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

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize because you must be getting sick of hearing my voice, but I have not received an answer yet. I asked two members on both sides of the House the same question. I will ask it again now.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the government did not follow the existing policy, the public policy adopted under the Harper government, if I am not mistaken, that there should be a 21-day waiting period between announcing an agreement and tabling it in Parliament?

In this case, it took 15 days. Therefore, the government did not comply with the existing policy.

Does that not show that what we need is a law, not just a policy?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have come to learn that a very common feature of questions in the House is for members to ask them repeatedly and still not get an answer.

I apologize that I do not have a clear opinion. I am just not well versed in the circumstance of the previous reality. It seems reasonable, but I do not know for sure.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am a cattle producer myself in Saskatchewan, where we actually raise probably the best beef in the world. We export it to Alberta for feeding and processing.

Trade is very, very important to the Canadian beef industry. We have seen the cattle herd in Canada reach its lowest level since the fifties because we have had 10 years of horrible policy from the Liberal government. Now we are facing tariffs from China; we are facing tariffs from India.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, who just gave an excellent speech, if he can lay out some of the real-world impacts of trade policy and why policy matters.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Likewise, being an Alberta beef producer, I have some difference in opinion as to where the best beef in the world comes from. This is not an opportunity for a schism in the caucus, but it is a great discussion.

Policy matters. That is what I was trying to get at in the gist of my speech, that it is about the people, their life and their attachment to the land, and the fabric that that composes of our country. When it impacts negatively even small portions of our population, it has a ripple effect and impact.

Policy has to be done right. Policy has to be thoughtful. It has to be fair, and it has to be executed. We need delivery on results.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

The subject of Bill C-13 is near and dear to my heart. My parents, who passed away last year, were both from the U.K., both from Scotland. They would have said that there was a negative trade balance when they moved over here, but they always reminded me that I was made in Canada with Scottish parts and that it is a great country to live in here.

I want to be able to say today that Conservatives support free trade because Canada is a trading nation. While the current government was busy with photo ops and virtue signalling, eight of our CPTPP partners were busy doing business with the world's sixth-largest economy. Yes, I said “CPTPP”. It is a difficult acronym, but I got through it on the first round, so hopefully I will get through it for the rest of the speech. They were dealing with the sixth-largest economy, and Canadian businesses were left waiting at the dock.

Having studied at King's College London in the U.K., I understand first-hand the deep economic and cultural ties that bind Canada and the United Kingdom. The U.K. is not just another trading partner. No, it is one of our oldest and most reliable allies, which makes the government's fumbling even more inexcusable.

Today, I will outline three critical failures: one, the economic opportunity cost of Liberal delays; two, the damage to Canada's international credibility; and three, the pattern of trade negligence that is hurting our exporters, in particular my own riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

The numbers do not lie. The U.K. is the world's sixth-largest economy, and it is the first European country in CPTPP. Eight countries are already trading under new terms while Canada waits and waits, and Canadian exporters are losing the competitive advantage.

However, there is an even more troubling pattern here. Under the trade continuity agreement, the U.K. has not been acting fairly toward our pork and cattle producers. The U.K. objects to carcass washes applied at Canadian slaughter plants and opposes the use of growth promotants in beef and pork production. The trade statistics tell the real story of the Liberal government's failure to stand up for our producers. Britain exported over 40 million dollars' worth of beef into Canada in 2024 and nearly 30 million dollars' worth in the first half of 2025. In comparison, Canada exported to Britain just 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024 and, to date, has no beef exports in 2025. For those who are watching, that is 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024, which is unbelievable. This is not fair trade. This is a one-way street that favours British producers, while our farmers and ranchers face non-tariff barriers designed to shut them down.

As a mayor, I learned that economic development happens through work, not announcements. We attracted major investment to Moose Jaw by rolling up our sleeves and delivering results, $1.3 billion of results in six years, not by staging photo ops but by standing up for our community and for our businesses. The government has forgotten that lesson.

The U.K. and Canada share more than just a monarch; we share values, institutions and centuries of partnership. From Vimy Ridge to Afghanistan, we have stood together. Now, when it comes to trade, we are making them wait while we sort out our bureaucratic mess.

During my time at King's College London, I witnessed Britain's commitment to innovation, enterprise and global engagement. The U.K.'s decision to join CPTPP represents exactly that forward-thinking approach. Meanwhile, Canada is dragging its feet like we are still debating whether trade is good for the economy.

Canada held the CPTPP chair in 2024 but failed to lead. Other nations celebrated at the Vancouver meeting while Canada remained uncommitted. Given the Prime Minister's close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister, one would have thought they might have used this opportunity to advocate on behalf of our agriculture producers. How can we lecture other countries about trade rules when we cannot even ratify agreements on time with our closest allies?

Real leadership means delivering results, not just good headlines. As a mayor, I did not cut ribbons until the projects were actually built. The government announces everything and delivers nothing. The minister needs to answer some tough questions: Why have the Liberals not secured any benefits for our cattle producers? How do we prevent this embarrassment with our allies again?

At the municipal level, we understood that investors have options. If we did not act quickly and professionally, they would go elsewhere. The same applies to international trade. Our partners will not wait forever for Canada to get organized.

When Conservatives form government, we will not just talk about trade; we will deliver results. We will restore Canada's reputation as a reliable partner to allies like the United Kingdom. We will negotiate to allow fair market access for Canadian products and stand up for our industries and our agriculture producers. We will put Canadian exporters first, and we will remember that our friends deserve better than bureaucratic delays.

Having experienced both British excellence in education and the practical demands of municipal leadership, I know what real partnership looks like. It is built on reliability, competence and mutual respect, qualities the government has forgotten. This bill should have been passed months ago. The Liberals' delays have cost jobs, hurt our reputation with a key ally and weakened our position in the fastest-growing region in the world.

As Conservatives, we intend to support the expansion of trade markets for Canadian products. Canadian businesses and our British partners deserve leaders who act with urgency, not a government that is always a day late and a dollar short, or maybe I should say a pound short. We will continue to point out the government's failures to secure wins for Canada, its producers and those who are relying on the Prime Minister to keep his promises.

I would be very happy to take any questions, and I am very interested in further discussion with regard to British pensioners. As I mentioned earlier when I started off, my parents were both immigrants. They came to this country to start a new life, but they also helped build Britain after the Second World War.

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

Madam Speaker, I do want to clarify for my hon. colleague that, as I said earlier in debate in the House, the Prime Minister has raised this with Prime Minister Starmer. It is something the government is pushing on.

We do, as a government, share the member's concerns, particularly around the fact that the carcass wash from a North American standard is not being recognized by the United Kingdom, but we have not stopped, as it relates to creating more access. We believe in our Canadian beef farmers. That is exactly why the Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister were able to secure access to Indonesia tariff-free. Also, the Minister of Agriculture has been doing great work on access to more Canadian beef in Mexico.

Will the member at least recognize that, notwithstanding that we both agree that there is more work that has to be done on the U.K. file as it relates to beef explicitly, there has been market access granted and the government is establishing markets in other jurisdictions that are high-growth, which will matter for Canadian farmers?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out that Canada is obviously a global trading partner. However, we have had a relationship with the U.K. that has been broken, and it should not have been. The problem is not new. The problem is the fact that we did not address trade with the U.K. years ago. Therefore this is not a new opportunity; it is just an opportunity that we need to capitalize on, which should have been done years ago.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I would like to recognize George Marchese for 40 years with Western Roofing, a Kamloops institution. George is a huge fan of the Kamloops Blazers. He helps out with the Scouts and the Kamloops Rugby Club. I thank him for his devotion.

I listened intently to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the impacts on the cattle industry. I wonder if he would like to elaborate on what he has heard directly, on the ground, in that regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague again on his private member's bill that passed earlier today. It is very touching, and it does show we can get work done here, whether it is with help from across the aisle or on our own.

Local producers are very disappointed. They feel left out. They have had their challenges over the years, and they feel they have been ignored and neglected by the Liberal government, not only in this trade deal but for years on end.

I heard earlier a colleague from across the aisle talking about how Canadian pork producers were able to sell pork in the Philippines. That is great news, but the thing is that we need to be trading globally. The problem is that we are importing from the U.K., not exporting to the U.K., and that is where we should be going.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could enlighten us about the Conservative Party's supporting trade. The last substantial trade agreement we had was the Ukraine trade legislation, and the Conservatives voted against it. On the legislation that is before us, it seems as if, much like with other pieces of legislation, the Conservative Party wants to prevent it from passing, which is somewhat disturbing.

The member says that we should have more trading opportunities, so, first, does he support the legislation? Second, if he supports the legislation, would he encourage his leader and the Conservative brain trust that it is time we allow legislation to actually pass?

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

Madam Speaker, first I would like to help my colleague with directions. Britain is that way, and the Philippines are the other way, or maybe it is the other way around: east and west.

Let us talk about the Ukraine deal. We put ourselves at a negative because we were adding carbon tax, and now the Liberals are pulling out of carbon tax. The reason we voted against the deal is that they do not know how to trade, and that is the problem; that is why we are here.

The Conservatives are always going to advocate for Canadian businesses and for fairness in trade deals. That is what we are—

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

The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac is rising on a point of order.

Order Paper Questions Nos. 461 and 470

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would note that the responses tabled today to Order Paper Questions Nos. 461 and 470 were not signed by any minister or parliamentary secretary. They were in fact signed by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who is no longer a member of cabinet nor a parliamentary secretary.

Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that it is not permitted for backbench members who are no longer in cabinet to table documents as if they were still a minister?

Since the responses are now void, Madam Speaker, can you say whether or not the government has met its requirement to table the response to these questions within 45 days, or whether the matter will be referred to committee, as required in the Standing Orders when the government misses a 45-day deadline for Order Paper responses? I have the documents to substantiate that as well.

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

I thank the hon. member for bringing that to the Chair's attention. We will look into the matter and come back to the House with an answer.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

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

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the hard-working exporters of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-13, an act to bring the United Kingdom into the Pacific trade deal. As Conservatives, we support free trade and we support the bill; what we do not support is Liberal incompetence.

The bill is a testament to Liberal mismanagement. It is a cautionary tale for Canadians, a warning that the Liberals may not be the crack trade negotiating team they claim to be. They have failed our farmers, they have failed our permanent residents and clearly they are failing to secure more free trade.

We will start with trade. Under Brian Mulroney, Canada negotiated the Canada-U.S. free trade deal and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement. During the decade of darkness, under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, Canada negotiated just three small deals: with Israel, with Costa Rica and with Chile. What followed was a decade of dynamism under Stephen Harper, and with Stephen Harper, Canada negotiated deals with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, Korea, Ukraine, the 27 members of the European Union and the 11 members of the trans-Pacific partnership.

Our Conservative Party built Canada into the freest trading nation on earth. Unfortunately, things began to change for freer trade after we left office, and the United States pulled out of the trans-Pacific partnership. Under Trudeau, free trade negotiations broke down with India. The deal Trudeau signed to replace NAFTA reduced free trade and even went so far as to ban the American Super Bowl commercials from airing in Canada.

Once America's Republican Party moved away from unwavering support for free trade, the regressive left saw its opportunity. The left has always bitterly opposed free trade. Older Canadians may remember the vicious attack ads the Liberal Party ran, erasing Canada's border during free trade debates. Trudeau nearly derailed the trans-Pacific partnership in order to include new clauses in the agreement similar to the anti-economic development policies he imposed on Canada.

However, the worst was yet to come. After Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine, the Liberals forced that desperate nation to renegotiate its free trade deal with Canada. The Liberal goal was to impose carbon tariffs on Ukraine if the Ukrainians did not increase their own carbon tax to match Canada's. Forcing a country fighting for its very existence to renegotiate an existing deal was truly beyond the pale. It was the kind of diplomacy that would make Tony Soprano proud.

I can already hear my Liberal colleagues clenching their teeth, and I am sure they want to jump to their feet in protest. They would tell us that this is not the old Trudeau government and that it is a new, improved Brookfield government. Although Trudeau was a deplorable prime minister, at least he never ran on a promise to increase tariffs for Canadians.

It has been only 11 months, but the collective amnesia about the current Prime Minister is shocking. The man from Brookfield spelled out his plan on the very first day of campaigning for the Liberal Party leadership. His plan is tariffs. He calls them carbon border adjustments, but that is clearly intended to mislead people into supporting tariffs, and here is how it works. The Prime Minister will dramatically increase the industrial carbon tax, and this will make Canadian industry less competitive against industries of our major trading partners, such as the U.S. or the U.K. In order for these companies to compete, the Prime Minister will impose carbon tariffs and call it a carbon competitiveness strategy.

That is why the Liberals reopened the Ukraine deal; that is likely why they cannot get a bilateral deal with the United Kingdom; that is why we are all pretending that the United Kingdom is now a warm, sunny Pacific island nation that is eligible to join the trans-Pacific partnership; and that is why, during the middle of our recent federal election, the Prime Minister received a warm endorsement from President Trump.

When the President wrote on Truth Social that he and the man from Goldman agreed on many things, we thought they meant they agreed on signing giant novelty decorations or using police as props for photo-ops. What we should have realized is that they agree on using tariffs as a social engineering tool. The U.S. President believes tariffs can undo automation, while the Prime Minister thinks they can cool the planet. The simple truth is that all a tariff can do is hurt the economy, and the only way to make the damage to an economy worse is to use non-tariff trade barriers to free trade.

As I said at the start, the bill is another example of Liberals' failing to secure a trade deal. Thanks to Brexit, we had leverage over Britain. We had cards to play, yet we folded. The United Kingdom is keeping in place its non-tariff barriers on Canadian beef and pork. The U.K. claims our food safety system is unsafe. Japan, Australia, Malaysia, Mexico and all the other partners of the trans-Pacific partnership all agree Canadian food is safe. The U.K. is supposed to have agreed to respect our food safety system when it joined the partnership, yet two years on, here we are, ratifying U.K.'s entry, and the barriers remain in place.

What is the government's response? It promised that if the U.K. continues doing what it has always done, the government will write a stern letter and then launch a lengthy trade complaint process at the World Trade Organization. In the meantime, the U.K. producers will continue to sell millions of dollars' worth of beef and pork while our farmers wait and wait. The only relief these farmers will find is in knowing that they are not in the softwood lumber business; it is clear that this Brookfield government is treating our forestry industry as a card it hopes to play to save its EV subsidies in Ontario and Quebec.

The problem is that the government is playing go fish while the rest of the world is playing high-stakes poker. This might explain the shabby treatment shown to British retirees now living in Canada. Just as with our farmers, the government had leverage over our mother Parliament. The Prime Minister is burning up his carbon allowance, flying around the world looking for deals, the same way countless U.K. prime ministers have been doing since Brexit. We had a golden opportunity to support people living in Canada, but the Liberals could not be bothered to try.

For any Canadians unfamiliar with the issue, the U.K. has a public pension like ours. When British retirees move abroad, they continue to receive their pension. If they live in the rebellious colonies to the south, their U.K. pension is indexed to inflation. If they live in the loyal Dominion of Canada, they receive a fixed amount from the day they first applied. This issue directly affects 100,000 U.K. retirees who live in Canada, but indirectly it affects every Canadian.

Each month, 100,000 of our neighbours and friends get a little poorer. Each month, they have less to spend buying Canadian beef for supper. Each month, they have a little less to donate to the local church. Instead of having free time to volunteer at the food bank, they spend that time shopping at the food bank. This is not just hurting U.K. pensioners; it is discriminating against people living in Canada, and it is an insult.

The problem is that the former prime minister thought Canada was a nation of colonizing racist misogynists who deserve to be insulted. The new Prime Minister is an unabashed anglophile. As kids might say, he is a simp for Keir Starmer. Every country has its own shibboleths, the secret code words that allow fellow citizens to know if someone is one of us. As a bilingual country, it is not about how we pronounce it; it is about how we spell it.

In Canada we spell “catalyze” with a “z”, but the Prime Minister spells it with an “s”. He is less of a Manchurian candidate and more of a Manchester candidate. He is all too happy to sell out U.K. pensioners living in Canada and to sell out our beef and pork farmers if it means a chance at knighthood. The next time he gets together with his friends at Davos, they had better all address him as Sir Brookfield. I know that some people might find that ridiculous, but it is more comforting than reality.

The plain truth is that the Liberals are just incompetent with trade negotiations. It has been 10 years without a softwood lumber deal. There is the trade deal with the U.S. that the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate by mid-summer. There is also the time Trudeau almost blew up the trans-Pacific partnership so he could insert some feminist language into a meaningless annex. The fact that the bill before us is only at second reading is itself an example of Liberal incompetence on the trade file.

Canada needs free trade, but it finds itself in a trade war. We need a government that truly believes in trade. We need a Conservative government.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the supposition that Canada imposed a carbon tax on Ukraine from the Canadian press is demonstrably false. This was not imposed on Ukraine. Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011, and there was a clause that simply said it would co-operate.

Will the member retract her false statement?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ukraine had a carbon tax, but it was too low for former prime minister Trudeau. Therefore, he imposed an additional tax so that it would be equal to ours. Ukraine already had one. He just made it worse.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, who spoke at length about the government's mismanagement, especially when it comes to softwood lumber. However, there is a proposal that has been going around for some time that would give the forestry sector some much-needed relief. It would involve buying back up to 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. However, I have never heard a Conservative member speak to that.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this is a good idea to help the forestry sector stay afloat until an agreement is signed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, we started campaigning to make sure the softwood lumber agreement would be in place. The Liberals have not even considered putting it in as part of the negotiations for the next USMCA.

The truth is that the government does not want a forestry industry. We see that in all the UN declarations, such as 30 by 30, which will become 50 by 50, with land set aside where nobody can harvest anything. It is time to face reality. The Liberals do not want trees cut down.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my long-time colleague and friend for her excellent speech here in the House and for telling Canadians exactly how it is here in Ottawa.

As a patriot, how much longer does she think Canada can hold out as a sovereign nation before it becomes a subsidiary of Brookfield?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for a minute, I thought he was going to ask me how much longer I was going to stay in Parliament.

We actually do not know that Canada is not a subsidiary. The government has already provided over a billion dollars a year to a consortium of companies to run CNL, our crown jewel in the nuclear laboratories. He is willing to sell that down without any Canadian participation. My concern, my fellow Conservative, is that he has already sold us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was factually incorrect on a number of accounts. Harper had nothing to do with the signing of the Canada-Ukraine deal. That was actually Justin Trudeau and the minister of foreign affairs at the time. On the European Union, the 27 countries, he had nothing to do with that either. A Liberal government actually signed off on them, not to mention the other countries that she mentioned.

The member has got to be somewhat nervous when the current leader of the Conservative Party is looking to run in a riding in Ontario. Rumour has it that the member opposite might be stepping aside. Can the member confirm to the House that she will be running in the next federal election in the same riding?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my greatest fan that, yes, I will be back.

However, the Liberals rewrite history. First, they tear down history, the statues and everything, and then they rewrite it so that it favours their narrative. It is time we went back to what really happened and teach our children the genuine history of Canada.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cardigan.

I rise today in support of Bill C-13, legislation that confirms Canada's ratification of the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP.

This legislation is part of Canada's ongoing story as one of the world's greatest trading nations. Like any great story, it is important to understand where we have been, where we are today and where we are going. Canada's history is inseparable from trade. Our prosperity has always come from looking outward, engaging with the world and building bridges that connect our people, our products and our ideas with global markets.

Over generations, we have built one of the most impressive records of trade leadership of any nation. Canada stands as the only G7 country that has free trade agreements with every other member of the G7. Think about what that says about who we are: a nation committed to openness, a nation trusted by its peers and a nation recognized for its reliability in global commerce. Our reach goes far beyond the G7. Canada has 15 free trade agreements with 51 countries, giving our businesses and workers preferential access to 1.5 billion consumers.

That extraordinary achievement is the result of decades of work by governments of all stripes, by diplomats, by negotiators and by Canadian businesses and their top-notch workers, who have built our reputation around the world. We are a nation that has embraced openness not as a risk but as a strength. We are a country that knows when Canadians compete on the global stage, we win.

Since this government was elected, we have relentlessly worked to expand that foundation even further, and we have results to show for it. Canada has signed a free trade agreement with Ecuador, a growing market with which our bilateral trade already exceeds $1 billion annually, opening opportunities for Canadian agri-food exporters, clean-tech innovators and mining service providers. We have signed a comprehensive economic partnership agreement with Indonesia, a G20 member of 278 million people projected to be become the fifth-largest economy in the world, giving Canadian businesses preferential access to a booming consumer market.

We will be negotiating a trade agreement with the Philippines, an economy expanding 5% to 6% annually, where a young population is driving new demand for Canadian products. We are negotiating a trade agreement with the ASEAN bloc, a region of 680 million consumers with a GDP of $3.7 trillion, where Canadian exporters stand to benefit in areas such as clean technology, agriculture and digital services.

Staying with ASEAN, we have also advanced bilateral free trade talks with Thailand because its fast-growing economy and rising ties with Canada make this agreement a key opportunity to boost Canadian jobs and open a major market for our businesses. We are advancing trade discussions with India, the world's fifth-largest economy, offering vast opportunities for Canadian companies in education, critical minerals, clean energy and advanced manufacturing.

We have signed a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with the United Arab Emirates, one of Canada's largest trading partners in the Middle East. As well, we have announced negotiations for a broader trade agreement with the U.A.E. to deepen access to this powerful market.

At the G20, the Prime Minister announced the launch of discussions of an investment agreement with South Africa, the most industrial economy in Africa, strengthening the foundation for Canadian investment in a continent of 1.4 billion potential consumers. We are advancing negotiations on a digital trade agreement with the European Union, a $17-trillion market, ensuring Canadian fintech, AI, cybersecurity and e-commerce firms can compete and grow globally. We have launched discussions on a trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, a market of 295 million people with a combined GDP of $2.7 trillion.

This is one of the most ambitious trade expansion agendas Canada has ever taken and reflects a simple truth: In a world where supply chains are shifting, where economies are transforming and where competition is intensifying, Canada must lead and never follow. Today we debate trade legislation, Bill C-13, but as seen from my speech, it will most certainly not be our last. There is much more to come.

We stand at a turning point in the evolution of one of the most important trade agreements on earth: the CPTPP trading bloc. The trading bloc consists of 11 countries, soon to be 12. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP represents the agreement's first expansion. It brings into the fold the world's sixth-largest economy and a long-standing, deeply trusted ally. The U.K. is already one of Canada's most significant trading partners, our third-largest destination for merchandise exports and a top source for investments.

With the U.K. joining the CPTPP, Canadian exports will benefit from stronger, more predictable access in areas ranging from seafood to advanced manufacturing, clean technology, services and digital trade. This matters because the CPTPP is a high-standard, rules-based framework that shapes the future of trade in the Indo-Pacific, one of the fastest growing regions in the world. With the U.K. at the table, the CPTPP becomes stronger, more influential and more attractive for future accessions. It expands our reach and it opens new doors for Canadian businesses at a moment when diversification is not optional; it is essential. Bill C-13 ensures that Canada is not only part of this moment, but that we are welcoming new partners to the table so that we can shape it together.

As we look forward to where we are going, this government has set a bold, ambitious and necessary goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports to over $300 billion within the next 10 years. Achieving that goal would mean more exports that support good jobs, drive innovation and strengthen communities across every region in our country.

To get there, we need to make sure our businesses have the tools they need to succeed. That is why, in budget 2025, we make major investments in Canada's supply chain infrastructure. Exporters can only grow if the roads, rails, ports and airports that they rely on are strong, resilient and efficient. With our new $5-billion trade diversification infrastructure fund, we will be supporting more growth. To double our non-U.S. exports, we need 21st-century infrastructure capacity that matches our ambition. That is exactly what we plan to deliver. Canadians deserve no less.

We also need to support businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, as they take their first steps into global markets and expand into new ones. That means improving programs, such as the CanExport program, that help companies export, strengthening the services that guide them and continuing to work with partners, provinces and territories, indigenous partners, industry associations, pension funds and financial institutions to create a seamless network of support. This is the path forward. This is how we get from where we are to where we are going.

Trade is about people. Let me tell the House who we do this work for. It is about the farmers in Saskatchewan who rise before dawn and work every day to feed families here in Canada and around the world. It is about the shipbuilder in Nova Scotia whose craftsmanship carries Canadian expertise across the Atlantic. It is about the miner in Nunavut supplying the critical minerals the world needs for clean-tech supply chains. It is about the energy in British Columbia, low-carbon energy, reaching new Asian markets and supporting thousands of jobs. It is about the aerospace engineer in Quebec designing components that fly in planes on every continent.

It is about the fisheries and the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador who bring world-class seafood from cold Atlantic waters to global markets. It is about the Alberta energy workers whose expertise and commitment drive our energy sector forward. It is about the advanced manufacturers in Ontario producing parts for assembly lines in Asia and beyond. It is about the entrepreneurs in Manitoba whose agri-food innovations feed communities around the world. It is about the tourism operator in Prince Edward Island welcoming travellers who discover Canada through international agreements. It is about the tech founders in New Brunswick exporting cybersecurity solutions around the globe. It is about the clean-tech innovator in the Northwest Territories transforming northern engineering into global opportunities. As well, it is about the indigenous artists and cultural entrepreneurs in Yukon sharing creativity and our identity with the world.

Canada has achieved extraordinary things. We are not a country that rests. We are not a country that settles. We are relentless: relentless in our ambition, relentless in our pursuit of new opportunities and relentless in our determination to keep delivering for Canadians.

Bill C-13 and the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP is part of that momentum. It is a continuation of a story that began generations ago and that will carry us forward for generations to come. Let us meet this moment with confidence. Let us meet this moment with optimism. Let us meet with a team Canada approach, united in the conviction that our ambition should be as vast as the opportunities before us and the country we collectively represent here in Parliament, because when Canadians set bold goals, when we work together and when we look outward to the world, there is nothing that we cannot achieve.