Debates of Jan. 28th, 2026

Motions for Papers

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Statements by the Trump Administration

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

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to request an emergency debate on the recent deeply concerning actions and statements by the Trump administration that have grave implications for the sovereignty and security of Canada.

On January 3, President Trump ordered American forces to disregard international law and core principles of national sovereignty by attacking Venezuela, a UN member state. This aggression was followed by President Trump's announcement of a Donroe doctrine, considering the entire western Hemisphere to be within the sole hegemonic control of the United States.

On January 18, President Trump expressed his intent to seize Greenland, a territory of Denmark, another UN member state and, importantly, a NATO member. He justified this aggression by referencing Greenland's Arctic proximity, mineral reserves and inadequate defence capacity.

These actions and words have direct application to Canada. They follow repeated and continuing threats made to Canada since Donald Trump became President. They are occurring on a daily basis right up to this moment. There is a wide consensus among observers, policy experts and stakeholders from across the political spectrum in Canada, from Jason Kenney to Bob Rae, that our country is vulnerable as a result.

It is vital that members of Parliament be afforded an opportunity to speak to these important and urgent matters, which profoundly affect our sovereignty, security and place in the world. I ask that this emergency debate be approved and conducted forthwith tonight.

Speaker's Ruling

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

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver—Kingsway for his intervention. However, the Speaker is not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Canada and Indonesia, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today with pride and conviction to speak in support of Bill C-18, legislation that will bring into force the Canada-Indonesia comprehensive economic partnership agreement. This is a consequential moment for Canada, a moment to choose engagement over hesitation, diversification over dependence, and action over rhetoric. It is a moment to demonstrate that Canada understands the economic realities of the 21st century and is prepared to act decisively in response to them.

The global economy is changing, not gradually, but structurally. Growth is no longer concentrated on a small number of advanced economies. It is shifting towards the Indo-Pacific, towards emerging markets and towards economies with expanding middle classes, increasing infrastructure investments and growing demand for food, energy, manufactured goods and services.

Canada cannot afford to be passive in this environment. That is why our new government is leaning forward. We are all in for Canada. Our economy, our workers and our communities require foresight and deliberate action. Bill C-18 represents exactly that, a strategic decision to ensure Canadian businesses and workers are positioned to compete in the markets that will define future growth.

Indonesia is central to that story. With a population exceeding 275 million potential consumers, Indonesia is the fourth-most populous country in the world and one of the largest economies in Southeast Asia. It is a country undergoing rapid urbanization, industrialization and income growth. Its middle class is expanding by millions every single year. Demand is rising for food, raw materials, infrastructure inputs, clean technology and professional services, areas where Canada has both capacity and global credibility.

Today, trade between Canada and Indonesia is roughly $6.7 billion in goods and services annually, yet despite that volume, Canadian exporters continue to face tariffs that put them at a disadvantage compared to competitors who are already enjoying preferential access. That is precisely what Bill C-18 changes. Under this agreement, Indonesia will eliminate or reduce tariffs on nearly 86% of tariff lines, covering almost all current Canadian exports. These are not symbolic reductions. They are commercially meaningful changes that affect pricing, competitiveness and long-term investment decisions. Let me be clear about what that means. In agriculture, Indonesian tariffs on Canadian products such as wheat, barley, pulses and oil seeds will be reduced or eliminated entirely.

Indonesia is one of the world's largest importers of wheat and Canadian grain, which is valued for its quality and reliability. Eliminating tariffs ensures that Canadian farmers compete on product excellence. That matters to producers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, but it also matters to rail workers, port operators, processors and exporters across Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada who are part of that supply chain.

In agri-food and processed foods, tariff reductions improve access for value-added products that support jobs not only on farms but in processing plants, logistics hubs and other value-add services. These are jobs that sustain rural communities and urban communities alike, including communities like Brampton East, while strengthening food security at home and abroad.

In fish and seafood, Indonesia currently applies tariffs of up to 15% on products such as lobster, salmon, scallops and crab. Under this agreement, those tariffs will be eliminated and phased out. For fish harvesters and processors in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., British Columbia and Quebec, this translates directly into improved margins, stronger export volumes and greater stability in seasonal employment.

In forestry and wood products, tariff reductions will enhance competitiveness for Canadian softwood, pulp and paper products used in Indonesia's expanding construction and packaging sectors. These benefits will flow directly to forestry communities in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.

In manufacturing, this agreement will reduce tariffs on industrial goods such as machinery, automotive parts, aerospace components, chemicals and fabricated metals. For manufacturers in southern Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba, this means the ability to bid into projects and supply chains in Southeast Asia without pricing themselves out of contention.

In clean technology and environmental services, the agreement supports Canadian firms working in renewable energy, emissions reductions, water treatment and sustainable infrastructure. As Indonesia invests billions in energy transition and climate resilience, Canadian companies gain predictable, rules-based access to the market.

This agreement is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses. Large multinational firms can absorb tariffs, but small businesses often cannot. For them, even a 5% duty can be the difference between entering a market or staying out of it. Eliminating tariffs reduces upfront risks, improves cash flows and allows smaller Canadian firms to plan multi-year export strategies and hire new staff to turn plans into production. This is what trade diversification looks like in practice. This is why it matters now more than ever.

The new government has committed to doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Bill C-18 is a concrete step toward that goal. Trade is not a simple concept. Trade is people. It is skilled tradespeople seeing consistent demand. It is plant workers and technicians benefiting from expanded production. It is port workers, inspectors and transportation professionals handling growing volumes of Canadian goods. These are resilient, productive jobs that anchor communities.

Canada's primary producers are a vital part of this story, and the message we have received is clear: They support this agreement. Cereals Canada has called the conclusion of this agreement a significant milestone and praised the government's commitment to expanding market access and creating new opportunities for Canadian exporters. That support resonates in provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, where grain production supports farm families, transport workers, exporters and related industries. It also strengthens supply chains that reach Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, connecting communities through stable jobs and increased economic activity.

By securing markets in Indonesia, Canadian farmers gain predictability, allowing them to plan for multi-year harvests, invest in sustainable farming practices and contribute to food security both domestically and globally. It also reinforces Canada's reputation as a dependable supplier of high-quality, ethically produced agriculture products. The Wheat Growers Association has described this agreement as a win for western Canadian farmers, noting Indonesia's growing demand for high-quality grain and the importance of market diversification in protecting livelihoods and strengthening resilience.

These lessons extend far beyond agriculture. They illustrate how strategic trade agreements benefit the broader economy, from manufacturing to services and from urban to rural Canada. When farmers thrive, communities thrive. When exporters grow, supply chains grow. When trade expands, opportunity expands.

In the protein and manufacturing sectors, the Canadian Meat Council and the Canadian Pork Council have described this agreement as a landmark opportunity to expand Canada's presence in the Indo-Pacific. It is clear that when we act decisively, the benefits ripple across sectors, regions and communities, and it positions Canadian processors and manufacturers to invest confidently, knowing that the rules of trade are clear, predictable and fair.

I want to speak directly to this chamber. I believe profoundly in this agreement. I believe in the leadership of the Prime Minister in advancing Canada's role on the global stage. I believe in this government's conviction that Canada must engage, diversify and lead to secure long-term prosperity, and I believe in Canadians: the entrepreneurs, the farmers, the workers and innovators who turn opportunity into results.

However, colleagues across the aisle do not have to take my word for it. The value of this agreement is being affirmed by the Canadians who would put it to work every single day. The exporters, producers, processors, manufacturers, small businesses and workers are ready, prepared and asking Parliament to act. Choosing not to act is a decision. Delaying is a decision. Hesitation is a decision, and in a fast-moving global economy, those decisions carry consequences. Other countries are moving quickly to secure access in fast-growing markets, and Canada must move too.

Bill C-18 would ensure that Canadian workers can compete on a level playing field, it would ensure Canadian businesses are positioned for long-term success, and it would ensure that Canada remains a reliable, rules-based partner. This agreement is not just a document; it is a bridge connecting Canadian ambition with global demand, and we are not stopping with Indonesia.

We are deepening engagement across the Indo-Pacific. We are building new partnerships. We are opening new markets. We are securing Canada's place in the fastest-growing region of the global economy, because leadership means acting, because prosperity means building and because Canada's future will not be shaped by standing still; it will be shaped by stepping forward. Bill C-18 is a statement of confidence in Canada, confidence in our workers, confidence in our businesses and confidence in our future.

We are all in for Canada.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has brought to this chamber a bill that, on its face, may receive some positive reviews from our side, but we will have to wait to hear and see the bill and examine it at committee.

The minister mentioned rules-based trade. I wondered if he would state for this House whether he agrees with the Prime Minister, who said the rules-based trading system is dead, or whether he agrees with the president of the EU Central Bank, a former IMF chair and minister of finance of France, who said that she does not agree with the Canadian Prime Minister.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his important work on the trade committee and as my critic.

It is an important time. The member opposite mentioned the Prime Minister. We have been clear with Canadians since the very start. Just over eight months ago, during the election, we promised Canadians that we would be out there diversifying our trading partners, along with in the Speech from the Throne. In our budget, we will be making record-level investments.

We are opening doors. This is what it is going to take to ensure our economic resilience, to ensure that Canadians have opportunities around the world and so that Canada is seen as a reliable trading partner. That is why the calls that we are getting are, “We want to do more with Canada. We want to do more with Canadian workers. We want to do more with Canadian farmers.” We are going to be there to continue opening doors for our workers and for our farmers.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech.

Yes, the agreement allows for market diversification, but it seems to me that it is not modern enough. There is no assurance that the supply chains will be free of forced labour or human rights violations. That issue is not taken into account at all. I think Canada has proven to be a slightly more progressive country in this regard in the past. In our opinion, new agreements should take into account the whole issue of human rights, human rights violations and forced labour.

Why did the government choose to exclude this requirement from the agreement with Indonesia?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to human rights, labour and the environment remain at the heart of our trade policies and our high-standard trade agreements. Canada is deliberate and mindful when negotiating trade agreements, and we prioritize Canadian values, protecting workers' rights and environmental standards.

Building new trading partners around the world is an important driver to promote economic security for Canada. When we look at how trade drives our economy, we see that two-thirds of our economy is powered by international trade. Millions of jobs are directly related to international trade, so we have to continue to be out there knocking on those doors, getting these types of agreements done to build on our 15 free trade agreements.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of International Trade for this bill. I would also like to commend all the work being done by the Prime Minister and his entire team to develop new partnerships such as this one.

In my riding of Sherbrooke, businesses and entrepreneurs understand full well the importance of diversifying markets, particularly in the current context, and they are ready.

I would like the minister to tell us what tools we are giving them to enable them to take full advantage of partnerships such as the one we are discussing this afternoon.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague's very important question in terms of the ecosystem that we are developing. I spent 13 years in the private sector facilitating international trade for hundreds of businesses. We need to continue to step up to give those businesses the tools to get export-ready.

In budget 2025, we have announced the Canadian SME export readiness program to get businesses ready to export. Once they are ready to export, we are going to utilize a program called CanExport that will get them to trade shows so they can show off their products and services. Once they have their first shipment ready, we want to be able to facilitate credit for that shipment through EDC, so we are putting about $25 billion more into credit facilitation. This is about creating an ecosystem so that Canadian businesses and workers can succeed on the global stage.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin, of course, by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I did have a question for the minister that I was unable to ask, but perhaps I can work it into my speech.

I am sure many of the people watching today's debate in the Canadian House of Commons will be from Indonesia, interested in what Canadian parliamentarians think about their country and this trade agreement. Therefore, I want to start by expressing deep condolences to the people of Indonesia who, just last weekend, experienced an extreme weather event, likely due to climate change. The extreme rainfall event caused landslides. At this point, those landslides in West Java have killed at least 20 people, and there are dozens still missing. We are aware of the difficult time being faced right now by local governments and communities, including naval officials who are still stuck due to the landslides. It is a horrific event.

That brings me to the question I was going to ask the minister. I think I will start by prefacing my speech with this question. We have before us a bill that would appear to be an opportunity for the House of Commons to either agree and ratify a treaty or not. As a matter of law, this treaty likely was considered by both Canada and Indonesia to have come into force when the Prime Minister and the leadership in Indonesia signed the agreement back in September 2025. I think this is somewhat pro forma, which is troubling.

In Canada, which a lot of Canadians would not know, each government, each executive, the Prime Minister and cabinet, has a choice. They can choose to bring a treaty to Parliament for a debate and a vote, or it can be passed solely in cabinet by Governor in Council. In this case, the comprehensive economic partnership agreement between Canada and Indonesia was signed before it ever came to Parliament. We are now debating and considering an act to implement the comprehensive economic partnership agreement. It is kind of a hybrid here.

In the past, we have had many treaties where a prime minister has decided it is so important that we are going to debate it on the floor of the House of Commons and let Parliament vote on it. Let me contrast two with which I am very familiar. One was the time former prime minister Jean Chrétien felt that it was really important for Canada's Parliament, as a whole, to debate and vote on the Kyoto protocol back in 1997, the first of many legally binding climate negotiations that were concluded. Another example was when former prime minister Stephen Harper decided the Canadian Parliament did not need to debate or vote on a very dangerous agreement, which, in the end, was concluded by only a vote in cabinet, by an order in council.

That relates to what I am going to continue to speak about here today. It was the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement, or FIPA, which never was debated in Parliament but was only carried through the Governor in Council. It allows for, to this day, secret hearings if the People's Republic of China objects to any change in a regulation or rule by a local government, provincial government or whatever. We can then be sued for whatever amount by the politburo of the People's Republic of China because so many of their enterprises are state-owned. In any case, the FIPA with China never came before Parliament.

Each federal government has the option of concluding any treaty with a foreign power either through cabinet alone or through bringing it to Parliament for a vote. In this case, I am afraid that this is probably already a legally binding treaty with Indonesia before we discussed it here, and this is the implementation act to bring it forward.

It is very much the case that the Green Party agrees with the goals of the current government, that we need trade diversification. However, we would prefer far more effort to ensure that those agreements we make are with strong democracies that share our values. I can now quote her in this place because she is no longer a member, but former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland put it this way: “Democracies should depend on democracies, not dictators.” Even in times when we need more trade agreements, more trade diversification and less reliance on the United States, no question, we should look at, excuse the expression, whom we are climbing into bed with on these issues.

I am concerned about the fact that while it is true Indonesia is a democracy, it may be a democracy in name only. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, it has, for years, marked Indonesia down as a flawed democracy. There are many issues, such as were already raised by my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois, around human rights within Indonesia and with the fraying of that relationship within a real democracy where the people really decide what the policies are and really control their government. There are many democracies around the world where people may think that may not be the case. In any case, Indonesia still, on paper, is a democracy.

However, when we look at this agreement, and I do want to focus on one specific area and one specific company, we have had a lot of trade with Indonesia already. I question whether it has been to our benefit and whether we should not have reviewed some of these trade arrangements more closely. I speak, of course, of the fact, which is astonishing for most Canadians, that the largest of our pulp and paper enterprises across Canada is a company that is basically controlled in Indonesia. It is called Paper Excellence. It started by buying Northern Pulp in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, and over the years, it then absorbed Domtar, Resolute and Catalyst. It controls a vast amount of Canadian forest, and it runs pulp and paper mills across Canada.

By this agreement, we would now be giving the same thing I mentioned earlier in the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which would mean that the Government of Indonesia can complain and go to arbitration if we change our rules or laws and it affects their investments. This is a very strange situation.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources subpoenaed the leadership of Paper Excellence to come before the committee to explain what it was doing with our pulp and paper industry and with our vast area of forest that it now controls. The entire corporation is controlled by one Indonesian billionaire, Mr. Wijaya, who refused to come before the committee and sent some representatives. The company, on paper, is registered in Vancouver, but again, there is no transparency. It is not listed on any stock exchange. It is the sole property of one individual billionaire.

By this agreement, which I think is already signed and in law, we have now given investment protection and the ability to go to an investor-state dispute resolution to complain if a Canadian province decides that it was a mistake to let an Indonesian multinational buy up Domtar, Resolute, Catalyst or Northern Pulp and now wishes to protect our forests, protect our forest workers and put in place more protections. I did hear the minister's answer that this agreement does maintain that we are going to seek sustainable development, promote the environment and promote fair labour standards, but we are dealing with a country where those things are rather unknown. It is not clear to me how, in passing Bill C-18, we will get to where we want to go.

In terms of the promised new day and how much this is going to deliver for Canadians, the estimate is that this will increase Canada's GDP by 2040 by 0.012%. Again, we do want to diversify trade, but we do want to be careful.

I look forward to the bill going to committee at second reading, where we can pursue some of these questions.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always listen intently when the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands speaks in this chamber.

The member opened the door on trading with democracies. She mentioned China by name. I wonder if she would offer an opinion on the Prime Minister's recent deal, if we want to call it a deal, or agreement with the CCP.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I am deeply concerned if we jettison human rights in an effort to get trade deals. There is a price we pay. I do think we need strengthened diplomatic relationships with the People's Republic of China, but I do not forget what happened to the two Michaels, and I do not forget where we stand for the Uyghurs, other human rights, the people of Tibet and more.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at Bill C-18, it is important we put it in the perspective of a commitment in an election platform the Liberal Party presented to Canadians. We have to take a look at the whole issue of the relationship between Canada and the U.S.A. and how critically important it is. Without abandoning our values, we need to look at ways we can increase export opportunities for businesses of all sizes here in Canada and see where we can get that additional investment, again, without abandoning the principles or values Canadians have. This is a piece of legislation that would ultimately continue to advance an important issue of trade. We can put it in this perspective: Canada makes up 0.5% of the population of the world, yet we participate in 2.5% of world trade.

Can I get the leader of the Green Party's overall position on trade?

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

Madam Speaker, we favour trade, particularly fair trade, rooted in Canadian values that prioritizes Canadian-owned businesses and enterprises, and a Canada-first policy that helps get our products first sold across interprovincial barriers and exported to the world. We need to link arms with other democracies that defend human rights.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the speech she gave as part of this very important debate. In the current context, market diversification is crucial for our businesses. However, I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, so this is an issue that I follow very closely, and I find it troubling that, in 2025, there are still so many children and young women who end up in forced labour.

In any case, the problem in all of these agreements is one that the Bloc Québécois raised through Bill C-228 on which we just voted. If this bill had been allowed to continue to move forward, we could have brought these treaties before the House for debate. It is not right that only the Prime Minister's Office gets to decide on agreements that affect issues that are so critical for local businesses and human rights.

Some countries have already adopted this practice by allowing debates in Parliament when major agreements are signed. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my esteemed colleague. We are a people who have ignored the child labour situation around the world. The position of Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, which ensures worker protection and children's rights in global manufacturing and trade, is still vacant today. We need to do more.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe I need to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the esteemed member for Wellington—Halton Hills North.

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

Does the member for Simcoe North have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons. I consider it a distinct privilege every time I am given the opportunity to use my voice in this place on my constituents' behalf and on behalf of the country and Canadians. It is also a pleasure to rise on a bill on which I think there is general consensus that, speaking for myself, we should send this bill to committee for further scrutiny. I think we have heard some reasonable concerns so far about this bill. It is important to understand how we arrived here.

I understand there have been many conversations between the House leaders looking for areas of collaboration. If one listens to question period every day, one would hear the government talk only about obstruction, but I think this is an example where at least the official opposition party has offered its support to work with the government, to collaborate on moving and expanding our trading relationships for the betterment of Canadian employees, workers and businesses and our citizens around the world.

It is on this expanding trading relationship that I think there is some agreement to promote rules-based trade, although I would say I had to disagree with the Prime Minister when he gave his speech and said the rules-based trading system is dead. I do not think it is dead; on the contrary, I think it is worth fighting for. In fact, members do not have to take my word for it. The esteemed Christine Lagarde, who is the President of the European Central Bank, was the former finance minister in France and also headed the International Monetary Fund, was asked whether she agreed with the Canadian Prime Minister, and her comment was that she was on a different page than the Canadian Prime Minister. I think the rules-based trading system is worth fighting for.

Canada and Indonesia have had a long-standing relationship dating back at least to 1952, but even before that as it was gaining its independence.

As I mentioned before, while Conservatives generally support this bill moving to committee, we do think there are some issues that require further scrutiny, including those around procurement opportunities. I read the bill. At first glance, from feedback, there were a number of stakeholders who welcomed the bill. There were also a few individuals who highlighted the fact that with respect to procurement, it would appear that Indonesian firms have the access and ability to bid on Canadian government procurement projects; however, that same access is not afforded, by right, to Canadian firms to bid on projects in Indonesia. They would be welcome to indicate their willingness to bid, but they would have to be invited by the government to do so. I think that is an area of the bill that we would seek more information on and discuss in committee, to further scrutinize it to make sure Canadian firms are receiving equal preference.

I as an individual, but Conservatives also, have generally always stood for free-but-fair trade, and that includes reciprocity. We need to make sure that if we are giving market access to one group of producers in one country, we are afforded that same access when Canadian firms are abroad.

I am happy to report that the trade committee is working relatively well at the moment. We have a government bill that we have agreed to move forward in, again, the spirit of collaboration with the government that would allow the U.K. to ascend to the CPTPP, which I think is yet another proof point on how Parliament can work together.

I will remind everyone that we just had an election. About 41% of Canadians voted for folks on this side of the House, a few more per cent of Canadians voted for people just behind me, and just over 41% or 42% voted for people on the government side. I think that was a signal from Canadians that they expect this Parliament to find ways to work together, and I believe we are doing that.

Prime Minister Harper had embarked on an aggressive trade deal expansion, which really set up a number of agreements, including the one with the E.U. and member nations, on which this current government has built.

I do not think we always agree on many things in this chamber. I said to the minister yesterday at committee that I do not agree with a lot of what the Liberal government does: the spending, the overtaxation, doubling of the deficits. The government prefers to spend valuable police resources confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens instead of actually going after criminals, gangs and smugglers of illegal firearms. I am skeptical of the government's decision to get a little closer to the Politburo in Beijing. However, I will not let all of those issues on which I disagree with the government blind me from acknowledging that we need to work together to expand our trading relationships.

On this issue, members can rest assured that because this is on behalf of the benefit of Canadians, because we believe that expanding our trading relationships and diversifying trade is an important step to take for our producers, our employees and our businesses, it is an area on which there is consensus. I offer my support; that is one word to use. I offer my hand in collaboration with the government to ensure we can continue to deliver to Canadians expanded access across the globe. It is an important thing to expand our trade, but we will hold the government accountable when it is making these decisions.

As I mentioned, we have some questions about Bill C-18. We will not just blindly agree and support the government on every trade bill it brings forward. We believe it needs to go through the proper process, but we are here to work with the government.

I have to mention that I do have concerns with the government travelling to Qatar and to China. I think that will have some long-standing difficult situations that we will face ourselves. I think it is an acknowledgement and a confirmation to the CCP in Beijing that its tactics have worked when we have capitulated because of the way it squeezed us on tariffs. I would hope the government is taking some lessons from the way Mexico has been operating.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands recognized that this trade deal will only increase the GDP by, if I am correct, 0.0012%. That is not going to replace the big “elephant in the room” deal with the United States. We had a relationship with Americans and the United States before the current president. We will have a relationship with Americans and the United States after the current president. It is important that we sort out that relationship in a way that benefits everyone in North America, including Americans, Mexicans and Canadians, for the benefit of us all, not just for our economy but for peace and security and for certainty.

That is the primary job of the government. It was elected on a promise to manage that relationship. We are still waiting. Until then, we are happy to support the government as it tries to expand trading relationships across the globe.