Debates of Dec. 3rd, 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

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill. As I said, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to the British Prime Minister that we will be moving forward with their accession to this agreement. We feel strongly that it is in the best interest of all Canadian businesses, whether they are based in Quebec or other parts of the country, that this bill be passed and that the United Kingdom, from the Canadian perspective, accede to and become part of the CPTPP. That is why we are moving forward with this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the Prime Minister's talk during the election about expanding trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border.

This is a substantive piece of legislation that speaks to that point. It is so critically important that when we talk about putting Canada first, building Canada strong and making Canada the strongest country in the G7, it means that we need to double our exports in the coming years. It is such a critical thing for all of us.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the bigger picture of the issue.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point: Just talking about it is not going to make it happen.

Since the election, look at the amount of work we have done. We have moved ahead with the accession of the U.K. into the CPTPP, finalized the negotiations with Indonesia and Ecuador, resumed our negotiations with the countries of ASEAN and Mercosur, started negotiations with Thailand, the Philippines and India, and made an arrangement with the United Arab Emirates in terms of having an investment protection protocol. There are a few more.

All this work is happening in tandem, so that we can really put into effect the trade diversification strategy that is so needed as we lessen our reliance on the United States and give more opportunities to Canadian businesses to create good-paying jobs for Canadians right here at home.

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

Madam Speaker, we see how these trade deals have played out, and we want to make sure we have trade deals that support workers. We see right now big oil, big banks and big grocery posting record profits while people get squeezed at the till and at the pump when they try to cover their costs.

The Brits charge an excess profit on the runaway greed of oil and gas companies. Will the Liberal government finally tackle the runaway corporate greed and create an excess profit tax, like Britain did?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, most of our treaty agreements support and benefit small and medium-sized companies. If we look at the Trade Commissioner Service, 75% of the businesses it supports are SMEs.

These agreements help businesses in our communities and create good-paying jobs locally.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, which is for the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. CPTPP is the initialism we use, and it is a relatively straightforward bill. The CPTPP has 11 original countries. Canada is a founding member of the trans-Pacific partnership, alongside countries like Australia, Chile, Mexico, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Peru, and the United Kingdom would be the first non-foundational member to join the CPTPP.

I think it is important for the House, obviously, to talk about the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom and the relationships we are seeking to forge with deeper ties in the Indo-Pacific and with growing economies where we would have the ability to export the products that the world needs in either goods or services. It should be incumbent on all members of Parliament in the House to, yes, scrutinize the legislation that is before us, but also to not take undue time and slow this bill down, because ultimately, when we think about the allies and partnerships that we have, one of the most mature relationships we have is with the United Kingdom.

I want to use my time today to talk about a bit of the background on the CPTPP and about some of the trade-related opportunities and issues between Canada and the United Kingdom, but then also give a bit of a local perspective as the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants. I also want to talk about the issues and opportunities that I think both governments, whether in London or here in Ottawa, can use to continue to forge that very great partnership that has existed with our mother Parliament and ultimately with our constitutional monarchy through the United Kingdom.

One in five jobs in Canada depends on free trade. This means that the free trade and our partnerships around the world are absolutely critical. That is why the Prime Minister is working so actively with our ministers to forge strong, meaningful relationships globally and to make sure that people in other countries wake up in the morning thinking of Canada.

It is easy to think that people maybe wake up in the morning and think about Canada. We should be very proud. As a G7 country, we have what the world wants. We have contributed on the global stage, but the world is a big place. The work the government is doing ensures that countries are increasingly thinking about Canada as a reliable trade partner. That is the work that is happening.

Our goal is to double our exports outside the U.S. market. Of course, the U.S. market is vital to our economy, as 75% of our goods and services are exported to the United States. Nevertheless, we need to build economic resilience. We must therefore find other international markets to strengthen the resilience of our manufacturing sector and our economy as a whole.

The United Kingdom is out third-largest trading partner, and the government has been focused on the ways we can continue to increase and deepen that trade. I heard a question from the opposition benches in the first round of debate that suggested that Canada does not have an existing bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom. I am here to assure and to reassure that opposition member that we do have an existing agreement on the bilateral that is an extension of the United Kingdom's leaving the European Union. I think that is important to recognize, and that member will have a great opportunity to be able to ask questions. If he thinks he is so smart in the House, he can ask those questions. I look forward to it.

Of Canada-U.K. trade, 99% is tariff-free. There are small irritants that exist, but I do think they are important. I represent a rural riding, an agricultural riding. I had the opportunity to talk to His Excellency High Commissioner Rob Tinline, who is the United Kingdom's high commissioner to Canada, about some of the market access issues that we have around beef products.

There are two issues that relate to the exportation of beef from Canada to the United Kingdom. This is an issue with the European Union. I know our government benches are working on engaging on this to be able to find a solution forward. The first issue is hormones in beef. There is an industry standard in North America. Objectively, I think that may be the harder one to overcome. The second one is around carcass wash. There is a North American standard with respect to rinsing or carcass washing. There is no good reason, by the way, that the United Kingdom or the European Union should not be welcoming and trying to bring top Canadian beef to those markets.

We have opened up and had opportunities for British beef in Canada. We certainly support our friends and farmers across the way. They should equally be opening up those markets. I know the Prime Minister had the opportunity to talk to Prime Minister Starmer about that. It may seem small, but it is important in this context. We should look at the broader relationship, but these are some of the irritants that we believe need to be removed to be able to move forward.

For me, this is personal. I am wearing today an Annapolis Valley tartan tie. My family's ties run through the United Kingdom. The first Blois to come to North America was Abraham. He served with the 84th Highlander regiment. Sarah was his wife. They settled after the war. They had a land grant in the Kennetcook valley. Blois is not that common a name here in Canada, but most of the Bloises we find originate out of the Maritimes, from the beautiful small community of Gore, Nova Scotia. My wife is a British dual citizen and a Canadian citizen at the same time. She has family in Scotland.

When I think about the ways we can continue beyond the trading relationship and deepen the people-to-people ties that already exist, I see some opportunity in the days ahead for the two governments to look at labour mobility. We have skilled workforces on both sides of the pond. If there are British workers who want to come and serve Canadian companies, we should be finding pathways to do that more easily through our immigration programs. Likewise, there are many Canadians who have ties to the United Kingdom who may be able to contribute for a short period of time or may want to spend some time there. How can we look at more labour mobility? I think there is merit in that. There is certainly merit in looking at financial regulations and professional services.

Of course, we speak two official languages here in Canada.

English-speaking Canadians enjoy particularly easy access to the U.K. labour market. It is straightforward to practise law, accounting and other similar professions there.

There are a lot of similarities with respect to regulation and harmonization of professions. We can do more on this.

The next one is around regulatory harmonization. When I was briefly the minister of agriculture in the Prime Minister's first cabinet, one of the things we thought about, and I know the current Minister of Agriculture shares this view, was being able to work with other trusted jurisdictions. When we think of the United Kingdom, when we think about its regulatory processes, notwithstanding what I said on beef, where we are perhaps not pleased about the carcass wash, we know there is a scientific rigour to the way in which it undertakes its regulatory processes and its approvals. If, for example, there is a sheep vaccine approved in the United Kingdom, I am confident it should be readily available for Canadian sheep farmers.

We have a lot of work we can do on those types of regulatory pieces around crop protection products, vaccines for animals, animal feeds and tools for our farmers. That is one area I think we can deepen. It does not have to be and of course it is not contained in Bill C-13, but when we think about deepening that partnership, those are some areas I would like to see.

Another is research between agencies like Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the CFIA and others. We can do a lot of that. I know there are existing partnerships, but they can be built upon, particularly in the circumstances we find ourselves in.

With respect to tourism, a lot of us think about the United Kingdom. I think we have to make sure that the Brits are thinking about Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada.

The last piece I am going to say is a quick stat for members. At the end of World War II, every single apple that was sold in London came from the Annapolis Valley. It is a source of pride. We think there is more opportunity, whether with respect to wood pellets, apples or agriculture, to get goods into the United Kingdom.

I see that I am at the end of my time. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for really connecting his speech to his riding.

I want to ask the hon. member about the country of origin quotas, which expired 18 months ago. I am going to provide him with the example of Canada Goose, which I believe he is familiar with. It is a Canadian company that generated $75 million of revenue in the U.K., but paid $10 million in duties last year, with that figure projected to climb to $15 million in duties this year, which, of course, is a significant burden for that business.

It did not have to be that way, and I am wondering what the hon. member is going to do about it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am not too proud to stand in the House and say that I was not aware of that particular circumstance. The member, obviously, is well steeped in that particular issue as it relates to Canada Goose, which is what I heard was the company.

As I mentioned in my speech, 99% of the trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is tariff-free, and it comes down to destination originators and trademarking. If the hon. member would like to see me after this and have a conversation, I am happy to make sure that gets to the Minister of International Trade and the appropriate authorities so we can look into this issue to see what we can do to help support that great Canadian company.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question that was just posed. Canada Goose is located in Winnipeg North. It has a very substantial footprint and employs hundreds of individuals. I can assure my colleague and the member who asked the question that this is something the government takes very seriously as we try to resolve all sorts of outstanding issues that prevent the exports of fine, wonderful, world-class Canadian-made products.

When we look at the importance of the trade file in general and of sending a very positive message, as a collective House, by saying this is legislation that we should be advancing, there really is no justification for sitting on it indefinitely. This is not the first time we have debated the legislation.

I am wondering if the member would concur that passing substantive legislation of this nature sends a positive message to the people we are trading with. It shows Canada's willingness to not only secure trade agreements but also to enact them where we can.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would agree in the sense that, as I mentioned, the United Kingdom is one of our closest friends and allies. This is an important signal. We do not want to be talking about this bill deep into 2026. The House of Commons should debate this, get it to committee and, ultimately, to the Senate as soon as possible.

Let me use this opportunity to also say that this is not the only piece of legislation before the House. We have significant criminal reform legislation, a multitude of different bills that matter to individuals in our community and matter for public safety. I have to assume, because I hear questions from the other side, that we need to do something to tackle violence in our communities with criminal reform. We need to move all of that legislation before Christmas. There is no good reason why we cannot get that bill to committee and get it back.

I would invite my Conservative colleagues and all opposition members, and not only for Bill C-13, to clear the deck before Christmas and show Canadians we are getting work done.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for. I like his choice in ties. We have a heritage commonality, which brings up the fact that we are discussing trade with the U.K.

I know one of the member's previous files, which he holds near and dear and close to his heart, is agriculture. I would like to hear his thoughts on the imbalance of trade between Canada and the U.K. with regard to the exports of beef and pork. We are hearing there was $30 million in imports in the first half of this year, and last year Canadians were allowed to export only $25,000. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will return the compliment to the member on his beautiful vest. We like the tartans. I know he has heritage in the United Kingdom as well.

I touched a bit in my speech on the imbalance on beef trade. The hon. member is right. I should have included pork as part of that. This is something the government needs to continue to focus on. I do think Parliament needs to ultimately move forward with the accession legislation for the United Kingdom to help support a friend and ally, but we need to continue to push the United Kingdom on access. There are significant beef and pork exports coming this way. We have not been able to realize the benefits of the trade the other way. Yes, there are lots of good things to highlight and we should not get stuck on singular issues like this, but as it matters to beef farmers in this country, whether in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan or across this beautiful country, we need to keep fighting for that.

I know the Minister of Agriculture has been engaged on that. I have had personal conversations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know she is going to be raising it as well, as has the Prime Minister. We need to stay on that.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Bow River.

I rise today to speak to 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. It may be a technical bill filled with tariff schedules, statutory amendments and trade protocols, but it represents something deeply important: the partnerships we build between nations.

Conservatives have always believed in free and fair trade. We know that open markets, clear rules and reliable partners drive prosperity. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP would strengthen that rules-based framework and deepen our trade with a close ally that shares our democratic values, our legal traditions and our belief in opportunity through enterprise, so yes, there is some good to be found in the bill.

However, support does not mean silence, because while the agreement is long overdue, Liberal trade policy is riddled with big announcements, poor follow-through and a willingness to please foreign governments while leaving Canadian citizens and businesses behind. Many of my colleagues have spoken more directly to these Liberal failures, but today I want to focus on an issue that affects more than 2,800 people in my riding and thousands more people across Canada, which is the frozen pensions of British Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Can we allow the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith to make her speech, with respect?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Order. There will be no heckling, period.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that some of my colleagues will speak more directly about the Liberal failures and the problems with the bill, but I want to focus today on an issue affecting more than 2,800 people in my riding and thousands more people across Canada, which is the frozen pensions of British Canadians.

For 75 years, the U.K. has refused to provide annual increases to the state pensions of British retirees living in Canada. More than 105,000 pensioners already face this injustice, with hundreds of thousands more Canadians aging into it. They paid into the U.K. national insurance system their entire lives. They earned their pensions.

However, because they moved to Canada, a Commonwealth ally, their pensions are frozen at the amount first received, in some cases decades ago. If they had moved to the United States, to Israel or to the Philippines, they would receive their annual increases. About 60% of British pensioners living overseas get their annual increases, but 40% do not. It is a lottery that is based not on contribution or need but on geography, and Canadians are inexplicably on the losing end of this.

The U.K.'s Department for Work and Pensions admits that fixing the problem for British retirees in Canada would cost only about 13 million British pounds, which is about $24 million, of a total U.K. pension budget of 146 billion pounds. Therefore this is not a question of cost; it is a question of will.

I have met pensioners in their seventies, eighties and nineties surviving on payments at levels set in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Canada honours its obligations to our pensioners living in the U.K. by indexing their pensions. The upshot is that Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing a moral failure by one of our oldest allies.

The world has changed, our trade has certainly changed and our lives have changed; however, this unfair policy remains. The U.K. remains the only OECD country that pays pensioners differently based on where they live. It is an outdated, discriminatory relic from another era.

Successive MPs from my community have raised this issue over the last decade. The House has passed motions. Past Canadian governments have asked the U.K. to reopen discussions on this issue. The U.K.'s pensions minister has said no every time, which seems to be a pattern in Liberal trade negotiations.

Meanwhile, the U.K. has signed new reciprocal social service agreements with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, but not with Canada, a country that stood shoulder to shoulder with it through wars, through peacekeeping and through generations of shared sacrifices. This is not how friends treat each other.

This is where partnership really matters. If the U.K. wants to benefit from the CPTPP, then it should also act like a partner, by honouring fairness, reciprocity and human dignity. It is a conundrum, yet I cannot help but think, “if only”. If only we had a prime minister with deep connections to the United Kingdom, someone who understands economics, banking and pensions. Wait a minute; I seem to recall that our current Prime Minister is not only a former governor of the Bank of England but also the man who arranged for the King to deliver the throne speech of this very Parliament.

The Prime Minister may be friends with kings, but he has failed the commoners on this issue. The Prime Minister waxes poetic about transformational change and extols generational investments and structural reforms, but if he truly wanted to be transformational, he would start with this generation: the seniors who built the country he once served and who now suffer under an unfair, outdated policy. If the Prime Minister cares, if he wants to show that his talk about values and fairness is more than just a slogan, he should use his connections to fix this, because it is a burning issue for British seniors who have chosen Canada as their home.

The Prime Minister needs to understand that transformational leadership does not just happen in jets or hotel lobbies, or swanning around English parties. It happens when we stand up for real people who are being left behind. I ask the Prime Minister to come down from on high to see these people, the British pensioners of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Vancouver Island and from across Canada, whose income has not risen in 30 years. Some of them split pills. Some skip meals. All of them deserve our help. They are the people who built the very democracy that allows us to debate the bill today.

If the Prime Minister had a functioning constituency office in his riding, he would know that this is an issue that affects his community too. If the Prime Minister truly believes in fairness, he should pick up the phone. He should call his old colleagues in London. He should call the King and explain the issue as I have, and put it back on the agenda. He should pursue justice and get a deal.

The Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the issue. The pensioners are not asking Canada for new spending; they are asking for their government to negotiate justice for them from the United Kingdom.

The CPTPP is about rules-based trade and mutual benefit. Let it now show that it is also about fairness, reciprocity and moral responsibility.

I want to close with this. The 2,845 people with frozen pensions in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, and the thousands more across Vancouver Island and the rest of Canada, have not been forgotten. Their government may not always fight for them, but today I lend them my voice and this platform for their cause. They worked hard, they played by the rules and they deserve justice.

The Prime Minister has the relationships, the platform and an immense amount of privilege. He should use it and bring the issue to the fore in his discussions with the U.K. He should raise it at every level, because justice is not measured in economic models or global summits. It is measured in the lives of real people, in this case the thousands of Canadians who are also British pensioners, who chose Canada to be their home, against their own self-interest, and who deserve our support in remedying this injustice.

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

Madam Speaker, the expectations that the Prime Minister has are actually fairly extensive. The Prime Minister, right out of the gate, instantly dealt with substantial policy measures, whether it was tax breaks, building one Canadian economy or looking at trade opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. There have been a lot of things that have been happening in the few short months that he has been Prime Minister.

To try to imply that the Prime Minister does not care about pensioners does a disservice in regard to the issue, I think. I would ask the member opposite this: Has she actually written or done anything to demonstrate to the government some concern by crossing over and talking to the Prime Minister about the issue she was just talking about, or has she written or talked to other ministers?

It would be great if the member could answer that, but the real question I have for her is this: Can we anticipate that the Conservatives have some good faith within, in terms of recognizing the value of trade for Canada and of building trade opportunities, and that the legislation will pass before the end of the year?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the question of whether or not the Prime Minister is aware of this particular issue, I will say that if he reads his email, he would know that the British pensioners were actually here a couple of weeks ago. They had a Hill day. They had a suite. All MPs, including the Prime Minister, were invited to come by, and they had extensive briefings on the issue. If the Prime Minister chose not to include that in his schedule because he had things to do that he considered more important, then I suppose that answers the member's question on its own.

In terms of the value that Conservatives place on trade, we have fought many elections on the issue. We have negotiated many free trade agreements, and we obviously care about free and fair trade. We believe earnestly that, had Canadians given us the opportunity to do so, like former prime minister Harper, who negotiated a softwood lumber deal within 80 days of becoming prime minister, we would have produced more results than the Liberal government has in the time since it was elected.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question, because her answer provided a nice segue. She just talked about the negotiations that took place under the government of Prime Minister Harper. However, that government also adopted a policy on introducing and tabling agreements and treaties in Parliament. Currently, that policy is not being followed, given that the government introduced the bill within a shorter period than required by this policy. This policy is supposed to enable us to do our work more effectively.

What does the member think about the government's failure to comply with the existing policy, which is still available on the Government of Canada's official website? Does she believe that a policy is not enough and that we need legislation like the one the Bloc Québécois is proposing in Bill C‑228?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could answer the hon. member fluently in French. I am working on it.

I am a new member of the House, and one of the things that actually astound me about this Parliament is how little the Prime Minister's office and the government actually involve the House in making laws and making decisions. I would have thought that the Liberals' calls for collaboration and requests that we pass legislation before Christmas and work with them on their legislative agenda would have been accompanied by genuine efforts to sit down with us and engage us on their policies. Unfortunately, I find that that rarely happens.

An exception, which I was actually quite pleased with, was when the member for Terrebonne approached me a few weeks ago to lend my support to her bill, which we just voted to send to committee this afternoon. When the government approaches us to work together, we do have something to contribute, and it would be wonderful if the Liberals actually listened.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-13 and the impacts it would have on cattle producers, especially in my riding of Bow River, but first I want to recognize the storied history and legacy of ranchers in southern Alberta.

The beef industry has long been vital to the region. Since the late 1800s and the era of open grazing, the herds of the Circle Ranch, the Bar U and many others have grazed the expanse of Bow River. People homesteaded there and built lives on the harsh prairie.

As D. Larraine Andrews writes in her book, Ranching Under the Arch, about life on the ranch, “In reality it represented a uniquely hybrid combination of Old and New World culture, skill and expertise, heavily influenced by American, British and Eastern Canadian know-how and adapted to a frontier environment that demanded adaptation for survival.”

In her remarkable story of a people and a landscape, one that helps to explain southern Alberta's uniqueness, Andrews makes clear that the land and the people cannot be separated. She also writes, “They made the rangelands their home, conserving and preserving the land for generations to come. In the process, they were instrumental in establishing the vibrant and successful ranching industry that remains a fundamental part of our history and our future as a province [and a country].”

This goes to the heart of what I want to get at today, which is how what may seem a small part of a trade agreement is in fact large, because it goes to the cultural fabric.

The influence of ranchers on southern Alberta can be seen in countless ways, for example in the Calgary Stampede, established in 1912 to honour the end of open-range ranching, and in the preservation of vast stretches of native fescue grasslands. Today, the 160,000-acre McIntyre ranch, established in 1894 in southeastern Alberta, remains home to the largest tract of fescue grassland in North America. These were, and are, true stewards of the land, calving through snowstorms, fixing barbed-wire fences and holding on to the promise of spring. It means hard work, long days and an unwavering commitment to ensuring that food reaches Canadian tables.

Once again, Canada's farmers are being left behind by the Liberal government's incompetence on trade, or its laziness. Bill C-13 is supposed to strengthen our partnerships and expand trade through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP. Make no mistake, the CPTPP is a good agreement. It offers real opportunities to grow Canada's trade footprint, and Conservatives support that vision, but under the Liberal government, those opportunities are being squandered.

The Liberals have had nearly a decade to fix the barriers harming our farmers and producers, and there has been no progress, only neglect. Let us look at some facts. The U.K. exported over 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, over $42 million in 2024 and over $28 million in just the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canadian beef exports to the U.K. were just over $85,000 in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and zero, not a single dollar's worth, in 2025.

The situation is just as bad for pork. British pork exports to Canada rose from $5.6 million in 2023 to $9.1 million in 2024 and another $3.6 million in the first half of 2025. Canadian pork exports to the U.K. were zero in 2023, only $75,000 in 2024 and $122,700 this year. That is not free trade; it is one way. It is not bilateral; it is preferential.

Now the Liberals are asking Parliament to approve the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP. This is without fixing a single one of these problems, and they are giving the British everything they want while Canadian farmers are getting little in return. This is not a negotiation; it is surrender.

The Canadian Cattle Association has been crystal clear: Terminate the failed Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement and return to the negotiating table, because right now there is no continuity for Canadian beef. The only market access is for British exporters.

The U.K. continues to block Canadian beef using a hormone ban that the World Trade Organization ruled against nearly 30 years ago. It refuses to recognize Canada's world-class meat inspection system, a system trusted by dozens of other trading partners. The carcass wash has been mentioned, and the Canadian standard is arguably far higher than that of the U.K. It is also a fallacy to blame EU requirements, as the U.K. has left the EU. It is a non sequitur.

What have the Liberals done about it? Nothing. Not a single kilogram of Canadian beef has been sold into the U.K. in 2025, yet the government calls this progress. This is not progress; this is failure. The Liberals had years to stand up for our farmers and fix these barriers. These problems and irritants are not new. Instead, they chose the photo ops over results. They let the U.K. walk away from negotiations, ignored clear warnings from producers and are now rushing to rubber-stamp this deal without securing anything for Canadian agriculture.

Conservatives believe in free trade. We always have, but we also believe in fair trade, trade that works for Canada and not against it. This is not just about tariffs or paperwork; it is about the livelihoods of hard-working farmers and ranchers who feed this country and feed the world. When their shipments are blocked and their access to markets is cut off, it means less income, fewer jobs and more uncertainty for rural communities. It is especially egregious when these non-tariff barriers are such flimsy excuses.

This is the difference between keeping the family ranch afloat or just shutting down, so I ask the government, why did it allow British beef unlimited access to Canada while Canadian producers cannot sell a single kilogram to the U.K.? Why is the government tolerating non-tariff barriers that violate science-based trade rules? Why did we let the U.K. walk away from negotiations that were supposed to protect Canadian interests? The government has failed Canadian farmers under CETA; it has failed forestry workers on softwood lumber; it has failed our energy sector, and now it is failing our beef and pork producers under this agreement.

Conservatives will not stand by while rural Canada pays the price for Liberal negligence. We will support trade agreements that expand opportunity, not agreements that reward protectionism abroad and punish production here at home.

While we are talking about fairness, there is one more group the government has ignored. This has been spoken about by my colleague already. There are more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners living in Canada. These seniors paid into the system. They paid their whole lives, but because the U.K. refuses to index their pensions, even though it indexes them for those in the United States and elsewhere, their incomes shrink every year as inflation rises. We know inflation is a problem in Canada.

Given the Prime Minister's close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister, members would think he might have used this opportunity to stand up for these pensioners. Instead, there is silence. Conservatives believe in strong, principled trade, trade that strengthens our economy, supports farmers and delivers results for Canadians. We will hold the government accountable for its failures and stand up for the producers, ranchers and workers who make Canada competitive on the world stage. Under a Conservative government, Canada will not settle for bad deals; we will fight for better ones.

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

Madam Speaker, it sounds as if the Conservatives might be voting against the legislation. The member wants to talk about farmers and cattle farmers. I had a wonderful experience when entrepreneurs from the Philippines came to Canada and participated in the Calgary Stampede. The Minister of Agriculture met with the owner of what I believe is the Wildflour Restaurant. It is a chain of restaurants in the Philippines. They are now selling Canadian beef, recognizing that the best beef in the world is likely in the province of Alberta. It may even be in Manitoba, and I am not giving up on my Manitoba beef producers, but let us stick with Alberta right now, given that the member is from Alberta.

I can tell members something. The Minister of Agriculture is one of Canada's greatest ambassadors in advocating for our products, whether it is Alberta beef or P.E.I. potatoes, and we see that in the trade discussions we are having. I would suggest to the member that he might be a little inaccurate when he tries to portray the false impression that the government is not doing its job in terms of promoting agricultural products.

I am seeking clarification from the member. Does he support the passage of this legislation?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the comments and questions from the member opposite are truly one of the greatest pleasures to experience in this House.

Alberta beef, and Canadian beef worldwide, is noted for its quality. It is sought out by the world because it is the best beef in the world. However, I think the member misunderstood. I was not talking about the Philippines and the partners that we already have in the trans-Pacific partnership. I was talking about the U.K. and the opportunity the government has right now to ensure that we have fair, equal, equitable, reciprocal trading with the U.K. The U.K. has been obstructing Canadian participation in their market for a very long time, for very flimsy reasons, and its desire to have access to the trans-Pacific partnership is the perfect opportunity to apply the appropriate amount of pressure to get our beef into the U.K.