Debates of Oct. 28th, 2025

An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

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

Madam Speaker, if the member could reflect back on this, in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to look at ways in which we can expand trading opportunities that go beyond the United States. This is a good example of the commitment that the Prime Minister made to Canadians.

I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. As soon as that election was over and we won it, the Prime Minister made sure to visit our greatest trading partners, one being the U.K. It is our number three trading partner.

We have increased trade with the U.K. From 2016, it has gone up almost 53%. We want to continue on that track and to continue to increase that trade. The way to do that is for our Prime Minister and our government to reach out to other like-minded countries to be able to open those doors and open trade because it is good for our—

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

There is time for one last question.

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, one comment the member made defies logic. It is not in the fact that open dialogue is not bad. It is good; I agree with that part. However, CETA has been around a long time. Mary Ng was negotiating the Canada-U.K. trade agreement, but it broke down on one of the things around some of the trade irritants we have with the U.K. Now we are looking at CPTPP and more access. There will be more access, certainly for dairy and other things.

Does the member agree that the time for talk is over, and it is time for the U.K. to live up to its end of the deal?

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

Madam Speaker, I will say that there is always time for talk and keeping up those communication channels, keeping them open. It may be through a different forum, but there is always an opportunity to see movement when there is dialogue. When there is no dialogue is when things break down. We want to make sure that those channels are always open.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the accession of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, to include the United Kingdom. This is not a matter of just adjusting a trade framework or fine-tuning an international treaty; this is a decision with direct impacts on the people, businesses and communities of Canada, particularly in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In supporting this agreement, I want to highlight what it truly means for my province, in particular the seafood sector, which forms the backbone of many coastal communities, the economy in those communities and our crucial identity.

Newfoundland and Labrador has long drawn its strength economically, culturally and historically from the sea. Our relationship with the ocean is not just transactional, but foundational. For generations, our fishers, processors and exporters have built a reputation of delivering world-class seafood, from crab and shrimp to halibut and beyond, harvested from the cold, clean waters of the North Atlantic. These products are not just goods on a ledger; they represent the life work of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They support families, drive small business and sustain coastal communities that rely on fishing-related activities to survive and thrive.

In 2024, Newfoundland and Labrador was Canada's third-largest fish and seafood-exporting province, with exports valued at $1.4 billion, representing 117,000 tonnes of high-quality seafood. This is why trade agreements like the CPTPP and strategic decisions like the U.K.'s accession matter so deeply to my province.

Let us talk about what the agreement does in practical, tangible terms for seafood producers and the sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under the agreement, tariffs on key seafood exports are either immediately eliminated or significantly reduced. These tariff changes are not small adjustments, but real competitive gains for our producers. They translate to lower costs, better margins and stronger competitiveness. They help our businesses grow, hire and reinvest. They ensure that our seafood products can enter high-demand markets on an equal footing with global competitors. This is critical, because over 80% of Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood production is destined for export.

Our economy depends on access to reliable, fair and open markets. This speaks directly to our government's broader commitment to expand and diversify Canada's trade footprint. The Prime Minister has made clear that our future prosperity depends on looking beyond traditional markets, and Canada must work to double our non-U.S. exports over the next decade. For our province, this means ensuring that products like crab, shrimp and halibut have a clear path to new consumers across Asia and Europe.

The CPTPP is not an abstract policy or an academic exercise. For the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a concrete, actionable opportunity to support sustainable industries, protect jobs and build long-term prosperity. In today's uncertain global environment, our exporters and fishers need more predictable trade conditions. This agreement provides that. It offers a rules-based system, with care obligations and fewer surprises when it comes to tariffs, regulations and market access. By operating under this agreement, our seafood exporters face less risk and enjoy greater certainty, allowing them to make better investment decisions, plan ahead and become more deeply integrated into a global supply chain.

This is about more than balance sheets. It is about the future and the future prosperity of coastal communities in my province: sustainability, the stability of small business owners and the well-being of workers and families whose livelihood depends on the sea.

I will turn to why the United Kingdom's accession into this agreement makes this already valuable agreement even stronger for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as for Canada. The U.K. is not a stranger to us. It is a country with which we share deep historical, cultural and economic ties. Many of our exporters already have long-standing relationships with the U.K. Formalizing the U.K.'s place in this agreement would offer us three major strategic advantages.

The first advantage is expanded market access and opportunity. With the U.K. becoming part of this agreement, businesses from the U.K. would now operate under the same high-standard trade rules as their Asia-Pacific counterparts. This means that Canadian exporters, including those in Newfoundland and Labrador, would gain dual access. On one side, we have Asia-Pacific markets, such as Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam and Australia; on the other side, we have enhanced access to a major European economy that links directly into the broader global economy. This dual market strategy increases opportunity while decreasing dependency on any single trade corridor.

The second advantage is strengthening the rules-based system. The inclusion of the U.K. boosts the prestige, credibility and reach of this agreement. When major economies commit to a high-standard agreement, it strengthens the foundation on which all member countries operate. This is especially important for my province and the seafood exporters who rely on transparent, consistent and fair trade rules, not just to compete but to flourish in a market in which sudden tariff shifts or other barriers can have impacts. With the U.K. involved, we would not just expand the agreement's scope; we would reinforce its core values of sustainability, fairness and openness.

The third major advantage is diversification of export risk. Our province is already heavily dependent on export markets, but concentration brings risk. If we rely too much on just one or two regions, any disruption can have outsized effects on our businesses and workers. The U.K.'s participation offers the enhancement of a critical pathway to spread and manage that risk. It would provide an improved channel to markets. It would reduce our vulnerability and open new doors for collaboration, investment and expansion. To put it in practical terms, for a Newfoundland crab or shrimp processor who already sells to the U.S. and Japan, with the U.K. now part of this agreement, the same business would gain another avenue to the U.K. market along with our bilateral trade continuity agreement and potentially, through the U.K., supply chains to even more markets. This is a strategic advantage, one that would strengthen our seafood industry for the long term.

This approach is exactly in line with the Prime Minister's vision for a more resilient and outward-looking Canadian economy. By pursuing new partnerships and deepening existing ones, our government is laying the groundwork for a trade future that is more secure, more sustainable and more diverse than ever before. The U.K.'s accession to this agreement would be a strategic move for the next generation of Canadian trade. It would demonstrate that Canada is serious about building resilient, high-standard and inclusive trade networks to build Canada strong.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his interpretation of the bill.

The previous speaker, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, mentioned that there is ongoing dialogue about the issue of our farmers' not being able to participate fully with their cattle and hogs, their beef and pork. He said that there had not been any concessions in allowing the U.K. to be part of the CPTPP and that there would be ongoing discussions.

Once the ink is dry, is it not too late to make a deal? Should the deal not have been made before signing it?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is ongoing discussion not only in terms of the U.K. but also in terms of Asian markets, Indonesian markets and Mexican markets. There is ongoing discussion because the Prime Minister is committed to doubling the amount of export outside the U.S. and into other areas of the globe. This is important for Canadian companies, for Canadian producers, for Canadian workers and for Canada’s economy.

I have great confidence in the Prime Minister and the ongoing dialogue with many countries around the world that will build Canada strong.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, many Liberal members have been talking about market diversification. I understand that this is essential, but right now, the forestry sector is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Without swift government action, market diversification will simply not exist because there will be no players left in the forestry industry.

I would like my colleague to talk about what his government plans to do for the forestry industry in the short term. Is he aware that this sector is going through an unprecedented situation, which could wipe out many forestry companies in the coming months or even weeks?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister, government and cabinet will be doing is building 500,000 homes across Canada, which will improve the efforts of our forestry sector and softwood lumber providers. We are building trade corridors with many other countries, which will include our softwood lumber and forestry sectors. We are working to improve Canada's economy and Canada's trade corridors so that we are less reliant on the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the importance of world trade.

We have a prime minister who made a commitment to expand beyond the American border, and we have seen an extraordinary amount of effort made by the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus to move towards this. We have heard about discussions with India, which is a quickly growing economic superpower. More recently, the Prime Minister was talking about having a potential trade agreement with the Philippines in 2026, and we are debating this today about the U.K. These are important trade opportunities that enhance Canada’s ability to grow its economy and provide jobs into the future.

I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts as to why we need to continue to push the trade file, because it is in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is important. The Prime Minister's legacy will be building a stronger economy, one of the strongest in the G7. His goal is for us to have the strongest economy in the G7.

This means becoming less reliant on the United States and building trade corridors with other countries. It means using our own materials within our country, such as building 500,000 homes for Canadians while using the materials within Canada and our own labour sources to build Canada strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Signal Hill.

I wish to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauce.

A Canada-U.K. trade agreement is, on the whole, a good thing. It goes without saying that the relationship between Canada and the U.K. is long in duration and extensive in nature. Our cultural ties are great, and strengthening these ties is fundamentally a good thing. We are two countries joined by a shared history and deep links. Our institutions, traditions, Parliament and legal system have all been inherited from Great Britain. We are united by our constitutional monarchy.

I will note that it was my honour to shake hands with His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen when they were here in Ottawa on the occasion of the opening of Parliament in May of this year. It was a great honour for our country.

We are united through the Commonwealth of Nations, an institution that provides common ground for positive relationships among diverse nations in different areas of the world.

I say all of this to underline the fact that Conservatives favour, in general, closer and freer trade with the United Kingdom. This is a standing position of the Conservative Party. The issue with this bill is not the concept of closer trade ties with our old friends across the pond. The issue is that, in this bill, there is nothing being returned to Canada. There is nothing for Canadian farmers, families and small, independent business people making their living on the land by feeding Canadians and people around the world.

Also, farmers have not been treated fairly by the U.K. government under the auspices of the current trade continuity agreement. Under that agreement, the TCA, the U.K. government has not been acting in good faith toward Canadian producers. It is the sad truth that British authorities have imposed non-tariff barriers on our pork and cattle exports that are neither fair nor science-based.

Conservatives have reservations about this bill precisely for these reasons. We expect that supporting the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will result in the normalization of the trade irritants that currently exist with our close friends and allies in the U.K.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The U.K. refuses to approve the carcass wash that is standard practice in Canadian slaughter plants, a measure approved by the World Health Organization and used safely around the world. The U.K. also continues to block Canadian beef and pork produced with growth promotants, again without credible scientific evidence to justify its actions. These objections have evolved over time not to protect consumers but to keep Canadian products out of the U.K. market. That is not how allies or fair traders should behave.

The story does not end at the technicalities. Canadian ranchers and producers say that this is a pattern of exclusion. According to the Canadian Cattle Association, exports of Canadian beef to the U.K. have been effectively zero over the last two years while British exports to Canada have sharply increased. Tyler Fulton, the President of the Canadian Cattle Association, said, “The U.K. has not made any effort to address the non-tariff barriers that are keeping Canadian beef out of the U.K. market”.

Let us be clear about the scale of the imbalance. According to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 16.6 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, 42.4 million dollars' worth in 2024 and 28.3 million dollars' worth in the first half of 2025. I note the increase. Meanwhile, Canada exported 85,000 dollars' worth of beef to the U.K. in 2023, 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024 and has had no beef exports in 2025. Again, according to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 5.6 million dollars' worth of pork products to Canada in 2023, 9.1 million dollars' worth of pork products in 2024 and 3.6 million dollars' worth in pork products in the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported no pork to the U.K. in 2023, 75,000 dollars' worth of pork products in 2024 and 122,000 dollars' worth in 2025 so far.

These figures illustrate one-way trade. That is not free trade or fair trade. We believe in free trade at a time when it is increasingly under attack around the world. We also believe in fair trade, which means reciprocity. It means that when one side enjoys access to our market, our producers deserve the same in return. It means standing up for our farmers, our ranchers and our rural communities, which have been unfairly harmed by the U.K.'s actions under the TCA.

What we do not have at this point in time, as the Liberal government seeks to have the House support Bill C-13, is fairness for farmers. I note that this situation exists while the Liberal government is led by a former U.K. central banker and at a time when that same former U.K. central banker has made several visits to the current U.K. Prime Minister. They certainly appear to be quite friendly. Was there really no time between the Earl Grey tea and the cucumber sandwiches for Canada's Prime Minister to speak up for Canadian farmers or beef and pork producers in this country?

I would be remiss if I did not weigh in on a concern that has already been expressed in the House today and, according to other members, for months and years without resolution under the Liberal government: the more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners living here in Canada. These are retirees who worked in the U.K. and retired in Canada. They do not receive cost of living increases to their U.K. pensions, or simple indexing, something that U.K. pensioners in other countries, such as the United States, do receive.

These pensioners have been very vocal about their unfair treatment, and they are right. I have spoken to U.K. pensioners in my riding who are facing this unfairness. It is a shame that the U.K. government has not done more to help these folks and correct this imbalance. I think the Liberal government should have tried to secure some fairness for them. If there ever was a moment to use the Prime Minister's close relationship to fight for Canadian interests, especially in a cost of living and inflation crisis, it is now. Once again, the government is asleep at the wheel.

This points to a larger concern Canadians have about the government: Nothing gets done. The trade irritants I described should have been resolved years ago, but the unfair non-tariff barriers on Canadian beef and pork remain exactly where they are. If there is anyone who thinks that it is going to be easier to resolve those trade problems under the CPTPP, they are mistaken.

This points to a larger concern that Canadians have about the government. The question is this: If the Liberal government cannot secure a fair deal with our oldest ally under the most favourable circumstances possible, how on earth can Canadians trust the Liberals to negotiate effectively with the United States? How can we expect the Liberals to deliver results on lumber, autos and steel, or to strike a fair agreement with India, a country with which they were practically at war earlier this very year? I sincerely hope I am wrong for the sake of Canadians, but what we are seeing in the agreement and the bill does not give me much confidence. These overall circumstances are not a good model for going forward.

We will hear talk from the Liberals about trade diversification. I was a foreign service officer for a number of years in some past part of my life, and I remember that, more than twenty-five years ago, under another Liberal government at the time, the slogan of the day was “trade diversification”. Nothing happened then, and I am terribly concerned that we will see the same lack of results now.

At the end of the day, this is not just about tariffs or technical trade barriers. It is about trust between allies, trust between governments and trust between Parliament and the Canadians we serve. Our farmers and ranchers did not ask for special treatment. They only ask for a level playing field, science-based standards and fair market access. They do not have that right now, and this should make every member of the House deeply concerned.

The Liberal government has failed to deliver. It has failed to secure meaningful progress for Canadian agriculture under the TCA. It has failed to stand up for U.K. pensioners, who have been waiting decades for fairness. It is now prepared to wave through Britain's accession to the CPTPP without demanding a single concession in return. That is not leadership. That is managed decline. It is weakness disguised as diplomacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member is wrong; it is as simple as that. Obviously the understanding of trade and trade opportunities, and the concept of agreements, seems to be foreign to the Conservative Party.

We have a Prime Minister who, coming out of the last federal election just six months ago, was first building internal trade within Canada, meeting with the premiers, bringing in legislation and ultimately passing legislation to build a one Canadian economy. He then reached out and went to numerous countries around the world, from his talking last week about Asia and expanding trade opportunities, to being able to bring forward the bill that we have before us today, or to the connections that he has in the European Union.

I would suggest to the member that the Prime Minister is second to no other prime minister in virtually the last number of generations, 50 or 60 years. I would compare and contrast him to the leader of the Conservative Party any day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am terribly heartened to hear the comments of the member opposite, because clearly a single phone call will resolve the issues around the phytosanitary non-tariff trade barriers that are in place right now. I am so glad that soon the House will be able to report to Canadian beef and pork producers that the very close relationship my friend has just extolled will solve their problem with a single phone call.

It is the first time in generations that this opportunity come to us. What wonderful news that is. Perhaps the member opposite will tell us when that phone call will take place.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all morning long, I have been hearing about market diversification. We know very well that market diversification is not something that can be hastily cobbled together. It will take several years to replace part of the U.S. market.

Right now, the forestry sector is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Including the latest 10% increase threatened by Donald Trump, the forestry sector is facing 55% in countervailing duties and tariffs. No industry can survive with a deficit margin of 55%. Immediate federal government support is needed if we want the forestry sector to have any players left standing at the end of this crisis.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that diversification is a process that takes time. There is no question that the size and the immediacy of geographic access of the American market will not be readily replaced, which is why it is all the more important that we have some real leadership from the Liberal government. Promises do not put food on the table for Canadians.

We have to see some real progress. Our trade commissioner service, of which I was a part more than two decades ago, is a competent group of individuals who are there to support Canadian business in those ongoing efforts, but we have to get moving, and we have to get moving now.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Calgary Signal Hill gave a great speech, and I thank him for his great understanding of trade deals and for the work he has done for our government in his previous work.

Our Prime Minister billed himself as a world-class deal maker, but he has not brought us a world-class deal yet. He had an opportunity to get some simple concessions out of the U.K. as far as allowing our pork and beef industries to access the markets, but he failed to do it. In fact the Liberals are suggesting that the ongoing discussions will create some kind of deal, and then we will continue to talk this thing through. Well, talk is cheap, and deals are made before the ink is on the paper; that did not happen. I think our Prime Minister will go down as a global concession maker instead of a deal maker.

In light of that, does the member have any confidence that our Prime Minister will get us a favourable deal with the Americans when CUSMA is up for renewal?

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

Mr. Speaker, I share a great concern with the member about the future of the negotiations that are going to take place between Canada and the United States. It is a difficult position to be in, and that is without question, but clearly we have to have firmness and strength; that is something all trading partners understand. Unfortunately, in waving through and taking this approach to Bill C-13, approving the U.K. accession without any reciprocal concessions or rebalancing of the trade relationship with the U.K., we would be setting a terrible precedent.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise as the member for Beauce to speak to Bill C‑13 on the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.

In essence, this bill is about trade. Trade is at the very soul of Canada and the Beauce region. We have always been and will always be a region and a country of entrepreneurs.

Common-sense Conservatives have always supported free trade. We know that when Canadian workers, farmers and producers can compete on equal terms, they can rival anyone in the world. We also know that free trade has to be fair. It is a two-way street.

Unfortunately, under this Liberal government, our trade relations have not been fair, especially for our farmers and Canadian businesses. Just look at the fiasco, the abject failure, of our current relationship with the United States.

Under the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, Canadian farmers have not been treated fairly by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom continues to impose non-tariff barriers that are not based on scientific data and that in practice have closed their market to our pork and beef.

Beauce is a farming region. Canada's finest producers of beef and pork can be found right here, on our land and our neighbours' land.

The United Kingdom has long locked these products out of its market, without the government taking any action to rectify the situation. The United Kingdom refuses to recognize the use of carcass washing solutions in Canadian abattoirs, even though this practice is approved by international scientific authorities and has been used safely for decades. The United Kingdom's tactic is to impose non-tariff trade barriers, despite the use of these solutions being approved and strictly regulated by Health Canada and by the World Organisation for Animal Health.

These objections have nothing to do with food security and have no basis in science. They are all about protectionism pure and simple. Again, these are non-tariff trade barriers designed not to protect consumers, but to keep Canadian products off British shelves. In this case, the potential pork exports being blocked by these non-tariff barriers amount to some $500 million.

The consequences for our pork and beef producers are devastating. I would like to quote some figures from the Library of Parliament. In 2003, U.K. beef exports to Canada totalled $16.6 million. This figure rose to $42 million in 2024 and reached $28 million in the first half of 2025 alone. In contrast, Canadian beef exports to the United Kingdom totalled $85,000 in 2023 and just $25,000 in 2024. So far in 2025, Canada has not exported any beef to the U.K.

It is the same story with pork. U.K. pork exports to Canada totalled $5.6 billion in 2023, $9.1 billion in 2024, and $3.6 million in the first half of 2025. In contrast, Canada did not export any pork to the U.K. in 2023. Our pork exports totalled $75,000 in 2024 and dropped to a paltry level in 2025. This is not fair trade. It is one-way trade. The Liberal government is still allowing it to happen.

The Liberal government has had 10 years to redress that imbalance, 10 years to defend our farmers and secure a real British market for our premium beef and pork, but it has not done so. There is no progress, no forceful advocacy, no tangible victory for our producers.

Meanwhile, our farmers in regions like Beauce are struggling to remain competitive. Our beef and pork producers raise the finest-quality livestock that is renowned around the world. They are proud, and they deserve a government that is equally proud to fight for them.

These sectors are a vital part of Beauce's economy. They create good jobs, support our local businesses, keep our villages alive, and put food on the table for our families. Unjust market barriers are not just numbers on a chart. Unfortunately, there are farming families, rural communities and livelihoods at stake.

Speaking of agriculture, I would like to underscore another fundamental issue: the protection of supply management. Beauce has many dairy and agricultural farms. Hard-working men and women have built their businesses thanks to the Canadian supply management system and their own tireless efforts. The system safeguards the stability, quality and security of Canada's food supply. Conservatives will continue to defend it vigorously. Making trade fair and a two-way street also means defending our supply-managed sectors and not sacrificing them for political trade-offs on the global stage.

When Canada is negotiating a trade agreement, it must ensure that our dairy, poultry and egg farmers are fully protected. Let us take the example of a supply-managed product such as cheese. At the grocery store, Canadian customers will see a wide range of European cheeses on the shelves. I challenge my colleagues to go to the U.K. and look for Canadian cheeses on supermarket shelves there. They will not find any. Our farmers are not bargaining chips.

Now, after years of inaction, the Liberal government is asking the House to approve the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, via Bill C-13. This is one of the largest multilateral trade agreements in the world. Conservatives are in favour of expanding markets for Canadian products. We recognize the value of a trade system based on clear rules. However, we cannot ignore the facts and allow the U.K. to join without getting something in return for Canadian producers. As I said, it has to be a two-way street.

This is not a negotiating strategy, it is weakness. In order for us to give our approval, the government will need to assure us that it will have the courage to stand up to the British government. If the U.K. wants to reap the benefits of Bill C‑13, then Canada must demand fair access based on science for products such as our beef and pork. We must demand reciprocity.

Given the close ties between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, this should have been a perfect opportunity to stand up for our producers. However, once again, the Liberal government has failed. It had leverage, it had opportunity, but it decided to give the U.K. the advantage without getting anything in return.

Common-sense Conservatives believe in trade that works for Canadians. We believe in trade that opens doors, not trade that ties our hands. We are in favour of expanding markets for Canadian products, but we will not give the government a free pass. We are going to scrutinize this bill carefully and call out every failure to get a win for our country, our farmers and our families.

Trade agreements have to produce concrete results for the people who feed Canadians, not just for the bureaucrats in Ottawa or the diplomats in London.

In closing, farmers in Beauce and all over rural Canada get up early in the morning to feed our families and our children. They are not asking us for special treatment. They are simply asking for fairness, transparency and a government that stands up for them. Bill C‑13 could have been an opportunity to do just that and make fair trade a reality, not a slogan.

Common-sense Conservatives will continue to support opening new markets for Canada. We will also continue to hold the government to account for its failures. Our farmers and producers deserve much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my hon. colleague, a fellow member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The member's part of the country is indeed beautiful. I must say that the Lower Laurentians are also a very beautiful part of the country.

During the debate on the original version of this agreement, the Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of it. Now we are bringing in the United Kingdom as our first new member. Does the member agree that adding a G7 partner will strengthen this trade agreement?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the Lower Laurentians is a very beautiful region. It is not quite as beautiful as Beauce, but it is great. My colleague and I serve on the same committee, and we want agreements to be signed with other countries.

I do think that is an excellent idea. However, when Canada signs an agreement, it has to be win-win. We are already working on a file with the United Kingdom, CETA, where non-tariff barriers are hurting our farmers. There are plenty of existing agreements that need to be improved before we start signing and approving agreements with other countries.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are pork producers in my riding too, and we are following their situation very closely. The riding of Shefford includes a number of supply-managed sectors. I also come from a rural area that needs additional protections. It is true that we voted on a bill in the House to ensure that supply management is fully protected.

Bill C-228, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, seeks to establish a framework for thoroughly reviewing international agreements to ensure that, in future negotiations, there are no concessions, particularly when it comes to supply management. Is it not essential for Parliament to be able to monitor the progress of these international agreements, while fully respecting the democratic process?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague from Shefford. Her riding is also located in a very beautiful region of Quebec.

Today, we are talking about accession with Bill C‑13. It is common knowledge that the Conservative Party is a strong advocate for supply management, since it is very important.

I would like to reassure my colleague. At the Standing Committee on International Trade, we are closely monitoring the negotiation of trade agreements, and we will be there to negotiate the best possible agreement for Canada, for Quebec and for regions like her riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Liberals want to pat themselves on the back. It has been four years since the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom came into force, and they did nothing with it. In fact, they walked away from those negotiations, but they seem to want the credit for the U.K. doing its work to get itself into the CPTPP.

Should we not at least get something from the United Kingdom for our support for its accession to this agreement? Does my colleague see anything in this agreement that the government has negotiated for?