Debates of Jan. 29th, 2021

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of Bill C-18, the Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-18.

I would like to begin by saying that I was particularly interested in two aspects of the process for passing this bill. The first is the way the Standing Committee on International Trade had to do its work with regard to the bill to bring CUKTCA into force. The second part of my speech will focus more on the historic aspect of this new temporary agreement and the impact it could have on the scare tactics that are generally used on separatists when it comes time to talk about Quebec and the way it will conduct future negotiations when it becomes independent.

Yesterday, I had several opportunities to listen to my learned colleagues discuss how parliamentarians were informed of the results of the negotiations between the U.K. and Canada. In the words of my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, parliamentarians, through no fault of their own, became actors in a theatre of the absurd when they had to receive witnesses in committee without having seen the content of the agreement.

I heard some bizarre responses from the other side of the House to concerns expressed by parliamentarians seated to the left of the Speaker. I heard members say that complaints about how parliamentarians were kept in the dark were futile and petty because, ultimately, both Conservative and Bloc members intended to vote in favour of the agreement and the implementation bill.

With all due respect, our government colleagues are confusing two very distinct concepts: the ends and the means. Here is an example. Say I have to deliver a package at a specific time. I can leave late, drive 160 km/h on the highway, pass cars, cut them off and run red lights, and still arrive on time with a package in good condition that I can deliver like it is no big deal. I have achieved my end, but the means I employed were questionable at best. On the other hand, I could have left home on time, obeyed speed limits, got lost and backtracked, and even got stuck in traffic before finally arriving late with the package.

In both cases, the quality of the outcome in no way reflects the quality of the means used to achieve it. To make the comparison, one might agree with the contents of the deal and the legislation that it implements, but could still be justified in criticizing how parliamentarians were informed of its contents.

Let me give a very clear example of the situation. Parliamentarians were told repeatedly that it was no big deal that they could not see the contents of the agreement, since it was only meant to be transitional in any case. It was intended to bridge the gap between the previous agreement with the European Union and a new agreement to be renegotiated with the United Kingdom. If parliamentarians could have seen what was in the agreement, they would have noticed the missing sunset clause, in other words a deadline by which the two countries must have signed a final agreement. Such a clause, which would irrefutably confirm that the agreement before us is indeed only transitional, does not exist in the text.

We are required to negotiate within a certain timeframe, but not required to reach an agreement within that timeframe. It is unacceptable that parliamentarians were left in the dark, that the Standing Committee on International Trade received the text of the agreement the very day it was supposed to submit its report and recommendations on whether or not to approve its content.

The lesson in all this is that future negotiations for a final agreement not only could, but must offer more transparency to parliamentarians and all those who will be affected by the agreement. That was the approach during negotiations of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Members of both the European Union and the provinces were invited to at least express their position and demands in connection with the future agreement.

As far as the actual agreement is concerned, it should be noted that the British had the courtesy to at least admit that the negotiations were conducted a little late, at the last minute, something the Canadian government is still trying to refute.

With regard to the second aspect of my presentation on the issue of Quebec's independence, there is no denying the fearmongering we are subjected to when there are discussions on the future of an independent Quebec and any necessary future negotiations with other countries. The Brexit negotiations could have many similarities with the situation that will prevail right after a successful referendum.

The European Union is a customs union that provides for the free flow of goods and services within Europe with standardized rules for its trade relations with countries outside the EU. Member countries of the European Union do not negotiate directly with non-member countries. The European Union does so on their behalf, in the same way that Canada negotiates its international treaties with other countries instead of the provinces.

If Quebec were to leave Canada, it would do so the same way that the United Kingdom left the European Union. The U.K. withdrew itself from the agreements it held as part of the European Union and is seeking out new agreements as an independent state, relying on transitional agreements in the interim.

In the lead-up to the 1995 referendum, federalists sowed fear that an independent Quebec would be thrust into economic uncertainty and turmoil since, without agreements with other countries, it would undoubtedly sink into a dark hole, a legal vacuum with no trade partners. Federalists made it seem as though markets would start locking Quebec out as soon as the referendum was won and as though Quebec would be immediately removed from any Canadian agreements.

Professor Daniel Turp countered that argument by pointing out that countries party to agreements operate with the presumption of continuity. A new country popping up in the international community would therefore already have a connection to the trade partners of the country from which it seceded, and this would carry through until they negotiated a new agreement. However, at the time, Professor Turp's model applied only to multilateral treaties, in which the newly seceded party would be joining several other existing parties. It was unknown how the model would play out with bilateral trade agreements.

With Brexit, the United Kingdom just completed Professor Turp's analysis exercise regarding trade agreements, not just in theory but in very real and tangible terms. Leaving aside the issues of a lack of transparency and the last-minute work that I talked about at the beginning of my speech, one has to admit that the exercise is going relatively well, all things considered. The interim agreement that is about to be ratified maintains the status quo and ensures that there is no volatility or uncertainty in the trade relationship while the final agreement is being negotiated.

Even though Brexit put a nail in the coffin of the federalist argument that an independent Quebec would experience great economic uncertainty following a winning referendum, it is still interesting to see the extent to which Brexit itself is serving, for some, as a federalist scare tactic when it comes to Quebec's desire to become independent. Former Conservative minister Michael Fortier, who recently became a columnist for La Presse, gave his first article the title of “A Sneak Preview of Quexit”. In his article, Mr. Fortier painted a very sombre picture of the negotiations for the U.K.'s departure from the European Union. He talked about a cursory agreement that was also negotiated at the last minute and that failed to include many essential details, including financial services, that still need to be worked out. Mr. Fortier indicated that the people of Britain still do not really understand what their government negotiated. His article would have us believe that the people of Britain will one day regret voting in favour of Brexit.

I have talked to a number of people who are up on what is happening in the U.K., and I have asked them if they, too, see Brexit as a bad thing and if the British might ultimately come to regret their decision to leave the EU. As a separatist, I found their answer interesting. Financial services, which are one of the United Kingdom's main exports, if not the main export, are not yet governed by a formal agreement, but uncertainty about their future has not caused bankers to flee London and The City in droves, as some catastrophic scenarios predicted.

As for the people who voted yes to Brexit, it would be odd if they came to regret their choice one day because that vote got them what they wanted, and one of the things they wanted was the power to control their borders. That is something Quebec is clearly lacking right now in COVID times.

All the same, Brexit negotiations in general and a future final agreement between Canada and the U.K. in particular will continue to be of interest to parliamentarians. Bloc members will be paying even closer attention to get a sense of what awaits Quebec one day. It is not perfect, but despite its wrinkles, the likely outcome seems much less catastrophic than some predicted. One lesson Quebec can learn from this process is the importance of diligence and transparency.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his well-written and well-thought-out speech. I do not share his view on some of the points he raised, but since we are in the heart of democracy, we must preserve this freedom of speech and differences of points of view.

Since we are talking about free trade and international trade, my colleague's speech reminded me that in 1988, under the government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada, Canada signed a free trade agreement with the United States. This achievement opened the door to an extraordinary market, in part thanks to the support of some prominent, career separatists such as Bernard Landry or Jacques Parizeau. The 1988 free trade agreement opened the door to many international agreements. It is therefore important to remember that even if we do not have the same vision for the future of Canada or Quebec, free trade invites a unity that must be preserved.

The member said earlier that a number of federalists were attacking the possibility of an independent Quebec becoming fully empowered and pointing out that independence could cause economic hardship. Does the hon. member recall when former Quebec premier and PQ leader Pauline Marois herself said that Quebec independence could lead to five years of economic turbulence? I am not the one saying so; it was the former PQ premier Pauline Marois.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I remember it well.

I would of course be surprised if someone told me the day after winning a referendum that absolutely nothing would change, that it would be as if the vote never happened and that no negotiations were needed. After all, if we want to make an omelette we have to break a few eggs.

However, I think it would be a case of just minor economic disruptions, not catastrophic scenarios like those that are raised in the context of Brexit. The City was supposed to lose 75,000 bankers, but only 7,500 ended up leaving, so just 2% of the 400,000 who work in that business sector. The British people are only 29 days into their country's exit from the European Union, and some people are already talking about the end of the British Empire. I would prefer to avoid those kinds of catastrophic scenarios.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of the sentiments raised by my Conservative colleague in his question, and I want to pick up on the discussion between him and our hon. colleague who spoke a few minutes ago.

She at least seems to be acknowledging that there would be some disruption. She said it would be minor. As the Conservative member pointed out, other people say it would perhaps be more than that: five years' worth of disruption.

Can she define what she would consider to be minor? What is acceptable? What is an acceptable level of economic disruption for Quebec to seek, as she is saying, that form of independence? What would be an acceptable amount? Rather than just saying “minor”, I would like her to quantify that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to give an answer in just 30 seconds.

I think we should not lose sight of the fact that the vagaries of the economy and the secession of Quebec from Canada should not be assessed in terms of the GDP alone. There are many other issues that must be taken into consideration such as border control and, as my colleague mentioned yesterday, supply management, which successive Conservatives and Liberal governments have weakened.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along these lines. We have been talking about the issues that an independent Quebec would face, but what about all the issues that Canada currently does not address in international agreements to the detriment of Quebec?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will once again take this opportunity to mention supply management, the jewel in our crown, which should ensure that agriculture is not negotiable in the different trade agreements.

We hope that is also the case for culture and certain services. Once it becomes independent after a successful referendum, Quebec will be able to have its way in future international negotiations.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me today.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, or TCA.

I want to recognize that I am speaking from the traditional unceded territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

I have many points that I want to make about the TCA, and I will begin by saying that it is time to demand fairness for the 150,000 U.K. pensioners living in Canada. During these trade negotiations, we must not forget about them.

U.K. pensioners in other countries, including the U.S., receive annual rate increases tied to the rate of inflation. U.K. pensioners in Canada do not. This is unacceptable. We end up providing financial support to U.K. pensioners because of this discriminatory policy. Meanwhile, Canadian pensioners living in the U.K. receive annual rate increases. We need to demand the same for U.K. pensioners, and now is the time to do it.

The Green Party supports fair and equitable international trade. We want to ensure that trade agreements have enforcement provisions to protect indigenous rights and workers' rights, as well as consumer, health and environmental standards.

We are opposed to any agreement that contains investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, provisions. Trade agreements should not be corporate rights agreements in disguise. We oppose a regulatory race to the bottom. We want to ensure that people and the planet are put before corporate profits. That is the kind of fair trade we support.

In February 2020, during the debate on CUSMA, the government made a commitment to be transparent and provide adequate support and notice for all new trade agreements. The government did not fulfill that commitment with this agreement.

For decades, there have been demands for increased transparency on how trade agreements are negotiated. I have followed trade agreement debates for many years, and it does not matter which party is in power. The opposition always complains that there is not enough transparency in the negotiations. That is why I tabled a private member's bill: the trade and foreign investment agreements transparency act, which is modelled on the European Union's process of transparent trade negotiations. The purpose of the proposed act is to create a transparent consultation and assessment process to ensure that Canada's trade, and foreign investment agreements, reflect the values and interests of Canada as a whole; take into account the perspectives of various groups, including local communities, civil society organizations and indigenous peoples; promote sustainable development and respect for the environment, and adhere to the principles of economic fairness, social justice and internationally recognized human rights. We need this kind of legislation in Canada to ensure a transparent process.

The TCA is a transitional trade agreement that replicates the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. The TCA has no end date or sunset clause. If negotiations for this new agreement fail, the TCA could become permanent and bring the worst parts of CETA into our new trade relationship with the U.K. This is not something we can allow to happen. The stakeholder consultations that occurred for the TCA are completely inadequate for a permanent agreement.

The international trade and investment agreements that Canada has signed affect all Canadians, all Canadian businesses and all levels of government. They affect how we govern ourselves all the way down to the local level. This is especially true of CETA, and now the Canada-U.K. TCA.

The rules of CETA have the potential to affect public procurement at all levels of government. For projects above a certain budget level, CETA prohibits favouring local bids, applying local content or hiring quotas, or setting aside contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises or minority-owned businesses. CETA could affect indigenous rights and indigenous control over traditional lands when those lands are targeted by foreign resource extraction companies. Public services supplied on a commercial basis are automatically included under CETA unless they have been expressly excluded, which limits the government's ability to regulate foreign-service providers. If the government wants to provide public services or return a previously privatized service to the public sector, it will be open to challenges from foreign investors.

Canada's free trade agreements have hollowed out our manufacturing base. We focus on ripping and shipping raw resources, such as bitumen, logs and minerals, instead of prioritizing value-added domestic manufacturing and using our resources to maximize employment and diversify our economy.

We are vulnerable to fluctuations in commodity prices for raw resources. The downturn in oil prices and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline are both perfect examples of this vulnerability.

Canada's trade deficit with the EU has increased under CETA. EU companies have an easier time exporting to Canada than Canadian companies have exporting to the EU. A 2019 study shows that the only exports to the EU that have increased are fossil fuels and raw minerals, so CETA hurts value-added industries and benefits rip-and-ship resource extraction.

Canada made major concessions on intellectual property that hurt our pharmaceutical industry. Under CETA, Canada was forced to give drug companies patent extensions for innovative drugs. The EU was not bound by the same rules.

How has CETA helped us procure vaccines for COVID-19? The EU is threatening to block exports of vaccines to Canada until it has enough supply for its own citizens. If we still had a robust pharmaceutical industry in Canada, we would not be in this position.

Canada is one of the most open countries for trade and foreign direct investment. There have been more investor-state challenges against Canada than against any other country in the OECD. This is not a record to brag about. We give far too much power to foreign investors. Foreign investment is destroying home affordability. Foreign investment in long-term care homes has resulted in seniors living in horrendous conditions. Foreign investors have ripped and shipped resources from this country and left an environmental mess for taxpayers to clean up.

The ISDS provisions in CETA have been suspended for three years with the TCA. Why were these provisions not completely removed? Do we not trust our justice systems to make fair rulings when corporations feel they are being treated unfairly? There is no justification for a private tribunal system to deal with trade disputes between our two countries. The TCA actually states that if we have not agreed to new investor-state provisions in three years, then the CETA ISDS rules apply. We need to remove ISDS permanently from this agreement and from all of our trade agreements.

The pandemic has made it clear that we need to support our local supply chains. We have seen how the hollowing out of our manufacturing base and the offshoring of jobs has left us short on personal protective equipment. The Greens are particularly concerned about protecting our food supply chain. This makes sense for food security and also makes sense for lowering the carbon footprint of the food we consume. Canada has vast areas of farmland and is a net exporter of food, but we have become too specialized and too dependent on imports of food that can be produced right here.

Since CETA, a provisional agreement, came into force, the agricultural sector has lost 10% of its exports to Europe, while imports from the EU have increased by 10%. The CETA, along with other trade agreements, has undermined our supply management system, which provides stability for farmers. We need enforceable labour and environmental standards in trade agreements. The labour provisions in CETA are not enforceable, and the compliance mechanism is non-binding. The environmental provisions are weak, with no concrete obligations.

The CETA does not protect regulations to address climate change, and leaves climate action on the part of the government subject to investor challenges through the ISDS provisions. This is unacceptable to the Green Party. We would hate to see the U.K.’s climate accountability laws attacked by Canadian corporations using ISDS provisions.

Since 2008, the U.K. has had a real climate accountability law, with five-year increments set to carbon budgets. The U.K. has currently reduced greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels, with a target to be 69% below 1990 levels by 2030. Pathetically, Canada has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 21% above 1990 levels. This is one area where I would love to see Canada adopt U.K. standards.

In closing, CETA was disappointing and so is the Canada-U.K. TCA. Canadian governments need to do a better job of putting the interests of Canadians ahead of large corporations.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a lot of great claims about issues that I think are very important. We should be listening to them.

I want to highlight something regarding pensions. Some people from the U.K. who came to Canada are collecting U.K. pensions. They will not get any of the increases that those in the U.K. get, yet Canadians living in the U.K. will get them. This could be very costly to Canada, as we are actually subsidizing people from the U.K. through some of our programs because of low rates that are not keeping up with the cost of inflation.

Does the hon. member agree that this should be looked into and that the government should be taking a serious approach to it? This is not free trade at all. This has to be looked into.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Hamilton Mountain. This is an egregious situation for pensioners in Canada who are not getting indexed increases to their pensions. This has to stop, and the government needs to take this opportunity, when it is negotiating a trade agreement with the U.K., to make sure this ends.

The U.S. allows indexing. It has an agreement with the U.K. for indexed increases, as well as a with whole bunch of other countries, but here we are, a Commonwealth country, being abused by the U.K. Where is the allyship in that? It needs to end.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party needs to acknowledge that Canada is a trading nation. We need trade. It is critical to our economy and supporting our middle class. The number of trade agreements we have achieved in the last five years is significant. At the same time, our employment prior to the pandemic grew by well over one million people, most of whom are full time.

The Green Party is always in opposition to all trade agreements. Can the member indicate any trade agreement that the Green Party has ever supported? Why does the Green Party not recognize the true value of trade and how Canada has benefited by it over the years? That is a reality.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very short memory because the Green Party caucus voted for the CUSMA agreement. We voted for it because the ISDS provisions were removed. It took away the corporate rights part of that agreement. The proportionality clause about exporting oil was taken out of that agreement as well.

We are looking for fair trade. We are looking for trade that protects the rights of workers, protects the environment and protects the health, safety and consumer standards that we hold dear. We want to see regulatory levels go up, not down; it is not a race to the bottom. We want to see measurements like the genuine progress indicator when we measure how well we are doing with trade so that we consider things like health, the economy, social good and the environment, rather than just how much we rip and ship raw resources for export from this country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with quite a number of the member's comments. With CETA, there were many components that the New Democrats were concerned about. The investor-state dispute settlement provisions were certainly one of them. The issue around the increased cost of drugs related to additional patent protections for pharmaceuticals was another. Restrictions on local content provisions for subnational procurement initiatives was a third element. Then, of course, the concessions resulting in lost market share for Canadian dairy products were also a component we were very concerned about. These are just some highlights.

The real question is this: Why would the government proceed with this transitional agreement without a sunset clause?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question and it is something we are concerned about as well. This should have a termination date on it. We should be negotiating a fair and equitable trade agreement and dealing with all of the issues I outlined in my speech and the member outlined in her question.

We need to ensure that we protect our manufacturing base and stop hollowing it out. We have seen what this has done to our pharmaceutical industry. We have become too dependent on the export of raw resources, such as raw bitumen through pipelines, and when the price of oil changes or a pipeline project is cancelled, it affects our economy in a detrimental way.

We need to really examine how we do trade properly and take into consideration a long list of other things, aside from corporate profits.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to speak in the House of Commons, even if it is virtually.

As members know, I am from Nova Scotia. My riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is quite diverse. We have a very strong Black community, Acadian community, fishing community and agricultural community. We are on the outskirts of the big cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. It is a beautiful place to visit, with lots of tourism.

Trade deals are extremely important not only to Canada, but also to Nova Scotia and my riding, and with trade deals, new opportunities are being opened up. They are about having access to more people and goods, which is extremely important.

We have had a number of successful trade deals in the last five years, since we have been in government. We signed off on the CUSMA, which is the Canada, U.S. and Mexico deal. Then we signed off on the CPTPP and the CETA, which is with the European Union, and now we are talking about this trade deal with the U.K.

When it comes to CUSMA, since 1993, Canadian and U.S. goods have doubled in trade, which is very impressive. With Mexico, we are trading nine times the amount we were prior to 1993.

No one can forget that when we were negotiating CUSMA, then president of the United States, Trump, made it very tough, to say the least. Of course, he wanted NAFTA out, wanted a new trade deal and had all kinds of demands. He would tweet at three or four o'clock in the morning, saying there would be no deal unless Canada removed supply management. Canada won; we did not remove or end supply management.

Trump then tweeted that we had to end chapter 19, the dispute resolution mechanism. He said he did not want international judges, but American ones. Of course that was unacceptable to Canada, and did Trump win? No, Canada won.

Then he wanted the five-year sunset clause removed so that if we did not renegotiate every five years, the agreement was dead. He was pushing for that as well and was unsuccessful. We made a great deal and our government did an awesome job in that area.

When it comes to the CPTPP deal, it is very important for trade in the trans-Pacific partnership. We are seeing lower tariffs or no tariffs for Canadians in many areas. This means great jobs and opportunities for our companies. The duty-free access is up to 99%, which is amazing considering where we were before.

In the first year since we signed that deal, our two-way trade is over $45 billion, which is a 3.36% increase. Frozen and fresh beef alone saw 143% in export growth to Japan. With Japan, we have seen the 5% tariff on certain products go down to zero, and tariffs with New Zealand are down to zero. For Vietnam, tariffs of 34% dropped to zero as well. As we can see, it was a very successful deal.

Now let us talk about CETA, because it is going to be a bridge with the U.K. This deal was with the European Union, and prior to the deal only 25% of goods were duty-free. Today, 98% are duty-free, and in seven years 99% will be duty-free with some removals. CETA allowed us the best market access to the European Union. It also boosted Canada's trade and allowed us to have access to over 500 million people and lots of opportunities.

In Nova Scotia, the trades we did with the EU were 98% duty free. On seafood, we used to have tariffs of 11% to 25%, which were removed. The tariff was 11% to 25%. That was removed. This new CETA deal was a success for Nova Scotians in the food industry, the agriculture industry, the manufacturing industry, the seafood and the fish industries because it eliminated 96% of the tariffs that were in place.

Today we are talking about the departure of the U.K. from the European Union, so this agreement is a crucial one, because we wanted to avoid disruption. This is a trade continuity agreement. In November, the Minister of Small Business and her U.K. counterpart announced the successful conclusion of this trade continuity agreement. It is, of course, an interim deal, but what is crucial is that it preserves the main benefit of CETA, including the elimination of 98% of the tariffs, so it is again very successful. This continuity deal is bridging between CETA, which is so important for Canada. It maintains our preferential access and it also bridges this deal, as I have mentioned on a few occasions.

We had to do this quickly. As of January 1, 2021, CETA no longer applied to the U.K. Two-way merchandise export trade between Canada and the U.K. was the largest market in Europe in 2019. It was worth $29 billion just in 2019. The U.K. is also the fifth-largest partner, next to the United States, China, Mexico and Japan.

Beyond that, our relationship goes even further, because we have a long-lasting relationship of peace and we fought together in both world wars. We have a long-standing relationship with the United Kingdom.

With this deal, we are going to see opportunities for agriculture, fish and seafood exports. We are going to see opportunities in services and supplies, with guaranteed access for Canadian supplies to $188 billion worth of U.K. procurement. Having access to their procurement would be a very important part.

We have entered negotiations, and the objective is that as soon as we ratify this interim deal, we have one year to begin negotiations, with the goal of a new bilateral trade agreement within the next three years. Our government will work hard to ensure high standards and an ambitious agreement, which will also focus on the environment, on women, on small business and on digital, which are all important pieces of our trade deals, past and future.

This interim trade deal is an opportunity for our exports. It is an opportunity for our services. It has given us access to their procurement, which is worth $188 billion. It ensures high standards for labour, the environment and dispute resolution. It is also a commitment for subsequent negotiations. This is a great deal. We are moving forward and we are very pleased to move forward on this.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that the member said that this deal had to be rushed because the timing was so important.

Why would we have to rush the deal? It seems that the Liberals never take action until we are in crisis mode. Why was this deal not worked on for months prior, if not years, instead of arriving at the 12th hour? Liberals did what they always do, creating their own chaos and having to rush deals through that we never have time to properly scrutinize.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has to realize that trade deals take time. They are negotiated. Of course, the U.K. had to work its way through the CETA agreement with the European Union. We have been in conversations with it now for quite a long time. This deal is bridging us to future negotiations, through which we will have a much more comprehensive deal, but this agreement is ensuring the predictability and stability that is needed to move forward, as of day one, on January 1.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that this was a real opportunity for Canada to do some interim measures.

There is nothing in the agreement that states it is interim. It could end up being permanent. We are dealing with one country only. This point has already been mentioned, but I will ask again why we did not take advantage of this opportunity to get agreement on reciprocity on increases for pensions for U.K. pensioners in Canada, just as Canadian pensioners in the U.K. get increased indexed pensions. Can the Liberals explain why that was not done and why it could not be done?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has to realize this is not a comprehensive agreement. That is what will follow.

I would say “absolutely not” to his suggestion that this could be the deal. It is agreed upon that the U.K. has one year from the ratification of this deal to begin official negotiations on a comprehensive deal, with the goal of achieving it within the next three years. Because of the relationship I shared earlier throughout my speech regarding Canada and the United Kingdom, I am convinced we will arrive at a conclusion that will not only be good for the U.K. but also very good for Canada and the Canadian business community to have access and the like.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about our fishery resources in his speech.

However, one specific sector in Quebec has often been neglected under the last few trade agreements. I am talking about the agricultural sector and the breaches in supply management.

The three most recent trade agreements opened up breaches in the supply management system. Producers are getting compensation, but it will never make up for everything they lost through these international agreements.

I would like to know what my colleague could do about that.

For example, would he be prepared to support Bill C-216, introduced by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, which would prevent further breaches in supply management in international agreements?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

I can assure her that the agricultural sector is part of this negotiation and will be part of the more comprehensive final negotiation.

As my colleague pointed out, supply management is very important to Canada. We have protected the supply management system in all of the agreements that we have signed, even though we had to make some adjustments and compensate for losses in certain sectors.

We have not made any concessions this time. I sincerely hope that we will come to an agreement that does not take anything away from the sectors in question.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to enter into debate on Bill C-16. Trade agreements are an important subject of debate within this House, and I am glad that we have this opportunity.

Before I forget, I will mention that I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Regina—Lewvan.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, since I am on my feet in the House, I will note that today is a day of remembrance for the tragic shooting that took place at a mosque in Quebec. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we take the time today to consider the implications of hate. Likewise, two days ago was International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Two poignant days this week remind us all of the tragic consequences of hate.

We are entering into debate on one of the constitutionally significant roles that this place plays: Canada's relationship with other global jurisdictions. In that context, there is no more important relationship than the one we have with Great Britain, the United Kingdom.

We share a governmental system. In fact, the opening lines of our Constitution refer to this government as being based in principle upon the Westminster system of governance. Certainly we share a lot of history, and even the symbolism around this place and in many of our provincial flags represents that long-shared history.

The United Kingdom has undertaken some pretty significant changes over the last number of years, as we have seen with Brexit, the exit of the United Kingdom, after a referendum, from the European Union. Last year it negotiated the intricacies of that departure, bringing us to the point where we are today, debating a continuity agreement as a stopgap between the previous CETA and what we expect will be a more comprehensive trade agreement in the coming years. The United Kingdom is acknowledging what it has gone through over the last year as well, in exiting the European Union while securing trade agreements with many partners in Europe and around the world.

It is a little troubling, because in typical government fashion and in direct contradiction to commitments made in this place, this process was brought forward at the 11th hour. The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me made a statement that trade deals take time. Yes, that is absolutely correct, but it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that steps are taken to anticipate changes.

We knew for a number of years that the circumstances relating to the U.K.'s position in Europe would be changing significantly. It is disappointing, quite frankly, that we now find ourselves debating this continuity agreement at the 11th hour, while other comparable jurisdictions have taken steps to go much further than what we are debating here today.

It is the opinion of many that had the government been more proactive, had the government worked more diligently to ensure that steps were taken early, we would be in a very different position. Because Canada is a trading nation, we have spent a lot of time this week discussing our trading relationship with our neighbours to the south. As well, I believe the United Kingdom is our fourth-largest trading partner. All of these sorts of agreements have massive implications upon our economy, upon jobs and upon the security of Canadians.

One of the troubling trends we see with the government is that it seems to not take seriously the need for certainty, investment certainty and certainty of the economic circumstances that allow people to do things like plan for their future.

A trade agreement is a massive undertaking. Negotiations between two jurisdictions are complex. In the case of the United Kingdom, we have similar legal systems and a long history. We share a Queen. We could not be closer than that. There are massive intricacies involved the negotiations. When we see these eleventh hour deals brought forward, it brings a level of uncertainty. Although many may suggest that it does not have an impact on the ground for regular Canadians, it has a significant impact. Jobs are impacted each and every day by the certainty of ensuring that investment has a clear path. When companies or entities are looking to invest in jurisdictions, they want that certainty. They want that understanding that there will not be a massive upheaval in jurisdictions, that there will be consistency in the long term.

This is really at the heart of why it is so troubling that we are debating this. We are actually debating this after the U.K. left the European Union, although work has been done to ensure there are further stopgaps that provide a bridge between the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, which took place the last day of last year. Before the bill is passed, some significant work has been done to ensure there are measures to bridge that. Now we are debating another bridge to which we will see within three years very clearly that we will enter into more fulsome negotiations for further trade agreements. That speaks to some of the challenges we face and why this debate is so important.

Many aspects of the bill reflect similarly the agreement we negotiated with CETA. I would like to compliment the former Conservative government led by Stephen Harper and specifically the member for Abbotsford, who was the trade minister for a good portion of the Harper government's tenure. There is no question that the Conservative Party is the party of free trade. When that member spoke on the bill the other day, he brought incredible wisdom to the conversation and the clear fact that many of the deals that the Liberal government had taken credit for was because of the heavy lifting done by the previous Conservative government.

In fact, when it comes to CETA, we saw the panic on the faces of Liberal ministers when they almost screwed up. They had to rush back into negotiations with Brussels and other jurisdictions to save the deal because they decided to change things. Then we saw how they were quick to jump into negotiations with the United States, and we came out behind in the new NAFTA or the “hafta” agreement. With respect to the CPTPP, much of the heavy lifting was done by the previous government.

There are significant details I would love to get into, but I do not have the time. However, the Liberals will claim that they are all about free trade. The the reality is that even in the 1993 election, they ran on a campaign of two major promises. The first was to get rid of the GST, but I still see GST on everything. The second was to pull out of NAFTA. However, when they saw the value of trade, they seemed to have changed their tune. I am proud to be part of a party that has worked diligently to increase trade globally.

I know a number of members have brought forward the need to address some of the pension disparity that U.K. expatriates have in Canada. I often hear from constituents who have uncertainty regarding their pensions. I would hope that as the government moves forward into the fulsome trade agreement, it would use its position at the bargaining table to advocate for U.K. pensioners who live in Canada and, in some cases, have lived in Canada for many years.

The Environment

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change released a list of the 325 conditions that the CN intermodal project must meet before it could proceed with any development in my riding of Milton. I recognize that these conditions address some of the concerns raised by my community and that this conditional approval is a technical assessment not an endorsement by the federal government. However, let me be very clear that these conditions do not change my position. I have always advocated for a rejection of this project and I remain strongly opposed.

Today, I want to directly address this to CN. Its own regulations recommend against new residential development within a thousand metres of an existing intermodal facility. Therefore, why would CN consider building one that same distance from a strong, growing and vibrant residential neighbourhood?

This fight is far from over. Miltonians will not give up. I will not give up. For me and our community, our top priority will always be protecting our people's health and a clean environment. In instead, I encourage CN to invest its time and energy in a community that welcomes this development and all the benefits it claims an intermodal will bring.

Community Organizations in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Guy Drouin from CDC Ici Montmagny L'Islet, Lysanne Tanguay from the Centre d'entraide familiale de la MRC de Montmagny, Karine Jean from the Carrefour d'initiatives populaires de Rivière-du-Loup, Christiane Vincent from the Centre d'action bénévole des Seigneuries, Bernard Gaudreau from the Comité de la famille et des aînés de la Ville de Montmagny, Mireille Lizotte from Moisson Kamouraska, Gilles A. Pelletier from Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Rivière-du-Loup, Paule Giasson from the Maison de secours La Frontière, Daniel Darveau from Soupe au bouton, Mélanie Dumont from the CDC du Kamouraska and all their employees and big-hearted volunteers work to provide food services to people in need, particularly during the Christmas season. I thank them for that. Without them, our communities would not be what they are today. With the help of my friend Francis Paradis, I myself was able to deliver Christmas hampers last year. When everyone is going through hard times, sharing is good for the soul.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your commitment to others, and thank you to the generous donors.