Debates of Oct. 28th, 2025

Intimate Partner Violence

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present petition e-6770, signed by over 2,000 Canadians in solidarity with survivors and victims of intimate partner violence. I present this petition on behalf of B.C. resident and survivor Carrie Wiebe, in memory of Bailey McCourt, who was tragically killed in an act of heinous violence by her ex-partner earlier this year.

The reality is that across Canada, one woman is murdered by an intimate partner every six days. The intimate partner violence prevention and enforcement act would introduce evidence-based and life-saving reforms to prevent and protect against intimate partner violence.

I gratefully recognize the ongoing work the government is already doing with recent announcements on bail reform legislation that supports the basis of this petition. The petitioners call for bail reform, restriction of legal name changes for IPV offenders, a requirement for criminal record checks for marriage licences, and court-ordered treatment programs and monitoring of high-risk offenders. The act further calls for the establishment of a specialized IPV enforcement unit, a fatality review committee and an independent IPV commissioner to enhance oversight and accountability.

The petitioners call upon this House to honour the memory of these women and to prevent further tragedies by considering the intimate partner violence prevention and enforcement act without delay.

National Silver Alert System

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly two years since the tragic disappearance of Earl Moberg, a beloved husband, father and grandfather from my community who suffered from dementia. Despite exhaustive search efforts, he has not been found and is presumed deceased.

By 2030, nearly one million Canadians will be living with Alzheimer's, with almost 60% going missing at some point. If not found within 12 hours, half will be seriously injured or will lose their lives, highlighting the urgent need for rapid alerts. Mr. Moberg may have been seen after he went missing, but the person who saw him was not aware he was missing and did not alert the authorities. That is why Canada urgently needs a national silver alert system, like the amber alert system for children, to quickly notify the public when a senior with cognitive impairments goes missing using geo-targeted technology.

Today, I am honoured to table petition e-6491, with over 7,300 signatures, launched by the Moberg family. It calls on the federal government to work with provinces and police to create a national silver alert system.

The Mobergs have shown tremendous courage. We must act now to protect our most vulnerable and prevent future tragedies.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canadian Canola Industry

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that I have received a notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition to rise and make a brief intervention.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are the backbone of our economy, in particular our canola producers. I would add that producers in the great riding of Battle River—Crowfoot are particularly renowned. Unfortunately, this $5-billion industry is under attack by unfair Chinese tariffs imposed by the regime in Beijing. This goes along with tariffs on seafood harvesters and other Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers.

The Prime Minister promised that he would be a master negotiator, that he would open new markets and that he would negotiate wins. Of course, that was a bait and switch. His broken promises and failed diplomacy are costing our farmers a fortune, in addition to which we see that his failures with regard to the United States have resulted in a doubling of U.S. tariffs since he was elected on the promise that he would get a deal by July 21.

Going back to the issue of farming, this $5-billion-a-year industry is critical to our overall economy and to the prairie economy in particular. We know that this sector is under immense pressure, as Beijing has hammered our producers, therefore artificially lowering the price they can get for their sales. We have had much debate, and rightly so, about the tariffs the Prime Minister has allowed to be imposed on our metal-making sectors, our automakers and others, but not enough debate on canola producers. There are family farmers watching right now and relying on you, Mr. Speaker, to do the right thing and allow for an emergency debate.

This is also an important matter of national unity. Western producers need to see that their sector is given fair attention and floor time in the House of Commons. They do not begrudge steelworkers, aluminum workers, auto workers and others for having a lot of debate in the House of Commons, but they expect that they too will have their voices heard.

Given the enormity of this sector and the unfairness of the tariffs the Chinese government has imposed, we are asking for you, Mr. Speaker, to do the right thing and allow for an emergency debate. I note that this is particularly timely because the Prime Minister is meeting with President Xi later this week.

There is a great expectation that all tariffs on canola and on our fish harvesters will be eliminated. After all, the Prime Minister promised that he would be a master negotiator and that he knew how to handle these conversations. We know that he will be coming back with an end to the tariffs, but to make sure that is the case, let us have an emergency debate of which the Prime Minister and President Xi can take note before their meeting and before their announcement of the cessation of tariffs.

This is timely. It cannot wait. If it is delayed, this House will miss the window in which to have the conversation prior to the two heads of government meeting. We ask that the Speaker honour our farmers and allow for this House to take urgent action to defend their interests.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

That being said, I know this is a topic of great interest to many members. I want to assure the House that I am open to reconsidering the request at a later date if the situation warrants it.

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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, for the Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-13, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill to enable the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

This is an important step in advancing Canada's trade diversification strategy and in strengthening one of the most ambitious trade agreements in the world. Before I get into the details of what this means for Quebec and my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, I would like to take a moment to talk about what this agreement represents and how the accession process works.

This modern trade agreement is based on clear rules between Canada and 10 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. It eliminates or significantly reduces tariffs, improves access to government contracts and investments, and strengthens the protection of services, labour and intellectual property. It is important to note that the agreement includes a structured accession process that enables other economies, such as the United Kingdom, to join it provided that they meet the high standards of the agreement and engage in bilateral negotiations with each member.

For Quebec, this agreement is not an abstract measure. It is a tangible gateway to high-growth markets of strategic importance that can transform our province's economic future. Many of Quebec's key sectors, including aerospace, agri-food, advanced manufacturing, aluminum, forestry and value-added wood products, as well as clean technology, are already benefiting from reduced tariffs and clearer and more predictable market access thanks to this agreement.

For businesses throughout Quebec, this agreement represents an opportunity for innovation, competition and the forming of new partnerships across the Pacific and beyond. Quebec exporters are now better positioned to grow in markets such as those in Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia, countries where trade barriers used to be high but are now in the process of being lifted.

It is not just the large multinationals. Small or medium-sized businesses, from Sherbrooke to Chicoutimi and from Trois-Rivières to Gaspé, are finding new international clients interested in their know-know, products and creativity. Whether it comes to maple products from the Lower St. Lawrence, aircraft components manufactured in Mirabel, fine cheeses and products from Lanaudière or advanced manufacturing equipment produced in the Eastern Townships, this agreement makes it easier for Quebec businesses to compete on the world stage under clear and enforceable trade rules.

These are some examples of ambition and excellence that define Quebec's modern economy, an economy that combines tradition with innovation and local pride with openness to the world. Quebec has always looked outward. From our first experiences with transatlantic trade along the St. Lawrence River to today's high-tech exports and green innovations, Quebeckers have always understood that prosperity comes from engaging with the world.

We are not strangers to trade. It is part of who we are. It is part of our history, our geography and our entrepreneurial culture. Our ports, railways and research hubs, not to mention our skilled workforce, all reflect this deep connection to global trade. Montreal, Quebec City and our regional centres have long served as gateways to Canadian trade, connecting North America to Europe and, increasingly, to the Indo-Pacific region.

Quebec's exporters embody that spirit of openness. They are backed by an economy that is recognized for its creativity, precision and excellence. Quebeckers understand why labour is essential. A recent Nanos poll on Canada's international trade approach found that Quebeckers were some of the strongest advocates for expanding free trade beyond North America. They view trade diversification not as a risk, but as a gateway to security and resilience.

In a world where global supply chains are transforming and protectionism is gaining ground, Quebeckers recognize that putting all our economic eggs in one basket, be it a single country or a single region, exposes us to greater risk. Diversification is not just an economic strategy. It is a strategy for sovereignty, stability and sustainable growth.

The bill before the House to ratify the United Kingdom's accession reflects that mindset. The U.K. is a G7 economy. It is a long-standing ally and a reliable trade partner that shares Canadian values on labour rights, environmental protection and the rule of law. Its accession will expand one of the world's most robust trade agreements, give it more purchasing power and make it more dynamic.

For Quebec's exporters, this means more opportunities to access new markets under one consistent framework. It means more integrated global supply chains in areas in which Quebec excels, such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence, clean energy, and processed agri-food products.

It means more certainty and more options in an increasingly unpredictable world. Members will recall that Quebec is home to many industries that define Canada's reputation on the global stage, including aircraft manufacturing in Mirabel and Saint‑Laurent, aluminum refining in Saguenay, forestry products and clean energy innovations developed in our research institutions. All of these exports rely on fair and reliable access to foreign markets.

Every trade agreement we sign and every barrier we break down supports real jobs here in Quebec and empowers our workers to compete based on skill, rather than political barriers. Quebec's economy prospers when it can go head-to-head with global competitors. It is driven by innovation, the ingenuity of its people, and a profound commitment to excellence. That is why trade diversification is so important. This agreement, which is now being expanded to include the U.K., provides Quebec businesses with more tools to connect with clients that value quality, sustainability and reliability, all the hallmarks of Quebec products.

There is a broader vision at work here. Our government has set a clear and ambitious goal: to double Canada's non-U.S. exports in the next decade. This goal cannot be met without Quebec. With its leadership in the clean energy, next-generation manufacturing, technology, agriculture and culture, Quebec's contribution will be vital. The province's export sectors already account for a significant portion of Canada's trade outside North America, and they are ready to grow even more as we strengthen our partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe.

Expanding the reach of Quebec's exports also means more opportunities for workers, for engineers in Longueuil, for machinists in Saguenay, for farmers in the Lower St. Lawrence, for software developers in Montreal, and for innovators at our universities and research centres.

When Quebec exports increase, all our communities prosper. More global trade means more investment here at home, more training, and more sustainable, skilled jobs for Quebeckers.

As we look ahead to the next decade, Quebec will be central to Canada's success in diversifying trade. Our industries stand ready. Our entrepreneurs are motivated. Our citizens understand the value of engaging with the world. With an agreement like this one, and now, with the United Kingdom joining us, we can ensure an open, predictable and level playing field.

Quebeckers can be proud that their province and their country are not content to simply participate in global markets, they are actively shaping them. They are setting the standards for human-centred innovation, sustainability and growth. When Quebec businesses succeed abroad, they also export our values, like respect for hard work, the environment, diversity and quality.

The positive impacts of this approach can be felt everywhere. They support rural regions and urban centres alike. They stabilize our supply chains, attract investment, and strengthen Canada's overall competitiveness.

They also strengthen our ties with countries that share our democratic values and our commitment to fairness. That is why this agreement is so important for Quebec and Canada and why the U.K.'s accession is such a positive development. It amplifies what is already working. It integrates our closest European partner into a peaceful framework that represents nearly 500 million consumers and more than 15% of global GDP.

For Quebec exporters in the aerospace, agri-food, manufacturing or digital services industries, this prospect will lead to increased growth, security and opportunities. Historically, Quebec has always been creative, resilient and open to the world. From our artists and innovators to our farmers and engineers, Quebeckers have proven time and time again that they can compete with the best, not by lowering standards, but by raising them ever higher. This spirit guides our approach to trade. We are committed to negotiating agreements that defend human rights, protect the environment, and promote transparency, values that are dear to Quebec.

In conclusion, let us reaffirm our commitment to the workers, exporters and communities that depend on open, fair and principled trade. Let us continue to build a diversified and forward-looking trade strategy that will lead Canada and Quebec to a more prosperous and secure future. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership has already delivered results. Now that the United Kingdom is joining it, it will be even more successful.

As the government pursues its objective of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade, Quebec will be at the forefront, confident in its strengths, proud of its people and ready to seize every opportunity that the global economy has to offer.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing our Prime Minister talks a great deal about is the importance of trade and broadening Canada's opportunities by looking elsewhere, outside the United States, for example. In recent days, he has talked a great deal about trade relations and the potential for trade relations between Canada and the Philippines. There are just over one million people in Canada of Filipino heritage, and using the diversity we have in Canada puts us in a great position to ultimately expand trading opportunities.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on why and how it is so important that Canada looks at ways in which it can increase trading opportunities around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to work at banks for over 20 years, in business for over 10 years and at the Quebec City chamber of commerce and industry for four years. To ensure the growth of our businesses, we need to open up the global market. We know this, and we have seen it. We need reliable partners, and we must diversify our markets.

As I said earlier, putting all our eggs in one basket is not the best economic solution. Today, we have the opportunity to open a market for all Canadian businesses.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions. I have had the chance to meet and work with him on the trade committee. He has wonderful insights, but I think he is missing a key component. Canada has agreed to allow the U.K. to join the CPTPP, but what did Canada get for allowing the U.K. to join? There are outstanding trade disputes with the U.K., especially with respect to our pork and cattle farmers, that are still unresolved. Nevertheless, Canada has now allowed the U.K. to join the CPTPP while still leaving these issues outstanding for our cattle and pork producers.

I wonder if the member could just give the House an example or point to one thing that Canada received from the U.K. in exchange for allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I hold him in high regard and I enjoy serving with him on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

We recognize the concerns of the beef and pork industries. We are committed to working with them to get rid of certain barriers. It is a fact that, currently, nearly one in five companies in the market does business abroad and relies on exports for its livelihood. We have always taken our workers and their families into account, and we will continue to do so.

The United Kingdom will enable us to continue and expand this export and growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the Liberal government.

A few years from now, the Liberals are going to tell us that there is no guarantee that a new country will honour the agreements it was party to when it left a customs union that had previously negotiated those agreements. By supporting the United Kingdom's bid to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Liberals are showing us that the opposite is entirely possible. I am grateful to them because this will give them one less leg to stand on in the coming years when they fight our move toward sovereignty.

That being said, last week, we debated Bill C‑228, a Bloc Québécois bill that would improve transparency. We were told that there was no need for it because there is already a policy that provides for a 21-day period after an agreement is tabled and before a bill is introduced, but the Liberals just violated that policy. The proof is that the bill was introduced 15 days later.

Does my colleague agree that we need a law rather than a policy, and that we now have proof of that?

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

Madam Speaker, during the last election, Quebeckers and Canadians were clear: They want action from us and they are tired of waiting. From its first days in office, this government has shown that it has heard their plea. We have rolled up our sleeves, put on our work boots and already started making agreements. That is what Canadians expect from us. That is what businesses expect from us.

With everything happening right now with our neighbours to the south, Canadians need us to diversify our markets and open up new ones. They do not need us to pass endless laws that only delay this new business.

The new government is currently helping businesses by opening up new markets. Diversification is part of the solution.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues have highlighted that there are outstanding issues right now in terms of our relations with Britain. Colleagues are well aware of the unfair treatment of British pensioners living in our country. Canada is home to 144,000 British retirees, yet their pensions are frozen at the rate first received because Canada does not have a reciprocal indexing agreement with the U.K. Seniors here are losing tens of thousands of dollars over the course of their retirement. That costs the Canadian economy over $1 billion annually and leaves many seniors in poverty. These include veterans, nurses, people who have lived in Great Britain and served their country.

We do not do that. We look after our seniors when they retire abroad.

Will this be part of the negotiations in terms of this agreement? When will the government make British pensioners a priority?

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

Madam Speaker, a trade agreement like this one is not the right framework for negotiating those kinds of things. Right now, people need diversified markets because of what is going on south of the border. That is what we intend to focus on.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing forward this bill, but it will forgive me if I do not give it a pat on the back for doing something it should have done years ago.

It was no surprise that the U.K. was going to need trade agreements with countries around the world. It had Brexit in 2017. We had a trade continuity agreement that the Liberals let expire, to the detriment of our businesses. They suffered by paying higher tariffs going into the U.K. because the Liberals let that continuity agreement expire.

Why did it take five years to get an agreement that is worse than the one we had previously? We used to have the CETA with the European Union, which provided better and more liberalizing access for Canada. Why did we have to wait five years to get a worse deal?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my colleague supports this agreement, that he supports its evolution and that he welcomes the United Kingdom's accession to it. It is good for Canadians and good for our businesses. I want to emphasize that the new government did not wait before taking action.

We have only been in power for six months, and we have already rolled up our sleeves to get to work serving Canadians. Our Prime Minister is already engaged in negotiations aimed at expanding Canadian markets.

I thank the Conservatives for supporting us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I found the last question interesting. I would emphasize to the member across the way that over the last 10 years, our government has signed off on more trade agreements than any Conservative government ever did. That is an absolute fact. We have a Prime Minister who, in a short period of time, has been negotiating all forms of additional trade opportunities. We already have a deal on the table for the legislature.

I am wondering if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts regarding how this government and, in particular, the current Prime Minister are aggressively pursuing trading opportunities for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that we can no longer count on the market predictability that we once had. Businesses need this predictability to be able to invest, but we no longer have it. We have two choices. We either sit back and wait for it to return, or we go out and find new markets. There is actually a good book on this subject that I often recommend called Who Moved my Cheese?.

We are going to open up the market for our Canadian businesses. That is exactly what our Prime Minister is doing.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today.

Before I get into my speech, I have to chuckle a bit about the last intervention by the member for Winnipeg North. At every opportunity, whenever there is anything negative to be said about the legacy of the last 10 years, the Liberal government says that was an old government and this is a new government. However, whenever there is something it wants to take credit for, its members are quite happy to remind us that it is the Liberals who have been in power for the last 10 years. They cannot have it both ways. They have to either accept the legacy or run away from it, and the member needs to decide which one he is going to do.

Canadians know exactly what the legacy is of the last 10 years. It is a higher cost of living, higher crime, inflation, a carbon tax and making life more unaffordable for Canadians. That is the legacy of the last 10 years.

It is nice to be here to talk about adding the U.K. to the CPTPP.

Before I get into my remarks, I would like to recognize some wonderful local individuals: Luke, Roy, who I sometimes call “the Emperor”, Reg and Kevin, who are great musical talents, and Mark and Kyle. Kyle is starting a new business, and I wish him the greatest of luck as he starts his new venture.

Trade is about reciprocity, and that means getting something in exchange for giving something. The fundamental question we should be asking the government, after it has had multiple years to consider whether it would agree to allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP, is what Canada has received in exchange for allowing this to occur. Our pork and cattle producers have had incredible difficulty accessing the U.K.'s market, while at the same time, beef exports from the U.K. into Canada have doubled in just one year. They were at about $48 million in 2024. We have now allowed the U.K. to join the CPTPP, while leaving these non-tariff barrier disputes, or trade irritants, with the U.K. to persist.

Why would the government allow this moment to pass without negotiating a win for Canadians? Does this sound familiar?

I was very pleased to see my hon. colleague from the NDP raise the U.K. pensioner issue. There are well over 100,000 U.K. citizens living in Canada, or maybe even as high as 140,000, who do not have a cost of living increase on their U.K. pension. One might ask what is so wrong with that. What is wrong is there is inequity and unfairness, because had that same retiree chosen to retire in a different country, like the United States, they would have gotten a cost of living increase on their pension.

Why has the government not made it a priority to solve this on behalf of this very large group of individuals, just as a matter of fairness? We are told that the Prime Minister is a master negotiator and has worldly relationships and a global network, which he was going to bring to bear to solve Canada's problems, yet we stand here today and the government has nothing to show for agreeing to allow the U.K. to join the CPTPP.

It could have solved the pensioner issue had it asked. It is unclear whether it has even brought this up with the U.K. In fact, in response to many questions to the former minister of foreign affairs and the Minister of International Trade, the answer has been that it is not a priority at this time. Have fun trying to tell that to the U.K. pensioners who believe that, as a matter of fairness, they deserve a cost of living increase, and they would be correct.

It is difficult to take that same position with our cattle and pork producers. They have worked very hard to expand their markets in the world, only to be met with unfair trade practices and non-tariff barriers to trade from the U.K. specifically, which prevent our producers' products from reaching U.K. shelves. At the same time, U.K. products are free to come into Canada.

Why would we allow this moment to pass without negotiating a resolution to these problems, or at least demonstrating that the government is aware of these issues and has a path to resolve them? The Liberals have been absolutely silent on resolving these problems. It is reasonable to assume that they have not even attempted to resolve them because they do not talk about them or acknowledge that they exist. The Liberals barely want to recognize that these issues exist because it would be an admission that they have had multiple years to fix them and have not been able to deliver.

These unfair trade practices, especially with respect to cattle and pork producers, are not rooted in science. I bet the first thing a U.K. citizen or diplomat does when they visit the wonderful Calgary Stampede is visit a steak house. I am sure they have no problem consuming our wonderful steaks in Alberta, Canada, but they want to work to keep that product out of the U.K. and off its shelves.

This is a government that is unwilling to do the hard work. The Liberals walked away from the bilateral trade negotiations, probably because they believed the U.K. was going to join the CPTPP anyway. They thought, “Why bother with the bilateral trade agreement?”

We had a trade continuity agreement. They let that expire, by the way, to the detriment of many businesses, including small, artisan cheese shops, for example. Many have struggled significantly and some have unfortunately closed, including one in Simcoe North. It was a wonderful operation, but because of the government's lack of ability to negotiate with the U.K., it had to close.

What has the government achieved by allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP? What did we get for it? These are questions that the public, the cattle and pork producers and the opposition want to know the answers to. In a negotiation, we give something to get something.

These are questions that U.K. pensioners deserve to know the answers to. This is a country with which we have a wonderful, shared history. Why is it that a U.K. pensioner living in Canada is treated differently from one living in the United States? It does not seem fair and I do not think anyone would think it is fair on its face.

If we break it down, we have a request from an ally to allow them to join a very large trade agreement. On its face, that seems completely reasonable. Canada believes in free trade and we are a free-trading nation, but we should also believe in fair trade and reciprocity.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the top 10 Canadian exports to the U.K. I will give members a hint for what the first one is. Madam Speaker, sometimes you like to wear it, and you look good in it. Gold is the number one export to the U.K., which leads me to another question: Where is all the gold in Canada? Where are the reserves? Canada has no more gold reserves at the Bank of Canada. Guess who sold some of those reserves. The Prime Minister did when he was the central bank governor. He sold them to the U.K., which is interesting.

Out of the top 52 countries in the world that have gold reserves, guess where Canada ranks. It is not even on the list, because we have zero reserves. While other countries around the world have been piling up their gold reserves, Canada has been selling them all. The U.S., China, Poland and Turkey have reserves, and the list goes on and on, but Canada has made the choice to sell its gold reserves, thanks to the Prime Minister.

In the Prime Minister's defence, he is not the only central bank governor who has sold Canada‘s gold; that has been going on for many years, but he continued it. It is funny that he sold it to the country of which he then went on to become the central bank governor. I guess he was okay to keep it when he was the central bank governor in the U.K; it did not sell its gold reserves.

If we think about the entire agreement, it might seem benign on its face, but we are left with some questions. What did Canada get? Why are our cattle and pork producers still left out in the cold? Why do U.K. pensioners still have their pensions unfairly lowered by the government's inaction on negotiating anything? Can the government even point to any wins it has achieved on any negotiating front, period, other than signing an agreement?

If we look at the Canada-U.S. discussion, we see that Canada has made a litany of concessions, although the minister of Canada-U.S. relations says he would not call them concessions. Actually, I have never heard anyone describe them as anything other than concessions. We gave in on DST. We withdrew complaints about softwood lumber. We have made significant other concessions to the U.S. in exchange for waiting for an answer, for basically zero agreement, not really even a path to agreement apparently. They are not even talking anymore.

The Prime Minister has also said we might be close on a deal on aluminum and steel. Well, that is nice. What about autos? What about lumber? What about the folks in the canola sector who are kind of caught between Canada and the U.S.? It does not appear that the government is moving with a sense of urgency.

I appreciate the intervention of my colleague just prior; the Prime Minister has said a very similar thing, which is that the government's goal is to increase Canada-U.S. exports by 50% over a decade. Well, golly gee, is that really the moon shot we think it is? What are we supposed to do for the next 10 years? How are we going to survive as a country if we have to wait 10 years before we can diversify 50%, increase our trade by non-U.S. exports by 50%?

What is going to happen to our industries over the next decade while we wait? How much is it going to cost the Canadian taxpayer? How much is it going to cost the auto workers and their families in Ontario, or the farmers out west, or the people who work in the lumber mills, the paper mills and elsewhere in that sector? What are we telling them?

We need to act now, but the government does not really act with any sense of urgency. If we just look at GDP per capita, on that basis Canada is poorer today than we were in 2019. The government does not seem to care about that, but everyone else recognizes that GDP per capita is a measure of living standards. We are going in the wrong direction.

It is nice that we are here debating free trade. As I have mentioned, of course, Canada's Conservatives support free trade, but we support fair trade. We support getting good deals for Canadians. In this case, we have given something and gotten nothing in return.

One might be asking why we are even debating the bill today. Is it because the government has not made a deal with our largest trading partner, the United States? Is it because the government would enjoy not talking about the failure to get a deal with our largest trading partner and closest ally? It has had multiple years to sit on this piece of legislation to consider moving it forward. Why are we moving it now? What did we get? What is coming next?

We are left with all these questions, and we are left wondering what Canada, Canadians and our producers receive in exchange for allowing the U.K. into the deal while the U.K. is still unfairly punishing our cattle producers, our pork producers and U.K. pensioners. We would think that the Prime Minister, who is very close personal friends with Prime Minister Starmer, would have been able to deliver some pretty big wins for Canadian industry and even for the U.K. pensioners living in Canada.

One would have thought that maybe the Prime Minister would have asked Prime Minister Starmer to do him a solid, asking whether he could give him something for allowing the U.K. to join the agreement. It is not clear whether there were even any negotiations about this. The government has not even disclosed whether it is on the radar. It has been brought up in the House multiple times.

Next week, the U.K. pensioners are going to be in Ottawa. I invite members of all parties, including the government, to go speak to them, to look them in the eye and say that we just negotiated a big trade, an agreement, with the U.K.: the CPTPP. Look them in the eye and say that we gave the U.K. something. What are the pensioners going to say back? Maybe they would ask, “What about us? Did the government get anything for us?”

Members should go to the cattle producers and say that there is good news: We are going to expand the markets. The cattle producers will say that they still cannot get into the U.K., that the agreement does not help them. They will ask what they got for it.

These are completely reasonable questions that the government needs to answer, questions that reasonable Canadians would have and that reasonable producers in cattle and pork and other agricultural products would have. Why are we agreeing to something without getting anything in return?

I come back to reciprocity. We need to get the United Kingdom back to the negotiating table on a bilateral agreement. I worry that the government thinks its job is done now because the U.K. is going to join CPTPP, but the trade irritants still exist. The government has not indicated that there is a path to even talking about them, let alone resolving them. There are no negotiations currently happening bilaterally with the U.K.

While I appreciate the government's trying to advance Canada's interests around the world, we have to ask ourselves what we are getting when we give things up to other countries. That has to be a fundamental question that the government should answer, especially when we have glaring groups not just of people generally but of producers and industry that have concerns with the United Kingdom and how it does its trade practices, and that, in the case of the U.K. pensioners, are just asking to be treated fairly.

In summary, Canada's Conservatives support free trade. Of course we do, but we support fair trade and negotiating wins for Canadians at every single opportunity. This looks like a missed opportunity for Canadians by the government.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of material to cover in the hon. member's words. I just want to remind him that I know he is much younger than I am, but Canada, like other countries, went away from the gold standard in 1971. Canada sold its gold reserves to diversify its portfolio into more interest-bearing types of investments. He knows that.

I know that the British pensioners are coming to Ottawa next week, because I am part of a group of people who are hosting. I have met with them on a regular basis for the last several years, as have a number of the member's colleagues. I have raised the issue with British politicians at every opportunity, and so have his colleagues, side by side with me. We have written letters to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

It is not a partisan issue, frankly. The member is absolutely right that the British pensioners in Canada are not being treated properly by their own government. Will he acknowledge that the Government of Canada and the MPs of the House have actually been working hard on the issue?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I might be younger, but I was not born yesterday. If Canada had not sold its gold, we would have $125 billion U.S. of extra money in the government coffers. I appreciate that the member might question that strategy, but it is entirely reasonable to ask why we have been selling gold, why we do not hold any gold and why central banks are borrowing it.

With respect to the member's fundamental question, I firmly and fully accept that members of the House have advocated for U.K. pensioners, and I appreciate the member's advocacy on their behalf. However, this is a question about what the government has delivered for U.K. pensioners. This is a question about the government's being in negotiations with the U.K. and not bringing this up to the degree necessary to get it resolved.

That is the issue. It is not whether any member of the House individually is trying to advocate, because a lot of people are, but the best people able to negotiate on behalf of U.K. pensioners are the government members, because it is the government that is allowing the U.K. to get something in joining CPTPP, and we have not gotten anything in return for our pensioners.