be in Ottawa. I invite members of all parties, including the government, to go speak to them, to look them in the eye and say that we just negotiated a big trade, an agreement, with the U.K.: the CPTPP. Look them in the eye and say that we gave the U.K. something. What are the pensioners going to say back? Maybe they would ask, “What about us? Did the government get anything for us?”

Members should go to the cattle producers and say that there is good news: We are going to expand the markets. The cattle producers will say that they still cannot get into the U.K., that the agreement does not help them. They will ask what they got for it.

These are completely reasonable questions that the government needs to answer, questions that reasonable Canadians would have and that reasonable producers in cattle and pork and other agricultural products would have. Why are we agreeing to something without getting anything in return?

I come back to reciprocity. We need to get the United Kingdom back to the negotiating table on a bilateral agreement. I worry that the government thinks its job is done now because the U.K. is going to join CPTPP, but the trade irritants still exist. The government has not indicated that there is a path to even talking about them, let alone resolving them. There are no negotiations currently happening bilaterally with the U.K.

While I appreciate the government's trying to advance Canada's interests around the world, we have to ask ourselves what we are getting when we give things up to other countries. That has to be a fundamental question that the government should answer, especially when we have glaring groups not just of people generally but of producers and industry that have concerns with the United Kingdom and how it does its trade practices, and that, in the case of the U.K. pensioners, are just asking to be treated fairly.

In summary, Canada's Conservatives support free trade. Of course we do, but we support fair trade and negotiating wins for Canadians at every single opportunity. This looks like a missed opportunity for Canadians by the government.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of material to cover in the hon. member's words. I just want to remind him that I know he is much younger than I am, but Canada, like other countries, went away from the gold standard in 1971. Canada sold its gold reserves to diversify its portfolio into more interest-bearing types of investments. He knows that.

I know that the British pensioners are coming to Ottawa next week, because I am part of a group of people who are hosting. I have met with them on a regular basis for the last several years, as have a number of the member's colleagues. I have raised the issue with British politicians at every opportunity, and so have his colleagues, side by side with me. We have written letters to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

It is not a partisan issue, frankly. The member is absolutely right that the British pensioners in Canada are not being treated properly by their own government. Will he acknowledge that the Government of Canada and the MPs of the House have actually been working hard on the issue?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I might be younger, but I was not born yesterday. If Canada had not sold its gold, we would have $125 billion U.S. of extra money in the government coffers. I appreciate that the member might question that strategy, but it is entirely reasonable to ask why we have been selling gold, why we do not hold any gold and why central banks are borrowing it.

With respect to the member's fundamental question, I firmly and fully accept that members of the House have advocated for U.K. pensioners, and I appreciate the member's advocacy on their behalf. However, this is a question about what the government has delivered for U.K. pensioners. This is a question about the government's being in negotiations with the U.K. and not bringing this up to the degree necessary to get it resolved.

That is the issue. It is not whether any member of the House individually is trying to advocate, because a lot of people are, but the best people able to negotiate on behalf of U.K. pensioners are the government members, because it is the government that is allowing the U.K. to get something in joining CPTPP, and we have not gotten anything in return for our pensioners.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

First, I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the government violated its own policy on tabling treaties by introducing the bill 15 days after the announcement of the content of the agreement itself, and not 21 days as set out in the policy.

Does he not think that this illustrates the importance of Bill C‑228, which would also allow us to debate an agreement, not a bill? The Conservatives spoke against our bill.

Second, it was the fact that we were debating and studying a bill, rather than the agreement itself, that led to all of the Conservative amendments being ruled out of order by the Chair when we studied the agreement with Ukraine.

Does my colleague not think it is time to make the process more democratic?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for using the opportunity to discuss process in this place, which is very important.

There is actually no reason why there seems to be a rush to have the bill come to the table today. The Liberals could have provided the appropriate notice, as my colleague points out. This place and the level of debate would be improved if we had further scrutiny and an appropriate timeline to look at the agreements. It seems to me there is no reason why we would need to rush this.

Why not wait the appropriate 21 days? That is a very reasonable question from my colleague. I look forward to working with him as the bill may move through the rest of the process at the trade committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising the issue around British pensions. I think about Anne Puckridge, who moved to Canada in 2001 to be with her daughter. Anne was a veteran who served the U.K., and the U.K. has abandoned her. It has abandoned a veteran who put her life on the line to serve her country and who put herself forward. I point out that British pensioners in countries like the United States and Jamaica and across the European Union receive a pension that is fully indexed annually, unlike Canadian pensioners.

I know that we have all been advocating from different parties, but it has not worked. This is our opportunity.

Does my colleague agree that this needs to be a critical component of all trade negotiations when it comes to the U.K. and that veterans, especially U.K. veterans, should not be abandoned? We do not do that; we give indexing to our veterans when they retire abroad.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, mark the time and the date, because I agree with my hon. colleague in the NDP in his intervention with respect to U.K. pensioners.

This is the moment that the current government has let pass to negotiate on behalf of U.K. pensioners. If and when the bill is passed, we will have lost negotiating leverage with the U.K. to support U.K. pensioners living in Canada, and of course I have to mention again our cattle and pork producers, who are being unfairly treated by the U.K.'s unfair trade practices.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member two questions specifically. There is a huge trade deficit on Canadian cars entering the U.K. versus U.K. cars coming into Canada. It is about 20:1. How can there be a trade deficit in Canada with U.K. beef? There is more beef from the United Kingdom entering Canada than Canadian beef heading into the United Kingdom.

How can we do anything with the United Kingdom until we straighten out those two issues?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague was also going to ask about the gold standard, but maybe that is for another day.

He is correct. About 48 million dollars' worth of U.K. beef comes into Canada, and virtually zero, or a very small amount, leaves Canada and makes it into the U.K. This is solely on the basis of non-tariff barriers related to trade and unscientific questions about the use of hormones and carcass washing in the case of our pork producers.

Why would we give a trade ally something by allowing them to join the CPTPP without resolving those issues now in the moment while we have this opportunity, when they are asking for us to do something? We are missing an opportunity to stand up for our cattle and pork producers and the U.K.'s pensioners. We need to stand up for our producers.

In this global environment, it is absolutely critical that we stand up for Canadian producers, Canadians living here and the health and safety of our country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member tried to give what I would suggest is a false impression. Stephen Harper divested Canada of its gold reserves. By the time we got to 2016, it was all done. The member gave the impression that the number one export to the U.K. is gold. The member is right that it is gold, but it is not because of depleting reserves; it is because we have gold mines in virtually all the different provinces, with Quebec and Ontario leading the way.

This is about Canadians exporting gold. It is not about depleting reserves, yet the member intentionally tries to mislead Canadians. Then he talks about the indexing of pensions. Tell me of one agreement wherein the Conservatives ever incorporated concerns related to seniors or pensions specifically.

We are doing what we can as a government to diversify our trade, and the last time we had a trade agreement with a European country it was with Ukraine. I will remind my friend across the way that the Conservatives voted against trade with Ukraine. Shame on them, number one, for voting against Ukraine, and, number two, for trying to mislead this House.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess we will have to get a ruling on whether we can say a member is intentionally misleading the House, but I cannot believe the government broke its own trade agreement with Ukraine. Do members know what it did? It got rid of the carbon tax. It broke its own agreement. It is unbelievable.

I appreciate the member mentioning that we have all of this wonderful gold production in Canada. Is it not shameful that the central bank does not just keep a bit of it?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-13 as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade.

As members know, the bill enables the U.K.'s accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Let me end the suspense and say that we are voting in favour of the principle of this bill. Although it changes a lot for the U.K., it does not change much for us. However, I will be voting no in committee during clause-by-clause review. I will be voting against the legal provisions that implement investor-state dispute settlement. I will come back to that later. Our final vote will depend on what happens there.

The question of process is an important one to return to. As the saying goes, the medium is the message, and very often, the process is the agreement. The process itself perfectly illustrates the need for the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑228 dealing with transparency around treaties. When we debated our bill last week, I found it ironic that the Liberals said there was no need to pass it because a policy was already put in place back in 2008 and it is working. Under that policy, there has to be a 21-day period between the announcement of an agreement and the tabling of a bill for its implementation. At the very moment this argument was being served up, the Liberal government had violated this same policy only a few days earlier when it tabled Bill C‑13 15 days after announcing the agreement. If my math is correct, 15 days is less than 21 days. The government violated its own policy, which it held up as absolute. This is proof that a mere policy is not enough and legislation is required.

With Bill C‑13, as with all agreements before it, what we debate, study and vote on is not the agreement itself, but rather an implementation bill. We can therefore amend only a handful of clauses in a bill that is only a few pages long, and not the underlying provisions that in some cases run to thousands of pages. In the end, Parliament's function is simply to rubber-stamp it. We have been reduced to that in a very short time.

In that regard, last week I listened to Conservative members tell us that they were opposed to the Bloc Québécois's bill because it was too long and too complicated. However, it was the Conservatives' proposed amendments to the agreement with Ukraine that were all rejected and ruled out of order. If we had undertaken a clause-by-clause study of an actual agreement rather than a bill, the Conservatives would have been able to put forward their proposed amendments. Personally, I disagreed with all of their proposals. I voted against all of them, but I voted with the Conservatives to challenge the chair's decision to rule them out of order, because to me, that is democracy. The Conservatives should at least have the right to put their proposals forward. We are democratically elected representatives with a mandate to administer communities and public assets. That includes what we want to see in international agreements.

I would remind the House that Bill C‑228 provides for the systematic tabling of treaties in the House of Commons, a requirement to wait 21 days after tabling before taking any action to ratify a treaty, the publication of treaties in the Canada Gazette and on the Department of Foreign Affairs' website, the obligation to obtain the advice of the House before ratifying an important treaty, and consultation with civil society by a parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on the treaty.

Let us review some facts. In the United States, Congress assigns negotiating mandates, and this makes it harder for negotiating teams to reach unsatisfactory agreements. In Canada, the executive branch acts unilaterally without any parliamentary guidelines. In most industrialized countries, treaties are adopted by parliaments, and this forces the executive branch to maintain an ongoing dialogue in order to keep elected officials on board during negotiations, even if it means having to change directions at the negotiating table. In Canada, Parliament simply changes its domestic laws and has no ability to intervene in the treaty itself. Elected officials can only vote for or against it, and that is it. They no longer have a say in the matter.

By the same token, while provinces are responsible for implementing the parts of the treaty that pertain to their jurisdictions, they are not involved in the negotiations, as opposed to what is done in Europe, for instance, where member states play an integral part, even if the treaty is with the European Union. We often invite senior federal officials to committee hearings, and they tell us that they talk with the provinces. However, do they really seek their opinion?

The practice in Quebec for mandatory publication and parliamentary approval is modelled on the practice in the majority of European countries. The practice is already in force in Quebec. It is a practice, but it is not anchored in legislation. In 2016, Belgium almost refused to sign on to the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, even though it supported it. Under the Belgian constitution, the country cannot ratify an agreement without the consent of all its regions. Well, Wallonia was not in agreement and so even though Belgium had agreed to the treaty, it found itself in a bind and was forced to concede that its constitution prevented it from ratifying the agreement.

In the United States, negotiating mandates are vested in Congress. Congress is kept abreast of discussions and must approve the text prior to ratification. In Europe, the European Commission requires authorization from the European Parliament and a mandate from member states represented in the European Council before initiating trade negotiations. In many countries, parliamentary ratification of treaties is considered so vital that it has been embedded in their constitutions. This the case in France, Germany, Denmark, Italy and the United States, which have a constitutional requirement to seek legislative approval for some categories of international agreements prior to ratification.

Let us talk about the agreement itself. As I said earlier, the agreement will not change much. Canada is already party to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United Kingdom is also a party, because most of the partner countries have also agreed to its accession. In this case, we also agree, as long as this does not result in new breaches in supply management and cultural exemption is confirmed, but we do not agree with investor-state dispute settlement.

The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement made this concept more mainstream. Although it existed before, NAFTA popularized this system that allows a foreign company to sue a state. I use the adjective “foreign” loosely, because all a company has to do is incorporate in a state where it is considered to be foreign, even if, in fact, it is inside the country it wishes to sue. A foreign company can sue a state that has democratically adopted public policies in favour of, for example, more social justice, a higher minimum wage, a tax on soft drinks, as we saw in Mexico, environmental measures such as cancelling projects that could be harmful to the environment, or even the introduction of plain cigarette packaging that does not include a company's logo, as was the case in Australia. These are real examples. In defence of their right to make a profit, foreign investors have sued states for measures that were democratically adopted.

That makes it increasingly difficult for a state to legislate on issues related to social justice, the environment, labour conditions or public health if a transnational company believes that its right to profit has been violated. Some will say that those companies are unlikely to win. However, according to a 2013 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, or UNCTD, states won those lawsuits 42% of the time, compared with 31% for corporations. The remaining disputes were settled out of court. That means that plaintiffs were able to override the political will of the states, either in whole or in part, in 60% of cases. However, that is a quantitative figure that overlooks the fact that, beyond the lawsuit itself, states proactively self-censor. Before adopting a policy or making a decision, they say to themselves that they could be sued and end up in court. A company that does not like a government's decisions could cause it to lose millions of dollars. States are under constant pressure as a result.

In 2014, a report by the European Union's Directorate-General for External Policies stated that this mechanism had a deterrent effect on public policy choices. It should also be noted that these disputes are very lucrative and involve lengthy processes. According to a document published by the non-governmental organizations Corporate Europe Observatory and Transnational Institute, it is well known that large law firms specializing in commercial law have an interest in getting involved in this area and are lining their pockets with such provisions.

The Bloc Québécois has always opposed such provisions and its position has not changed. We actually put it on the agenda for the convention. I take pride in the fact that it was my personal proposal; it came from my riding. At the Bloc Québécois convention in 2023, we included in the party's platform our rejection of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. I said it before: I will vote against those provisions when we proceed to a clause-by-clause review. After that, we will see what we do with the bill as a whole.

CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, eliminated that possibility when it replaced NAFTA, which made this mechanism mainstream. CUSMA eliminated this possibility for litigation between Canada and the United States, but the mechanism is still in force with respect to Mexico. We do not want to reopen that. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, featured a version of the mechanism that was maybe not quite so bad, but in 2021 when the time came to vote for the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, there was no mechanism that allowed that. It was part of the agreement, but if it was not in force in the European Union, it did not apply. Here, unfortunately, it will apply with the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP. This is legally a bit complicated. While the mechanism that was in our agreement with the United Kingdom did not apply, it will now apply. This is a major sticking point for us. We will vote against these provisions. That is our promise to this House.

Now, there is something I find interesting in the agreement. By supporting the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP, which is a first, Ottawa is reinforcing the argument in favour of Quebec's independence. We know that in a few years' time, the government will begin fearmongering again, but it will be in a bind because it will have proven the opposite point.

The United Kingdom is the first country to join the CPTPP since it was established. It is the first country to join even though it is not part of the Pacific Rim. Bill C‑13 seeking to ratify the UK's accession to the CPTPP, which we are debating today and will soon be voting on, is somewhat a continuation of Brexit when the British people voted for independence from the European Union. The European Union is a customs union that provides for the free movement of goods and services within the European Union and for uniform rules in external trade. It is like Canada. External trade is what the European Union refers to as a “Community power”, meaning that trade falls under Europe as a whole rather than with member states. Trade agreements are therefore signed with Europe and not with each individual member state. Agreements are not made with France, Belgium, Germany, and so forth.

In this regard, with respect to trade issues, Great Britain's experience with Brexit offers a glimpse of what Quebec will experience when it becomes independent. When Quebec exits Canada, which is a customs union like the European Union, with a central authority responsible for trade, the province will no longer be party to the trade agreements that bind us as a province of Canada.

During the 1995 stolen referendum, which is about to have an anniversary in two days, the “no” side amply highlighted this uncertainty by arguing that Quebec would lose its guaranteed access to export markets. People warned that Quebec would not automatically be a party to agreements negotiated and signed by Canada, which naturally included NAFTA. At the time, Jean Charest, the Conservative-Liberal-Conservative—no one can say for sure—said that we were entering a black hole. He used that term. He said that we were about to enter a period when businesses, perhaps only temporarily, would be denied their guaranteed access to other markets because Quebec would be excluded from agreements until it renegotiated them.

At the time, the “yes” side said that this assumption was illogical, that all of Quebec's partners would want to preserve their business ties with Quebec and that money talks. Back then, the uncertainty was pervasive.

When the Bélanger-Campeau studies were updated, constitutional expert Daniel Turp pointed out that, where treaties are concerned, countries apply a presumption of continuity if the newly minted country expresses an intention to remain bound by the treaty. An assumption is made that the country is going to remain a party to the treaty. However, Mr. Turp's demonstration dealt with UN treaties only. The trade agreement issue remained unresolved. The only trade treaty precedent at that time dated back to 1973, when Bangladesh separated from Pakistan to become independent.

Pakistan was part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, the forerunner of the World Trade Organization, and Bangladesh automatically became a member, so there was no period of limbo. However, GATT was a multilateral treaty that did not need to be renegotiated to admit a new member. It could be said that history had yet to be rewritten.

Brexit set the first precedent for a territory leaving a customs union to which it previously belonged and through which it was a signatory to a series of trade agreements. That issue was first resolved with the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, a temporary trade continuity agreement. That allowed us to see what happens when a trading nation acquires or regains its trade sovereignty. In reality, it works very well.

After the Brexit referendum, all the countries that had an agreement with Europe rushed to approach the United Kingdom to propose agreements that would ensure that nothing changed in terms of trade relations. The Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement maintained the status quo and ensured stability until the agreements could be permanently renegotiated. That prevented any gap in trade relations during the transition period.

As we speak, Canada has not renegotiated its permanent agreement with the United Kingdom, but it still has its temporary agreement, so free trade continues and trade relations continue. The U.K. concluded such an agreement with all the partners that had concluded an agreement with Europe. It even concluded an agreement with Japan, which did not have an agreement with Europe. There is no change in the access to global markets that British products enjoyed.

In the next few years, when the time comes to actively discuss choosing independence for Quebeckers, the federal scarecrows will return, but they will all have been deflated by the federal government itself. In real life, there is no vacuum in the aftermath of independence. Furthermore, by joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the European Union is not a member, the United Kingdom is even demonstrating an interest in regaining the freedom to choose its trading partners. By supporting it today, Ottawa is reinforcing the argument in favour of Quebec independence.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was as passionate as ever.

Bloc Québécois members are still discussing a hypothetical project, whereas we are engaged in hands-on work. Let me give one example of a no-nonsense report we recently received.

According to a report by Investissement Québec, Quebec companies have made significant progress in the export field, and have signed agreements amounting to $4.3 billion in exports. Additionally, foreign companies have generated $6.5 billion in investments in Quebec.

The more we diversify our economy, the better it is for Canadians and Quebeckers. I would like to ask my colleague across the way if he is going to join us in the push to diversify Canada's economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I will respond in a very practical manner because my actions, our actions, speak for themselves. We have always supported this. We have always been in favour of it.

That said, a trade agreement is not a religion. When there is something in an agreement that is not good, then of course, we have a right to reject it.

We support the principle, which is even part of the legacy of the sovereignist movement in Quebec. Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry are the ones who convinced the Quebec public to get involved in foreign trade, first with the United States. We are certainly not against diversification.

However, what bothers me about this bill is the fact that it reactivates provisions that allow multinationals to undermine political decision-making, public policy and democratic decision-making. I will vote against those provisions, and I hope my colleague will do the same because we work together on the same committee.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton focused a lot on transparency in the process and on the fact that we need to have access to the text that we are voting on. We know that, most of the time, we end up debating texts that we do not even have yet. We cannot consult or amend them.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks it is right that we have to take a stand and accept things when we are not fully aware of the implications.

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

Madam Speaker, we are unable to change any agreement, although we may be able to understand its implications. That is the main problem, the issue. Treaties are quite lengthy. Last week, when we were debating Bill C‑228, some members said that it would be hard work. Sorry, but that is our job.

International agreements may be complicated and complex, but they have a profound impact on the day-to-day lives of our constituents. I find it scandalous that we are voting on only a few sections of an implementation bill that is rarely more than 15 pages long, while agreements sometimes contain 1,500 pages and 5,000-page annexes. That is where the crux of the matter lies.

At the very least, we should be consulted early on to establish mandates. We might be less particular when it comes time to study the final version if we had been consulted before the negotiators were sent out. Before they even get on a plane, we could tell them what we want and what we do not want.

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

Madam Speaker, the member knows full well, from the debates last week on the Bloc's private member's bill, that we are talking about literally hundreds and hundreds of treaties of all sorts, sizes and forms.

It is just not feasible, let alone being able to use 300-plus members of Parliament, as a way to negotiate an agreement. Traditionally, it has worked exceptionally well for Canada.

As has been pointed out, the number one export to the U.K. is in fact gold. Quebec and Ontario are the biggest benefactors, because they produce the most gold. Virtually all provinces produce gold.

Recognizing this, would the member not see that as a very strong asset for the province of Quebec and indeed all of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not understand the question. I have already said that we are in favour of this trade relationship. We like doing business with the United Kingdom. It is our largest partner after the United States, even though it is very far behind and not comparable. We have a number of strong companies in the aerospace industry. It is in our best interest to do business with the U.K. We have no problem with that; the matter is settled. As I said, we will be voting in favour of the principle for that reason. We will then see whether the cons outweigh the pros, but we are in favour of the trade relationship.

Five years ago, I rose right here to speak in favour of the temporary agreement with the U.K. I have no issue with that. I cannot be any clearer. That is not a hypothetical. Now, as far as treaties are concerned, the bill has a definition for major treaties. I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade. My colleague does not, because that would mean he would be in the House less often.

I was elected in 2019, six years ago. I am trying not to forget any of the agreements that the Standing Committee on International Trade has studied. We studied the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, the agreement with the U.K. and the agreement with Ukraine. We did a study on a hypothetical agreement with Ecuador, but that is not an agreement that we have before us. Maybe I am forgetting some, but I count three. We are nowhere near the thousands. We have studied three agreements in six years, so it is not that bad to demand a little transparency and some serious work.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to Bill C‑228. I would like my colleague to comment on something that is unique to Canada, which is likely one of the least democratic places when it comes to international treaties.

Quebec has set up a mechanism for examining international treaties in its National Assembly. Canada has been slow to do the same. What we are doing today is simply ratifying the agreement. As my former leader used to say, we are like voting fodder. We cannot necessarily take a position on this.

I would like to hear my colleagues' thoughts on the undemocratic nature of the Canadian system.

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

Madam Speaker, we live in a monarchy, so that comes with certain stipulations. I think that there is no better example of this than what happened in late 2020, when the committee had to study an agreement with the United Kingdom without having received the text of that agreement. I remember it well. We heard from witnesses, representatives from businesses, organizations and institutes, who were talking about what they recommended or did not recommend, what they would like to see more of and what they hoped to get. At one point, I raised my hand and asked them whether they had seen the agreement, because I had not. I told them that it seemed as though they were basing their comments on something they had seen, whereas I had not seen anything. They all told me that, no, they had not seen the agreement.

I think nothing illustrates the fact that we are in a Parliament with rather serious shortcomings more than when we see that we have policies but no firm law requiring a deadline, and that those policies are not being respected, as we see today with 15 days instead of 21 days. It is all well and good for the government to mention on the website that there is a treaty policy. It is all very well for the Liberals to puff out their chests and say that we have been democratic since 2008. The fact remains that we are never consulted beforehand. There is never any debate beforehand. We have also noticed that, instead of adopting agreements, we adopt bills that are only a few pages long. We cannot really change or amend anything. When we look at the history of Canada, we see that, initially, there were a few monitoring mechanisms and annual reporting obligations, but little by little they have all been abandoned over time. I think we simply have a parliamentary monarchy that is heavy on monarchy and light on parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the Bloc will be supporting the legislation. That is a very strong and encouraging sign. When I was a provincial MLA, provinces often signed off on MOUs, memorandums of understand. Many of them were of an economic nature.

Would the member apply the same principles, for example, to the province of Quebec? Should Quebec not sign off on something until it is thoroughly debated and discussed inside the provincial legislature by all political entities?

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

Madam Speaker, there is so much I would have liked to say about that because, for starters, there is the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine. There are procedures in place for a high level of transparency regarding Quebec's National Assembly. That said, to take things a step further, I think we need a law that provides a place at the negotiating table for Quebec and any provinces that want it, at least with respect to sectors that directly affect a given province.

There has been only one instance of such a thing occurring, and it was during the negotiations with the European Union. It was not Canada that wanted it. It was because the European Union demanded that its countries ratify the agreement one by one and wanted the provinces interested in being part of it to be part of it—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. His time is up.

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to support this legislation, which would welcome the United Kingdom into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or, as we know it, the CPTPP. This debate gives us a chance to reflect on what trade really means to communities across Canada.

Today, I want to focus on my community of Mississauga, a city that I am proud to represent in this chamber and in government. It is a shining example of Canada's diversity, innovation and economic vitality.

Mississauga is home to a tremendous business community, from manufacturers and tech start-ups to food processors and service providers. Many of these businesses have built their success on serving local and regional markets, but increasingly, they are looking beyond our borders, recognizing that to be able to grow, they need to reach customers around the world.

Some businesses have already taken that leap. They are exporting goods and services across continents, tapping into new markets and growing their footprint. These success stories are so inspiring, and I have met many of these business owners. They show what is possible with the right products, the right team and the right opportunities.

However, I know there are many businesses in Mississauga that have not exported yet. They may have thought about and considered it but perhaps are hesitant. I can understand that exporting can be a very big step for a business.

I failed to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cape Spear, whose comments we will welcome on this legislation.

With regard to exporting, what businesses have to think about involves the risk of exporting, uncertainty, questions about tariffs, regulations, language barriers, cultural differences, shipping logistics, payment terms and more. For small and medium-sized businesses, especially those operated primarily in local markets, the idea of exporting can feel overwhelming, but it does not have to be this way. Our government is here to help and to be in their corner.

This is where Canada's trade diversification strategy truly shines, not only through agreements like the CPTPP, but through the strong network of trade commissioners across the country and around the world who work tirelessly to support Canadian businesses. Trade commissioners are on the ground in these key markets around the world. They provide personalized advice, market intelligence and connections. They help businesses understand how to use trade agreements to their advantage, to identify potential customers and to navigate through regulatory requirements. They open doors that previously seemed shut.

For example, a manufacturing firm in Mississauga that produces packaging solutions has probably never thought about selling to Japan or Vietnam, which may need their products and services, but a trade commissioner could introduce it to these potential partners, explain how tariff reductions under the CPTPP would improve their competitiveness and assist with market-entry strategies. That personalized boots-on-the-ground support reduces risk and gives entrepreneurs the confidence they need to take the leap into exporting.

Trade agreements like the CPTPP play a vital role. By reducing or eliminating tariffs on a wide range of goods and services across the 11 countries that are part of the CPTPP, covering nearly 500 million consumers with a combined GDP of more than $13 trillion, the CPTPP creates a more level playing field for Canadian businesses and gives them more certainty. This means products manufactured in Mississauga, whether in advanced machinery, food production or software services, become more affordable and attractive to buyers in these countries. It also means Canadian companies benefit from common standards on labour, the environment and intellectual property protection, which help ensure fair competition.

Trade diversification is essential for businesses in Mississauga and across our great country of Canada. The global economy is complex; it is ever-changing. Relying too heavily on a single market can leave companies and entire communities vulnerable to shocks, which we have seen in recent times.

We have seen this during recent disruptions, whether from the COVID-19 pandemic, trade disputes or geopolitical tensions. By diversifying their markets, companies can spread the risk, tap into new demand and increase their resilience. That is why the national goal of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade matters so much to Mississauga and Canada. It is not just a number; it is a target that represents real opportunities for our businesses, workers and local economies. For my city and our country, it means more manufacturers exporting advanced products, more tech start-ups breaking into global markets and more service providers creating high-quality jobs that benefit families right here at home.

This is especially important for small and medium-sized businesses, which make up the backbone of Mississauga's economy. I was delighted to have the Mississauga Board of Trade appear as a witness at the trade committee here in Ottawa, and it explained how important diversification is for small and medium-sized enterprises in Mississauga. These companies often do not have the resources to absorb big shocks or to easily pivot without support. Trade agreements combined with government services can help level the playing field to ensure these businesses can fully participate and chart their paths to growth.

It is not just the exporters that benefit. The jobs created by increased exports ripple through the economy, from manufacturing floors to supply chains to marketing teams, with all of them working together. When these businesses grow, they hire more people, invest in innovation and contribute to a more vibrant local economy. This also helps with something we have been challenged with for a long time, which is our productivity. These companies become much more productive when they invest themselves in looking at new markets and staying as competitive as they possibly can be.

Mississauga's diversity is a major strength. Our city is home to people from all over the world, many with deep knowledge of languages, cultures and business practices in the countries where the CPTPP operates. This gives our businesses a unique advantage, one that can be leveraged with the right tools and supports.

I will now go to the United Kingdom. Welcoming the U.K. into the CPTPP adds an important new dimension to Canada's trade diversification strategy. The U.K. is a major economy with long-standing ties to Canada. Its accession expands the agreement's reach and opens new opportunities for Canadian businesses, including those in Mississauga.

U.K. inclusion also sends a strong message to the world that the CPTPP is a high-standard, inclusive trade pact that continues to grow. This stability and scale give exporters greater confidence and make it easier for them to engage in international markets.

Supporting this legislation means supporting businesses in Mississauga that are ready to grow, want to take the next step and need the right tools to make it happen. It means backing the government's efforts to build a trade ecosystem, agreements, services and infrastructure that help Canadian entrepreneurs reduce risk and seize these opportunities. It means investing in communities and workers by creating the conditions for sustainable economic growth.

Mississauga's story is Canada's story. It is a story of innovation, diversity, resilience and ambition. The CPTPP and U.K. accession are critical parts of that story. Let us give our businesses the tools they need to write their next chapter, from the main street to the global stage.

We have set the goal of increasing our international trade beyond the United States by over 50% over the next decade. That would be from $300 billion, where we are today with exports, to $600 billion for Canada. What does that mean? It means jobs in our communities. It means a stronger Canada, a Canada strong.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we make trade negotiations or trade deals, it is an opportunity to actually make a deal. I am wondering what we got in return for signing on to this U.K. deal and allowing them into the CPTPP. I am thinking particularly of our beef and pork industries for cattle and hogs. Did we get any concessions? There are trade barriers there right now. Did those trade barriers get eliminated?

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

Madam Speaker, I will speak to this trade agreement with the U.K.'s accession into the CPTPP. We have other agreements, be it with CETA or agreements with other countries around the world. Canada is a trading nation.

Those agreements allow for open dialogue. I understand the concerns of the beef producers, but having open dialogue with the U.K. allows us to put our story forward, to make ground, to be able to open up markets.

It is very important that we continue to keep those communication channels open. By having an agreement like this, those communication channels continue to stay open so that we can continue to make our case for our great beef producers here in Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand what my colleague means when he talks about open dialogue to develop new markets, but the big problem is that Canada is one of the countries with the poorest democratic framework for studying this type of treaty, as our Bill C‑228 clearly demonstrates.

I have a very simple question for my colleague. Does he think it is appropriate that this legislative body is hardly consulted when trade agreements are being drafted and negotiated?

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

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that government, when it is doing a trade deal, reach out to a vast array of stakeholders. That is all levels of government and stakeholders in every sector. That is what has happened with the CPTPP, as well as with the accession of the U.K. into the CPTPP: reaching out to those stakeholders. That has happened. The vast majority of those stakeholders are in favour of our moving forward.

I sit on the international trade committee. It is a privilege here in this House. At that trade committee, there is an opportunity to debate, to go through the bill, to look at parts of the bill and to really dissect any issues within the bill in which we think there could be improvements.

We have a robust model here in Canada to be able to bring these trade agreements to our country and to help with our trade. We are a trading nation. While 2.5% of the world's trade is done by Canada, we make up only 0.5% of the world's population.

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

Madam Speaker, if the member could reflect back on this, in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to look at ways in which we can expand trading opportunities that go beyond the United States. This is a good example of the commitment that the Prime Minister made to Canadians.

I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. As soon as that election was over and we won it, the Prime Minister made sure to visit our greatest trading partners, one being the U.K. It is our number three trading partner.

We have increased trade with the U.K. From 2016, it has gone up almost 53%. We want to continue on that track and to continue to increase that trade. The way to do that is for our Prime Minister and our government to reach out to other like-minded countries to be able to open those doors and open trade because it is good for our—

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

There is time for one last question.

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

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

Madam Speaker, one comment the member made defies logic. It is not in the fact that open dialogue is not bad. It is good; I agree with that part. However, CETA has been around a long time. Mary Ng was negotiating the Canada-U.K. trade agreement, but it broke down on one of the things around some of the trade irritants we have with the U.K. Now we are looking at CPTPP and more access. There will be more access, certainly for dairy and other things.

Does the member agree that the time for talk is over, and it is time for the U.K. to live up to its end of the deal?

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

Madam Speaker, I will say that there is always time for talk and keeping up those communication channels, keeping them open. It may be through a different forum, but there is always an opportunity to see movement when there is dialogue. When there is no dialogue is when things break down. We want to make sure that those channels are always open.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the accession of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, to include the United Kingdom. This is not a matter of just adjusting a trade framework or fine-tuning an international treaty; this is a decision with direct impacts on the people, businesses and communities of Canada, particularly in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In supporting this agreement, I want to highlight what it truly means for my province, in particular the seafood sector, which forms the backbone of many coastal communities, the economy in those communities and our crucial identity.

Newfoundland and Labrador has long drawn its strength economically, culturally and historically from the sea. Our relationship with the ocean is not just transactional, but foundational. For generations, our fishers, processors and exporters have built a reputation of delivering world-class seafood, from crab and shrimp to halibut and beyond, harvested from the cold, clean waters of the North Atlantic. These products are not just goods on a ledger; they represent the life work of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They support families, drive small business and sustain coastal communities that rely on fishing-related activities to survive and thrive.

In 2024, Newfoundland and Labrador was Canada's third-largest fish and seafood-exporting province, with exports valued at $1.4 billion, representing 117,000 tonnes of high-quality seafood. This is why trade agreements like the CPTPP and strategic decisions like the U.K.'s accession matter so deeply to my province.

Let us talk about what the agreement does in practical, tangible terms for seafood producers and the sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under the agreement, tariffs on key seafood exports are either immediately eliminated or significantly reduced. These tariff changes are not small adjustments, but real competitive gains for our producers. They translate to lower costs, better margins and stronger competitiveness. They help our businesses grow, hire and reinvest. They ensure that our seafood products can enter high-demand markets on an equal footing with global competitors. This is critical, because over 80% of Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood production is destined for export.

Our economy depends on access to reliable, fair and open markets. This speaks directly to our government's broader commitment to expand and diversify Canada's trade footprint. The Prime Minister has made clear that our future prosperity depends on looking beyond traditional markets, and Canada must work to double our non-U.S. exports over the next decade. For our province, this means ensuring that products like crab, shrimp and halibut have a clear path to new consumers across Asia and Europe.

The CPTPP is not an abstract policy or an academic exercise. For the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a concrete, actionable opportunity to support sustainable industries, protect jobs and build long-term prosperity. In today's uncertain global environment, our exporters and fishers need more predictable trade conditions. This agreement provides that. It offers a rules-based system, with care obligations and fewer surprises when it comes to tariffs, regulations and market access. By operating under this agreement, our seafood exporters face less risk and enjoy greater certainty, allowing them to make better investment decisions, plan ahead and become more deeply integrated into a global supply chain.

This is about more than balance sheets. It is about the future and the future prosperity of coastal communities in my province: sustainability, the stability of small business owners and the well-being of workers and families whose livelihood depends on the sea.

I will turn to why the United Kingdom's accession into this agreement makes this already valuable agreement even stronger for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as for Canada. The U.K. is not a stranger to us. It is a country with which we share deep historical, cultural and economic ties. Many of our exporters already have long-standing relationships with the U.K. Formalizing the U.K.'s place in this agreement would offer us three major strategic advantages.

The first advantage is expanded market access and opportunity. With the U.K. becoming part of this agreement, businesses from the U.K. would now operate under the same high-standard trade rules as their Asia-Pacific counterparts. This means that Canadian exporters, including those in Newfoundland and Labrador, would gain dual access. On one side, we have Asia-Pacific markets, such as Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam and Australia; on the other side, we have enhanced access to a major European economy that links directly into the broader global economy. This dual market strategy increases opportunity while decreasing dependency on any single trade corridor.

The second advantage is strengthening the rules-based system. The inclusion of the U.K. boosts the prestige, credibility and reach of this agreement. When major economies commit to a high-standard agreement, it strengthens the foundation on which all member countries operate. This is especially important for my province and the seafood exporters who rely on transparent, consistent and fair trade rules, not just to compete but to flourish in a market in which sudden tariff shifts or other barriers can have impacts. With the U.K. involved, we would not just expand the agreement's scope; we would reinforce its core values of sustainability, fairness and openness.

The third major advantage is diversification of export risk. Our province is already heavily dependent on export markets, but concentration brings risk. If we rely too much on just one or two regions, any disruption can have outsized effects on our businesses and workers. The U.K.'s participation offers the enhancement of a critical pathway to spread and manage that risk. It would provide an improved channel to markets. It would reduce our vulnerability and open new doors for collaboration, investment and expansion. To put it in practical terms, for a Newfoundland crab or shrimp processor who already sells to the U.S. and Japan, with the U.K. now part of this agreement, the same business would gain another avenue to the U.K. market along with our bilateral trade continuity agreement and potentially, through the U.K., supply chains to even more markets. This is a strategic advantage, one that would strengthen our seafood industry for the long term.

This approach is exactly in line with the Prime Minister's vision for a more resilient and outward-looking Canadian economy. By pursuing new partnerships and deepening existing ones, our government is laying the groundwork for a trade future that is more secure, more sustainable and more diverse than ever before. The U.K.'s accession to this agreement would be a strategic move for the next generation of Canadian trade. It would demonstrate that Canada is serious about building resilient, high-standard and inclusive trade networks to build Canada strong.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his interpretation of the bill.

The previous speaker, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, mentioned that there is ongoing dialogue about the issue of our farmers' not being able to participate fully with their cattle and hogs, their beef and pork. He said that there had not been any concessions in allowing the U.K. to be part of the CPTPP and that there would be ongoing discussions.

Once the ink is dry, is it not too late to make a deal? Should the deal not have been made before signing it?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is ongoing discussion not only in terms of the U.K. but also in terms of Asian markets, Indonesian markets and Mexican markets. There is ongoing discussion because the Prime Minister is committed to doubling the amount of export outside the U.S. and into other areas of the globe. This is important for Canadian companies, for Canadian producers, for Canadian workers and for Canada’s economy.

I have great confidence in the Prime Minister and the ongoing dialogue with many countries around the world that will build Canada strong.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, many Liberal members have been talking about market diversification. I understand that this is essential, but right now, the forestry sector is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Without swift government action, market diversification will simply not exist because there will be no players left in the forestry industry.

I would like my colleague to talk about what his government plans to do for the forestry industry in the short term. Is he aware that this sector is going through an unprecedented situation, which could wipe out many forestry companies in the coming months or even weeks?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister, government and cabinet will be doing is building 500,000 homes across Canada, which will improve the efforts of our forestry sector and softwood lumber providers. We are building trade corridors with many other countries, which will include our softwood lumber and forestry sectors. We are working to improve Canada's economy and Canada's trade corridors so that we are less reliant on the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the importance of world trade.

We have a prime minister who made a commitment to expand beyond the American border, and we have seen an extraordinary amount of effort made by the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus to move towards this. We have heard about discussions with India, which is a quickly growing economic superpower. More recently, the Prime Minister was talking about having a potential trade agreement with the Philippines in 2026, and we are debating this today about the U.K. These are important trade opportunities that enhance Canada’s ability to grow its economy and provide jobs into the future.

I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts as to why we need to continue to push the trade file, because it is in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is important. The Prime Minister's legacy will be building a stronger economy, one of the strongest in the G7. His goal is for us to have the strongest economy in the G7.

This means becoming less reliant on the United States and building trade corridors with other countries. It means using our own materials within our country, such as building 500,000 homes for Canadians while using the materials within Canada and our own labour sources to build Canada strong.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Signal Hill.

I wish to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauce.

A Canada-U.K. trade agreement is, on the whole, a good thing. It goes without saying that the relationship between Canada and the U.K. is long in duration and extensive in nature. Our cultural ties are great, and strengthening these ties is fundamentally a good thing. We are two countries joined by a shared history and deep links. Our institutions, traditions, Parliament and legal system have all been inherited from Great Britain. We are united by our constitutional monarchy.

I will note that it was my honour to shake hands with His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen when they were here in Ottawa on the occasion of the opening of Parliament in May of this year. It was a great honour for our country.

We are united through the Commonwealth of Nations, an institution that provides common ground for positive relationships among diverse nations in different areas of the world.

I say all of this to underline the fact that Conservatives favour, in general, closer and freer trade with the United Kingdom. This is a standing position of the Conservative Party. The issue with this bill is not the concept of closer trade ties with our old friends across the pond. The issue is that, in this bill, there is nothing being returned to Canada. There is nothing for Canadian farmers, families and small, independent business people making their living on the land by feeding Canadians and people around the world.

Also, farmers have not been treated fairly by the U.K. government under the auspices of the current trade continuity agreement. Under that agreement, the TCA, the U.K. government has not been acting in good faith toward Canadian producers. It is the sad truth that British authorities have imposed non-tariff barriers on our pork and cattle exports that are neither fair nor science-based.

Conservatives have reservations about this bill precisely for these reasons. We expect that supporting the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will result in the normalization of the trade irritants that currently exist with our close friends and allies in the U.K.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The U.K. refuses to approve the carcass wash that is standard practice in Canadian slaughter plants, a measure approved by the World Health Organization and used safely around the world. The U.K. also continues to block Canadian beef and pork produced with growth promotants, again without credible scientific evidence to justify its actions. These objections have evolved over time not to protect consumers but to keep Canadian products out of the U.K. market. That is not how allies or fair traders should behave.

The story does not end at the technicalities. Canadian ranchers and producers say that this is a pattern of exclusion. According to the Canadian Cattle Association, exports of Canadian beef to the U.K. have been effectively zero over the last two years while British exports to Canada have sharply increased. Tyler Fulton, the President of the Canadian Cattle Association, said, “The U.K. has not made any effort to address the non-tariff barriers that are keeping Canadian beef out of the U.K. market”.

Let us be clear about the scale of the imbalance. According to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 16.6 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, 42.4 million dollars' worth in 2024 and 28.3 million dollars' worth in the first half of 2025. I note the increase. Meanwhile, Canada exported 85,000 dollars' worth of beef to the U.K. in 2023, 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024 and has had no beef exports in 2025. Again, according to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 5.6 million dollars' worth of pork products to Canada in 2023, 9.1 million dollars' worth of pork products in 2024 and 3.6 million dollars' worth in pork products in the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported no pork to the U.K. in 2023, 75,000 dollars' worth of pork products in 2024 and 122,000 dollars' worth in 2025 so far.

These figures illustrate one-way trade. That is not free trade or fair trade. We believe in free trade at a time when it is increasingly under attack around the world. We also believe in fair trade, which means reciprocity. It means that when one side enjoys access to our market, our producers deserve the same in return. It means standing up for our farmers, our ranchers and our rural communities, which have been unfairly harmed by the U.K.'s actions under the TCA.

What we do not have at this point in time, as the Liberal government seeks to have the House support Bill C-13, is fairness for farmers. I note that this situation exists while the Liberal government is led by a former U.K. central banker and at a time when that same former U.K. central banker has made several visits to the current U.K. Prime Minister. They certainly appear to be quite friendly. Was there really no time between the Earl Grey tea and the cucumber sandwiches for Canada's Prime Minister to speak up for Canadian farmers or beef and pork producers in this country?

I would be remiss if I did not weigh in on a concern that has already been expressed in the House today and, according to other members, for months and years without resolution under the Liberal government: the more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners living here in Canada. These are retirees who worked in the U.K. and retired in Canada. They do not receive cost of living increases to their U.K. pensions, or simple indexing, something that U.K. pensioners in other countries, such as the United States, do receive.

These pensioners have been very vocal about their unfair treatment, and they are right. I have spoken to U.K. pensioners in my riding who are facing this unfairness. It is a shame that the U.K. government has not done more to help these folks and correct this imbalance. I think the Liberal government should have tried to secure some fairness for them. If there ever was a moment to use the Prime Minister's close relationship to fight for Canadian interests, especially in a cost of living and inflation crisis, it is now. Once again, the government is asleep at the wheel.

This points to a larger concern Canadians have about the government: Nothing gets done. The trade irritants I described should have been resolved years ago, but the unfair non-tariff barriers on Canadian beef and pork remain exactly where they are. If there is anyone who thinks that it is going to be easier to resolve those trade problems under the CPTPP, they are mistaken.

This points to a larger concern that Canadians have about the government. The question is this: If the Liberal government cannot secure a fair deal with our oldest ally under the most favourable circumstances possible, how on earth can Canadians trust the Liberals to negotiate effectively with the United States? How can we expect the Liberals to deliver results on lumber, autos and steel, or to strike a fair agreement with India, a country with which they were practically at war earlier this very year? I sincerely hope I am wrong for the sake of Canadians, but what we are seeing in the agreement and the bill does not give me much confidence. These overall circumstances are not a good model for going forward.

We will hear talk from the Liberals about trade diversification. I was a foreign service officer for a number of years in some past part of my life, and I remember that, more than twenty-five years ago, under another Liberal government at the time, the slogan of the day was “trade diversification”. Nothing happened then, and I am terribly concerned that we will see the same lack of results now.

At the end of the day, this is not just about tariffs or technical trade barriers. It is about trust between allies, trust between governments and trust between Parliament and the Canadians we serve. Our farmers and ranchers did not ask for special treatment. They only ask for a level playing field, science-based standards and fair market access. They do not have that right now, and this should make every member of the House deeply concerned.

The Liberal government has failed to deliver. It has failed to secure meaningful progress for Canadian agriculture under the TCA. It has failed to stand up for U.K. pensioners, who have been waiting decades for fairness. It is now prepared to wave through Britain's accession to the CPTPP without demanding a single concession in return. That is not leadership. That is managed decline. It is weakness disguised as diplomacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member is wrong; it is as simple as that. Obviously the understanding of trade and trade opportunities, and the concept of agreements, seems to be foreign to the Conservative Party.

We have a Prime Minister who, coming out of the last federal election just six months ago, was first building internal trade within Canada, meeting with the premiers, bringing in legislation and ultimately passing legislation to build a one Canadian economy. He then reached out and went to numerous countries around the world, from his talking last week about Asia and expanding trade opportunities, to being able to bring forward the bill that we have before us today, or to the connections that he has in the European Union.

I would suggest to the member that the Prime Minister is second to no other prime minister in virtually the last number of generations, 50 or 60 years. I would compare and contrast him to the leader of the Conservative Party any day.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am terribly heartened to hear the comments of the member opposite, because clearly a single phone call will resolve the issues around the phytosanitary non-tariff trade barriers that are in place right now. I am so glad that soon the House will be able to report to Canadian beef and pork producers that the very close relationship my friend has just extolled will solve their problem with a single phone call.

It is the first time in generations that this opportunity come to us. What wonderful news that is. Perhaps the member opposite will tell us when that phone call will take place.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all morning long, I have been hearing about market diversification. We know very well that market diversification is not something that can be hastily cobbled together. It will take several years to replace part of the U.S. market.

Right now, the forestry sector is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Including the latest 10% increase threatened by Donald Trump, the forestry sector is facing 55% in countervailing duties and tariffs. No industry can survive with a deficit margin of 55%. Immediate federal government support is needed if we want the forestry sector to have any players left standing at the end of this crisis.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that diversification is a process that takes time. There is no question that the size and the immediacy of geographic access of the American market will not be readily replaced, which is why it is all the more important that we have some real leadership from the Liberal government. Promises do not put food on the table for Canadians.

We have to see some real progress. Our trade commissioner service, of which I was a part more than two decades ago, is a competent group of individuals who are there to support Canadian business in those ongoing efforts, but we have to get moving, and we have to get moving now.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Calgary Signal Hill gave a great speech, and I thank him for his great understanding of trade deals and for the work he has done for our government in his previous work.

Our Prime Minister billed himself as a world-class deal maker, but he has not brought us a world-class deal yet. He had an opportunity to get some simple concessions out of the U.K. as far as allowing our pork and beef industries to access the markets, but he failed to do it. In fact the Liberals are suggesting that the ongoing discussions will create some kind of deal, and then we will continue to talk this thing through. Well, talk is cheap, and deals are made before the ink is on the paper; that did not happen. I think our Prime Minister will go down as a global concession maker instead of a deal maker.

In light of that, does the member have any confidence that our Prime Minister will get us a favourable deal with the Americans when CUSMA is up for renewal?

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share a great concern with the member about the future of the negotiations that are going to take place between Canada and the United States. It is a difficult position to be in, and that is without question, but clearly we have to have firmness and strength; that is something all trading partners understand. Unfortunately, in waving through and taking this approach to Bill C-13, approving the U.K. accession without any reciprocal concessions or rebalancing of the trade relationship with the U.K., we would be setting a terrible precedent.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise as the member for Beauce to speak to Bill C‑13 on the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.

In essence, this bill is about trade. Trade is at the very soul of Canada and the Beauce region. We have always been and will always be a region and a country of entrepreneurs.

Common-sense Conservatives have always supported free trade. We know that when Canadian workers, farmers and producers can compete on equal terms, they can rival anyone in the world. We also know that free trade has to be fair. It is a two-way street.

Unfortunately, under this Liberal government, our trade relations have not been fair, especially for our farmers and Canadian businesses. Just look at the fiasco, the abject failure, of our current relationship with the United States.

Under the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, Canadian farmers have not been treated fairly by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom continues to impose non-tariff barriers that are not based on scientific data and that in practice have closed their market to our pork and beef.

Beauce is a farming region. Canada's finest producers of beef and pork can be found right here, on our land and our neighbours' land.

The United Kingdom has long locked these products out of its market, without the government taking any action to rectify the situation. The United Kingdom refuses to recognize the use of carcass washing solutions in Canadian abattoirs, even though this practice is approved by international scientific authorities and has been used safely for decades. The United Kingdom's tactic is to impose non-tariff trade barriers, despite the use of these solutions being approved and strictly regulated by Health Canada and by the World Organisation for Animal Health.

These objections have nothing to do with food security and have no basis in science. They are all about protectionism pure and simple. Again, these are non-tariff trade barriers designed not to protect consumers, but to keep Canadian products off British shelves. In this case, the potential pork exports being blocked by these non-tariff barriers amount to some $500 million.

The consequences for our pork and beef producers are devastating. I would like to quote some figures from the Library of Parliament. In 2003, U.K. beef exports to Canada totalled $16.6 million. This figure rose to $42 million in 2024 and reached $28 million in the first half of 2025 alone. In contrast, Canadian beef exports to the United Kingdom totalled $85,000 in 2023 and just $25,000 in 2024. So far in 2025, Canada has not exported any beef to the U.K.

It is the same story with pork. U.K. pork exports to Canada totalled $5.6 billion in 2023, $9.1 billion in 2024, and $3.6 million in the first half of 2025. In contrast, Canada did not export any pork to the U.K. in 2023. Our pork exports totalled $75,000 in 2024 and dropped to a paltry level in 2025. This is not fair trade. It is one-way trade. The Liberal government is still allowing it to happen.

The Liberal government has had 10 years to redress that imbalance, 10 years to defend our farmers and secure a real British market for our premium beef and pork, but it has not done so. There is no progress, no forceful advocacy, no tangible victory for our producers.

Meanwhile, our farmers in regions like Beauce are struggling to remain competitive. Our beef and pork producers raise the finest-quality livestock that is renowned around the world. They are proud, and they deserve a government that is equally proud to fight for them.

These sectors are a vital part of Beauce's economy. They create good jobs, support our local businesses, keep our villages alive, and put food on the table for our families. Unjust market barriers are not just numbers on a chart. Unfortunately, there are farming families, rural communities and livelihoods at stake.

Speaking of agriculture, I would like to underscore another fundamental issue: the protection of supply management. Beauce has many dairy and agricultural farms. Hard-working men and women have built their businesses thanks to the Canadian supply management system and their own tireless efforts. The system safeguards the stability, quality and security of Canada's food supply. Conservatives will continue to defend it vigorously. Making trade fair and a two-way street also means defending our supply-managed sectors and not sacrificing them for political trade-offs on the global stage.

When Canada is negotiating a trade agreement, it must ensure that our dairy, poultry and egg farmers are fully protected. Let us take the example of a supply-managed product such as cheese. At the grocery store, Canadian customers will see a wide range of European cheeses on the shelves. I challenge my colleagues to go to the U.K. and look for Canadian cheeses on supermarket shelves there. They will not find any. Our farmers are not bargaining chips.

Now, after years of inaction, the Liberal government is asking the House to approve the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, via Bill C-13. This is one of the largest multilateral trade agreements in the world. Conservatives are in favour of expanding markets for Canadian products. We recognize the value of a trade system based on clear rules. However, we cannot ignore the facts and allow the U.K. to join without getting something in return for Canadian producers. As I said, it has to be a two-way street.

This is not a negotiating strategy, it is weakness. In order for us to give our approval, the government will need to assure us that it will have the courage to stand up to the British government. If the U.K. wants to reap the benefits of Bill C‑13, then Canada must demand fair access based on science for products such as our beef and pork. We must demand reciprocity.

Given the close ties between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, this should have been a perfect opportunity to stand up for our producers. However, once again, the Liberal government has failed. It had leverage, it had opportunity, but it decided to give the U.K. the advantage without getting anything in return.

Common-sense Conservatives believe in trade that works for Canadians. We believe in trade that opens doors, not trade that ties our hands. We are in favour of expanding markets for Canadian products, but we will not give the government a free pass. We are going to scrutinize this bill carefully and call out every failure to get a win for our country, our farmers and our families.

Trade agreements have to produce concrete results for the people who feed Canadians, not just for the bureaucrats in Ottawa or the diplomats in London.

In closing, farmers in Beauce and all over rural Canada get up early in the morning to feed our families and our children. They are not asking us for special treatment. They are simply asking for fairness, transparency and a government that stands up for them. Bill C‑13 could have been an opportunity to do just that and make fair trade a reality, not a slogan.

Common-sense Conservatives will continue to support opening new markets for Canada. We will also continue to hold the government to account for its failures. Our farmers and producers deserve much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my hon. colleague, a fellow member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The member's part of the country is indeed beautiful. I must say that the Lower Laurentians are also a very beautiful part of the country.

During the debate on the original version of this agreement, the Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of it. Now we are bringing in the United Kingdom as our first new member. Does the member agree that adding a G7 partner will strengthen this trade agreement?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the Lower Laurentians is a very beautiful region. It is not quite as beautiful as Beauce, but it is great. My colleague and I serve on the same committee, and we want agreements to be signed with other countries.

I do think that is an excellent idea. However, when Canada signs an agreement, it has to be win-win. We are already working on a file with the United Kingdom, CETA, where non-tariff barriers are hurting our farmers. There are plenty of existing agreements that need to be improved before we start signing and approving agreements with other countries.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are pork producers in my riding too, and we are following their situation very closely. The riding of Shefford includes a number of supply-managed sectors. I also come from a rural area that needs additional protections. It is true that we voted on a bill in the House to ensure that supply management is fully protected.

Bill C-228, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, seeks to establish a framework for thoroughly reviewing international agreements to ensure that, in future negotiations, there are no concessions, particularly when it comes to supply management. Is it not essential for Parliament to be able to monitor the progress of these international agreements, while fully respecting the democratic process?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague from Shefford. Her riding is also located in a very beautiful region of Quebec.

Today, we are talking about accession with Bill C‑13. It is common knowledge that the Conservative Party is a strong advocate for supply management, since it is very important.

I would like to reassure my colleague. At the Standing Committee on International Trade, we are closely monitoring the negotiation of trade agreements, and we will be there to negotiate the best possible agreement for Canada, for Quebec and for regions like her riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Liberals want to pat themselves on the back. It has been four years since the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom came into force, and they did nothing with it. In fact, they walked away from those negotiations, but they seem to want the credit for the U.K. doing its work to get itself into the CPTPP.

Should we not at least get something from the United Kingdom for our support for its accession to this agreement? Does my colleague see anything in this agreement that the government has negotiated for?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his very relevant question. When something is given, something has to be received in return. That is the basis of any agreement, regardless of the field. I have been here for seven months, and I see that the government is only giving.

Take, for example, the tariffs imposed by the Americans. Their tariffs are crushing us from all sides. What do we get in return? The answer is absolutely nothing. In this agreement with the United Kingdom, what do we get in return? The answer is nothing. We need only think of the pork or cheese that we want to export.

That is an excellent question. If Canada gives something, then Canadians have to be able to get something in return.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to highlight the strategic importance of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, to illustrate why its expansion, with the United Kingdom's accession, offers a historic opportunity for Canada, for Quebec, and most importantly, for the very beautiful Lower Laurentians region which I have the honour to represent.

This agreement is not just a trade document. It is the symbol of a vision of a Canada that assumes its full responsibilities on the international stage, a Canada that diversifies its markets, a Canada that exports its skills and values, and a Canada that is building for future prosperity in collaboration with strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific region.

The economic centre of gravity is moving towards Asia. Indo-Pacific countries now account for more than half of global economic growth. More than two billion new consumers will join the region's middle class over the next decade.

That is why the CPTPP is not an option. It is a necessity. It gives Canada preferential access to these growing markets and an opportunity to bring down tariff barriers that are hindering our businesses and to take an active part in defining the rules of international trade in the 21st century.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of our Prime Minister, who is currently in Malaysia. I had the opportunity to visit Malaysia myself during a parliamentary mission in 2018. I was already a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade back then. The fact that Canada is there on the ground demonstrates our serious commitment to this strategic partnership.

One of the greatest privileges of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade is the pleasure of meeting our partners over the years, listening to their priorities and getting a first-hand look at the opportunities available to our workers and businesses.

In 2018, I took part in a diplomatic economic mission to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I visited CAE, the same company that the Prime Minister just visited. CAE is a company that Quebec and Canada can be proud of. As a world leader in flight simulation technology, it exports not only products, but also know-how, engineering and intellectual property. These are not just jobs for today, but jobs for the future. My son Simon is a commercial pilot. He trains other pilots on CAE simulators in Saint‑Hubert. I am proud of him.

During that mission, I also visited Singapore and Bangkok, Thailand. Those are vibrant, young and ambitious economic hubs. Their growth is meteoric. One thing I have found in many of these Commonwealth countries is that we are not talking about ambassadors; we are talking about high commissioners. The difference is symbolic. In the Commonwealth, we are not mere partners; we are members of the same family of nations. When I was there, a number of those high commissioners were women. That is a testament to the growing presence of women's leadership in international diplomacy, a crucial element that our government actively supports.

Let us talk specifically about what this agreement means for my region and for Quebec. Quebec's aerospace sector accounts for more than 43,000 direct jobs and more than $20 billion in exports. Companies like Bombardier, Airbus and CAE are world leaders. Thanks to this agreement, they now have preferential access to fast-growing markets, without tariffs and with clear and stable rules.

In the Lower Laurentians, our manufacturing SMEs, our engineers, our skilled workers and our technology companies are turning more and more to exports. The United Kingdom's entry into the CPTPP strengthens those value chains. The United Kingdom is a natural partner for Canada, connected by history, by the Commonwealth and now by this trans-Pacific economic alliance.

This agreement enables us to diversify our markets beyond the United States and open doors for our businesses in agri-food, clean technology, engineering, digital technology and intellectual property—all areas where Quebec excels.

When we export software, an aircraft or a flight simulator, we are not exporting a simple product. We are exporting our knowledge, innovation and creativity.

Every time a company signs a contract in the Indo-Pacific, quality jobs are created and retained here at home in our communities, including in the Lower Laurentians.

If I speak with such conviction, it is because the benefits of the CPTPP directly affect the people, businesses and workers of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, the riding I have the honour of representing. Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles is an innovative and industrial riding that is expanding. It is home to high-tech companies, high-performance small and medium-sized manufacturers, and strategic suppliers in the aerospace, smart mobility, clean energy and advanced engineering sectors. These are businesses that create value, intellectual property and skilled jobs every day for families in the region.

The CPTPP eliminated 99% of tariffs, which makes it easier for these businesses to export to strategic markets like Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and now the United Kingdom. In practical terms, this means that there are fewer barriers, more opportunities and stronger supply chains.

These are not just abstract figures. These are local, well-paying jobs in emerging industries. In Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, we export not only products but also know-how, engineering and patents. The CPTPP transforms that potential into real opportunities for our people.

The region benefits from spin-offs from the aerospace sector, which represents more than $22 billion in annual sales and 43,000 direct jobs, including at facilities operated by Airbus, Bombardier and CAE, which work with suppliers located in the Lower Laurentians.

When Canada signs an international trade agreement like the CPTPP, companies located in Rosemère, Saint‑Eustache, Deux‑Montagnes and Boisbriand, in my riding, benefit down the line. Our workers get contracts. Our young people find career opportunities here at home, without having to leave their region.

This agreement positions Rivière-des-Mille-Îles not on the sidelines of the global economy, but at the centre of an international network of innovation and trade that is clearing a path toward new investment, sustainable growth and the creation of high-quality jobs for families in our community.

To fully understand the strategic importance of this agreement, it is essential to look at the numbers. Today, the CPTPP represents an economic bloc of 580 million consumers, which is bigger than the European Union. All the member countries combined generate nearly 15% of global GDP, which puts Canada at the table with some of the world's most dynamic economies. Since it came into force, 99% of tariffs are expected to be eliminated.

I will share some figures. We are talking about 15% of global GDP, 580 million consumers, 99% of tariffs eliminated, $18 billion in Quebec aerospace exports and hundreds of thousands of jobs supported across the country.

These are more than just statistics. They represent jobs for the middle class, investments in our regions, contracts for our SMEs and tangible benefits for families in the Lower Laurentians region and for the entire Quebec economy.

To wrap up, the CPTPP is more than a trade agreement. It is a strategy for long-term prosperity. It is the response of a confident, innovative and outward-looking Canada to the economic and geopolitical challenges of the 21st century. With this agreement, we are finding new markets, strengthening our supply chains, creating high-quality jobs and exporting our most precious resources: our knowledge, our technology and our vision.

I am proud that Canada is showing leadership. I am proud that Quebec is playing a leadership role. I am especially proud that the Lower Laurentians region will be able to benefit from this outward-looking approach.

Canada's economic future depends on the Indo-Pacific, on innovation and on collaboration with our Commonwealth partners. This agreement puts us exactly where we need to be: at the table where the future of global trade is being decided.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know my colleague's perspective on what Canada should expect to receive by letting the U.K. in on this trade deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that we can bring the U.K. into this agreement. We are going to have Europe, the Americas and the Indo-Pacific. We will have trade corridors that we will leverage for our local businesses, which are based in Quebec, but also across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jonquière introduced in the House Bill C-228 to ensure that all treaties are systematically tabled before the House of Commons, so that they can be debated and amended. This bill also includes a provision requiring a 21-day waiting period after a treaty is tabled before any action can be taken toward its ratification.

In relation to what we are discussing right now, the government has not complied with the 21-day deadline. The Liberals said that we do not need legislation because their policy already covers that. If we do not need legislation, then why are the Liberals not complying with their policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois promised to promote the diversification of our economy. I have no doubt that my Bloc colleagues understand that we are in a tough spot right now with what is happening south of the border. It is essential that we expand our markets and provide other opportunities.

Without getting too specific, we have committed to doubling our exports to countries other than the United States. We need to give our businesses the tools they need to fully harness everything that is available in terms of free trade agreements. I feel that the Bloc Québécois could ensure, in the meantime, that we are moving forward, that we can move on to something else and that we can open up even bigger markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to amplify given the importance of trade is that Canada's trade in the world environment makes up about 2.5% of overall trade, yet the population base in Canada is 0.5% of the world's. To me, that speaks volumes to the importance of the trade issue to Canadians. It means jobs. It means the Canadian lifestyle. We have a Prime Minister who is out and about securing trade opportunities and enhancing them for Canada to grow.

I wonder if the member can reflect on the last election and the commitment made by the Prime Minister to do exactly what we are doing today and have been working on for the last number of months.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to be working with my colleague. He raises a very important point. Our population is pretty small, but we have such a big country and so much to offer that we need to find new markets and diversify. Opening up the trans-Pacific partnership to Great Britain means opening up new markets. We also have a free trade agreement with Europe, and with the Mercosur nations. We need to identify the opportunities afforded by these agreements and export.

Looking at the country as a whole, yes, we have cattle we can export. If we are talking about the Maritimes, we export seafood to Japan. We export to Asia, but that is not all. We also have canola. We need to make sure that we find new markets for what we currently have. Aerospace is a huge industry in the Lower Laurentians. These are high-quality jobs that have a huge economic impact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills North.

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wondered if the member could talk about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

We could have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no, they could not have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marilyn Gladu]

Beef.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. It is gold. It does not surprise me that she is wrong.

Where does that gold come from? Here is a news flash for the Conservatives: It is not from the Canadian gold reserves. Harper took care of that by selling off a lot of it. By the time we got to 2016, it was all gone. However, if we look at it, gold is number one. That is what we export more of to the U.K. than any other commodity. Where does that gold come from? It comes from virtually every region of the country.

[An hon. member]

The ground.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Very swift. It comes from the ground. The member is right.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, virtually all provinces are delivering the gold that is being exported. It creates hundreds of well-paying jobs. That is the gold that is being exported.

What does a trade agreement actually do? It is one of the ways we can secure our markets for small and large companies alike. It enhances a relationship between nations. It provides the security that often is required in order for us to have the types of exports we have. That is why it is critically important that we do the things we have been doing over the last number of months.

Let us have a flashback to the last election. During the election, Canadians were generally concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade with the United States. There is no doubt about that. The Prime Minister took an elbows-up approach at dealing with international trade, including trade between Canada and the United States, but that does not mean we put our elbows down in order to accommodate Conservatives and negotiate an agreement just so we can say we have an agreement; it means we stand up for Canadian interests. If that means we wait, then we wait. We get the best deal we can for Canadians.

What did we do after the election? I will remind members that we passed legislation that enabled more trade within Canadian borders. It is no surprise that the leader of the Conservative Party was not an MP at that time. That helped out a great deal, no doubt. We passed substantial legislation that enabled the Government of Canada to work with the different provinces to say that we need to build one Canadian economy from which all Canadians would benefit.

That was then followed by major projects. A Conservative member questioned ports. Montreal, which is part of Canada, has one of the major projects, and it deals with the port. At the end of the day, that means jobs and opportunities, not only for Montreal but for the entire nation.

We have a Prime Minister who meets with the provinces and passes legislation, and he is now out and about, working, getting agreements and talking with international leaders. That is a positive thing. We should be encouraging that.

I look at it in this sense: When I think of world trade around the globe, Canada contributes about 2.5% of the trade that takes place, yet as a country we make up 0.5% of the population of the world. To me, that speaks volumes. That talks about Canadian values. It talks about Canadian workers. It talks about the resources that Canada has, and if we are able to manage those resources in a sustainable way, every Canadian in every region and every community in Canada would benefit.

I would suggest that what we should be striving to achieve is to maintain that percentage. In a global economy, with more and more industrialization taking place and the advancement of economies throughout the world, it is going to be tough to maintain that sort of a world trade record. However, I would suggest that Canada is in a better position than any other country in the world to do so. That is because today we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible background.

I contrast the background of the current Prime Minister with that of the leader of the Conservative Party. Canadians did. I remember that the major issue in the last election was trade and tariffs. That was a big concern that Canadians had. I look at the contrast. We have the current Prime Minister, who was a Stephen Harper appointment as then governor of the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister is a former governor of the Bank of England. We have an economist who has been in the private sector, someone who is well established and recognized in communities that go far beyond the continent of America. He is well established. We all saw how well received he was when he made trips to Europe, to some of the key trading partners that are essential to Canada's continual growth.

I contrast that with the leader of the Conservative Party, the individual who called our RCMP institution “despicable”. He is an individual who constantly talks down Canada's economy, a leader who believes that things like our national school food program, which supports food for children, are garbage. He has not worked in the private sector; he has been a career politician. I do not have anything against career politicians. I have been in politics for a good number of years myself, but we are contrasting the current Prime Minister with the leader of the official opposition.

I believe that if we look at the credentials, it is easy to understand why, with our Prime Minister, we have been very successful at talking to world leaders in hopes of expanding trade opportunities.

I will use last week as an example. Last week the Prime Minister was in Asia. He had a discussion with President Marcos of the Philippines, and out of that discussion we learned that we want to pursue a formal trade agreement with the Philippines. That is an important statement made by the Prime Minister with respect to two great nations.

Over one million people of Filipino heritage call Canada home. We talk about diversity; it is our diversity that complements our ability to enhance trade opportunities.

I am going to give an example of that. I have had the good fortune and support of enhancing trade relations between Canada and the Philippines, visiting the Philippines three times over the last 18 months. We have opened up agri-food trade offices. We have had all sorts of discussions and meetings to go over a few of those, so that people could understand. Unlike the impression the Bloc likes to give, there is a lot of work that goes into trade agreements. It is very important that we give our best shot at getting them across the line.

I want to pick up on the example of the Philippines. In the Philippines, when I was there just last August, there was a huge food fair by the Mall of Asia. Thousands of people participated. Prominently featured were Alberta beef and Manitoba pork, two products that have so much potential in the Philippines. The Minister of Agriculture was a special guest of a restaurant chain that is actually using Alberta beef. We sat and talked to Canadian stakeholders about opportunities for pork in the Philippines. One of the more touching moments was seeing how Prince Edward Island seed potatoes were actually being used by potato farmers in the Philippines in order to increase production.

We are building a very strong and healthy relationship. I had the opportunity to meet with nuclear industry representatives. They were talking about a potential relationship between the Philippines and Canada, in terms of Ontario and what it has to offer in regard to nuclear energy, as well as the experience that Ontario and potentially Manitoba have to offer on that. We have Canada and the Philippines dealing with the issue of defence. We hope to see the Minister of National Defence continue to have more and more dialogue on that.

Taking it all cumulatively, we now have the Prime Minister involved with a number of world leaders. He had a discussion with President Marcos. From that discussion, we are setting a target so that we can work and hopefully try to achieve an agreement with the Philippines in 2026.

We have the Minister of Foreign Affairs in India, looking at ways to enhance trade opportunities with India. We can talk to the people of Saskatchewan about how Saskatchewan benefits from agricultural exports to India and the potential that is there. Whether it is the Prime Minister or other ministers, such as the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of International Trade, they are out there because we made a commitment to Canadians. We indicated to Canadians back in April that as a government, we are going to be aggressive and progressive in looking outside Canada's borders for trade opportunities that go beyond the United States.

Trade with the United States will continue. We will continue to look at ways in which we can enhance it. We will continue to strive to get a good deal with the United States that is in the best interests of Canadians. However, at the end of the day, we made a commitment to expand in trade beyond the United States. That is exactly what the Prime Minister, the government and every Liberal member of our caucus is committed to doing: looking for opportunities for small businesses and large businesses alike, in terms of trading opportunities, because we understand and know that trade means jobs for Canadians.

We believe that a strong, healthy middle class is the best way to build a strong Canada. Colleagues will find that on this side of the House, every member will vote in favour of Bill C-13. We know it is the right thing to do for all Canadians.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the only opportunity that our hon. colleague across the way is looking for is to gaslight this side of the House and gaslight Conservatives. He again brings up comments that were made by our leader when, in fact, he himself is on record as calling our national police force racist. Our current Minister of Public Safety commented, “We've seen a continuous issue of racism that's permeated within the RCMP”.

They can call the RCMP racist, but when somebody calls into question the leadership, this guy, our hon. colleague, takes offence to it. Those questions are not being asked by only frontline officers and the frontline personnel in the RCMP. Why is it, with the Liberals, that it is always “rules for thee and not for me”?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, true to form, the member tries to give misinformation. I have never called the RCMP racist. There was systemic racism that had taken place, which the RCMP itself has acknowledged, right from the very top to the bottom. That is maybe where the member is misquoting me. I have never said that. I love the RCMP and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member knows full well that he cannot use props in the House of Commons.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us that no one could have done better than the Prime Minister in the negotiations with the United States. At the moment, there is absolutely nothing on the table.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he was better than sliced bread and that he would solve all these problems once he took office. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is still talking about elbows up, which means nothing in French. To a francophone, elbows up means drinking to forget.

To me, the forestry sector tariffs are a message from the government telling us to drink up and forget because it cannot do a darn thing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-13, the agreement we are talking about today, we can ask the question, what is the number one export from Canada to the U.K.? We see that it is gold. The two provinces that would get the greatest benefits from that gold export are the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. That makes up probably about 70%, which is literally billions and billions of dollars every year.

I believe that this is a good, sound agreement in principle. I am anticipating that, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, they will likely still vote for it. I know the Bloc members are going to vote for it. I see that as a good thing. In terms of the U.S., we are working on it, and we will get the best deal for Canadians.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since day one, our new government has been laser-focused on defending and diversifying Canadian trade. We have signed new agreements with countries like Ecuador and Indonesia. We have an ongoing dialogue with many of our international partners.

I would like to ask my colleague why this work is important for strengthening the Canadian economy. I would like him to tell me how this will benefit Canadian businesses, including those in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and those in Winnipeg North, the riding he represents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that excellent question. We all need to recognize the true value of enhancing Canada's trading opportunities. It ultimately means more jobs, and more good jobs, for Canadians in all regions of our country.

That means a great deal to the Liberal caucus. It means a great deal to the Prime Minister. That is the reason we have such a proactive Prime Minister, who is going around the world in order to secure more opportunities for trade. Whether for small businesses or big businesses, trade will ultimately provide more opportunities for Canadians in all regions of our country, and that is a good thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know I have been here for only a short time, but I have already discovered that the member opposite has a very fragile disposition. Perhaps that is why he suggested that when the government signs an agreement, we should not criticize it or ask any questions about it. He suggested that the only options were that we accept it or, if we did not accept it, that we were somehow capitulating to the other side.

I will suggest a third option, which is to negotiate a better deal. The Liberals could have done that had they not walked away from negotiations with the United Kingdom. Why did you walk away?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The member knows to address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, being in the fragile state that I am, I can tell the member opposite that one had to be here to really appreciate how the Conservatives jumped ship and capitulated on the first round of negotiations with Donald Trump.

Back then, we indicated that we were going to strive to get the best deal. I can assure the member opposite that we have a prime minister today who is committed to getting the best deal for Canadians when it comes to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. That is our first priority. If it takes a bit of time to get that deal, we are going to put in the time, effort and resources, because we understand how important that deal is for all Canadians. We will work on the Liberal agenda of getting it done because the Conservatives demonstrated, in the last period of time, that they just do not have it within them. They would capitulate. They have shown that in the past.