International Trade Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

—and you're now 39 seconds over.

We'll go to Mr. Naqvi.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here in person and virtually. It's always a great pleasure to work with you and engage in these very thoughtful conversations. I appreciate that.

I'll start with Mr. Nankivell.

It's good to see you again, albeit virtually this time. Thank you for all the important work you're doing in Canada and abroad. You spoke in favour of the agreement for the accession of the U.K. into the CPTPP. You alluded to linking Asia-Pacific and Europe and what a pivotal role this agreement could play.

Especially in the context of the geo-economic circumstances we find ourselves in, can you speak more about why the link between Europe and Asia-Pacific is important, what role Canada can play and where this agreement fits into that?

[Jeff Nankivell]

Yes, I'd be pleased to do that, and Madam Chair, I welcome the question and the opportunity.

If you look at a globe, we are geographically pivotal between those two regions, but we are also extremely well placed geopolitically as one of the larger middle powers, if you look at the whole scope of members of the United Nations. We are a member of the G7, the G20, APEC, the Organization of American States and so on. Therefore, we are well placed to be considered a valuable partner at a time when we've seen a real sea change in the interest and appetite in these countries and economies to take a fresh look at Canada. I can speak to that from my own experience and that of my colleagues from APF Canada in the travels we did around the region in Asia over the last year.

All of these countries, all of these economies, are facing similar challenges to those of Canada. It's not existential for any of them quite the way it is for Canada and Mexico, because of our relationship with the U.S., but they all have their own challenges with the U.S. and with China, as we do. Therefore, they're looking to diversify.

I think we have a moment in which there is some momentum, some impetus. The European Union is looking to increase its autonomy and to play a greater role on the global stage. It's a heavyweight in trade matters—it always has been since it came together—but it underperforms in areas of defence and security, and this is a time when all of these things are linked through the concepts of economic security and resilience.

I would say in brief that the stars are aligned with an alignment of priorities across countries in the Indo-Pacific region, Europe and the U.K. to look for like-minded partners who are committed to maintaining and building, where possible, a rules-based international trading order, as well as being prepared to submit to the disciplines of dispute resolution mechanisms, which is an important feature of the CPTPP. It's a high-quality trade agreement, and they are looking for ways to bridge those things.

At this point, this is a long game. We're not talking about concluding a free trade agreement in which everything is harmonized across CPTPP, the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, but we are at a point at which linkages can be made in certain areas, in certain sectors, in certain regulatory streams in areas like digital trade, in which we're not so far away from being able to harmonize. This has concrete benefits for Canadian businesses because the complexity of the new world of trading blocs and regional agreements is a really significant challenge for Canadian businesses, and basically, everything you try to do is more expensive these days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 16 seconds remaining.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have 16 seconds, so very quickly to my friends from both the meat and pork councils, I am hearing from you that you support the government's approach in signing these important trade agreements and diversifying our trade.

[René Roy]

I do, as long as they are fair and based on science.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll begin with Jeff Nankivell from the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

An article published on your website in November 2025 states that, in your opinion, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is attractive because it does not involve any economic superpowers. The article also mentions China's bid, and we know that this raises a whole series of issues: If China joins before Taiwan, it will spell the end of Taiwan's bid. This is a complex geopolitical issue.

The current agreement includes an investor-state dispute settlement process, a source of concern for the United Kingdom in 2023—and I quote: “Companies have already [used] ISDS to sue governments over a thousand times, including over laws to raise minimum wage, ensure affordable water for citizens, and phase out fossil fuels.”

We know that countries such as the United Arab Emirates, among others, are considering joining. This partnership will continue to increase the number of parties to the agreement. Will you share the UK's official concerns when this occurs?

[Jeff Nankivell]

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism is controversial and warrants review. It is already being examined. A review of the agreement is currently being conducted by the commission chair.

Protections and limitations already exist in the current agreement. Canada was involved in developing them, in fact. There remains the possibility of direct discussions between the partners on that subject. At the same time, let's not forget that investors from member countries and economies, including Canada, also enjoy the protections in this agreement. These institutions are responsible for Canadians' and Quebeckers' retirement funds. It's also about striking a balance between our offensive and defensive interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Mantle for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.

My initial questions will be to the Meat Council and the Pork Council.

Over the last several years, you have described this deal—and I'll paraphrase—as a bad deal. Is that still your view today?

[René Roy]

Yes, it is still a bad deal.

We understand the geopolitical situation, but today, we have circumstances in which we cannot trade but they can trade with us. This is still unfair, so it's not a good deal.

[Jorge Correa]

Yes, we also confirm that it's not the best deal we could ever have. We believe it will be difficult to continue or for this current deal to be viable for the industry, because the United Kingdom is still very reliant on the European Union.

As for the regulatory context and framework that they have together, they will bring us to the same place we were in maybe two, three or five years ago when we signed the CETA. We're in exactly the same space now.

[Stephen Heckbert]

I'll put it in context in terms of numbers for you, sir.

We have a trade deficit in a product that the U.K. imports more than 50% of. We have a trade deficit with the U.K. of $56 million in this commodity. Clearly, something's gone awry in the normal working of a market.

If we are a 70% export nation, then they are a 50% import nation, but they are exporting $56 million of product to our market. The math just isn't really “mathing.”

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

Thank you.

We had officials from Global Affairs at our previous meeting with the minister, and they indicated to the committee that the Government of Canada's intention is to maintain the trade continuity agreement on top of and above access provided by the CPTPP. Are you aware of that?

[Stephen Heckbert]

I was not aware of that.

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

I'm seeing heads shaking, so I take that as a general no.

Do you have a view on whether the government should provide access under two agreements rather than just one?

[Stephen Heckbert]

In principle, we support having.... For example, we know the government is pursuing individual trade agreements with countries when we may also have a blanket agreement. For cases in which this can clarify some questions within those kinds of FTAs or even CEP agreements, it can be beneficial.

However, if neither agreement is delivering results for us, then I guess the number one question we would have is this: Where is the table at which we can seek some resolution on these? As long as that's clear to us, then I guess that is what we would ask for from the government as we have these discussions.

If this is at the continuity agreement table, that's excellent, but if it's at the CPTPP table, then where can we clarify how to get some resolution around these SPS questions?

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

On that point, we've had the trade continuity agreement for years, but we've had no resolution. It seems as though we'll have no resolution under CPTPP. To your point, where is the table for these discussions to be happening?

In just the last minute I have, I also want to ask about dispute resolution. Both agreements, TPP and the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, provide for consultations, conciliatory measures and ultimately dispute resolution.

Do you think we're at the stage in time when the government should consider availing itself of those benefits? We believe in having this agreement, and dispute resolution is part of that. If you have a view on this, I'd like to hear it, and if not, at what point do you think the government should look at those options?

[Claire Citeau]

I would hope we'd access and use the existing mechanisms, SPS mechanisms, within each of those agreements before we get to the dispute resolution stage. We have not heard from our members on this yet. If this comes up in the future, we'll decide—the organization, the board will decide on this—but I think there are mechanisms.

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

How much longer do you think the discussions should be? I guess the question is the tactic. We've had a couple of years of trade continuity agreement discussions. The minister was here last week. We just heard about more discussions. Is this satisfactory to you?

[Claire Citeau]

No, it is not, and we're here to say that more needs to be done, both with the U.K., within the CPTPP context, and with the EU.

To go back to your earlier question, I would add that if there is the TCA, or trade continuity agreement, and the CPTPP, I think all it does is provide venues for companies to see which agreement they want to utilize. We see that in other contexts as well. Mercosur is part of both CUSMA and the CPTPP. For Indonesia, it's the same thing with the broader ASEAN.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, but we're 52 seconds over.

Madame Lapointe.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you for being with us. For some of you, this is not the first time.

Earlier, Mr. Heckbert, you said that Great Britain's pork production is not sufficient to meet its own demand. Where does it buy its pork?

[Stephen Heckbert]

The pork it buys comes mainly from the European Union. Since it is a former member of the European Union, there are obviously agreements and trade practices already in place. The pork comes mainly from Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, but if we never open the market to other possibilities, we always fall back on what we know. That's one of the questions everyone is asking right now: Is it time to try to establish new international relationships?