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.

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion 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.

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

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-13.

Before I commence my comments on this very important bill, I want to advise the House that I will be dividing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

We have earnestly been discussing in this House, at an unprecedented time in our history and since perhaps the end of the Second World War, a tremendous rise in protectionism when it comes to the international trading order. We have spent the last 80 years or 85 years, since the end of the Second World War, creating a system that has championed free trade among countries, especially countries that are like-minded and democratic, to ensure that we have fewer barriers between the countries and that our goods and services can move more freely.

Many would argue it is not free trade per se, but that it is more liberalized trade or trade that is based on rules, in other words a rules-based trading system. However it is categorized is an appropriate categorization, because, from an economic principles perspective, it has allowed countries to really be able to leverage their competitive advantage.

Countries that are good at producing one thing can produce more of those goods or services and then exchange them with another country that may have a natural advantage in some other goods or services. This has allowed us all to collectively grow our economies and specialize in things that are good for us and help to create strong economies and good-paying jobs.

These free trade arrangements have also allowed us to put in rules, so we are not just dealing in isolation. We have rules in place around how to trade and to bring tariffs down so it is easier to export and import things, so they are cheaper for consumers. Having these free trade agreements has allowed for a dispute resolution mechanism in cases of dispute. This takes away what would have happened in previous times, when countries would engage in wars to resolve those disputes. We now have dispute settlement bodies that can do so as a matter of legal recourse based on these treaties.

However, what we have seen for the last couple of years, which has unfortunately been led by the United States, is a trend toward protectionism again. We have seen a trend toward imposing tariffs that has been causing tremendous hardship, as we are seeing from our experience here in Canada with Canadian workers and industries. This is not only counterproductive but also really bad for our economy and the economies we trade with, like that of the United States.

This is why we have a really important choice before us: whether we also enact protectionist policies and emulate what we see being done by the United States with imposed tariffs and the closing down of borders, or whether we pursue further liberalization with other like-minded countries and pursue other markets that are also quite keen to do business with Canadian companies and businesses, so we can create good-paying jobs for our workers right here in Canada.

I am of the view that we need to focus on the latter. What we need to do is continue on the path of further liberalization, of engaging and entering into agreements with other countries, so we can reduce barriers, reduce tariffs and allow for more Canadian businesses to do business, whether it is selling our goods or services or attracting investment to Canada so we can help support them. That should be our focus.

I really do feel we need to double, triple and quadruple down on that side of the equation, while also working with the United States to make them realize that the agreements we have had with them for a long, long time have been really good for our collective economies. First, there was the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, then NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and then, subsequently, CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

In fact, 85% or so of our goods that get exported to the United States are still covered under CUSMA and are tariff-free, but of course, we need to continue to make sure those affected industries like automotive, lumber, and steel and aluminum are part of that free trade regime as well.

At the same time, this has been a really important moment of reckoning for Canada to really realize that we need to diversify our trade, that we need to look at other parts of this world to do more business. We cannot just be relying on the United States as our only or biggest market, as we have done up to this point, because, as we have seen, it could have a very serious impact on our businesses and on the respective communities that we all represent in the House.

That is why our government has really set a target of doubling our non-U.S. exports over the next decade. This means doubling it to about $300 billion in other parts of the world, which, of course, requires a lot of hard work. It requires that we engage with other countries that are growing, where the businesses are growing and the middle class is growing, and create opportunities for our businesses to be able to do work there.

This is why this bill is a very important step, because it is putting in place the accession protocol for the United Kingdom to become part of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, also known as CPTPP. This agreement, which Canada is part of as a founding member, has 11 countries that are part of it. By growing that agreement through including the United Kingdom, we are again creating more opportunities for our businesses to take advantage of this comprehensive trading relationship and have preferential access to a market like the United Kingdom.

As we know, the United Kingdom is really important to Canada in many respects, not only from a historical perspective but also for our businesses to have that very important access to that market. If we couple that with our agreement with the European Union, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, this gives a tremendous opportunity for Canadian businesses to do business and sell things into such markets. This is why I really feel strongly that this bill is an important bill to pass, so that the United Kingdom can become part of the CPTPP.

However, our work is not stopping there. This is why we are negotiating with ASEAN countries and hope to complete that negotiation by next year. I was in Malaysia on behalf of the government, working with ASEAN countries to ensure that we can finish that agreement by early 2026. This is why we have resumed our conversations with Mercosur countries as well, which is extremely important. We have also launched trade negotiations with Thailand, the Philippines and India, so that we can open those markets as well. Most recently, we finished negotiations with countries like Indonesia and Ecuador.

We are doing a tremendous amount of work so that we can diversify our trade and create more opportunities for Canadian businesses to do business in other parts of the world. I think it is good for our economy. It is going to pay huge dividends, and this bill, Bill C-13, is a very important step in that direction. That is why I urge all members to support it. If the United Kingdom can be part of CPTPP, this will allow Canadian businesses to do more business in the United Kingdom and other member states.

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

Madam Speaker, while a deal with the U.K. is certainly better than no deal at all, we have been put in this position because the Liberals, frankly, failed to maintain a better deal that we already had, which was the CETA agreement, the agreement that the Harper government negotiated with the European Union and that we had been trying to maintain with the United Kingdom. CETA is a much more liberalizing deal. It provides more market access for Canadian goods and services. It provides more labour protections for workers in Canada and the EU, and would have done so with the United Kingdom.

Why could we not keep the better deal we already had?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve with the member on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I think the member is quite aware that there were quite a few complications when it comes to CETA being extended to the United Kingdom, with Brexit and all the politics around that. He is right that CETA is a very good agreement, and I am glad the Canadian government has engaged in CETA. Unfortunately, it is still not ratified by all member states. I believe Ireland most recently recognized it, and we are working really hard to make sure that the remaining nine countries of the European Union also ratify CETA so that it is fully implemented.

This bill is a very good step toward making sure the U.K. accedes to CPTPP, because it is going to create tremendous benefits for Canadian business.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. Regardless of the substance, we have already said that we are in favour of this agreement, despite certain details that we can examine together in committee. I hope that he will vote with me against some of the more contentious aspects. However, that said, we are in favour of the agreement itself.

What does he think about the fact that the government has not complied with its own policy on the minimum number of days between the announcement of an agreement and the moment it is presented in the form of a bill before this Parliament?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill. As I said, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to the British Prime Minister that we will be moving forward with their accession to this agreement. We feel strongly that it is in the best interest of all Canadian businesses, whether they are based in Quebec or other parts of the country, that this bill be passed and that the United Kingdom, from the Canadian perspective, accede to and become part of the CPTPP. That is why we are moving forward with this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the Prime Minister's talk during the election about expanding trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border.

This is a substantive piece of legislation that speaks to that point. It is so critically important that when we talk about putting Canada first, building Canada strong and making Canada the strongest country in the G7, it means that we need to double our exports in the coming years. It is such a critical thing for all of us.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the bigger picture of the issue.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point: Just talking about it is not going to make it happen.

Since the election, look at the amount of work we have done. We have moved ahead with the accession of the U.K. into the CPTPP, finalized the negotiations with Indonesia and Ecuador, resumed our negotiations with the countries of ASEAN and Mercosur, started negotiations with Thailand, the Philippines and India, and made an arrangement with the United Arab Emirates in terms of having an investment protection protocol. There are a few more.

All this work is happening in tandem, so that we can really put into effect the trade diversification strategy that is so needed as we lessen our reliance on the United States and give more opportunities to Canadian businesses to create good-paying jobs for Canadians right here at home.

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

Madam Speaker, we see how these trade deals have played out, and we want to make sure we have trade deals that support workers. We see right now big oil, big banks and big grocery posting record profits while people get squeezed at the till and at the pump when they try to cover their costs.

The Brits charge an excess profit on the runaway greed of oil and gas companies. Will the Liberal government finally tackle the runaway corporate greed and create an excess profit tax, like Britain did?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, most of our treaty agreements support and benefit small and medium-sized companies. If we look at the Trade Commissioner Service, 75% of the businesses it supports are SMEs.

These agreements help businesses in our communities and create good-paying jobs locally.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, which is for the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. CPTPP is the initialism we use, and it is a relatively straightforward bill. The CPTPP has 11 original countries. Canada is a founding member of the trans-Pacific partnership, alongside countries like Australia, Chile, Mexico, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Peru, and the United Kingdom would be the first non-foundational member to join the CPTPP.

I think it is important for the House, obviously, to talk about the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom and the relationships we are seeking to forge with deeper ties in the Indo-Pacific and with growing economies where we would have the ability to export the products that the world needs in either goods or services. It should be incumbent on all members of Parliament in the House to, yes, scrutinize the legislation that is before us, but also to not take undue time and slow this bill down, because ultimately, when we think about the allies and partnerships that we have, one of the most mature relationships we have is with the United Kingdom.

I want to use my time today to talk about a bit of the background on the CPTPP and about some of the trade-related opportunities and issues between Canada and the United Kingdom, but then also give a bit of a local perspective as the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants. I also want to talk about the issues and opportunities that I think both governments, whether in London or here in Ottawa, can use to continue to forge that very great partnership that has existed with our mother Parliament and ultimately with our constitutional monarchy through the United Kingdom.

One in five jobs in Canada depends on free trade. This means that the free trade and our partnerships around the world are absolutely critical. That is why the Prime Minister is working so actively with our ministers to forge strong, meaningful relationships globally and to make sure that people in other countries wake up in the morning thinking of Canada.

It is easy to think that people maybe wake up in the morning and think about Canada. We should be very proud. As a G7 country, we have what the world wants. We have contributed on the global stage, but the world is a big place. The work the government is doing ensures that countries are increasingly thinking about Canada as a reliable trade partner. That is the work that is happening.

Our goal is to double our exports outside the U.S. market. Of course, the U.S. market is vital to our economy, as 75% of our goods and services are exported to the United States. Nevertheless, we need to build economic resilience. We must therefore find other international markets to strengthen the resilience of our manufacturing sector and our economy as a whole.

The United Kingdom is out third-largest trading partner, and the government has been focused on the ways we can continue to increase and deepen that trade. I heard a question from the opposition benches in the first round of debate that suggested that Canada does not have an existing bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom. I am here to assure and to reassure that opposition member that we do have an existing agreement on the bilateral that is an extension of the United Kingdom's leaving the European Union. I think that is important to recognize, and that member will have a great opportunity to be able to ask questions. If he thinks he is so smart in the House, he can ask those questions. I look forward to it.

Of Canada-U.K. trade, 99% is tariff-free. There are small irritants that exist, but I do think they are important. I represent a rural riding, an agricultural riding. I had the opportunity to talk to His Excellency High Commissioner Rob Tinline, who is the United Kingdom's high commissioner to Canada, about some of the market access issues that we have around beef products.

There are two issues that relate to the exportation of beef from Canada to the United Kingdom. This is an issue with the European Union. I know our government benches are working on engaging on this to be able to find a solution forward. The first issue is hormones in beef. There is an industry standard in North America. Objectively, I think that may be the harder one to overcome. The second one is around carcass wash. There is a North American standard with respect to rinsing or carcass washing. There is no good reason, by the way, that the United Kingdom or the European Union should not be welcoming and trying to bring top Canadian beef to those markets.

We have opened up and had opportunities for British beef in Canada. We certainly support our friends and farmers across the way. They should equally be opening up those markets. I know the Prime Minister had the opportunity to talk to Prime Minister Starmer about that. It may seem small, but it is important in this context. We should look at the broader relationship, but these are some of the irritants that we believe need to be removed to be able to move forward.

For me, this is personal. I am wearing today an Annapolis Valley tartan tie. My family's ties run through the United Kingdom. The first Blois to come to North America was Abraham. He served with the 84th Highlander regiment. Sarah was his wife. They settled after the war. They had a land grant in the Kennetcook valley. Blois is not that common a name here in Canada, but most of the Bloises we find originate out of the Maritimes, from the beautiful small community of Gore, Nova Scotia. My wife is a British dual citizen and a Canadian citizen at the same time. She has family in Scotland.

When I think about the ways we can continue beyond the trading relationship and deepen the people-to-people ties that already exist, I see some opportunity in the days ahead for the two governments to look at labour mobility. We have skilled workforces on both sides of the pond. If there are British workers who want to come and serve Canadian companies, we should be finding pathways to do that more easily through our immigration programs. Likewise, there are many Canadians who have ties to the United Kingdom who may be able to contribute for a short period of time or may want to spend some time there. How can we look at more labour mobility? I think there is merit in that. There is certainly merit in looking at financial regulations and professional services.

Of course, we speak two official languages here in Canada.

English-speaking Canadians enjoy particularly easy access to the U.K. labour market. It is straightforward to practise law, accounting and other similar professions there.

There are a lot of similarities with respect to regulation and harmonization of professions. We can do more on this.

The next one is around regulatory harmonization. When I was briefly the minister of agriculture in the Prime Minister's first cabinet, one of the things we thought about, and I know the current Minister of Agriculture shares this view, was being able to work with other trusted jurisdictions. When we think of the United Kingdom, when we think about its regulatory processes, notwithstanding what I said on beef, where we are perhaps not pleased about the carcass wash, we know there is a scientific rigour to the way in which it undertakes its regulatory processes and its approvals. If, for example, there is a sheep vaccine approved in the United Kingdom, I am confident it should be readily available for Canadian sheep farmers.

We have a lot of work we can do on those types of regulatory pieces around crop protection products, vaccines for animals, animal feeds and tools for our farmers. That is one area I think we can deepen. It does not have to be and of course it is not contained in Bill C-13, but when we think about deepening that partnership, those are some areas I would like to see.

Another is research between agencies like Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the CFIA and others. We can do a lot of that. I know there are existing partnerships, but they can be built upon, particularly in the circumstances we find ourselves in.

With respect to tourism, a lot of us think about the United Kingdom. I think we have to make sure that the Brits are thinking about Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada.

The last piece I am going to say is a quick stat for members. At the end of World War II, every single apple that was sold in London came from the Annapolis Valley. It is a source of pride. We think there is more opportunity, whether with respect to wood pellets, apples or agriculture, to get goods into the United Kingdom.

I see that I am at the end of my time. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for really connecting his speech to his riding.

I want to ask the hon. member about the country of origin quotas, which expired 18 months ago. I am going to provide him with the example of Canada Goose, which I believe he is familiar with. It is a Canadian company that generated $75 million of revenue in the U.K., but paid $10 million in duties last year, with that figure projected to climb to $15 million in duties this year, which, of course, is a significant burden for that business.

It did not have to be that way, and I am wondering what the hon. member is going to do about it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not too proud to stand in the House and say that I was not aware of that particular circumstance. The member, obviously, is well steeped in that particular issue as it relates to Canada Goose, which is what I heard was the company.

As I mentioned in my speech, 99% of the trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is tariff-free, and it comes down to destination originators and trademarking. If the hon. member would like to see me after this and have a conversation, I am happy to make sure that gets to the Minister of International Trade and the appropriate authorities so we can look into this issue to see what we can do to help support that great Canadian company.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question that was just posed. Canada Goose is located in Winnipeg North. It has a very substantial footprint and employs hundreds of individuals. I can assure my colleague and the member who asked the question that this is something the government takes very seriously as we try to resolve all sorts of outstanding issues that prevent the exports of fine, wonderful, world-class Canadian-made products.

When we look at the importance of the trade file in general and of sending a very positive message, as a collective House, by saying this is legislation that we should be advancing, there really is no justification for sitting on it indefinitely. This is not the first time we have debated the legislation.

I am wondering if the member would concur that passing substantive legislation of this nature sends a positive message to the people we are trading with. It shows Canada's willingness to not only secure trade agreements but also to enact them where we can.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree in the sense that, as I mentioned, the United Kingdom is one of our closest friends and allies. This is an important signal. We do not want to be talking about this bill deep into 2026. The House of Commons should debate this, get it to committee and, ultimately, to the Senate as soon as possible.

Let me use this opportunity to also say that this is not the only piece of legislation before the House. We have significant criminal reform legislation, a multitude of different bills that matter to individuals in our community and matter for public safety. I have to assume, because I hear questions from the other side, that we need to do something to tackle violence in our communities with criminal reform. We need to move all of that legislation before Christmas. There is no good reason why we cannot get that bill to committee and get it back.

I would invite my Conservative colleagues and all opposition members, and not only for Bill C-13, to clear the deck before Christmas and show Canadians we are getting work done.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for. I like his choice in ties. We have a heritage commonality, which brings up the fact that we are discussing trade with the U.K.

I know one of the member's previous files, which he holds near and dear and close to his heart, is agriculture. I would like to hear his thoughts on the imbalance of trade between Canada and the U.K. with regard to the exports of beef and pork. We are hearing there was $30 million in imports in the first half of this year, and last year Canadians were allowed to export only $25,000. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I will return the compliment to the member on his beautiful vest. We like the tartans. I know he has heritage in the United Kingdom as well.

I touched a bit in my speech on the imbalance on beef trade. The hon. member is right. I should have included pork as part of that. This is something the government needs to continue to focus on. I do think Parliament needs to ultimately move forward with the accession legislation for the United Kingdom to help support a friend and ally, but we need to continue to push the United Kingdom on access. There are significant beef and pork exports coming this way. We have not been able to realize the benefits of the trade the other way. Yes, there are lots of good things to highlight and we should not get stuck on singular issues like this, but as it matters to beef farmers in this country, whether in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan or across this beautiful country, we need to keep fighting for that.

I know the Minister of Agriculture has been engaged on that. I have had personal conversations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know she is going to be raising it as well, as has the Prime Minister. We need to stay on that.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Bow River.

I rise today to speak to 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. It may be a technical bill filled with tariff schedules, statutory amendments and trade protocols, but it represents something deeply important: the partnerships we build between nations.

Conservatives have always believed in free and fair trade. We know that open markets, clear rules and reliable partners drive prosperity. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP would strengthen that rules-based framework and deepen our trade with a close ally that shares our democratic values, our legal traditions and our belief in opportunity through enterprise, so yes, there is some good to be found in the bill.

However, support does not mean silence, because while the agreement is long overdue, Liberal trade policy is riddled with big announcements, poor follow-through and a willingness to please foreign governments while leaving Canadian citizens and businesses behind. Many of my colleagues have spoken more directly to these Liberal failures, but today I want to focus on an issue that affects more than 2,800 people in my riding and thousands more people across Canada, which is the frozen pensions of British Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Can we allow the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith to make her speech, with respect?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Order. There will be no heckling, period.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that some of my colleagues will speak more directly about the Liberal failures and the problems with the bill, but I want to focus today on an issue affecting more than 2,800 people in my riding and thousands more people across Canada, which is the frozen pensions of British Canadians.

For 75 years, the U.K. has refused to provide annual increases to the state pensions of British retirees living in Canada. More than 105,000 pensioners already face this injustice, with hundreds of thousands more Canadians aging into it. They paid into the U.K. national insurance system their entire lives. They earned their pensions.

However, because they moved to Canada, a Commonwealth ally, their pensions are frozen at the amount first received, in some cases decades ago. If they had moved to the United States, to Israel or to the Philippines, they would receive their annual increases. About 60% of British pensioners living overseas get their annual increases, but 40% do not. It is a lottery that is based not on contribution or need but on geography, and Canadians are inexplicably on the losing end of this.

The U.K.'s Department for Work and Pensions admits that fixing the problem for British retirees in Canada would cost only about 13 million British pounds, which is about $24 million, of a total U.K. pension budget of 146 billion pounds. Therefore this is not a question of cost; it is a question of will.

I have met pensioners in their seventies, eighties and nineties surviving on payments at levels set in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Canada honours its obligations to our pensioners living in the U.K. by indexing their pensions. The upshot is that Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing a moral failure by one of our oldest allies.

The world has changed, our trade has certainly changed and our lives have changed; however, this unfair policy remains. The U.K. remains the only OECD country that pays pensioners differently based on where they live. It is an outdated, discriminatory relic from another era.

Successive MPs from my community have raised this issue over the last decade. The House has passed motions. Past Canadian governments have asked the U.K. to reopen discussions on this issue. The U.K.'s pensions minister has said no every time, which seems to be a pattern in Liberal trade negotiations.

Meanwhile, the U.K. has signed new reciprocal social service agreements with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, but not with Canada, a country that stood shoulder to shoulder with it through wars, through peacekeeping and through generations of shared sacrifices. This is not how friends treat each other.

This is where partnership really matters. If the U.K. wants to benefit from the CPTPP, then it should also act like a partner, by honouring fairness, reciprocity and human dignity. It is a conundrum, yet I cannot help but think, “if only”. If only we had a prime minister with deep connections to the United Kingdom, someone who understands economics, banking and pensions. Wait a minute; I seem to recall that our current Prime Minister is not only a former governor of the Bank of England but also the man who arranged for the King to deliver the throne speech of this very Parliament.

The Prime Minister may be friends with kings, but he has failed the commoners on this issue. The Prime Minister waxes poetic about transformational change and extols generational investments and structural reforms, but if he truly wanted to be transformational, he would start with this generation: the seniors who built the country he once served and who now suffer under an unfair, outdated policy. If the Prime Minister cares, if he wants to show that his talk about values and fairness is more than just a slogan, he should use his connections to fix this, because it is a burning issue for British seniors who have chosen Canada as their home.

The Prime Minister needs to understand that transformational leadership does not just happen in jets or hotel lobbies, or swanning around English parties. It happens when we stand up for real people who are being left behind. I ask the Prime Minister to come down from on high to see these people, the British pensioners of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Vancouver Island and from across Canada, whose income has not risen in 30 years. Some of them split pills. Some skip meals. All of them deserve our help. They are the people who built the very democracy that allows us to debate the bill today.

If the Prime Minister had a functioning constituency office in his riding, he would know that this is an issue that affects his community too. If the Prime Minister truly believes in fairness, he should pick up the phone. He should call his old colleagues in London. He should call the King and explain the issue as I have, and put it back on the agenda. He should pursue justice and get a deal.

The Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the issue. The pensioners are not asking Canada for new spending; they are asking for their government to negotiate justice for them from the United Kingdom.

The CPTPP is about rules-based trade and mutual benefit. Let it now show that it is also about fairness, reciprocity and moral responsibility.

I want to close with this. The 2,845 people with frozen pensions in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, and the thousands more across Vancouver Island and the rest of Canada, have not been forgotten. Their government may not always fight for them, but today I lend them my voice and this platform for their cause. They worked hard, they played by the rules and they deserve justice.

The Prime Minister has the relationships, the platform and an immense amount of privilege. He should use it and bring the issue to the fore in his discussions with the U.K. He should raise it at every level, because justice is not measured in economic models or global summits. It is measured in the lives of real people, in this case the thousands of Canadians who are also British pensioners, who chose Canada to be their home, against their own self-interest, and who deserve our support in remedying this injustice.

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

Madam Speaker, the expectations that the Prime Minister has are actually fairly extensive. The Prime Minister, right out of the gate, instantly dealt with substantial policy measures, whether it was tax breaks, building one Canadian economy or looking at trade opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. There have been a lot of things that have been happening in the few short months that he has been Prime Minister.

To try to imply that the Prime Minister does not care about pensioners does a disservice in regard to the issue, I think. I would ask the member opposite this: Has she actually written or done anything to demonstrate to the government some concern by crossing over and talking to the Prime Minister about the issue she was just talking about, or has she written or talked to other ministers?

It would be great if the member could answer that, but the real question I have for her is this: Can we anticipate that the Conservatives have some good faith within, in terms of recognizing the value of trade for Canada and of building trade opportunities, and that the legislation will pass before the end of the year?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the question of whether or not the Prime Minister is aware of this particular issue, I will say that if he reads his email, he would know that the British pensioners were actually here a couple of weeks ago. They had a Hill day. They had a suite. All MPs, including the Prime Minister, were invited to come by, and they had extensive briefings on the issue. If the Prime Minister chose not to include that in his schedule because he had things to do that he considered more important, then I suppose that answers the member's question on its own.

In terms of the value that Conservatives place on trade, we have fought many elections on the issue. We have negotiated many free trade agreements, and we obviously care about free and fair trade. We believe earnestly that, had Canadians given us the opportunity to do so, like former prime minister Harper, who negotiated a softwood lumber deal within 80 days of becoming prime minister, we would have produced more results than the Liberal government has in the time since it was elected.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question, because her answer provided a nice segue. She just talked about the negotiations that took place under the government of Prime Minister Harper. However, that government also adopted a policy on introducing and tabling agreements and treaties in Parliament. Currently, that policy is not being followed, given that the government introduced the bill within a shorter period than required by this policy. This policy is supposed to enable us to do our work more effectively.

What does the member think about the government's failure to comply with the existing policy, which is still available on the Government of Canada's official website? Does she believe that a policy is not enough and that we need legislation like the one the Bloc Québécois is proposing in Bill C‑228?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could answer the hon. member fluently in French. I am working on it.

I am a new member of the House, and one of the things that actually astound me about this Parliament is how little the Prime Minister's office and the government actually involve the House in making laws and making decisions. I would have thought that the Liberals' calls for collaboration and requests that we pass legislation before Christmas and work with them on their legislative agenda would have been accompanied by genuine efforts to sit down with us and engage us on their policies. Unfortunately, I find that that rarely happens.

An exception, which I was actually quite pleased with, was when the member for Terrebonne approached me a few weeks ago to lend my support to her bill, which we just voted to send to committee this afternoon. When the government approaches us to work together, we do have something to contribute, and it would be wonderful if the Liberals actually listened.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-13 and the impacts it would have on cattle producers, especially in my riding of Bow River, but first I want to recognize the storied history and legacy of ranchers in southern Alberta.

The beef industry has long been vital to the region. Since the late 1800s and the era of open grazing, the herds of the Circle Ranch, the Bar U and many others have grazed the expanse of Bow River. People homesteaded there and built lives on the harsh prairie.

As D. Larraine Andrews writes in her book, Ranching Under the Arch, about life on the ranch, “In reality it represented a uniquely hybrid combination of Old and New World culture, skill and expertise, heavily influenced by American, British and Eastern Canadian know-how and adapted to a frontier environment that demanded adaptation for survival.”

In her remarkable story of a people and a landscape, one that helps to explain southern Alberta's uniqueness, Andrews makes clear that the land and the people cannot be separated. She also writes, “They made the rangelands their home, conserving and preserving the land for generations to come. In the process, they were instrumental in establishing the vibrant and successful ranching industry that remains a fundamental part of our history and our future as a province [and a country].”

This goes to the heart of what I want to get at today, which is how what may seem a small part of a trade agreement is in fact large, because it goes to the cultural fabric.

The influence of ranchers on southern Alberta can be seen in countless ways, for example in the Calgary Stampede, established in 1912 to honour the end of open-range ranching, and in the preservation of vast stretches of native fescue grasslands. Today, the 160,000-acre McIntyre ranch, established in 1894 in southeastern Alberta, remains home to the largest tract of fescue grassland in North America. These were, and are, true stewards of the land, calving through snowstorms, fixing barbed-wire fences and holding on to the promise of spring. It means hard work, long days and an unwavering commitment to ensuring that food reaches Canadian tables.

Once again, Canada's farmers are being left behind by the Liberal government's incompetence on trade, or its laziness. Bill C-13 is supposed to strengthen our partnerships and expand trade through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP. Make no mistake, the CPTPP is a good agreement. It offers real opportunities to grow Canada's trade footprint, and Conservatives support that vision, but under the Liberal government, those opportunities are being squandered.

The Liberals have had nearly a decade to fix the barriers harming our farmers and producers, and there has been no progress, only neglect. Let us look at some facts. The U.K. exported over 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, over $42 million in 2024 and over $28 million in just the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canadian beef exports to the U.K. were just over $85,000 in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and zero, not a single dollar's worth, in 2025.

The situation is just as bad for pork. British pork exports to Canada rose from $5.6 million in 2023 to $9.1 million in 2024 and another $3.6 million in the first half of 2025. Canadian pork exports to the U.K. were zero in 2023, only $75,000 in 2024 and $122,700 this year. That is not free trade; it is one way. It is not bilateral; it is preferential.

Now the Liberals are asking Parliament to approve the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP. This is without fixing a single one of these problems, and they are giving the British everything they want while Canadian farmers are getting little in return. This is not a negotiation; it is surrender.

The Canadian Cattle Association has been crystal clear: Terminate the failed Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement and return to the negotiating table, because right now there is no continuity for Canadian beef. The only market access is for British exporters.

The U.K. continues to block Canadian beef using a hormone ban that the World Trade Organization ruled against nearly 30 years ago. It refuses to recognize Canada's world-class meat inspection system, a system trusted by dozens of other trading partners. The carcass wash has been mentioned, and the Canadian standard is arguably far higher than that of the U.K. It is also a fallacy to blame EU requirements, as the U.K. has left the EU. It is a non sequitur.

What have the Liberals done about it? Nothing. Not a single kilogram of Canadian beef has been sold into the U.K. in 2025, yet the government calls this progress. This is not progress; this is failure. The Liberals had years to stand up for our farmers and fix these barriers. These problems and irritants are not new. Instead, they chose the photo ops over results. They let the U.K. walk away from negotiations, ignored clear warnings from producers and are now rushing to rubber-stamp this deal without securing anything for Canadian agriculture.

Conservatives believe in free trade. We always have, but we also believe in fair trade, trade that works for Canada and not against it. This is not just about tariffs or paperwork; it is about the livelihoods of hard-working farmers and ranchers who feed this country and feed the world. When their shipments are blocked and their access to markets is cut off, it means less income, fewer jobs and more uncertainty for rural communities. It is especially egregious when these non-tariff barriers are such flimsy excuses.

This is the difference between keeping the family ranch afloat or just shutting down, so I ask the government, why did it allow British beef unlimited access to Canada while Canadian producers cannot sell a single kilogram to the U.K.? Why is the government tolerating non-tariff barriers that violate science-based trade rules? Why did we let the U.K. walk away from negotiations that were supposed to protect Canadian interests? The government has failed Canadian farmers under CETA; it has failed forestry workers on softwood lumber; it has failed our energy sector, and now it is failing our beef and pork producers under this agreement.

Conservatives will not stand by while rural Canada pays the price for Liberal negligence. We will support trade agreements that expand opportunity, not agreements that reward protectionism abroad and punish production here at home.

While we are talking about fairness, there is one more group the government has ignored. This has been spoken about by my colleague already. There are more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners living in Canada. These seniors paid into the system. They paid their whole lives, but because the U.K. refuses to index their pensions, even though it indexes them for those in the United States and elsewhere, their incomes shrink every year as inflation rises. We know inflation is a problem in Canada.

Given the Prime Minister's close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister, members would think he might have used this opportunity to stand up for these pensioners. Instead, there is silence. Conservatives believe in strong, principled trade, trade that strengthens our economy, supports farmers and delivers results for Canadians. We will hold the government accountable for its failures and stand up for the producers, ranchers and workers who make Canada competitive on the world stage. Under a Conservative government, Canada will not settle for bad deals; we will fight for better ones.

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

Madam Speaker, it sounds as if the Conservatives might be voting against the legislation. The member wants to talk about farmers and cattle farmers. I had a wonderful experience when entrepreneurs from the Philippines came to Canada and participated in the Calgary Stampede. The Minister of Agriculture met with the owner of what I believe is the Wildflour Restaurant. It is a chain of restaurants in the Philippines. They are now selling Canadian beef, recognizing that the best beef in the world is likely in the province of Alberta. It may even be in Manitoba, and I am not giving up on my Manitoba beef producers, but let us stick with Alberta right now, given that the member is from Alberta.

I can tell members something. The Minister of Agriculture is one of Canada's greatest ambassadors in advocating for our products, whether it is Alberta beef or P.E.I. potatoes, and we see that in the trade discussions we are having. I would suggest to the member that he might be a little inaccurate when he tries to portray the false impression that the government is not doing its job in terms of promoting agricultural products.

I am seeking clarification from the member. Does he support the passage of this legislation?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the comments and questions from the member opposite are truly one of the greatest pleasures to experience in this House.

Alberta beef, and Canadian beef worldwide, is noted for its quality. It is sought out by the world because it is the best beef in the world. However, I think the member misunderstood. I was not talking about the Philippines and the partners that we already have in the trans-Pacific partnership. I was talking about the U.K. and the opportunity the government has right now to ensure that we have fair, equal, equitable, reciprocal trading with the U.K. The U.K. has been obstructing Canadian participation in their market for a very long time, for very flimsy reasons, and its desire to have access to the trans-Pacific partnership is the perfect opportunity to apply the appropriate amount of pressure to get our beef into the U.K.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize because you must be getting sick of hearing my voice, but I have not received an answer yet. I asked two members on both sides of the House the same question. I will ask it again now.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the government did not follow the existing policy, the public policy adopted under the Harper government, if I am not mistaken, that there should be a 21-day waiting period between announcing an agreement and tabling it in Parliament?

In this case, it took 15 days. Therefore, the government did not comply with the existing policy.

Does that not show that what we need is a law, not just a policy?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have come to learn that a very common feature of questions in the House is for members to ask them repeatedly and still not get an answer.

I apologize that I do not have a clear opinion. I am just not well versed in the circumstance of the previous reality. It seems reasonable, but I do not know for sure.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am a cattle producer myself in Saskatchewan, where we actually raise probably the best beef in the world. We export it to Alberta for feeding and processing.

Trade is very, very important to the Canadian beef industry. We have seen the cattle herd in Canada reach its lowest level since the fifties because we have had 10 years of horrible policy from the Liberal government. Now we are facing tariffs from China; we are facing tariffs from India.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, who just gave an excellent speech, if he can lay out some of the real-world impacts of trade policy and why policy matters.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Likewise, being an Alberta beef producer, I have some difference in opinion as to where the best beef in the world comes from. This is not an opportunity for a schism in the caucus, but it is a great discussion.

Policy matters. That is what I was trying to get at in the gist of my speech, that it is about the people, their life and their attachment to the land, and the fabric that that composes of our country. When it impacts negatively even small portions of our population, it has a ripple effect and impact.

Policy has to be done right. Policy has to be thoughtful. It has to be fair, and it has to be executed. We need delivery on results.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

The subject of Bill C-13 is near and dear to my heart. My parents, who passed away last year, were both from the U.K., both from Scotland. They would have said that there was a negative trade balance when they moved over here, but they always reminded me that I was made in Canada with Scottish parts and that it is a great country to live in here.

I want to be able to say today that Conservatives support free trade because Canada is a trading nation. While the current government was busy with photo ops and virtue signalling, eight of our CPTPP partners were busy doing business with the world's sixth-largest economy. Yes, I said “CPTPP”. It is a difficult acronym, but I got through it on the first round, so hopefully I will get through it for the rest of the speech. They were dealing with the sixth-largest economy, and Canadian businesses were left waiting at the dock.

Having studied at King's College London in the U.K., I understand first-hand the deep economic and cultural ties that bind Canada and the United Kingdom. The U.K. is not just another trading partner. No, it is one of our oldest and most reliable allies, which makes the government's fumbling even more inexcusable.

Today, I will outline three critical failures: one, the economic opportunity cost of Liberal delays; two, the damage to Canada's international credibility; and three, the pattern of trade negligence that is hurting our exporters, in particular my own riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

The numbers do not lie. The U.K. is the world's sixth-largest economy, and it is the first European country in CPTPP. Eight countries are already trading under new terms while Canada waits and waits, and Canadian exporters are losing the competitive advantage.

However, there is an even more troubling pattern here. Under the trade continuity agreement, the U.K. has not been acting fairly toward our pork and cattle producers. The U.K. objects to carcass washes applied at Canadian slaughter plants and opposes the use of growth promotants in beef and pork production. The trade statistics tell the real story of the Liberal government's failure to stand up for our producers. Britain exported over 40 million dollars' worth of beef into Canada in 2024 and nearly 30 million dollars' worth in the first half of 2025. In comparison, Canada exported to Britain just 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024 and, to date, has no beef exports in 2025. For those who are watching, that is 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024, which is unbelievable. This is not fair trade. This is a one-way street that favours British producers, while our farmers and ranchers face non-tariff barriers designed to shut them down.

As a mayor, I learned that economic development happens through work, not announcements. We attracted major investment to Moose Jaw by rolling up our sleeves and delivering results, $1.3 billion of results in six years, not by staging photo ops but by standing up for our community and for our businesses. The government has forgotten that lesson.

The U.K. and Canada share more than just a monarch; we share values, institutions and centuries of partnership. From Vimy Ridge to Afghanistan, we have stood together. Now, when it comes to trade, we are making them wait while we sort out our bureaucratic mess.

During my time at King's College London, I witnessed Britain's commitment to innovation, enterprise and global engagement. The U.K.'s decision to join CPTPP represents exactly that forward-thinking approach. Meanwhile, Canada is dragging its feet like we are still debating whether trade is good for the economy.

Canada held the CPTPP chair in 2024 but failed to lead. Other nations celebrated at the Vancouver meeting while Canada remained uncommitted. Given the Prime Minister's close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister, one would have thought they might have used this opportunity to advocate on behalf of our agriculture producers. How can we lecture other countries about trade rules when we cannot even ratify agreements on time with our closest allies?

Real leadership means delivering results, not just good headlines. As a mayor, I did not cut ribbons until the projects were actually built. The government announces everything and delivers nothing. The minister needs to answer some tough questions: Why have the Liberals not secured any benefits for our cattle producers? How do we prevent this embarrassment with our allies again?

At the municipal level, we understood that investors have options. If we did not act quickly and professionally, they would go elsewhere. The same applies to international trade. Our partners will not wait forever for Canada to get organized.

When Conservatives form government, we will not just talk about trade; we will deliver results. We will restore Canada's reputation as a reliable partner to allies like the United Kingdom. We will negotiate to allow fair market access for Canadian products and stand up for our industries and our agriculture producers. We will put Canadian exporters first, and we will remember that our friends deserve better than bureaucratic delays.

Having experienced both British excellence in education and the practical demands of municipal leadership, I know what real partnership looks like. It is built on reliability, competence and mutual respect, qualities the government has forgotten. This bill should have been passed months ago. The Liberals' delays have cost jobs, hurt our reputation with a key ally and weakened our position in the fastest-growing region in the world.

As Conservatives, we intend to support the expansion of trade markets for Canadian products. Canadian businesses and our British partners deserve leaders who act with urgency, not a government that is always a day late and a dollar short, or maybe I should say a pound short. We will continue to point out the government's failures to secure wins for Canada, its producers and those who are relying on the Prime Minister to keep his promises.

I would be very happy to take any questions, and I am very interested in further discussion with regard to British pensioners. As I mentioned earlier when I started off, my parents were both immigrants. They came to this country to start a new life, but they also helped build Britain after the Second World War.

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

Madam Speaker, I do want to clarify for my hon. colleague that, as I said earlier in debate in the House, the Prime Minister has raised this with Prime Minister Starmer. It is something the government is pushing on.

We do, as a government, share the member's concerns, particularly around the fact that the carcass wash from a North American standard is not being recognized by the United Kingdom, but we have not stopped, as it relates to creating more access. We believe in our Canadian beef farmers. That is exactly why the Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister were able to secure access to Indonesia tariff-free. Also, the Minister of Agriculture has been doing great work on access to more Canadian beef in Mexico.

Will the member at least recognize that, notwithstanding that we both agree that there is more work that has to be done on the U.K. file as it relates to beef explicitly, there has been market access granted and the government is establishing markets in other jurisdictions that are high-growth, which will matter for Canadian farmers?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out that Canada is obviously a global trading partner. However, we have had a relationship with the U.K. that has been broken, and it should not have been. The problem is not new. The problem is the fact that we did not address trade with the U.K. years ago. Therefore this is not a new opportunity; it is just an opportunity that we need to capitalize on, which should have been done years ago.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I would like to recognize George Marchese for 40 years with Western Roofing, a Kamloops institution. George is a huge fan of the Kamloops Blazers. He helps out with the Scouts and the Kamloops Rugby Club. I thank him for his devotion.

I listened intently to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the impacts on the cattle industry. I wonder if he would like to elaborate on what he has heard directly, on the ground, in that regard.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague again on his private member's bill that passed earlier today. It is very touching, and it does show we can get work done here, whether it is with help from across the aisle or on our own.

Local producers are very disappointed. They feel left out. They have had their challenges over the years, and they feel they have been ignored and neglected by the Liberal government, not only in this trade deal but for years on end.

I heard earlier a colleague from across the aisle talking about how Canadian pork producers were able to sell pork in the Philippines. That is great news, but the thing is that we need to be trading globally. The problem is that we are importing from the U.K., not exporting to the U.K., and that is where we should be going.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could enlighten us about the Conservative Party's supporting trade. The last substantial trade agreement we had was the Ukraine trade legislation, and the Conservatives voted against it. On the legislation that is before us, it seems as if, much like with other pieces of legislation, the Conservative Party wants to prevent it from passing, which is somewhat disturbing.

The member says that we should have more trading opportunities, so, first, does he support the legislation? Second, if he supports the legislation, would he encourage his leader and the Conservative brain trust that it is time we allow legislation to actually pass?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to help my colleague with directions. Britain is that way, and the Philippines are the other way, or maybe it is the other way around: east and west.

Let us talk about the Ukraine deal. We put ourselves at a negative because we were adding carbon tax, and now the Liberals are pulling out of carbon tax. The reason we voted against the deal is that they do not know how to trade, and that is the problem; that is why we are here.

The Conservatives are always going to advocate for Canadian businesses and for fairness in trade deals. That is what we are—

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

The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the hard-working exporters of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-13, an act to bring the United Kingdom into the Pacific trade deal. As Conservatives, we support free trade and we support the bill; what we do not support is Liberal incompetence.

The bill is a testament to Liberal mismanagement. It is a cautionary tale for Canadians, a warning that the Liberals may not be the crack trade negotiating team they claim to be. They have failed our farmers, they have failed our permanent residents and clearly they are failing to secure more free trade.

We will start with trade. Under Brian Mulroney, Canada negotiated the Canada-U.S. free trade deal and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement. During the decade of darkness, under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, Canada negotiated just three small deals: with Israel, with Costa Rica and with Chile. What followed was a decade of dynamism under Stephen Harper, and with Stephen Harper, Canada negotiated deals with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, Korea, Ukraine, the 27 members of the European Union and the 11 members of the trans-Pacific partnership.

Our Conservative Party built Canada into the freest trading nation on earth. Unfortunately, things began to change for freer trade after we left office, and the United States pulled out of the trans-Pacific partnership. Under Trudeau, free trade negotiations broke down with India. The deal Trudeau signed to replace NAFTA reduced free trade and even went so far as to ban the American Super Bowl commercials from airing in Canada.

Once America's Republican Party moved away from unwavering support for free trade, the regressive left saw its opportunity. The left has always bitterly opposed free trade. Older Canadians may remember the vicious attack ads the Liberal Party ran, erasing Canada's border during free trade debates. Trudeau nearly derailed the trans-Pacific partnership in order to include new clauses in the agreement similar to the anti-economic development policies he imposed on Canada.

However, the worst was yet to come. After Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine, the Liberals forced that desperate nation to renegotiate its free trade deal with Canada. The Liberal goal was to impose carbon tariffs on Ukraine if the Ukrainians did not increase their own carbon tax to match Canada's. Forcing a country fighting for its very existence to renegotiate an existing deal was truly beyond the pale. It was the kind of diplomacy that would make Tony Soprano proud.

I can already hear my Liberal colleagues clenching their teeth, and I am sure they want to jump to their feet in protest. They would tell us that this is not the old Trudeau government and that it is a new, improved Brookfield government. Although Trudeau was a deplorable prime minister, at least he never ran on a promise to increase tariffs for Canadians.

It has been only 11 months, but the collective amnesia about the current Prime Minister is shocking. The man from Brookfield spelled out his plan on the very first day of campaigning for the Liberal Party leadership. His plan is tariffs. He calls them carbon border adjustments, but that is clearly intended to mislead people into supporting tariffs, and here is how it works. The Prime Minister will dramatically increase the industrial carbon tax, and this will make Canadian industry less competitive against industries of our major trading partners, such as the U.S. or the U.K. In order for these companies to compete, the Prime Minister will impose carbon tariffs and call it a carbon competitiveness strategy.

That is why the Liberals reopened the Ukraine deal; that is likely why they cannot get a bilateral deal with the United Kingdom; that is why we are all pretending that the United Kingdom is now a warm, sunny Pacific island nation that is eligible to join the trans-Pacific partnership; and that is why, during the middle of our recent federal election, the Prime Minister received a warm endorsement from President Trump.

When the President wrote on Truth Social that he and the man from Goldman agreed on many things, we thought they meant they agreed on signing giant novelty decorations or using police as props for photo-ops. What we should have realized is that they agree on using tariffs as a social engineering tool. The U.S. President believes tariffs can undo automation, while the Prime Minister thinks they can cool the planet. The simple truth is that all a tariff can do is hurt the economy, and the only way to make the damage to an economy worse is to use non-tariff trade barriers to free trade.

As I said at the start, the bill is another example of Liberals' failing to secure a trade deal. Thanks to Brexit, we had leverage over Britain. We had cards to play, yet we folded. The United Kingdom is keeping in place its non-tariff barriers on Canadian beef and pork. The U.K. claims our food safety system is unsafe. Japan, Australia, Malaysia, Mexico and all the other partners of the trans-Pacific partnership all agree Canadian food is safe. The U.K. is supposed to have agreed to respect our food safety system when it joined the partnership, yet two years on, here we are, ratifying U.K.'s entry, and the barriers remain in place.

What is the government's response? It promised that if the U.K. continues doing what it has always done, the government will write a stern letter and then launch a lengthy trade complaint process at the World Trade Organization. In the meantime, the U.K. producers will continue to sell millions of dollars' worth of beef and pork while our farmers wait and wait. The only relief these farmers will find is in knowing that they are not in the softwood lumber business; it is clear that this Brookfield government is treating our forestry industry as a card it hopes to play to save its EV subsidies in Ontario and Quebec.

The problem is that the government is playing go fish while the rest of the world is playing high-stakes poker. This might explain the shabby treatment shown to British retirees now living in Canada. Just as with our farmers, the government had leverage over our mother Parliament. The Prime Minister is burning up his carbon allowance, flying around the world looking for deals, the same way countless U.K. prime ministers have been doing since Brexit. We had a golden opportunity to support people living in Canada, but the Liberals could not be bothered to try.

For any Canadians unfamiliar with the issue, the U.K. has a public pension like ours. When British retirees move abroad, they continue to receive their pension. If they live in the rebellious colonies to the south, their U.K. pension is indexed to inflation. If they live in the loyal Dominion of Canada, they receive a fixed amount from the day they first applied. This issue directly affects 100,000 U.K. retirees who live in Canada, but indirectly it affects every Canadian.

Each month, 100,000 of our neighbours and friends get a little poorer. Each month, they have less to spend buying Canadian beef for supper. Each month, they have a little less to donate to the local church. Instead of having free time to volunteer at the food bank, they spend that time shopping at the food bank. This is not just hurting U.K. pensioners; it is discriminating against people living in Canada, and it is an insult.

The problem is that the former prime minister thought Canada was a nation of colonizing racist misogynists who deserve to be insulted. The new Prime Minister is an unabashed anglophile. As kids might say, he is a simp for Keir Starmer. Every country has its own shibboleths, the secret code words that allow fellow citizens to know if someone is one of us. As a bilingual country, it is not about how we pronounce it; it is about how we spell it.

In Canada we spell “catalyze” with a “z”, but the Prime Minister spells it with an “s”. He is less of a Manchurian candidate and more of a Manchester candidate. He is all too happy to sell out U.K. pensioners living in Canada and to sell out our beef and pork farmers if it means a chance at knighthood. The next time he gets together with his friends at Davos, they had better all address him as Sir Brookfield. I know that some people might find that ridiculous, but it is more comforting than reality.

The plain truth is that the Liberals are just incompetent with trade negotiations. It has been 10 years without a softwood lumber deal. There is the trade deal with the U.S. that the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate by mid-summer. There is also the time Trudeau almost blew up the trans-Pacific partnership so he could insert some feminist language into a meaningless annex. The fact that the bill before us is only at second reading is itself an example of Liberal incompetence on the trade file.

Canada needs free trade, but it finds itself in a trade war. We need a government that truly believes in trade. We need a Conservative government.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the supposition that Canada imposed a carbon tax on Ukraine from the Canadian press is demonstrably false. This was not imposed on Ukraine. Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011, and there was a clause that simply said it would co-operate.

Will the member retract her false statement?

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

Mr. Speaker, Ukraine had a carbon tax, but it was too low for former prime minister Trudeau. Therefore, he imposed an additional tax so that it would be equal to ours. Ukraine already had one. He just made it worse.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, who spoke at length about the government's mismanagement, especially when it comes to softwood lumber. However, there is a proposal that has been going around for some time that would give the forestry sector some much-needed relief. It would involve buying back up to 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. However, I have never heard a Conservative member speak to that.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this is a good idea to help the forestry sector stay afloat until an agreement is signed.

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

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, we started campaigning to make sure the softwood lumber agreement would be in place. The Liberals have not even considered putting it in as part of the negotiations for the next USMCA.

The truth is that the government does not want a forestry industry. We see that in all the UN declarations, such as 30 by 30, which will become 50 by 50, with land set aside where nobody can harvest anything. It is time to face reality. The Liberals do not want trees cut down.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my long-time colleague and friend for her excellent speech here in the House and for telling Canadians exactly how it is here in Ottawa.

As a patriot, how much longer does she think Canada can hold out as a sovereign nation before it becomes a subsidiary of Brookfield?

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

Mr. Speaker, for a minute, I thought he was going to ask me how much longer I was going to stay in Parliament.

We actually do not know that Canada is not a subsidiary. The government has already provided over a billion dollars a year to a consortium of companies to run CNL, our crown jewel in the nuclear laboratories. He is willing to sell that down without any Canadian participation. My concern, my fellow Conservative, is that he has already sold us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was factually incorrect on a number of accounts. Harper had nothing to do with the signing of the Canada-Ukraine deal. That was actually Justin Trudeau and the minister of foreign affairs at the time. On the European Union, the 27 countries, he had nothing to do with that either. A Liberal government actually signed off on them, not to mention the other countries that she mentioned.

The member has got to be somewhat nervous when the current leader of the Conservative Party is looking to run in a riding in Ontario. Rumour has it that the member opposite might be stepping aside. Can the member confirm to the House that she will be running in the next federal election in the same riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my greatest fan that, yes, I will be back.

However, the Liberals rewrite history. First, they tear down history, the statues and everything, and then they rewrite it so that it favours their narrative. It is time we went back to what really happened and teach our children the genuine history of Canada.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cardigan.

I rise today in support of Bill C-13, legislation that confirms Canada's ratification of the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP.

This legislation is part of Canada's ongoing story as one of the world's greatest trading nations. Like any great story, it is important to understand where we have been, where we are today and where we are going. Canada's history is inseparable from trade. Our prosperity has always come from looking outward, engaging with the world and building bridges that connect our people, our products and our ideas with global markets.

Over generations, we have built one of the most impressive records of trade leadership of any nation. Canada stands as the only G7 country that has free trade agreements with every other member of the G7. Think about what that says about who we are: a nation committed to openness, a nation trusted by its peers and a nation recognized for its reliability in global commerce. Our reach goes far beyond the G7. Canada has 15 free trade agreements with 51 countries, giving our businesses and workers preferential access to 1.5 billion consumers.

That extraordinary achievement is the result of decades of work by governments of all stripes, by diplomats, by negotiators and by Canadian businesses and their top-notch workers, who have built our reputation around the world. We are a nation that has embraced openness not as a risk but as a strength. We are a country that knows when Canadians compete on the global stage, we win.

Since this government was elected, we have relentlessly worked to expand that foundation even further, and we have results to show for it. Canada has signed a free trade agreement with Ecuador, a growing market with which our bilateral trade already exceeds $1 billion annually, opening opportunities for Canadian agri-food exporters, clean-tech innovators and mining service providers. We have signed a comprehensive economic partnership agreement with Indonesia, a G20 member of 278 million people projected to be become the fifth-largest economy in the world, giving Canadian businesses preferential access to a booming consumer market.

We will be negotiating a trade agreement with the Philippines, an economy expanding 5% to 6% annually, where a young population is driving new demand for Canadian products. We are negotiating a trade agreement with the ASEAN bloc, a region of 680 million consumers with a GDP of $3.7 trillion, where Canadian exporters stand to benefit in areas such as clean technology, agriculture and digital services.

Staying with ASEAN, we have also advanced bilateral free trade talks with Thailand because its fast-growing economy and rising ties with Canada make this agreement a key opportunity to boost Canadian jobs and open a major market for our businesses. We are advancing trade discussions with India, the world's fifth-largest economy, offering vast opportunities for Canadian companies in education, critical minerals, clean energy and advanced manufacturing.

We have signed a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with the United Arab Emirates, one of Canada's largest trading partners in the Middle East. As well, we have announced negotiations for a broader trade agreement with the U.A.E. to deepen access to this powerful market.

At the G20, the Prime Minister announced the launch of discussions of an investment agreement with South Africa, the most industrial economy in Africa, strengthening the foundation for Canadian investment in a continent of 1.4 billion potential consumers. We are advancing negotiations on a digital trade agreement with the European Union, a $17-trillion market, ensuring Canadian fintech, AI, cybersecurity and e-commerce firms can compete and grow globally. We have launched discussions on a trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, a market of 295 million people with a combined GDP of $2.7 trillion.

This is one of the most ambitious trade expansion agendas Canada has ever taken and reflects a simple truth: In a world where supply chains are shifting, where economies are transforming and where competition is intensifying, Canada must lead and never follow. Today we debate trade legislation, Bill C-13, but as seen from my speech, it will most certainly not be our last. There is much more to come.

We stand at a turning point in the evolution of one of the most important trade agreements on earth: the CPTPP trading bloc. The trading bloc consists of 11 countries, soon to be 12. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP represents the agreement's first expansion. It brings into the fold the world's sixth-largest economy and a long-standing, deeply trusted ally. The U.K. is already one of Canada's most significant trading partners, our third-largest destination for merchandise exports and a top source for investments.

With the U.K. joining the CPTPP, Canadian exports will benefit from stronger, more predictable access in areas ranging from seafood to advanced manufacturing, clean technology, services and digital trade. This matters because the CPTPP is a high-standard, rules-based framework that shapes the future of trade in the Indo-Pacific, one of the fastest growing regions in the world. With the U.K. at the table, the CPTPP becomes stronger, more influential and more attractive for future accessions. It expands our reach and it opens new doors for Canadian businesses at a moment when diversification is not optional; it is essential. Bill C-13 ensures that Canada is not only part of this moment, but that we are welcoming new partners to the table so that we can shape it together.

As we look forward to where we are going, this government has set a bold, ambitious and necessary goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports to over $300 billion within the next 10 years. Achieving that goal would mean more exports that support good jobs, drive innovation and strengthen communities across every region in our country.

To get there, we need to make sure our businesses have the tools they need to succeed. That is why, in budget 2025, we make major investments in Canada's supply chain infrastructure. Exporters can only grow if the roads, rails, ports and airports that they rely on are strong, resilient and efficient. With our new $5-billion trade diversification infrastructure fund, we will be supporting more growth. To double our non-U.S. exports, we need 21st-century infrastructure capacity that matches our ambition. That is exactly what we plan to deliver. Canadians deserve no less.

We also need to support businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, as they take their first steps into global markets and expand into new ones. That means improving programs, such as the CanExport program, that help companies export, strengthening the services that guide them and continuing to work with partners, provinces and territories, indigenous partners, industry associations, pension funds and financial institutions to create a seamless network of support. This is the path forward. This is how we get from where we are to where we are going.

Trade is about people. Let me tell the House who we do this work for. It is about the farmers in Saskatchewan who rise before dawn and work every day to feed families here in Canada and around the world. It is about the shipbuilder in Nova Scotia whose craftsmanship carries Canadian expertise across the Atlantic. It is about the miner in Nunavut supplying the critical minerals the world needs for clean-tech supply chains. It is about the energy in British Columbia, low-carbon energy, reaching new Asian markets and supporting thousands of jobs. It is about the aerospace engineer in Quebec designing components that fly in planes on every continent.

It is about the fisheries and the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador who bring world-class seafood from cold Atlantic waters to global markets. It is about the Alberta energy workers whose expertise and commitment drive our energy sector forward. It is about the advanced manufacturers in Ontario producing parts for assembly lines in Asia and beyond. It is about the entrepreneurs in Manitoba whose agri-food innovations feed communities around the world. It is about the tourism operator in Prince Edward Island welcoming travellers who discover Canada through international agreements. It is about the tech founders in New Brunswick exporting cybersecurity solutions around the globe. It is about the clean-tech innovator in the Northwest Territories transforming northern engineering into global opportunities. As well, it is about the indigenous artists and cultural entrepreneurs in Yukon sharing creativity and our identity with the world.

Canada has achieved extraordinary things. We are not a country that rests. We are not a country that settles. We are relentless: relentless in our ambition, relentless in our pursuit of new opportunities and relentless in our determination to keep delivering for Canadians.

Bill C-13 and the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP is part of that momentum. It is a continuation of a story that began generations ago and that will carry us forward for generations to come. Let us meet this moment with confidence. Let us meet this moment with optimism. Let us meet with a team Canada approach, united in the conviction that our ambition should be as vast as the opportunities before us and the country we collectively represent here in Parliament, because when Canadians set bold goals, when we work together and when we look outward to the world, there is nothing that we cannot achieve.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, I have consulted with the Table, and there was one small procedural error made. We were supposed to seek unanimous consent for the minister to be able to speak to the bill. There is a procedural reason for that.

This is going to sound odd, but I would ask if we could have unanimous consent for the minister to make a speech so we can complete questions and comments afterward. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the hon. members. I wanted to make sure that I did not interrupt the minister's speech so he could complete it before we went to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the Minister of International Trade was talking about great things to come.

I want to take him to things as they are right now. We have trade agreements in place, but they are not being enforced. For example, chicken producers in my riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies are asking why the government continues to allow the U.S. to send 115% of its spent fowl production to Canada. Part of that 115% is mislabeled, shipped to Canada, relabelled and then sold as broiler meat, which is in competition with Canadian producers.

Why is this allowed to happen?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his advocacy for farmers in his region. That is something that I am happy to follow up on with CFIA and Health Canada.

Speaking of the agriculture sector, the agreements I have spoken about will unlock new opportunities in markets around the world. We look at the CPTPP trading block, which consists of over 500 million potential consumers. When I am sitting down and talking to those in the agriculture sector, they are excited about the potential that these opportunities create. That is exactly what the government will do. We will continue to be out there opening doors for our farmers and our workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset a few weeks ago, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill even though it will oppose investor-state dispute settlement during clause-by-clause consideration, since we have always been against that. My question will not be on the substance of the agreement, which is good for everyone.

My colleague and I once served together on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He knows how long it takes to conduct in-depth studies on agreements that are sometimes very lengthy. In this case, the government did not abide by Canada's official policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, which is available on the website. There is supposed to be a 21-day period between the announcement of an agreement and the tabling of the legislation. In this case, it was 15 days.

Why did the government not follow its own official policy?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to answer my colleague one day in French, as I am learning. I do miss my time on the trade committee with the member opposite.

We are in a crisis today, and the Prime Minister has been very clear about this. This is not a speed bump. This is a rupture in the current trading environment.

I spent 13 years in international trade prior to politics, facilitating trade for hundreds of businesses. If I were asked back then, I would have said that businesses were not ready to look at global markets because of the conditions that existed at that time with the U.S. Twenty-five years ago, 90% of our trade was with the U.S. It is now around 75%, and we have to move fast. That is exactly what the government is doing.

We are moving quickly because we want to make sure that these trade agreements are in place. This is what stakeholders are asking us to do. This is what Canadians are asking us to do. As we sort this out and have those discussions with the U.S., we need to continue opening new markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies that it was actually this government that established an MOU between CFIA and CBSA to tackle spent fowl. The minister may or may not know that, but that is work that we are doing. I will remind the Conservative Party that it had nothing in its electoral platform for farmers.

Speaking of farmers, I have a large apple contingent in the Annapolis Valley. The Nova Scotia fruit growers have a tradition of over one hundred years of growing quality Honeycrisp apples. One of their growth markets is in Vietnam.

I am wondering if the Minister of International Trade would talk about the work he is doing in the Indo-Pacific, what the government is doing to help create export markets, and maybe, explicitly, whether he and I could work together with those Nova Scotia fruit growers to create more markets in Vietnam and beyond in the Indo-Pacific.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to thank the member for his incredible work on the trade file and for representing his constituents so well.

We have been talking about our farmers, and I was in different regions across the country, talking to farmers who grow fruits. Of course, the member mentioned Vietnam. It has been a huge market since we signed the CPTPP back a few years ago, in 2018. When we look at what we are doing with Vietnam and the trade numbers, there are incredible opportunities there and we are investing.

There is now an agri-food office in Manila in the Philippines to help facilitate even more trade for our farmers, for those who are involved in agriculture and agri-food. There are plenty of opportunities. That is exactly what we are exploring, as I mentioned, with many of the agreements we have talked about today.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a bit of a heavy heart. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of Cardigan fire chief Tony VandenBroek.

Tony is gone way too soon. Chief Tony was a dedicated leader and committed volunteer in his community. His decades of service reflect his courage, compassion and unwavering commitment to keeping others safe.

I also want to express my appreciation for the important discussions I had with representatives of the Canadian Volunteer Fire Services Association this week in Ottawa. Its support is crucial to supporting firefighters, such as Tony, who protect our communities.

I say to Chief VandenBroek's family, his fellow firefighters and everyone else who is feeling the loss, my thoughts are with them. May Tony rest in peace.

I rise today with pride to speak about the importance of international trade to the people of Prince Edward Island. Ambition, creativity and determination span this province from tip to tip. This is something that may be a bit of a challenge for me because I came from the supply-managed sectors, and all the trade deals, although they bring common good to the country, have carved away some of my industry, but I support free trade. That is why I am standing here today to speak to it.

Islanders know the value of hard work. It is their love of the land and the sea that lays that foundation. Whether it is running tractors through the fields in eastern P.E.I., hauling traps in Morell or serving customers at the local shops in Georgetown, farmers, fishers and manufacturers are producing traditional world-class commodities with care and ingenuity. They are not just feeding families on the island; they are also feeding Canada and the world. They are not just crafting goods; they are creating excellence that stretches far beyond our red shores to all corners of the globe.

Islanders understand that trade is not an abstract policy. It is more than just numbers on a spreadsheet or lines on a ledger. Trade is about people. It is about the hands that haul the lobster traps, the families who farm the potato fields and the innovators who turn local knowledge and creativity into a global opportunity. In today's fast-changing global economy, for Islanders to be competitive and to succeed, P.E.I. businesses need further access and expansion across the global industry.

Trade diversification is not just a government policy priority, but a necessity for economic sustainability. Too often smaller economies, like ours in Atlantic Canada, become vulnerable when we rely too heavily on one or two export destinations. We have seen, time and again, how a single border delay, a newly imposed tariff or an unexpected policy shift can ripple across an entire province and significantly impact an entire industry.

That is why agreements like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, and Canada's vast network of trade agreements are so vital for Prince Edward Island's future. The CPTPP opens doors to fast-growing markets across the Asia-Pacific region in countries such as New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and now, with this legislation, the United Kingdom. It provides clarity in trade rules, lowers tariffs and offers fair access for our exporters. It gives our potato growers, seafood processors, bioscience innovators and small business producers the pathways and tools to reach new customers.

Islanders are proud of what we make and produce. We farm responsibly. We fish sustainably. We innovate with excellence. The world is noticing. There is a growing demand for P.E.I. seafood, our world-famous potatoes, our bioscience, technology and research, and the creativity of our local artists, storytellers and musicians who perform for audiences from all over the world.

However, global demand alone is not enough. We need agreements that open doors and the infrastructure and policies to help Islanders walk through them. That is where our Prime Minister's announcement comes in. It is a bold, transformative goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Doubling our non-U.S. exports means diversifying where we sell, what we sell and how we sell it. This means a pathway to resilience, growth and independence, and with agreements, such as with the U.K. accession, being strengthened, we would have the tools to make that vision a reality.

For decades, our island economy, like much of Canada's economy, has relied heavily on a single market. That partnership with our friends and neighbours to the south will always remain important to us, but if we want to secure our long-term prosperity and independence, we must broaden our reach. It means finding new customers for island seafood on other islands around the world, like Japan or Singapore. It means showcasing our clean tech and bioscience innovations in the U.K. and Australia. It means putting P.E.I. products on tables and in markets around the world. The CPTPP is one of the key tools that would help us achieve that goal.

When we talk about doubling the exports, we are talking about creating new markets for our producers, reducing risk and building resilience. That is what this legislation is about. It is about building the future of communities on Prince Edward Island.

Why does this matter so much to P.E.I.? It matters because P.E.I. is an export province. Over 90% of what we produce, we export. Our success depends on our ability to move products beyond our shores, whether it is by truck across the Confederation Bridge, by plane, by ship across the Atlantic Ocean or even by digital connection. By connecting our producers to new global customers, we would be taking concrete steps toward doubling our non-U.S. exports, strengthening both local jobs and Canada's presence on the world stage. When island seafood, farm crops or manufactured goods find buyers in Europe or Asia, that success flows back home. It means more young people choosing to stay to build their futures on P.E.I. and in Atlantic Canada.

Trade diversification is also about resilience. Through building relationships with multiple partners, we provide businesses with options and workers with stability. This is how we protect the prosperity that generations of Islanders have worked so hard to build and maintain. The CPTPP, especially with the inclusion of the United Kingdom, reinforces the kind of trade values Canada believes in, which are fair, inclusive and sustainable trade.

These values are also important to Islanders. It is trade that upholds high standards for labour, strong environmental protections and clear digital commerce rules, all areas where Canada and our province of P.E.I. can lead. Our exporters do not want to compete by lowering standards. They want to compete by raising them, by offering better quality, better sustainability and better reliability.

Now, what would this mean in practice for P.E.I.? It would mean new market opportunities for our seafood industry. It would mean a stronger platform for our agri-food producers, from potato growers to the entrepreneurs turning local ingredients into global products. It would mean momentum for our bioscience cluster, one of the fastest-growing sectors in Atlantic Canada, where firms are developing health solutions that are already reaching overseas markets. It would also mean a brighter future for our tourism and cultural industries because trade is not only about goods; it is also about ideas, creativity and people-to-people connections.

When the Prime Minister set the goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports, the Prime Minister sent a clear signal that every province and territory has a role to play. We all need to step up our game, and I know we can. For Prince Edward Island, this is an opportunity to show what our island can achieve with big ambition. Now with the CPTPP and the inclusion of the U.K., we would have another framework and the improved access it needs to grow. This is how we will reach that goal, by combining national leadership with local initiative and global ambition with island pride.

This bill is about nation building through new partnership opportunities. By ratifying the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP, we would help ensure that Islanders can continue to make a substantial impact on the world stage. We would strengthen our ability to export sustainable and high-quality products, exactly what we do best. We would ensure that the next generation of Islanders inherits a strong economy, one that continues the legacy of quality products.

Let us support this legislation for the benefit of our national economy and for every Islander whose work, creativity and resilience deserves to be a strong player on the world stage. When P.E.I. succeeds, Canada succeeds and when Canada trades with the world, our communities become stronger.