Debates of March 9th, 2021

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

It is a pleasure to rise today at third reading on Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the CUKTCA. I want to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House for unanimously agreeing to debate Bill C-18 tonight and to help move it through Parliament.

The United Kingdom is our fifth-largest trading partner and our third-largest export market, and we need to ensure that our exporters and importers, and all businesses and workers who rely on trade with the United Kingdom, have certainty. I want to take time in the first part of my speech to lay out some of the timelines and talk about the reason we are here now, in March 2021, debating the Canada-U.K. trade agreement, which should have been completed and in place months ago.

With the United Kingdom set to leave the European Union, we knew that our trade agreement with the EU, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, would not be applicable to trade with the U.K. once this happened on January 1, 2021. Throughout the last year, on many occasions the Conservatives asked questions of the government on the status of trade negotiations with the United Kingdom and whether we were going to see it meet its timelines and have a new agreement in place by the end of 2020. We did not receive many answers, and when we did they were quite vague or had little detail.

It also did not help the Liberals shut down Parliament and several committees, like the international trade committee, during the spring and summer of 2020. The international trade committee met only once between April and September of last year. This was at a time when it could have been doing important work, just like the committee that I was previously sitting on, the industry committee, which met virtually twice a week on critical issues. When the international trade committee finally resumed last fall, the Conservatives brought forth a motion to begin a prestudy on a potential trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, and to hear from stakeholders who would have been affected by this agreement or lack of one, as well as study what impacts could arise if an agreement was not in place.

While this study was occurring, we found out that the Liberals had walked away from trade negotiations with the U.K. in March 2019, only to return to the table in the summer of 2020. Other countries were negotiating and striking deals during this time. Finally, at the end of November 2020, after years of working on the agreement, just as one month before the CETA's application to the EU was set to expire, the government announced that it finally reached a trade agreement with the U.K., the CUKTCA, which was simply a rollover of the previous CETA. Four years of on and off talks led to a rollover.

The Liberals did not take our trading relationship with the U.K. seriously and mismanaged the process. I have heard and met from many organizations, workers and businesses about the trading relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. They were hoping that a new trade agreement would be Canada 1, not CETA 2. They were looking forward to addressing emerging issues, whether it was non-tariff barriers preventing goods from being exported to the U.K. or seeing measures to target trade imbalances between our two nations. Some were looking for new provisions, such as better measures to connect small businesses to trading opportunities, or a chance to address long-standing issues, such as inequalities of frozen pensions. None of this was done.

While the Prime Minister in the fall of 2020 publicly and patronizingly stated that the United Kingdom did not have the “bandwidth” to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada, the U.K. government was working to negotiate with other countries and secure comprehensive trade agreements. Trade ministers in the U.K. denied these claims from the Prime Minister. Such comments about the U.K., one of our longest-standing allies, surely was not helpful.

Furthermore, we heard from many stakeholders in business and labour that the government did not consult with them. I heard Liberal MPs say that they did not need to consult widely, as the consultations were already done during CETA. However, those consultations were years old by the time it finally came to negotiate this agreement, with newer and emerging issues that really needed to be looked at.

Finally, on December 9, 2020, just two sitting days before the House of Commons rose for the year and just weeks before CETA's application to the U.K. was set to expire, the government introduced its enacting legislation for the CUKTCA, Bill C-18. The government literally waited until the final week of the final month of the final year to introduce enacting legislation on a bill to continue trade with one of our most important allies.

To no one's surprise, the government did not get Bill C-18 through Parliament before the end of 2020 and before CETA expired. This was even though the Conservatives had been pressing for months so that we would not have uncertainty for Canadian businesses.

Because the government mismanaged the timelines of the Canada-U.K. trade deal by not getting legislation through Parliament and the Senate by the end of 2020, it had to announce bridging measures through a memorandum of understanding, or an MOU, in the last week of December as a stopgap measure to give them more time. Otherwise, Canadian businesses would have been facing tariffs. The MOU was to last for 90 days, until the end of March.

Bill C-18 passed through the trade committee, and we were very surprised not to see it on the government's agenda this week considering there were only two sitting weeks of Parliament in March 2021 and the bill needs to go through the Senate. What was on the agenda instead this week was legislation so that we could have an election during the pandemic. That was the priority of the government. Now, with us being here on March 9, weeks away from the MOU ending, we do not know if Bill C-18 will go through the parliamentary process before the MOU expires. The answers from the minister were déjà vu, as we heard them last year before the last looming expiration deadline. They were vague and noncommital. Was the government preparing transitional measures for a transitional memorandum of understanding and another extension?

This is why Conservatives sought unanimous consent to get Bill C-18 through third reading in the House of Commons tonight, despite the Liberals mismanaging their legislative agenda. When were the Liberals planning to bring Bill C-18 forward for debate, if we were not doing it tonight? Businesses, workers and exporters would have been left in the dark again.

I want to be clear. The Conservatives have heard from exporters and they support Bill C-18, as it would provide continuity in trade between Canada and the United Kingdom. We are grateful for the hard work of our negotiating team in getting this done, despite the parameters that were left to them by the Liberal government.

The Conservatives have expressed concerns about some aspects of the agreement, which we believe could have been done better. For one, the Liberals claim that the agreement is an interim agreement, but we see lots of signs that this is not the case. The agreement states that the Governments of Canada and the U.K. could get back to the table to negotiate a successor agreement within a year of ratification, and that within three years the Governments of Canada and the U.K. must finalize their successor agreement. However, there is no sunset clause and this interim agreement could very well become a permanent one.

We have also learned through questioning of trade officials at the committee stage that the portions stating that Canada and the U.K. must get back to the table to negotiate a successor agreement are not binding. A successor agreement is important to better reflect the Canada-U.K. trading relationship, but I am disappointed that stronger language is not in it to ensure that this happens. The agreement does not address trade imbalances of specific sectors, such as the beef sector, and does not address any non-tariff barriers.

Once the agreement is ratified and in place, the Conservatives will be holding the government to account on the priority to get a successor agreement. Our Canadian citizens, workers and businesses deserve this.

Right now, at a time of so much uncertainty, we know that businesses need predictability, and they have told us this, which is why we do not want to delay Bill C-18. This is why it is really important for us to move forward with this legislation. We want to give certainty and predictability to businesses at a time when there is so much they are unaware of around the corner. While the pandemic is still occurring, businesses are still in jeopardy and are still hurting. A lot of the businesses that export from Canada are in agriculture, and it is really important that they have stability right now.

I am really glad that we are debating Bill C-18 this evening, that we can move it forward and that we can put it on the legislative agenda. Businesses can rely on the fact that Parliament is working for them and that we can meet the deadlines.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

She raised several concerns about this government's management and negligence before negotiations began.

Faced with such a government, we have reason to be concerned. Is my colleague not worried about what will happen next, particularly with respect to supply-managed commodities? Earlier, she spoke out against Bill C-216, but considering the government we are dealing with, would she be willing to pass a bill that would give people a little security?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that this agreement does protect supply management. It was very important for us to have it in there. One of the first announcements the government made was that the supply-managed sectors were supported in this agreement. We were very happy to see that once we saw the legislation for this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague will not find this question difficult to answer because I really wanted to ask it of the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is about the issue of slavery in supply chains. I am really encouraged to see how much discussion we are having. It is tangential to the Canada-U.K. trade agreement, but given that the U.K. has tackled this issue of slavery in supply chain, I am wondering if I could take it up with her as well. We have Bill S-216 sitting in the Senate. We need to move ahead with these measures to help Canadians know that the goods we are consuming here are not produced with slave labour.

We do have a problem, though, that the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the World Trade Organization generally has identified these kinds of concerns as what it calls “PPM”, process and production methods that are outside the scope of government action. I am wondering if the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country would agree that we should grab the momentum toward taking action against slavery in supply chains while we have the chance and try to move Bill S-216 ahead as quickly as possible?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. It is actually very timely because I am not sure if the member might be aware that at the international trade committee yesterday, the Conservatives put forth a motion dealing with forced labour in supply chains. We put forth a motion to look at government measures and their effectiveness. There are a couple of measures in place right now. We wanted to look at how effective they are with forced labour and human rights in Xinjiang and region and call the Minister of Small Business and a number of officials and look to see where there are gaps. That motion did not go through. The Liberals voted against it, as did the Bloc. Unfortunately, that study will not be happening despite the fact it would have been a very good and very timely study.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also salute my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I would like to come back to her exchange with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. She said that she was pleased to see that the agreement with the U.K. would not result in new breaches in supply management. We are also pleased, and it is one of the fundamental conditions for our support, which we are providing.

However, we know that the United Kingdom wants to export more cheese. That means the problem will crop up again. My colleague rightly told us that the government was negligent. That being the case, why not protect supply mangement through legislation and prevent this negligent government from making the same mistake again?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on the committee as well, where we work collaboratively. Supply management is very important. We are staunch supporters of supply management, so as I said earlier, we were very happy to see it in Bill C-18, so that all of those sectors can have certainty and stability during this time. That was one of the first questions that we posed once we heard there was an agreement coming forth. We were really happy to see that in this agreement, as we are discussing today.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country and official opposition shadow minister for export promotion and international trade for sharing her time with me. I know her constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country are well served by the member. She has done great work on this file and on this bill, so I would like to thank her for that.

I rise today virtually as the shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food to speak to the importance of maintaining and growing Canada's post-Brexit trading relationship with the United Kingdom as it leaves the European Union and is no longer covered by the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA.

To begin with, the linkages between Canada and the United Kingdom may be obvious, but they are worth pointing out. First and foremost, Her Majesty the Queen is sovereign of both Canada and the United Kingdom. She is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, of which both countries are founding members. Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, was originally the British North America Act, an act of Parliament at Westminster.

Until the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the United Kingdom led Canada's foreign relations. The former British Empire, which Canada was part of, was the world's largest trading and customs union. When he was prime minister, the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker wanted to revive this trading and customs union. Therefore, today, Canada's trading relationship with the United Kingdom is among its most important, including for the agricultural sector.

According to Industry Canada, in 2019, Canada's overall exports to the U.K. were valued at $18.9 billion, while imports from the U.K. were valued at $9.2 billion. Combined, the two-way trade between Canada and the U.K. in 2019 was valued at over $28 billion. This makes the U.K. Canada's fifth-largest trading partner.

In the same year, agriculture and agri-food imports from the U.K. were valued at more than $404 million, and Canada's agriculture and agri-food exports to the U.K. were valued at more than $344 million. That included agricultural implements valued at more than $13.4 million and distilleries products valued at more than $3.6 million. All other agricultural products exported by Canada were valued at $326 million. Therefore, as an agricultural export market, the U.K. is Canada's seventeenth-most valuable in the world. The U.K. is Canada's third-most valuable agricultural export market in Europe, after France and Belgium.

Canada produces and exports some of the highest-quality food products in the world, and our farmers are proud of what they produce. In 2019, Canada's exports of wheat to the U.K. were valued at $116.3 million, and customers in the U.K. recognize that Canadian durum wheat is a premium product in the production of flour for bread and semolina for pasta. The demand for other grain, pulse and oilseeds crops is high because of the virtually unrivalled quality of our Canadian products.

Let me expand on the agriculture commodities that we trade most with the U.K.

Corn exports totalled $42.8 million. Dry pea and bean exports totalled $104.7 million. Soybean exports were valued at $338 million. Oilseeds, apart from soybeans, totalled $3.2 million. Non-citrus fruit and tree nut exports were $1.7 million. Miscellaneous crops, including other grains, totalled $18 million. These products are all grown by farmers who pride themselves on the quality of their product and appreciate the relationship that they have with the U.K., including farmers from my own riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

The U.K. is an important market for a wide variety of farm products and services. This agreement protects Canada's dairy, poultry and agriculture sectors and the viability of produced-in-Canada suppliers of these products. It offers no incrementally increased market access for supply-managed products. However, the U.K. market is effectively closed to other Canadian farm products, including beef.

Because of this, any future trade negotiations between Canada and the United Kingdom should look at the following points of discussion. The first is what Canada must do in order to restore the United Kingdom's market openness for Canadian beef exports. The second is to look for an opportunity to promote Canadian agricultural products to achieve a greater share of the existing United Kingdom market.

For example, the United Kingdom exports of distillery products to Canada in 2019 totalled just short of $270 million, compared to $3.6 million from Canada to the United Kingdom. Discussions should be pursued to create what would effectively be a new market for other Canadian products, including canola. As well as serving as a high-quality cooking oil, canola is used as a feedstock for the production of biodiesel. Sadly, at present, the United Kingdom is not a significant market for canola. Is the Government of Canada doing all it could to promote Canadian agricultural products in the United Kingdom?

Further, and according to the Minister of International Trade, if this bill failed and Canada's trading relationship with the U.K. were to revert to most-favoured-nation provisions, subject to the World Trade Organization regime, food exports would be among the most negatively affected. At a time when Canadian producers have seen markets reduced or closed to their agricultural products in China and elsewhere around the world, we must keep open and expand all existing markets for Canadian producers.

Our consideration of Bill C-18 and trade continuity with the U.K. post-Brexit should not be taken as a be-all and end-all. This should be taken as a new starting point for an enhanced, friendly, fruitful and prosperous trading relationship between our two countries and our respective producers and service providers.

I want to turn now to where the performance of the Liberal government has fallen short of what Canadians expect. As my colleague, the shadow minister for export promotion and international trade, has pointed out, the Liberals introduced this bill at the last minute to replace a trade agreement that they had known for some time was expiring at the end of 2020.

Again, as my colleague pointed out, while we are pleased that Canada and the United Kingdom have secured a trade agreement that re-establishes provisions under CETA, we are not pleased that the Liberals waited until the eleventh hour to introduce the implementing legislation. This is yet another example of Liberal mismanagement and incompetence.

Make no mistake, Conservatives have been the party of well-regulated free trade. Sir John A. Macdonald sought trade reciprocity with the United States immediately following Confederation. As I have already mentioned, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker sought to revive free trade in the Commonwealth. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was initiated and implemented by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his international trade minister, the late John Crosbie. The Right Hon. Stephen Harper negotiated over 30 bilateral trade agreements, as well as CETA and the trans-Pacific partnership. The Conservative Party understands that Canada's prosperity and job creation hinge on Canadian producers' access to international markets for their goods and services, including agricultural goods and services.

Let me say again that the Conservative Party is the party of well-regulated free trade. On a more personal note, as with so many communities across all regions, provinces and territories of Canada, my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is heavily dependent on having secure and reliable access to markets for the agricultural products that they produce. As with ridings served by my colleagues on this side of the House and also by colleagues on all sides of this chamber, our constituents' jobs and livelihoods, and their ability to provide for their families and loved ones, depend on both local and global markets for agricultural products. They cannot afford to lose any market, including the United Kingdom, as a market for agricultural products.

Let me summarize by again pointing out the obvious. Canada's relationship with the United Kingdom is a long and warm one. Even apart from our commonalities, Canada's trading relationship with the United Kingdom is too valuable to lose. It is too valuable to lose for Canadian farmers and agricultural producers of goods and services. Canadian agricultural producers are ready to supply top-quality products to the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I cannot help but think about is the fact that this trade agreement is touted as a temporary or transitional deal. Does the member believe that we should include a sunset clause to ensure that negotiations lead to a successor agreement? I think that would provide a lot more stability and I would like to hear what the member thinks about it.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is important in this agreement is that we have continued trade with the United Kingdom for our farmers and producers and can continue to open markets for them. While this is an important bill before us today that will help all sectors, including our supply-managed sectors, we need to make sure to continue to press for such access going forward for commodities such as beef, and even more so for canola in the U.K.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have had years to work on a new trade agreement with the United Kingdom and yet they waited until the last minute to restart trade talks and failed to negotiate any improvements in the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement over CETA. What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau failed to negotiate this trade agreement with the U.K. He failed to take it seriously and waited until the eleventh hour, again putting people's livelihoods and our trade with the U.K. at risk, and potentially closing markets for the U.K. It was simple. We could have had something earlier and, unfortunately, he waited until the last hour.

It is important to point out that if the Prime Minister had not prorogued Parliament when he did, in the middle of the WE scandal, this bill would already be in the Senate. We have seen nothing but delays from the government, and this is just another example of Liberals not standing up for Canadian producers and farmers, as we have continually seen. They fail to stand up for farmers. This is just another example of where they are falling behind and hurting our agriculture sector.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member to reference other hon. members by their titles or ridings.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She gave a very powerful speech about the incompetence of this government with respect to its foresight and reaction time.

She mentioned that she wants to protect supply-managed commodities. Yes, there are many commodities destined for export, but there are also some supply-managed commodities that should not be sacrificed. Does my colleague not think she should support our bill tomorrow?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always said, and the leader has been very clear, that the Conservative Party understands supply management and how important it is to our farmers in the supply-managed sectors of eggs, poultry, dairy and our feathered friends. Supply management is important and we will always stand up for it. We have shown that we will support our farmers and I have been very vocal in saying that I will support supply management. We will continue as a party to support our farmers and the supply-managed sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers on Vancouver Island are very concerned because every single time a trade deal is negotiated, it chips away at supply management. If we add up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, CETA and what has been happening in other trade deals that were negotiated under both Conservatives and Liberals, there is less protection for supply management than there used to be, just as there is with this adoption of the CETA rules for our dealings with the U.K.

I wonder how we are going to explain to dairy farmers the compensation they might receive down the road for the loss of supply management or how any member can say that we stand up to protect supply management when we enter into trade deals that chip away at it quite substantially.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding that is very rich in agriculture, including many supply-managed farms. I will always stand up to protect supply management, as will the Conservative Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

On another practical housekeeping item, my kids are getting ready for bed right now, and so to Matthew and Emerson: Good night and love you guys. I will also tell them to listen to their mother.

It is just about 9 p.m. on a Tuesday, and generally the House would have adjourned hours ago, but Conservatives have made it clear that we are willing to work with the government when it is willing to be a good partner. I think that is demonstrated by us wanting to make sure that two things happen tonight. The first is that legislation before the House has the scrutiny that it deserves. As a legislator, I take seriously my obligation to review, debate, discuss and dialogue about the most serious issues facing our country. Tonight, we are talking about an important trading relationship, which is representative of how important it is that we have that dialogue. The second is that people, and their perspectives, from across our country have their voices heard.

I often am asked why there are so many empty seats in Parliament. Certainly during normal times there would be one explanation, but as of late there is a different reason, which is making sure that there is safe physical distancing so that we can stand together in the fight against COVID. However, for the first time in our history, we are seeing members of Parliament join in debate in this place virtually, which is a significant milestone. It is so important that we can have these very important discussions.

When it comes to trade overall, one of the most serious obligations of Canada's Parliament, as laid out in the founding documents of our country, is that this place would be responsible for navigating global trading relationships, whether 150-some years ago as a new country as part of the British Empire, or today. We share a system, and the first words of the British North America Act talked about how we have a structure similar to that of the United Kingdom. We share much of our history, legal systems and structures. In fact, the green carpet we have the honour of debating from represents the foundation of democracy, not just in Canada, but some of the earliest democratic structures in the modern world. It is within that context that we enter into debate here tonight, and it is good to be able to ensure that there is stability in one of Canada's very important trading partners. We will certainly work with the government.

I will get into the substance of the bill in a moment, but during question period today I heard about how the Liberals were blaming the Conservatives for all of these delays on different things. I find that ironic, because the Liberals control the agenda of the government. It seems that whenever it is inconvenient for them, they will simply blame the opposition. They are inserting tactics and politics into the debate, not to mention prorogation, when we lost approximately 35 legislative days. We have had to debate many bills multiple times to fix mistakes made in previous bills. As well, there were many months where the House did not sit in a substantive capacity, although there are practical reasons for that. Certainly, democracy is an essential service, and I was proud to stand and debate that coming up a year ago as we enter into the second year of COVID-19.

Regarding the debate at hand, I find it very interesting. Although just elected in 2019, I had spent a little bit of time in Ottawa and was a staffer prior to getting elected.

It is always great to see the legacies of good governments, and when it comes to what we are debating today, in substance it is actually a Conservative legacy. If we go back to the beginning of the CETA negotiations, we see that the signatures on the page took place after the 2015 election, but the substance of that agreement, one of the largest agreements signed in Canadian history, was negotiated by a Conservative government, acknowledging fair and free trade and how important that is for a resource-rich country with great expertise in products and manufacturing capacity, secure supply chains and technological innovation. Conservatives led the charge in ensuring that we had a wide variety of trading relationships. There was massive growth in the number of countries that Canada had trade agreements with over the close to 10 years that Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it is an honour to sit in caucus with the member for Abbotsford and hear some the war stories of some of those trade negotiations.

As for the substance of the bill we are talking about today, although the United Kingdom's position in the European Union has changed dramatically over a number of years, when we get into the nuts and bolts of the continuity and the recent history of that trade agreement, it really comes back to Conservative expertise in getting us to this point. Although I was not elected at the time, I saw news articles about how the Liberals almost dropped the ball on CETA, yet were able to get what is largely a Conservative legacy across the finish line. I am thankful for that. Good, strong, free and fair trade is the right thing for our nation.

What we are debating today is a little unfortunate, because it was a comedy of errors that got us to the point where we are now. It was about a year and a half ago that the negotiations broke down between Canada and the United Kingdom. The Liberals were quick to say that it was bandwidth issues with the United Kingdom, and in fairness, the United Kingdom is faced with a myriad of significant challenges associated with its exit from the European Union, but that did not stop the Australians or other jurisdictions from negotiating good, strong improvements to their trade deals.

It is unfortunate that negotiations broke down between our two countries and that it was not until the eleventh hour that this interim agreement was brought forward. The agreement lacks clarity. Trade and global investments and commerce depend on certainty, and that is what is required. This is a good step in the right direction, but it is unfortunate that the bill lacks a definitive timeline to ensure that there are concrete steps taken toward a long-term agreement. Some of the things that such an agreement should include are our tremendous expertise and tremendous resource capacity. I am proud to come from an area where net-zero oil comes from the region that I represent. It is a proud legacy that we have the most environmentally sustainable and ethically produced energy in the world. We have such a strong legacy of that, as well as so many opportunities to develop agriculture. I come from a strong agricultural region with so many opportunities.

As I see my time is almost up, I want to say that it should give Canadians pause to see that ideology seems to have got in the way of the Prime Minister and the Liberals negotiating with a Conservative government from another jurisdiction. It is unfortunate that it is truly Canadians who end up paying the price for the ideological blindness, I would suggest, that sometimes takes place on the Liberal side.

It is an honour to discuss this important bill and to support continuing the development of a strong trading relationship with the United Kingdom as it undergoes significant change. I am looking forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague talk about trade and agriculture. I know that he will reiterate that he is here to defend supply management, but why refuse to do that through legislation, if only to protect ourselves from the negligence of certain leaders?

I would also like my colleague's perspective on ways to improve transparency and negotiations in these agreements, instead of presenting parliamentarians with the final agreement that they have to simply rubber-stamp.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer both parts of the member's question. I will answer the second part first.

I did not get a chance to talk about this in my speech, but it is interesting that the House, Canada's democratic institution, actually required the government to keep it informed of the status of negotiations. Certainly, there was not a lot of information provided, and that is a shame. In fact, it verges on contempt. Often, we see the government make grand statements about how it is the most transparent government in the history of the universe, but the evidence is certainly the opposite of that.

To the member's point on protecting our supply-managed sectors, that could be a valid discussion, but I would simply turn it around and ask the member this. He is worried about the agricultural industry in Quebec, but I certainly find it very, very troubling how the Liberals seem to be quick to target the energy industry in Alberta. It is unfortunate that there is no reciprocity in building a Canada that works for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the member had some comments about what this side of the House has been saying about the Conservatives holding up bills, the fact that they are very much interested in this bill and supported having it on the floor tonight. That is great to see and I am glad to see that we are able to make progress on this one.

One of the other bills that would really affect Canadians right now is Bill C-24, which deals with EI benefits, in particular for those who have been affected by the pandemic. If that bill does not receive royal assent by March 21, there will be a lot of Canadians without EI benefits.

Now the Conservatives will say, “Well, it's the Liberals' fault because they didn't set the agenda properly to allow that bill to be put on the floor and to have enough time for debate,” and so on and so forth. However, by saying that they are effectively saying to those people, “We are going to hold you hostage because we're upset with the Liberal government and their legislative agenda”.

We asked the member, all Conservatives, and everyone else in the House, to vote to have debate on that bill extended last night until midnight. The Conservatives voted against it. Does the member not think that Bill C-24 to support EI recipients is just as important as this free trade bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, it bears pointing out a simple number and a simple word: 35 days of prorogation. We would be in a very, very different sort of scenario had the government not decided to try to cover up its scandalous ways. I think that is the unfortunate context. It is unfortunate for all Canadians, the context that we were in.

When it comes to Bill C-24 and a lot of other very important legislation, Conservatives have worked with the government. In the midst of a global crisis, we have seen that when we work together, things get done. It is unfortunate that the Liberals continue to play politics with this issue and blame the official opposition when, in many cases, they have had to bring legislation back numerous times to fix the errors that would have been remedied had the legislation been debated properly in the first place.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a first for me too. I have never shared time with a Conservative member of Parliament. I want to thank, in the spirit of co-operation, the Conservative member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the investment chapter and the investment dispute resolution mechanism in the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement. I will begin by emphasizing that maintaining the robust investment relationship Canada has with the U.K. is a top priority for our government. As we are all well aware, Canada and the U.K. have historically enjoyed a mutually advantageous trade and investment relationship. Our bilateral investment relationship, which was already strong, has grown rapidly under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade agreement, or CETA.

The U.K. is Canada's largest market in Europe and is a key source of foreign direct investment. Indeed, the U.K. is Canada's fourth most important source of foreign direct investment. In 2019, the FDI stock from the U.K. was valued at over $62 billion. Canadians are also seeking investment opportunities in the U.K., with our FDI stocks in the U.K. valued at over $107 billion in 2019, making the United Kingdom Canada's second-largest direct investment destination.

The trade continuity agreement that was signed by Canada and the U.K. on December 9, 2020, would ensure that both parties can sustain and build upon this important relationship by preserving the benefits of CETA in a new bilateral agreement. More importantly, as this trade continuity agreement is based on CETA, an agreement Canadians are already familiar with, it provides continuity, predictability and stability for Canadian businesses, exporters, workers and consumers. This stability is more important than ever as we grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Once the trade continuity agreement is ratified and fully implemented, it will continue to maintain predictability and protect Canadian investors as well as preserve CETA's high-standard provisions on dispute settlement. Canada's businesses have told us that what they want most at this time is stability, and the continuity agreement would provide that as we continue to work toward a new comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement with the U.K. that best serves Canada's interests over the longer term.

I will elaborate on two very important parts of the trade continuity agreement: the investment chapter and the investment dispute resolution mechanism, the purpose of which is to protect Canadian investors.

As stated by my colleagues, the trade continuity agreement is an interim agreement that replicates CETA's provisions to ensure the stability of Canadian businesses during the unique situation Brexit has presented. As such, the comprehensive investment chapter of CETA was effectively replicated in the trade continuity agreement to ensure a smooth transition and provide predictability for Canadians. This will ensure that Canadian investors, as well as Canadian financial institutions with investments in the U.K., receive the same high standard of investor protection under this agreement that they were provided under CETA.

I will elaborate on the investment dispute resolution provision.

The trade continuity agreement replicates the CETA investment dispute resolution provisions, including CETA's permanent investment tribunal and appellate tribunal, with only minor technical changes to reflect the replacement of the 28 EU member states with the U.K. However, the investment dispute resolution provisions will be temporarily suspended upon entry into force of the trade continuity agreement, pending a review by parties. The purpose of this review is to consider the approach to investment dispute resolution that best reflects the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.K. The review would be set to commence within three months of entry into force of the trade continuity agreement and should be completed within three years, unless extended by agreement of both Canada and the U.K. If Canada and the U.K. do not agree on an approach to investment dispute resolution, or to extend the review process within three years, the CETA-like investment tribunal and appellate tribunal would apply, provided that equivalent CETA provisions have entered into force.

While this trade continuity agreement would protect Canadian investors, it would also maintain Canada's right to regulate in the public interest. As in CETA, the trade continuity agreement would require both Canadian and foreign investors to abide by Canada's laws and regulations in areas such as the environment, labour, health care and safety.

Through the unprecedented Brexit transition process our government strived to provide Canadians with certainty and security. This objective was made all the more important with the added economic consequences and uncertainty resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our government takes great pride in achieving this trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom. The objective in negotiating this agreement has always been to create a temporary measure to ensure stability for Canadian businesses during the Brexit transition process. To be clear, the trade continuity agreement is good for Canadian and U.K. investors and for the strong mutually beneficial trade and investment relationship our nations have built over 150 years.

While CETA will continue to govern Canada-EU trade, this trade continuity agreement will provide predictability and remove uncertainty for Canadians doing business with and in the U.K. This agreement is not only about ensuring continuity and maintaining the status quo, but is also essential in setting the stage for our future trade relations with the United Kingdom.

It is critical that the trade continuity agreement be ratified and implemented as soon as possible to ensure certainty for businesses. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-18 and allow the government to move ahead and implement the Canada-U.K. continuity agreement in a timely manner.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the member for Surrey Centre's riding, having spent my whole professional career working there.

Can the member comment on the significance of Canada's entering into a free trade agreement with a country with whom we share so many commonalities, such as common law, respect for the rule of law, our parliamentary traditions and so many other values? Is this a model that could be carried to other English-speaking, common-law tradition countries, like New Zealand and Australia?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the member of Parliament for Langley—Aldergrove. I hope I am serving his previous place of work well. I commend him for his public service as well.

I take that point very seriously and not just with respect to other English-speaking places with Commonwealth traits, although that obviously helps because our legal systems are very similar in the Commonwealth, including India, New Zealand and Australia. There are opportunities to grow our trade with those countries, and many in Africa, based on our similarities rather than our differences. That is key. Our government will always strive to create fair, responsible trade and open up markets for Canadians wherever we can.