Bill C-18

Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Canada and Indonesia

This enactment implements the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Canada and Indonesia, done at Ottawa on September 24, 2025. Among other things, it
(a) approves the Agreement;
(b) provides that no recourse may be taken on the basis of certain provisions of the enactment or any order made under those provisions, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada;
(c) provides for payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement;
(d) gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with the Agreement;
(e) requires the Minister for International Trade to ensure that Canadian companies comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in Article 22.15 of the Agreement; and
(f) requires a comprehensive review of the operation and effect of the Act and of the Agreement every three years.
It also makes related amendments to certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement.

Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my colleague from Ottawa Centre.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about Bill C‑18 and diversifying Canada's trade. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the economy of my riding, Beauport—Limoilou. I will start with some examples of businesses in my riding that do business internationally.

Maple 3 is located on 5th Street in Limoilou. I had an opportunity to visit the company last year and meet its amazing team. What I saw really helped me understand our riding's economic reality. Maple 3 transforms a homegrown product, maple sap, into a natural beverage that is now sold internationally. The company sells its products in places like Singapore and Hong Kong and is expanding its presence in other Asian markets. Driving those exports is a small team of entrepreneurs and employees busy innovating, developing products and building an international presence from a neighbourhood in Limoilou.

On Jérémie Fortin Street in Limoilou, the Primatech lab designs and manufactures specialized tools for hardwood floor installation. The company's trademark Québécois manufacturing know-how is now in foreign markets thanks to its export development activity. Products designed right in my riding are being used by professionals elsewhere in the world.

There is also a company in Beauport that is involved in opening up markets. The smokehouse La Fée des grèves processes seafood products and is part of an agri-food chain that gets Quebec products into the hands of consumers outside our domestic market. This translates into local jobs in processing, quality control, packaging and logistics.

I would like to give one last example. In Beauport, Groupe Sio helps businesses structure their import-export activities, identify foreign partners and navigate international markets. When we look at all these examples together, it is clear that Beauport—Limoilou's economy is made up of innovative SMEs, specialized manufacturers and processing companies that are succeeding in carving out a place for themselves in international markets. That is the economic reality of Beauport—Limoilou. These companies are rooted in their communities, creating value here while also creating opportunities abroad.

I want to continue with a simple but telling image to illustrate my point today. It is an image that I like. International economic relations are often like a big chess game. Each country is a player. Each trade decision is an agreement, a strategic move. Each agreement sets the stage for future positions. In games like this, it is never just about the next move. Players always think in the short, medium and long terms. They protect what they have achieved. They develop alliances. Above all, they prepare for the future. All countries in the world have this framework in mind when they develop a national strategy.

In all great strategies, there are decisive moments, moments when a player must decide whether to simply defend what they have achieved or to advance their pieces. That is exactly the position Canada is in today. The global economy is changing. Supply chains are being redrawn. Geopolitical balances are shifting. In this great global economic chess game, Canada is not a spectator. Canada is a player, a player that must think in the short, medium and long terms.

That is exactly what Bill C‑18 does. The bill is more than a trade agreement; it is a strategic move. It is a piece that is being moved with intention, a position set up with the future in mind. It forms part of an ambitious trade diversification plan. The plan is clear: to open new markets, to reduce dependence, and to create opportunities for Canadian businesses, including those in the greater Quebec City area.

In any game of chess, the short term is about openings, those first moves that set up a position. In the short term, the agreement with Indonesia immediately enhances access to a market of nearly 300 million people, the largest economy in ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and an Indo-Pacific global powerhouse.

The elimination of tariffs on more than 95% of Canadian exports will make our products more competitive in one of the world's most dynamic markets. This is a tangible gain. It is an immediate gain. It is a strategic gain. For Quebec and the Quebec City region, this means more exports for our manufacturers, new technology partnerships, and more investments that create quality jobs.

A national strategy cannot be limited to the opening moves. In the medium term, a game of chess involves controlling the centre of the board, creating solid positions, and connecting the pieces. That is exactly what this agreement will do. It establishes predictable and stable trade rules. It strengthens the supply chain. It paves the way for lasting partnerships between Canadian and Indonesian companies. For Quebec's key sectors, namely aerospace, clean technology, artificial intelligence, and sustainable energy, this means a real strategic advantage in a growing market.

What we are doing today is consolidating a position that will enable our companies to grow tomorrow. Great nations, like great chess players, always think long term. By 2050, Indonesia is expected to become one of the world's five largest economies. For Canada, establishing strong trade relations with this rapidly growing partner now is a strategic move.

For too long now, our economy has relied heavily on a major trading partner. Diversifying our trade is about reducing risk, building resilience and positioning Canada for future prosperity. It is about giving our businesses predictability. That is the word business people used the most at the Standing Committee on International Trade. They want predictability. That is why our government is working to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade. This is not some slogan; this is a national strategy, and the agreement with Indonesia is a key component of that strategy. Canada's first bilateral agreement with an ASEAN nation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, clearly signals our engagement in the Indo-Pacific region.

In the global game currently unfolding, some countries are choosing retreat; Canada is choosing to engage. Some are choosing protectionism; Canada is choosing partnership. Some are reacting; Canada is making strategic advances. This bill projects leadership in a world grappling with economic and geopolitical uncertainty. It asserts that Canada will remain a major player in international trade. It affirms that Quebec will continue to export innovation. It signals that our businesses will have access to growing markets.

A good chess strategy is based on three principles: anticipate, diversify, build. Anticipate risks, diversify options and build a winning position. That is exactly what Bill C-18 does. It prepares our economy for the realities of the 21st century. It connects Canadian ingenuity with global demand. It creates opportunities for Quebec businesses. It strengthens the prosperity of communities across the country. Canada is playing this game with confidence, clarity and determination.

I therefore invite all members of the House to support Bill C-18 for a more diversified, resilient and prosperous economy. In the big global economic game that is being played, Canada is not just defending its position, it is playing to win.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say good afternoon to my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. It is a very beautiful region. My mother-in-law lives in that magnificent region.

We are all in favour of developing new markets. However, I will pick up on my colleague's chess analogy. Right now, the government is going after the pawn instead of the king. Strategically, in chess, the goal is to take down the king. Right now, the number one issue is U.S. tariffs and the agreement with the U.S. government. The Liberal government seems to be hiding from that and backing down. It is being vague. With the agreement in Bill C-18, yes, we want to grow, but it is not going to pay off right away. It will take many years. Also, this represents less than 0.1% of trade.

My question is very simple. Why are the Liberals not dealing with the real issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I really appreciate his participation at the Standing Committee on International Trade. He is a proud representative of Beauce.

We were talking about chess matches and the short, medium and long terms. We do need to look at the short term. As of tomorrow morning, we will have access to a market of almost 300 million people, and 95% of tariffs will be removed. As my colleague just said, U.S. tariffs are hurting our businesses. They are hurting businesses in Beauce. We are talking about almost 97% of goods being tariff-free.

We are also looking at the long term because we want to double exports in the next decade. That part of the world is the fourth-largest economy in the world, and it is growing fast. Canada must position itself now. We cannot wait until that part of the world is at its peak. We are doing it now, and that is good for the future.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague told us that this agreement would be good for his riding and for the Quebec City area. I applaud that. I would like to know if he is aware of any businesses in his riding or in the Quebec City area that currently export goods to Indonesia. I would like him to give us some concrete examples.

I would also like to know whether he has any reservations concerning respect for workers' rights. We know that a little over one million children work in Indonesia. There are health and safety issues related to chemicals used in the textile industry or in leather tanning, for example.

What parameters have been included in this agreement to ensure that we do not import products that involve worker exploitation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really appreciate it. I will start at the end. To be very clear, Canada has always considered any amount of worker exploitation unacceptable. Canada has always asked that such clauses be included in its agreements.

As for businesses in my riding that already do business abroad, I named some earlier, including one that helps businesses import and export abroad. Yes, I talked a lot about Beauport—Limoilou because I am proud of it. However, we can look at the reactions of stakeholders. Cereals Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Meat Council and the Canadian Pork Council have all responded positively to this agreement and the forthcoming agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is substantial legislation. Let us look at Indonesia's role, in particular as a player in the whole Pacific area. There are billions of dollars in bilateral trade between Canada and Indonesia today, and this is good news in terms of the potential that is there. Never before have we had a prime minister so aggressively go out to meet world leaders and to bring opportunities for exporters here in Canada to increase investment coming into Canada. I wonder if my colleague could just provide his thoughts on the bigger picture of how important it is that we go out and make these types of deals.

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

Mr. Speaker, we exported $2.3-billion worth of goods in 2024. We are talking about a country with the fourth largest population in the world. As I said earlier, this country is ascendant. Now is the time to position ourselves, because we can exponentially increase that $2.3 billion. We are working on positioning ourselves. We have seen the investments that are going to be made in our infrastructure.

Wheat is exported to Europe from my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. We need to invest in infrastructure today if we want to double exports within 10 years, so this is excellent news for the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18.

Bill C-18 is a very important piece of legislation. It is critical at this moment in our history for Canada's economic growth and prosperity, and for making sure that we are able to create the important jobs necessary for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Before I get into some of the substantive parts of this legislation, I want to take this opportunity to thank some people for their important work in getting us to this point. Of course, the Minister of International Trade has been very active in making sure that this agreement was concluded. He was part of the signing ceremony, along with the Prime Minister, with our Indonesian administration counterparts.

There are a number of officials from Global Affairs Canada who were on the negotiating team, and who worked for multiple years to negotiate and finalize this really important agreement in the best interest of Canada. I want to take a moment to thank all those officials for their hard work and for their service to our country.

I want to acknowledge all the members of the Standing Committee on International Trade. It is a real pleasure to work with them, and I mean from all three parties, including the government side of the committee. It was a very co-operative committee with a co-operative process whereby we could work together. We were able to share ideas with each other. There were some changes: As members can see from the report stage, some minor changes were added to the bill, and it all happened in a thoughtful, consultative way. It was Parliament working at its best in committee, and it demonstrated how working together for the well-being of Canadians, for our own constituents, is extremely important.

I also want to extend my gratitude to the Indonesian ambassador here in Canada, His Excellency Muhsin Syihab, who recently arrived in Canada. He has a lot of knowledge about Indonesia, of course, and is keen to learn about Canada. He is a very enthusiastic champion of this legislation. I thank him and look forward to working with him in terms of implementing this agreement, once it has passed in the House and in the other place and becomes law, so that we can create those opportunities for Canadian companies in the Indonesian market.

It has been said during second reading, and we heard this during committee, but it is worth repeating how important this Canada-Indonesia comprehensive economic partnership agreement is, which is affectionately referred to as the “Canada-Indonesia CEPA”. It represents an important milestone in Canada's trade engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. It was concluded in December 2024 and signed, as I mentioned earlier, in September 2025.

This agreement seeks to deepen economic ties with Indonesia, which is a nation of nearly 280 million people. It is a big country in the Indo-Pacific region and had a thriving economy of $1.9 trillion in 2024, so imagine how beneficial a bilateral comprehensive economic agreement with a country that size could be for Canada. That is what we have been able to accomplish through this very important agreement.

The agreement is quite focused. It is also quite expansive in terms of the breadth and scope for Canadians. As I mentioned, it is a fairly comprehensive trade agreement that addresses market access for goods, services and investments, and includes provisions on small and medium-sized enterprises, labour, environment and women's economic empowerment. It is truly a model agreement, when it comes to free trade agreements, in terms of how modern trade agreements can be developed. Canada, working along with our friends from Indonesia, is able to set the stage for it.

The committee process was a really positive one. We got to hear from many stakeholders who represented various diverse backgrounds, and they spoke to us in support of this agreement. The two who really came to the fore for me were from our agriculture and agri-food sector. Their enthusiastic support for this was quite remarkable. Whether we were talking about the cattle or pork industries or speaking of the pulse and soy industries, they were all really keen for this agreement, because for them, this agreement would give preferable market access to a large economy. They would see Canadian exports rising significantly in an already robust market because of the preferential treatment that they would receive under the agreement. They were really keen, and they really stressed to all of us that we should try to conclude and pass the ratification of the agreement through Parliament as quickly as possible.

As such, I want to take this opportunity to thank them and all of those important associations. I particularly thank all our farmers, who work so hard day in and day out to make sure that we are producing world-class food, not only for Canadians but to sell around the world. I think they realized that Indonesia is a growing market, economy and population, and that Canada can be selling that sustainable, good-quality food to Indonesians.

The other sector that was really highlighted during the committee process was the nuclear sector. A representative from a nuclear company, AtkinsRéalis, spoke about the opportunities the agreement would create around energy security and the ability to export Canadian technology when it comes to safe, reliable, stable nuclear technology. As members know, CANDU is a Canadian innovation. It is remarkable in terms of creating energy around the world, not only in Canada, and companies like AtkinsRéalis are quite keen to be engaging with countries like Indonesia. The agreement would allow them to do that on a preferential basis and to find ways to sell that technology. This would mean not only helping Indonesia to have more energy security and to meet its net-zero targets by 2050, but also, and most importantly, creating really well-paying jobs for Canadians.

In my province of Ontario alone, we have one of the world's best supply chains for nuclear energy, and if we are able to open more export markets for that technology, it will only mean more jobs for Canadians. This agreement would create that opportunity and allow for Canadian companies like AtkinsRéalis to sell in places like Indonesia.

The last point I want to talk about is why this agreement is important for the work that we are doing as a country in trade diversification. I think this House spends a lot of time talking about the challenges we are going through, like the protectionism that we are seeing right now, especially as it relates to our American partners. Our effort is to diversify our trade. Our effort is to double our non-U.S. exports in the next 10 years. That is the goal that the Prime Minister has set. This agreement is a really important example of how we can do this, and not only that, but it is an opening for us to finalize our agreement with the ASEAN countries, which Indonesia is part of. Other major countries, like the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam are also ASEAN countries, and this agreement would set the template in terms of the work that we need to do.

I want to thank the deputy minister of trade from Indonesia, who was instrumental in this. When I met with her in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at the ASEAN ministerial summit, she committed that she would make sure that ASEAN also finalizes an agreement this year, in 2026, so that we can keep building stronger economic ties with other countries and create well-paying jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, most Canadians know AtkinsRéalis by its original name of SNC-Lavalin. It is the now disgraced company that is so corrupt it cannot do business anywhere in the world after bribing Gadhafi's family to get a contract. We also know that AtkinsRéalis got the deal of deals when Harper sold it all of AECL for $17 million. Now, using the name of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, it masquerades as having real technology for small modular reactors that do not exist anywhere.

Can the parliamentary secretary possibly justify why we are throwing billions of dollars into this without a single day of debate in this place about nuclear technology?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all share the goal of making sure there is energy security, and not only energy security. In order for us to really fight climate change, we need to make sure there is more enhanced electrification, not only in Canada but around the world. I think that is going to be an imperative. For us to do that the best way, we need to make sure we have net-zero electricity. Some may disagree, but I fundamentally believe that nuclear energy is a very important source of that net-zero technology.

Canada has been a leader in safe nuclear technology. We have demonstrated that in places like Ontario, the province I come from. I think there is an opportunity to help meet those climate change goals around the world. Canada can take a leadership role in that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the process.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to have gotten an amendment adopted that will require the minister to ensure that a review is carried out every three years and a report submitted to the House. That is a good thing.

However, we would rather have debated the agreement itself. Instead, we are being forced to debate its application. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton introduced Bill C‑228 to strengthen Parliament's role in the treaty ratification process. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

Would it not be democratic if we could discuss it more ahead of time and talk about the process as well?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her important question. I was very pleased to work with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois on the amendment to the bill.

It was a good amendment. We agree with the member that having a report-back mechanism in the agreement is a good procedural step to ensure that we as parliamentarians will be able to take full stock of the promise of this legislation.

I thank the member opposite for his constructive approach to this and look forward to continuing to work with him.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that some of the organizations that support this agreement are Cereals Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Cattle Association and Soy Canada. That is a lot of agricultural associations. This seems to be a good deal for Canadian farmers.

I do not know what trade barriers existed before with Indonesia, so could the member help explain how this is going to benefit Canadian farmers?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question, and the member is absolutely right. The agriculture sector was extremely enthusiastic, because it opens up a very big market. Some of the big barriers that exist are around sanitary and phytosanitary conditions. The agreement allows for better regulatory harmonization, for better process and understanding, and for high-quality products that are grown in Canada to be sold in places like Indonesia.

I think it is good news for our farmers. Our farmers were present at the committee process, and they agreed that the agreement will allow for them to export more Canadian-produced goods to places like Indonesia.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is this: What distinguishes this agreement from other free trade agreements we have? Is there any specific element of this agreement that makes it so special?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. As I mentioned, this is a more modern free trade agreement than we have done in the past. That is why we do not call it a free trade agreement. Rather, we call it a comprehensive economic agreement. I think this is the kind of template that we will be able to use in other places, like ASEAN and Mercosur. We are negotiating with the Philippines and Thailand as well.

There is a great desire for engagement with Canada. People want to buy Canadian-produced goods, especially when it comes to our agriculture and energy resources. That is the work we are doing through agreements like the one we are debating here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time today, with the agreement of the House, with the hon. member for Beauce.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill to speak to Bill C-18, an act implementing the Canada-Indonesia comprehensive economic partnership agreement.

Let me begin by stating clearly that Conservatives believe in trade. Canada has always been a trading nation. From the earliest days of Confederation, our prosperity has depended on our ability to reach beyond our borders and sell Canadian goods and expertise to the world. For that reason, we approach trade agreements with a constructive mindset. When agreements expand market access, reduce tariffs and create opportunities for Canadian producers, we welcome them. At a time when natural resources are more critical than ever, we are a truly fortunate nation. Canada holds some of the world's most abundant natural resources, including oil reserves that have the potential to make Canada one of the most influential and prosperous nations on earth.

For too long, we have let outdated ideology and self-sabotage stand in the way of our potential. In 2026, the world is shifting under our feet, and we have no excuse not to be an export powerhouse. Indonesia is an opportunity for Canadian trade and Canadian influence. It is the fourth most populous country in the world, home to more than 270 million people. It has one of the fastest-growing economies in the Indo-Pacific region. It has a rapidly expanding middle class and increasing demand for food, technology, natural resources and energy. Energy is so central to our standard of living here at home and to that of all people around the world yet is something that the Liberal government has neglected.

When the Minister of International Trade appeared at the international trade committee hearing last month to answer questions about Bill C-18, I noted that the Asia Pacific Foundation has produced a report highlighting the growing relationship between the United States and Indonesia in the energy sector, particularly with respect to oil and liquefied natural gas.

Indonesia imported roughly 322,000 barrels of crude oil per day in 2024, and it is dependent on energy imports for 40% of its national energy demand, which will only grow as the Indonesian economy expands and more Indonesians are lifted out of poverty. It seems we are missing the boat on this opportunity. Not only is the United States stepping up to meet Indonesia's demand for oil, but the minister informed the international trade committee that the conversation with the Indonesians was focused on sustainable energy. What he said was that “in Indonesia they also want to go to more sustainable energy. When they talk about sustainable, they talk about nuclear and about LNG, which is a bit lower in terms of carbon emissions when you compare it to crude.”

That was on February 5 of this year. It would seem from the minister's evidence to the committee that Indonesia is not interested in oil, would it not? As it worked out, 15 days after the minister spoke to the committee, Indonesia signed an agreement with the United States that covers, among other things, $15 billion per year in American energy exports to Indonesia, including $3.5 billion of liquefied petroleum gas and $4.5 billion of crude oil. As if that was not enough, just a few days ago it was reported that Indonesia will be increasing its crude oil imports from the United States due to the war in the Persian Gulf. I hope the irony is not lost on anyone listening today.

As I said to the minister at the hearing, “It strikes me that we may have missed the boat in terms of our ability to export those products into this marketplace.” On that day, I used the word “may”. I am now certain, as I think we all are now, that Canada's energy industry missed what could have been a magnificent opportunity for growth. We allowed this opportunity to go to the United States.

The Liberal government makes blunders like these because it fundamentally sees energy as a source of embarrassment rather than a source of power. Liberals can talk all they want about making Canada an energy superpower, but actions, as always, speak louder than words. Becoming an energy superpower requires more than rhetoric, more than speeches and more than press conferences. It requires action, infrastructure and legislative, regulatory and policy certainty. Above all, it requires a clear commitment to ensuring that Canadian energy can reach global markets.

Maybe the reason Indonesia was not interested in discussing Canadian oil, as per the minister, is that it knew we cannot be relied upon to supply it. Yes, it is true that LNG Canada is finally up and running, but let us be honest. One project delayed by years of red tape and regulatory hurdles is not a strategy. It is a lucky break. We have managed just that one LNG facility, in Kitimat. Our competitors on the gulf coast of the United States, however, are building export terminals at a record pace, and they are not just engaging with Indonesia. They are signing contracts. They are eating our lunch because their government views energy as an asset, not a liability and not something to be phased out.

During that same international trade committee hearing, I reminded the minister of the Liberal government's decision to cancel the northern gateway pipeline roughly a decade ago. I pointed out that had that project gone ahead, Canada would today be in a far stronger position to export crude oil to Asian markets. Canada should be well positioned to supply that demand. We have vast energy resources, world-class producers, workers who are second to none anywhere in the world and some of the highest environmental standards in the world. We have just chosen to put obstacle after obstacle in our own way for no good reason.

The obstacles include Bill C-69 and the tanker ban affecting the northern coast of British Columbia. With these laws in place, no new pipelines will be built to carry Canadian crude oil to market, even though the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat can safely host oil tankers, and projects like the Eagle Spirit pipeline can reduce our reliance on the port of Vancouver for west coast energy exports.

The foregoing is why today in the House I introduced a private member's bill that would repeal the tanker ban on the west coast of B.C. I introduced that bill because I believe Canada must confront a certain truth. If we want to become an energy superpower, we cannot simultaneously block the infrastructure necessary to export our energy.

Right now, roughly 240 tankers move crude oil every year between a storage facility in Montreal, via the St. Lawrence River, and a refining facility beside Quebec City. In Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 90 international tankers visit the Whiffen Head facility to export oil brought in by offshore shuttle tankers. There is no logical reason tanker traffic is unacceptable in Kitimat or Prince Rupert but just fine in Quebec City and Vancouver. Anyone working in the energy sector will tell us that the tanker ban represents one of the the most significant barriers to expanding Canadian crude oil exports to global markets.

The CBC published an article yesterday asking this question: “With a crucial oil artery blocked near Iran,” and that would be the Strait of Hormuz, “can Canada fill the gap in global supply?” It shows just how much Canada has to contribute in today's turbulent world and just how much of an opportunity is being missed. It is not just an opportunity to boost our energy sector but also an opportunity to support our allies as they look to diversify away from dictator oil.

The CBC article ended on a disturbing note. It quoted Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, who stated, “in a situation where you have this Iran conflict and you're seeing 20 per cent of global supply impacted, when push comes to shove, you'll start to see countries...importing some Russian supply”. This is not something we want to see happen.

Canada's energy sector has long been one of the pillars of our national economy. It generates billions of dollars in revenue that fund public services, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and drives investment and innovation in communities from coast to coast to coast. Trade agreements like this one with Indonesia must be part of a broader strategy to strengthen Canada's economic position in the world, and that strategy must include all sectors of the Canadian economy, including energy. Trade with Indonesia is a good thing, but a trade agreement is not worth the paper it is written on if the Liberals see it as principally a tool for making themselves look good at home.

Canada must be a leading supplier of oil and natural gas to the world. Our allies need it. We can make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in so many ways and put a lot of information that is questionable, at best, on the record. We would have to go back generations before we would see a prime minister who has been more proactive, whether it is signing an MOU or going to countries like India to talk about energy, have discussions and secure export opportunities second to no other.

I realize the member is relatively new to the House, but does he not realize that when his party's leader was part of the Conservative government, in 10 years, not one inch of pipeline to tidewater—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have the advantage here of being somebody who is not tied to the past. Quite frankly, I am looking forward. I am looking forward to what the opportunities are for our country, what things we can build and what we can achieve. I have no interest in the Liberal failures of the past. I am interested only in what we can do going forward. Trade agreements are a good thing, but we have to have our act together domestically in order to be a valuable trading partner to the world.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the departing member, but I am not sure whether he will understand it. I would like to ask him about palm oil. Indonesia is one of the major producers of palm oil. Palm oil imports are skyrocketing in Canada. This is causing problems with deforestation of tropical forests and is affecting local populations, who are often forced to work on these plantations, as well as indigenous peoples.

Does my colleague think that Canada should follow the European Union's example and create a special group to monitor developments in this area?

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

Mr. Speaker, a trade agreement gives us opportunities to work with other countries around the world. We are not going to immediately be in any position to impose standards or our standards of living upon a trading partner, but it is the beginning of a relationship, and in that, we can grow over time to appreciate different practices. Canada has many of the world's leading environmental, agricultural, industrial and energy practices. When we trade with other nations, we have the opportunity to exchange that expertise and improve circumstances in both countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight on what has happened over the last couple of decades in this place. When Stephen Harper became the prime minister, he did not inherit a single tidewater pipeline project from the previous Chrétien-Martin governments. When he left office in 2015, there were four of these projects, not to mention the number of projects that were actually done in expanding our trade to the United States.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, because my colleague is from Calgary, he talks about oil and gas. He actually knows what he is talking about, unlike the guy who is chirping me across the way right now.

Based on the announcement by the government on the expected value of this trade relationship with Indonesia, I wanted to ask my colleague if he can tell me what the value of one LNG tanker leaving Canada might be worth to our economy in context.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite interestingly, there were some discussions on that very subject earlier today that I was part of. When we look at an export relationship of about $400 million, two LNG tankers would be equivalent to that in terms of value. It is obvious that our greatest opportunity to increase trade, to provide for Indonesia and to provide opportunities for export for Canadian companies is in energy. The value is tremendous, beneficial for both sides and something that we are well behind on because of our domestic situation. We must get to work on that so we can be an effective international trading partner.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to represent the magnificent region of Beauce in the House.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-18 on the Canada-Indonesia economic agreement.

Beauce is considered the entrepreneurial capital of Canada. We have a large number of businesses and entrepreneurs. We also have many farmers. Beauce is home to some of the best farmers in the world. We work hard. We are proud to grow our economy. Beauce, and the people from there, create wealth. That is why, as parliamentarians, we must do everything we can to help them develop new markets, but we must develop them with discipline, care and rigour.

Conservatives have always defended and will always defend free trade, but also trade that is fair and reciprocal. I call these win-win agreements. This approach must remain our priority as Canada seeks to diversify its markets.

Under Stephen Harper's leadership, the Conservatives actively championed free trade with free nations, signing numerous free trade agreements to diversify our trade, but in a cautious and very responsible manner. Unfortunately, under the Liberals, Canada has fallen behind, and our dependence on the Americans and the United States has only grown over the past 10 years. Today, the Liberals are trying to make up for lost time by signing agreements quickly and at any cost, but they are forgetting to do their due diligence.

This brings me to Bill C-18. The Prime Minister called this agreement between Canada and Indonesia revolutionary. There is nothing revolutionary about it. It is pretty marginal.

Canadians need meaningful results. The Liberals are hiding the reality, and the reality is that we are still facing unjustified U.S. tariffs. Beauce borders the United States. Its geographic location allows our businesses, farmers, manufacturers, exporters and retailers to do business with the world's largest economy.

However, the Liberals have failed the people of Beauce. They have basically given up on the relationship with the United States. After promising a speedy trade deal with Washington, they are now at an endless impasse. The people who come up to me day after day are not talking to me about Indonesia. They are talking about the American tariffs. Every day, people in Beauce ask me whether we are going to have a new agreement or a deal with the Americans. I have never heard anyone mention Indonesia. It is simply not the priority.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade travel all over the globe and come back to Parliament with minor free trade agreements. These agreements are minor, but they contain hidden tariff barriers.

A recurring issue raised by Canadian beef producers is that Canadian beef continues to face a technical problem that we call non-tariff barriers. For example, Indonesia requires that beef exports come from cattle born and raised in Canada or that have resided in Canada for at least four months immediately prior to slaughter. These are called non-tariff barriers. Producers have complained. We do not hear much about this from the Liberal government.

According to the Canadian Cattle Association, “The integration of the North American cattle market makes it near impossible to achieve this residency requirement”, so they will not be entering into an agreement or doing business with them, plain and simple. This impossible requirement may prevent our Canadian producers from taking advantage of duty-free access to the Indonesian market.

This apparent non-tariff barrier represents a significant challenge for Canadian beef producers. Although Global Affairs Canada mentions a memorandum of understanding establishing a dialogue on sanitary and phytosanitary issues, we are concerned about this. We are seeing a trend where non-tariff barriers are simply not being addressed by the Liberal government.

Just look at the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union. The Liberals promised to resolve the issue of regulatory differences between Canada and Europe. Today, 10 years later, nothing has changed. European producers have full access to our market to compete with Beauce's farmers, while we are unable to export our pork and beef. The devil is in the details.

Over the past few weeks, the Standing Committee on International Trade has been hearing testimony about the non-tariff barriers that the United Kingdom continues to impose on Canadian beef and pork. The United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership eliminates tariffs on Canadian beef and pork on paper. However, in practice, the United Kingdom continues to impose non-tariff barriers to prevent us from accessing their market. The consequences for our beef and pork producers are devastating.

Allow me to share some figures from the Library of Parliament. In 2024, the United Kingdom exported 42 million dollars' worth of beef products to Canada. In the first half of 2025, 28 million dollars' worth of beef products entered Canada. In 2024, Canada exported only 85,000 dollars' worth of beef products to the United Kingdom. In 2025, brace for this: zero. That is right, zero dollars. It is all well and good to sign agreements, as my colleagues say, just to save face. However, an agreement that serves no purpose is a waste of time and money.

As with the agreement with Indonesia, the Liberal government is prepared to sign the free trade agreement without obtaining any guarantee that our Canadian producers will receive barrier-free access. Meanwhile, our farmers are struggling to remain competitive. Our beef producers raise cattle of the highest quality, some of the best beef in the world. They are proud, and they deserve a government that is willing to fight for them. We need a government that will fight to ensure that Canada's free trade agreements are 100% barrier free. Too often, this Liberal government seems reluctant to fight to eliminate the most significant barriers affecting farmers in Beauce and across the country.

In the meantime, regions like Beauce are facing enormous challenges, including U.S. tariffs, non-tariff barriers in Europe, and major increases in input costs. The Canadian government needs to prioritize producers, defend our industry, and achieve meaningful gains for our farmers. That is the way to protect Canadian producers and put Canada first.

Canada cannot control what the President and other countries' negotiators do, but one thing it can do is control its own destiny. The government must ensure that all non-tariff barriers are removed and secure a firm guarantee that trade will be not only free, but fair. Again, it has to be a win-win situation. We must diversify our trade without leaving our farmers behind. We can strengthen our sovereignty and grow our economy. That is how Canada can take control and put itself first.

In conclusion, farmers in Beauce, as everywhere else in rural Canada, feed the country and the world. However, they are struggling and only benefit from free trade when they have genuine reciprocal access to new markets. Once again, Bill C-18 does not remove all non-tariff barriers, so our farmers will have to continue to fight for fair and reciprocal access.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Marine Transportation; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, The Economy; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about the pork industry. It is an $8-billion industry here in Canada. Less than a year ago, I was with the Minister of Agriculture in the Philippines, where we highlighted industry representatives from the province of Quebec. I have met, as recently as yesterday, with members of the Manitoba pork industry. We understand the true value of that industry. The government sees huge numbers from our pork exports and sees the opportunities being created in that industry. When the Prime Minister talks about getting a trade agreement with the Philippines or when the Prime Minister goes to Japan, these are critical markets in terms of pork.

Would the member not agree that having a prime minister who is going out and about to create export opportunities is the best thing that we can do to protect our pork industry?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Yes, we need to diversify our markets everywhere, we need to improve our businesses, and we need to enter into agreements. However, allow me to repeat myself, the way I do as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade: When it comes to non-tariff barriers, the details of agreements are important. Simply signing agreements is not enough. Signing an agreement is easy; anyone can do it. What matters is getting something in return.

I can give my esteemed colleague an example: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. Under CETA, we were supposed to export 300 million dollars' worth of pork. How much was sent? The answer: zero. Because of non-tariff barriers, access is not guaranteed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a comment and then move on to my question.

Just because no one in Shefford is talking to me about the agreement with Indonesia does not mean that we should not diversify our markets and seek to reduce our dependence on the United States.

As I said earlier, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton succeeded in getting various amendments adopted in committee, including the one I mentioned earlier, which provides for a review of the agreement's operation and effect every three years, with a report to be tabled in the House. I would like to congratulate him on that achievement.

The other amendment stipulates that the government must ensure that companies exploiting natural resources in Indonesia, particularly palm oil plantations, comply with environmental standards and respect workers' rights.

My question for my colleague is this: Why did the Conservatives vote against several of the amendments proposed by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for the question. It is much appreciated.

I would like to acknowledge my committee colleague, who is looking at me and wants to hear my response. I will respond to my colleague's first comment about the importance of diversifying our sector and diversifying the countries we trade with. Yes, I agree that we need to expand our circle of friends in business. I agree on that point.

However, I want to come back to something. She says that we do not hear much about Indonesia. We hear about the United States. However, no one here is talking about that. It seems that we are the only ones talking about it on this side of the House. We share a border with the United States. We do business with the Americans. We are talking about 0.12%. We are spending time on this. To me, it is a waste of time and money. Canada is not lacking in talented entrepreneurs or strong industries. Canada needs a government that takes action, not a government that is asleep at the wheel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his really informative speech. I think we all agree we need to diversify our markets.

Why does my colleague think Canadians are having trouble believing what the government says it is going to do and are questioning whether any of this is actually going to happen?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. Canadians do not believe it because all they hear are words. They are not seeing any results. Announcements are made, but there is no progress. Since I started here, the government has done nothing but make announcements. It makes sense that people do not believe the government, because no real action is being taken on the ground.

The example I can give once again is the negotiations with the Americans, which were supposed to take place at the beginning of the Prime Minister's mandate but never did. Now, it is business as usual and nothing is happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about the proposed trade agreement with Indonesia. Indeed, everyone is talking about diversifying markets and partners these days. There is a lot of talk about this. It is an idea that has become quite popular just in the past year. I wonder why that is.

We are in favour of free trade, but not at any cost. I will come back to that shortly as I dissect the agreement. It is like how people are always talking about returning to a rules-based international order. Rules are all well and good. We need rules. We cannot live in total chaos. However, it always depends on what rule we are talking about. Not every rule is legitimate in its own right either.

The same goes for free trade. It is an economic principle that, when properly defined, applied and regulated, can have very positive outcomes, particularly for a small economy like Quebec's. It allows Quebec to become part of a large market and to have access to many partners.

However, it is important to be mindful of certain types of free trade agreements, like the ones signed in the 1990s, which grew at lightning speed during the glory years of globalization, if we may call it that, during most of the aggressive years of neo-liberalism. During that time, free trade was incorrectly taken to mean regulatory agreements that imposed the sovereignty of multinationals on specific communities and states. I will come back to that shortly.

I want to start with some positive remarks about this agreement. As the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, I am delighted by what is in this agreement. The city of Saint‑Hyacinthe is the agri-food processing capital of Canada. Of course, the rest of the riding, like the Maskoutains and Acton regions, are highly agricultural as well. I am pleased to see that this agreement will be good for our farmers. The agreement talks a lot about grain. It will be excellent for that.

I am also pleased that I managed to get two amendments adopted. In fact, the only two amendments to the agreement implementation bill were mine. I used exactly the same formula that I got adopted a few years ago in the agreement with Ukraine. The minister responsible for the agreement must submit an annual report on the human rights situation in the partner country and the conduct of Canadian companies there, so that we can get a yearly update. That is one of the two amendments.

I also had the other amendment adopted in relation to the agreement with the United Kingdom. We will discuss this again tomorrow. This amendment provides for a three-year review to ensure that, if we commit to something like this, we can re-examine it. I think it is quite reasonable to put the agreement on the table after three years, carefully review it and look at the results. That seems quite reasonable to me.

That is known as sweetening the pill. Now let us talk about the less attractive aspects of this agreement. Unfortunately, it is an agreement from another era. Honestly, I do not understand why Canada, which always claims to be a progressive country, continues to sign and negotiate such agreements.

Let us start with the process. We are accustomed to this, because this is a monarchy and, once again, there is no transparency with regard to parliamentarians and the provinces. This agreement is completely opaque, as are all such negotiations. We often hear from senior officials and negotiators who say that they have spoken with their Quebec counterparts. Forgive me for doubting that there was any real consultation. Forgive me for thinking that it is more of a fait accompli. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Canadian Constitution that says that, if a province is against the implementation of an agreement, then it can withdraw from that agreement. There is nothing comparable to Belgian federalism, for example, where if one region of Belgium opposes something in an agreement, then the entire country does not sign it. That is true federalism that respects its member regions. We have nothing like that here.

There is also nothing that allows a province to say that it will send its own negotiators and representatives to negotiating tables abroad, because it wants to have a distinct voice and make its voice heard in such discussions. There is nothing in the Canadian Constitution that guarantees that, either.

Of course, transparency is just as elusive for parliamentarians. We are parliamentarians. We are elected by the people through a democratic process. We have constituents, people who give us a mandate to stand up for certain positions, values and interests. Why, then, are we kept out of the loop and given so little say in something as important as agreements with other countries?

On the surface, these agreements seem highly complex. In reality, their effects are anything but abstract; their impact on daily life is highly palpable. Why are we kept so far out of the loop?

In many other approaches used around the world, the opposite happens: Parliamentarians are involved, they take part in debates early in the process during which their thoughts on the issues are sought out even before the negotiators are called in. These parliamentarians are asked whether they want certain things to be pushed for and whether they are flexible on certain mattters. Nothing like that happens in Canada.

What happens here is so different that it reaches absurd levels. I have been a member of the committee since 2019, and we have even been asked to study an agreement without having the text in front of us. That shows just how much of a joke Canada is when it comes to trade negotiations. The shocking lack of transparency is nothing but a big monarchical joke.

Furthermore, there is no law requiring a minimum waiting period. Agreements can be thousands of pages long and written in complex legal language, and there is no law or obligation requiring a fixed waiting period between the time the agreement is announced and the time it is presented to Parliament. Theoretically, this could happen the very next day, when absolutely no one would have had time to read the agreement, analyze it and understand its ins and outs. We know that the devil is often in the details. The devil is often in the misplaced commas in a bill.

The problem is that the agreement has already been signed. We have no say in the matter. Then we debate a bill to implement the agreement. We debate a bill to implement the agreement, not the agreement itself, so we cannot change or amend anything. When I propose amendments to such bills, one of the first things the committee chair tells me is that the amendments are inadmissible because they would alter the intent of the bill or because they would incur additional costs that were not initially provided for in the bill. I find it extremely unfortunate and detrimental that there is not more consideration for the democratic power of parliaments when it comes to debating something as important as this.

Now, let us talk about the substance of the agreement. This agreement is problematic on several levels. First, there is the issue of investor-state dispute settlement. Again, I do not understand. Canada loses a lot of lawsuits and a lot of money. There is a case currently under way because Quebec abandoned the GNL Québec project in Saguenay. As a result, we are being sued by the American company. How is it that Canada is still signing agreements that allow this to happen?

These clauses began to gain popularity with the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, but they are no longer part of North American free trade. Even the agreement that brought this into being on a global scale no longer includes it.

However, Canada's official position is still that it supports the right of multinationals to take governments to court if laws, measures or policies adopted by said government could harm a foreign investor's profits. It is that right to profit that elevates multinationals to the status of sovereign powers.

This can happen if, for example, a country decides to adopt health measures related to the environment and public property. Mexico was sued for taxing soft drinks. Australia was sued for placing restrictions on smoking. One country in the Middle East, I think it was Egypt, raised the minimum wage and was sued by a multinational corporation. Why is Ottawa still signing agreements that allow this?

The UN has published reports on this. One came from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, or UNCTAD. It is a bit dated. I think it was published in 2013.

It shows that, in 60% of cases, multinationals managed to thwart the democratic will of governments either entirely, by winning lawsuits against the state, or partially, by settling out of court.

Canada supports a complete surrender of political sovereignty every time it negotiates and pushes for investor-state dispute settlement, which is an unfair, outrageous and undemocratic mechanism. I gladly voted against that clause in the bill implementing the Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement when we studied it at the Standing Committee on International Trade. In the end, I did not vote against the agreement. We passed it. I was the one who asked for it to be passed on division, but I still voted against that clause of the bill.

The other issue is human rights. Indonesia is not a model country in this regard, particularly when it comes to workers' rights. We know that there are certain regions where there is violence, where there are warlords, where there is a lot of unrest. I introduced Bill C-251, which is modelled on the American system, which works. The Canadian model does not work when it comes to screening out goods produced by forced labour. All in all, Canada has seized and kept about five shipments, if I am not mistaken. There were others that were seized but later released in most cases. Some were returned to the importer.

In some cases, shipments rejected at the U.S. border because the Americans suspect they contain products made with forced labour are simply sent to Canada afterwards. Canada stupidly takes them in. It is that easy. That is Canada's reputation. That is a serious problem, is it not? My esteemed colleagues are so right to be proud when they sing the national anthem on Wednesdays. There is a reason I do not enter the House at that time. That is Canada's reputation. It is tough.

Canada is unable to come up with a proper model, but all we have to do is copy the model of our neighbour to the south, which works. That would also help the Americans trust us more on this matter. Of course, a free trade agreement and lower tariffs on foreign products mean that more products will be coming in. In the case of the United Kingdom, which we will be talking about tomorrow, I am not too worried about forced labour. In the case of Indonesia, however, I am more worried. However, the agreement remains silent on this issue.

It is also silent on the environment. We heard from the Minister of International Trade, who said there was a chapter on the environment. Yes, there is a chapter, but it contains no principles, no mechanisms or rules, nothing binding, nothing meaty. The minister told us that it would open up a conversation on the environment as it relates to trade. I ran out of time, but I would have liked to ask him what happened with previous agreements that included chapters on the environment. What conversation followed? Were there additional results? If we take the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement from six years ago, or the agreement with Ukraine from two years ago, was there any follow-up on them? It is all fine and good to say that there is a chapter on the environment, but what purpose does it serve?

In the case of Indonesia and Canada, we know that Canada is going to send its problematic products, its toxic products, to parts of the world like Indonesia allegedly for “recycling”. Some people may say that having some parts of the world generate wealth this way is normal, that these countries increase their GDP by taking care of toxic waste, for example. However, although these countries might see an immediate rise in their GDP, the hidden costs are troubling, quite apart from the environmental aspect. We need only consider water tables. Workers who handle this waste will end up with health problems. These countries pay an economic cost, especially in relation to their health care systems. These workers are going to need care. Something will have to be done with them. Water tables will have to be decontaminated. Sending them potentially toxic waste and products for recycling does nothing for these countries. I am also talking about plastic waste, since Canada's plastic waste is sent to Indonesia.

I will now address the specific case of Canadian mining companies, particularly Baru Gold, a so-called Canadian mining company. I say “so-called” because Canada and its mining companies have a lackluster reputation.

I went to Colombia and Chile and heard stories of private security firms shooting people at point-blank range and stories of people being evicted. Projects are being promised to the people there. Companies get support at first because they promise jobs, but in the end, they bring in their own workers and do not even hire locals. I have heard of cases of air pollution and water poisoning.

For example, Baru Gold mines for gold on Sangihe Island in Indonesia. I mentioned Canadian mining companies earlier, but whether it is accurate to call them that is open to debate, because Canada is a flag of convenience. More than half of the world's mining companies are Canadian. That alone should set off alarm bells. All a company needs is a post office box in Canada to claim to be Canadian. This allows these companies to benefit from the Toronto Stock Exchange. It allows them to enjoy tax benefits, speculative advantages and more. There are no consequences whatsoever.

If the Indonesian government tells a company that it is not interested in this Canadian mining project, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, or ISDS, that I was talking about earlier would suddenly allow the company to sue Indonesia. That is what Canada is supporting. This so-called human rights leader is supporting that through the ISDS mechanism.

My colleagues might argue that there is an ombudsperson. The ombudsperson can receive complaints if a mining company or any Canadian company behaves badly abroad. It is a joke, and the ombudsperson position has been vacant for a year anyway. Nobody has occupied this position for a year. The ombudsperson does not even have the power to call witnesses as part of the investigations. The ombudsperson does not have the power to compel the production of documents as part of the investigations. That does not look good. It is simply an empty shell that the Trudeau government decided to create to partially appease the civil society groups that were advocating for some form of accountability for companies abroad. It is useless because it is an empty shell.

In any case, since the position has been vacant for a year, I would not be surprised to see this government abolish it in the near future. I do not want that, because even though it does not amount to much, it is better to have something than nothing.

This is also the same government that shirked its obligation to introduce a bill on forced labour by the end of the year. This was a promise it made in the March 2023 and March 2024 budgets. Those two years have come and gone, and we have not seen this bill, nor was it mentioned at all in the 2025 budget. After breaking the promise for two years in a row, the government simply stopped making it. I have to say, the Chinese are going to love that, so there is that, too. That must have been the reason. That explains it. I would not be surprised if it were dropped entirely.

To wrap up my speech, I would say yes to free trade, yes to trade in general. However, I still find it extremely sad to see Canada continue to negotiate agreements that are outdated, that do not include any human rights or environmental obligations and that continue to elevate multinational corporations to the status of sovereign powers. This is unworthy of a country that claims to be progressive and a champion of human rights.

Diversification, however necessary it may be, does not excuse everything. I hope the situation will soon be rectified.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, over the past few years, I have had little opportunity to observe my colleague's work at the committee. However, listening to him, it is clear that he has worked very hard and very effectively for the people in his riding. I am very pleased to hear him talk about the solid benefits of this agreement for farmers, including those in his riding. I would like to ask him the following question.

We know very well that there is no such thing as an ideal world; there is only the world as it is. There is no such thing as an ideal agreement; there are only agreements that could be signed. Given all the criticism that has been levelled at the agreement, does he still believe, ultimately, that it is a good agreement and a good deal?

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

Mr. Speaker, the beauty of 20-minute speeches is the opportunity to say that there are good things and not-so-good things. I think that is the beauty of this type of speech.

There are certainly some good things for our producers and exporters, but there are some very bad things in terms of the environment, the rights of multinational corporations, and human rights. I think that sums it up.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that this Indonesia trade deal is a major breakthrough, yet his own government says the economic impact will be just 0.012% of the GDP by 2040. That is about the value of one tanker's worth of LNG. At the same time, the United States has negotiated billions in the Indonesian purchases of American goods, including energy, agriculture and aircraft.

Why does my colleague think that the Prime Minister keeps signing deals that look good in a press release, but leave Canada trailing behind our competitors?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. As I said, diversification is always a good idea. Could the government have done better, even in this regard? To circle back to my previous answer, there are some good and some not-so-good elements in the agreement. There are many good economic elements. There are not so many in other areas. Even though the government could have gone further, diversification in and of itself is not a bad thing.

What worries me, however, is seeing agreements that would be directly beneficial to Quebec, such as the one with Taiwan, gathering dust on the Prime Minister's desk simply because the government would rather pander to the Chinese giant and accept cars that will eavesdrop on our conversations.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my colleague and friend for his speech. He certainly knows what he is talking about, as Olivier Guimond used to say in his famous slogan.

In his speech, my colleague often referred to the fact that this agreement contains clauses from another era that are no longer really found in modern agreements. I would like him to discuss that a bit more, focusing on the issue of ensuring that we do not import goods that are produced with child labour. There is also the issue of the environment. He talked about palm oil, deforestation, and so on. Then there is the whole issue of protecting the investments of Canadian mining companies. As he said, foreign investment often comes here to get incorporated in Canada, resulting in less accountability.

Can he tell us how the agreement could have been better drafted?

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

Mr. Speaker, can you give me another 20 minutes? That question cannot be answered properly in such a short period of time. Also, I think it would likely involve repeating things that I mentioned and elaborated on in my speech.

In committee, I tried to make what I thought were moderate amendments. It is unfortunate that my Liberal and Conservative colleagues did not accept them. For example, I voted against the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. I knew it would pass anyway, but I moved an amendment requesting a report on the costs of ISDS, including the costs of litigation. It was really quite straightforward; I just wanted a report. If everyone is so sure that everything is fine with ISDS, then they should not object to an annual report. Both parties voted against it. Unfortunately, the two parties that are friendly with multinational corporations voted against the amendment. That is what happened. If we could at least have a simple report, a bit of information, a bit more transparency, so that things could be documented and proven, that would already be a great start.

However, the next step is to offer recourse. We cannot amend the bill to include it, but we could have modified the agreement. I am talking about recourse for victims, binding recourse, and not just for multinationals that feel their profits have been harmed. I am talking about victims who are being abused by companies abroad or by governments. We need to be able to offer something to address that. There are other things as well that could be included in the legislative framework, such as legislation on the importation of goods produced by forced labour or legislation requiring greater transparency with parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. As he knows, I am very concerned about trade agreements that include investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

That gives rights to foreign companies, like the Indonesian company Paper Excellence for example, which bought the vast majority of pulp and paper companies across Canada, particularly in Quebec with Resolute.

Under this agreement, Paper Excellence would have the right to sue the government if the government implements environmental protection measures or measures to protect unions and workers. Does my colleague agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to explore this issue in greater depth, because too few people are talking about it. Civil society is fairly well informed on this topic; there were protests in the 1990s against the worst cases of misuse of this clause in agreements. However, it sounds very abstract and legal when people talk about “investor-state dispute settlements”. People think they need to be a lawyer or a negotiator to understand what it is, yet it has real consequences.

Earlier, I mentioned the real consequences of lawsuits and the fact that they have caused governments to back down, but now I would like to talk about another effect, one that cannot be quantified: the upstream impact of ISDS. It certainly creates a climate of self-censorship among public decision-makers. Public decision-makers often decide not to implement a particular policy because they fear ending up in court. They fear losing the case. This is the kind of slippery slope that is not quantifiable, that is difficult to assess, but that nevertheless comes with the territory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed in the Conservative member's question. I appreciate that they are voting in favour of the bill. Having said that, she tried to downplay the amount of trade by saying it is a fraction of a percentage point of the GDP. We are talking about billions and billions in merchandise trade with Indonesia. That is a whole lot of opportunities for—

[An hon. member]

No, you are not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are. They do not understand that. We are. Look at the numbers.

Having said that, the member opposite talks about the issue of consultation. I think, at times, the Bloc could maybe be found to not be recognizing the amount of consultations and the amount of working with stakeholders, whether it is in the different levels of government or private industry. I wonder if he could provide us—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question is about consulting businesses, entrepreneurs and so on. That probably happened to some extent.

As far as the premiers are concerned, I think I did a pretty good job of explaining how the provinces had no input and no say in the matter. Just because somebody gets a call and is asked what they think about a particular topic does not mean that they have veto power and that they can do anything they want.

I gave the example of Wallonia, which has a statutory right in the Belgian constitution. Even if the Belgian parliament were in favour of a particular agreement, if the Walloon parliament does not agree, Belgium cannot move forward with it. That has happened. Actually, I should talk about member regions. I referred to Wallonia in particular because there is an example of this in 2016, if I am not mistaken, in the context of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, where Wallonia nearly stopped the entire agreement. That is true federalism, where the provinces are involved. Canada is not like that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-18 and the Canada-Indonesia trade agreement, an agreement that reflects who we are as a country and where we are headed as an economy.

One in five jobs in Canada depends on exports and trade. We are talking agri-food, forestry, aerospace, energy and manufacturing, and we have a lofty goal. We want to double our exports beyond the U.S. market, double those exports around the world, and that is what we are doing.

We are a government focused on building: building infrastructure, building opportunity and building Canada strong. Across this country, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians can see and feel that momentum. Through our Major Projects Office, we are working to ensure that nation-building projects move forward efficiently, responsibly and in partnership with communities and indigenous peoples.

We are aligning approvals, cutting duplication and ensuring that major investments turn into real jobs for real people. We are modernizing and expanding our ports so Canadian goods can reach global markets faster and more competitively. We are advancing responsible resource development so that Canada remains a world leader in critical minerals and sustainable mining.

We are moving forward with projects like the refurbishment and expansion of the Darlington nuclear generating station in Ontario, which is an investment that will provide clean, reliable energy for decades to come, powering our growing economy and supporting thousands of skilled workers. As a member from Mississauga, Ontario, I can say that nuclear energy produces 60% of our energy here in this province. This is a great project.

These projects mean hard hats on heads. They mean shovels in the ground. They mean apprentices getting their first paycheques and experienced tradespeople passing on their knowledge to the next generation. Behind every one of these projects stands incredible, world-class Canadian companies, engineering firms, construction leaders and technology innovators ready to deliver excellence here at home and around the world.

However, building Canada strong does not stop at our borders. When Canadian companies grow, they do not just build here; they build everywhere. When they succeed internationally, that success flows home in the form of jobs, investment, research and prosperity, which brings me to Indonesia.

Indonesia is one of the fastest-growing economies in the Indo-Pacific. With a population approaching 300 million people and projected to surpass that in the coming years, Indonesia is urbanizing rapidly, expanding its middle class and undertaking ambitious infrastructure transformation. This is a country investing heavily in ports, transit systems, power generation, water systems, mining development and sustainable infrastructure. It is building new industrial hubs. It is even advancing the development of a new capital city to support long-term national growth.

The new capital, known as Nusantara, is one of the most ambitious urban development projects in the world today. Planned for East Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, it is designed to ease pressure on Jakarta, which faces congestion, pollution and land subsidence challenges. Nusantara is envisioned as a smart, sustainable forest city, powered by renewable energy, with modern transit systems, resilient water infrastructure, digital connectivity and green building standards at its core, which are all opportunities for Canada and our trade. The scale of this undertaking, including government complexes, housing, transportation corridors, utilities and social infrastructure, represents hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term investment and extraordinary opportunities for global infrastructure partners.

Taken together, this kind of growth requires world-class expertise. It requires engineering excellence. It requires project management to the highest global standards, and Canada has exactly that. Canadian firms are recognized worldwide for their expertise in mining, energy systems, nuclear technology, clean infrastructure, environmental services and large-scale project delivery. Our companies know how to operate responsibly, transparently and sustainably. They know how to partner with local communities. They know how to deliver complex projects on time and on budget.

Trade agreements are not abstract documents; they are practical tools. They reduce barriers. They create certainty. They protect investment. They improve transparency. They make it easier for Canadian firms to compete fairly and win contracts abroad. When we lower barriers to trade in services, when we protect intellectual property and when we ensure clear procurement rules, we are not just signing paperwork. We are opening doors for Canadian workers and businesses. We are creating the conditions for Canadian companies to contribute to infrastructure delivery both here at home and in dynamic markets like Indonesia.

To bring this all together, I want to highlight a local example. Hatch is a global engineering and professional services firm headquartered in Mississauga, in Peel Region. Hatch employs more than 10,000 people globally, including a significant concentration of highly skilled engineers, project managers, technologists and support staff here in the GTA. Founded in 1955, this company began as a small Canadian engineering firm and has steadily grown over seven decades into a truly global enterprise with offices on six continents and projects in more than 150 countries. This is a Canadian success story. It is what we want to see duplicated over and over here in our country.

With decades of expertise in mining, energy, infrastructure and metals, Hatch has built a reputation as one of the most respected engineering firms in the world. Hatch already has a presence in Jakarta, supporting projects across Indonesia and southeast Asia. It is there because Indonesia is growing, and growing big time. An agreement like this would reduce barriers even further. It would provide clearer rules. It would improve market access. It would strengthen investment protections. It would help ensure that when Canadian companies bid on major infrastructure projects in Indonesia, they do so on a level playing field.

Here is why that matters to families in my community: When Hatch grows in Jakarta, Mississauga feels it, Peel Region feels it and Canada feels it. It means more engineers hired here at home in Mississauga, more co-op students trained, more research partners with Canadian universities, more procurement from Canadian suppliers and more tax revenue to support our schools, hospitals and public services. International growth builds our economy and strengthens it for future generations. If we want Canadian workers to benefit from global growth, we must be present, competitive and have the right agreements in place.

Bill C-18 would do exactly that. It would support services trade. It would enhance investment certainty. It would reduce red tape. It would create opportunity. It would say to Canadian companies to go out there, compete, win, succeed, come home to the true north, strong and free, and deliver. It would say to our workers that their skills are world class, their expertise is in demand and their new Liberal government is backing them.

For all these reasons and so many more, I urge all of my hon. colleagues in the House to join me in supporting Bill C-18. Let us keep building. Let us keep trading. Let us keep competing. Let us keep growing. Let us keep building Canada strong.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and my Liberal colleague was speaking, at the end of his speech, about the benefits to an organization like Hatch. Who does Hatch work for? Actually, I want to ask a few more questions. When the Prime Minister travels to China, who gets a billion-dollar loan? When the Prime Minister travels to Washington, who gets an $80-billion nuclear contract? When the Prime Minister travels to Europe, who gets a multi-year lease extension? When the Prime Minister travels to India, who gets a $2.6-billion uranium deal? The answer is the same to each one of those questions: Brookfield does.

Part of this agreement is preferential access for Brookfield in Indonesia's renewable energy, clean-tech and critical minerals sectors through reduced barriers. Who is the Prime Minister working for, Canada or Brookfield?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is focused on Canadians and on building Canada strong. It is about diversifying our economy and making us more resilient. Right around the world, he is well respected to do that, and that is why people in Europe, Asia and around the world are reaching out to Canada. It is because the Prime Minister is out there working as hard as he can to deliver for Canadians. I could not be prouder of the Prime Minister and the work that he is doing in diversifying our economy. We have some big goals and we are going to achieve them.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton that question, but I will ask this colleague instead.

I am a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and we are very interested in finding ways to strengthen laws to ensure that the products we buy are not tainted with blood. Working groups have pointed out the existence of forced labour and human rights violations in Indonesian supply chains. We really want to encourage the government to include strong protections for workers, indigenous communities and the environment.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the agreement that offers these groups binding protections. On the contrary, the agreement represents a step backwards on the progress that has been made to protect workers in Canadian trade agreements.

My question is this: Why did the government fail to include this crucial issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to talk about this agreement. As members can see, it is a comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Within that partnership, there are labour provisions. There are environmental provisions that are part of this agreement. It is an agreement that is looking to raise standards and provide the stability and the predictability that we are all looking for. We believe in a rules-based order, and that is what an agreement like this agreement between Canada and Indonesia brings to the table.

This is the type of agreement that I would hope the member would support. I would think that she is going to be voting in favour because she understands that this agreement would actually raise the standard and bring us to a better level.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for being such a strong advocate for jobs in his riding and for the city of Mississauga. Could the member share with the House which sectors he believes hold the greatest opportunities for trade diversification and for expanding Canada's trade in the years ahead?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many sectors, but I will speak to one in particular for the member and his many constituents, which is the aerospace sector. Indonesia is spending about $1 billion in aerospace as it grows, buying planes for commercial use, for defence, etc., and Canada has only a bit of that investment. We get about $3 million or $4 million of $1 billion. We could double, triple or quadruple and more the amount of trade that we are doing in the aerospace sector.

However, every sector is touched. Be it forestry, agri-food, manufacturing or energy, it is every sector right across our country. This is a very complementary agreement that would work between Canada and Indonesia in terms of what our needs are. I foresee great growth in terms of our trade with Indonesia through this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question I asked earlier to the Bloc Québécois, to my friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, was specifically about an Indonesian company that has bought up most of Canada's pulp and paper mills. It is called Paper Excellence. This agreement, and its investor-state agreements, will limit our ability to regulate to protect our forests and those jobs. Does the hon. member not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have so much respect for the member. These are the types of agreements, as I said in my previous answer to a question, that raise our standards to be able to make everybody better. Within the forestry sector, or any other sector, this is what we can do within the agreement. What countries, companies and investors are looking for is stability and predictability in a modern agreement.

I have so much faith in our negotiators. We have the best negotiators in the world. We have tremendous trade negotiators. When they go to the table, they are always looking to make things better, so that is what this agreement does. It is looking at always improving, and that is why I am so bullish on this agreement for what it will do, not only for Canada but also for Indonesia, as we continue in our goals for diversification.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to put the question on Bill C-18 at third reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)