Debates of March 11th, 2026

Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her important question. I was very pleased to work with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois on the amendment to the bill.

It was a good amendment. We agree with the member that having a report-back mechanism in the agreement is a good procedural step to ensure that we as parliamentarians will be able to take full stock of the promise of this legislation.

I thank the member opposite for his constructive approach to this and look forward to continuing to work with him.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that some of the organizations that support this agreement are Cereals Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Cattle Association and Soy Canada. That is a lot of agricultural associations. This seems to be a good deal for Canadian farmers.

I do not know what trade barriers existed before with Indonesia, so could the member help explain how this is going to benefit Canadian farmers?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question, and the member is absolutely right. The agriculture sector was extremely enthusiastic, because it opens up a very big market. Some of the big barriers that exist are around sanitary and phytosanitary conditions. The agreement allows for better regulatory harmonization, for better process and understanding, and for high-quality products that are grown in Canada to be sold in places like Indonesia.

I think it is good news for our farmers. Our farmers were present at the committee process, and they agreed that the agreement will allow for them to export more Canadian-produced goods to places like Indonesia.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is this: What distinguishes this agreement from other free trade agreements we have? Is there any specific element of this agreement that makes it so special?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. As I mentioned, this is a more modern free trade agreement than we have done in the past. That is why we do not call it a free trade agreement. Rather, we call it a comprehensive economic agreement. I think this is the kind of template that we will be able to use in other places, like ASEAN and Mercosur. We are negotiating with the Philippines and Thailand as well.

There is a great desire for engagement with Canada. People want to buy Canadian-produced goods, especially when it comes to our agriculture and energy resources. That is the work we are doing through agreements like the one we are debating here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time today, with the agreement of the House, with the hon. member for Beauce.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill to speak to Bill C-18, an act implementing the Canada-Indonesia comprehensive economic partnership agreement.

Let me begin by stating clearly that Conservatives believe in trade. Canada has always been a trading nation. From the earliest days of Confederation, our prosperity has depended on our ability to reach beyond our borders and sell Canadian goods and expertise to the world. For that reason, we approach trade agreements with a constructive mindset. When agreements expand market access, reduce tariffs and create opportunities for Canadian producers, we welcome them. At a time when natural resources are more critical than ever, we are a truly fortunate nation. Canada holds some of the world's most abundant natural resources, including oil reserves that have the potential to make Canada one of the most influential and prosperous nations on earth.

For too long, we have let outdated ideology and self-sabotage stand in the way of our potential. In 2026, the world is shifting under our feet, and we have no excuse not to be an export powerhouse. Indonesia is an opportunity for Canadian trade and Canadian influence. It is the fourth most populous country in the world, home to more than 270 million people. It has one of the fastest-growing economies in the Indo-Pacific region. It has a rapidly expanding middle class and increasing demand for food, technology, natural resources and energy. Energy is so central to our standard of living here at home and to that of all people around the world yet is something that the Liberal government has neglected.

When the Minister of International Trade appeared at the international trade committee hearing last month to answer questions about Bill C-18, I noted that the Asia Pacific Foundation has produced a report highlighting the growing relationship between the United States and Indonesia in the energy sector, particularly with respect to oil and liquefied natural gas.

Indonesia imported roughly 322,000 barrels of crude oil per day in 2024, and it is dependent on energy imports for 40% of its national energy demand, which will only grow as the Indonesian economy expands and more Indonesians are lifted out of poverty. It seems we are missing the boat on this opportunity. Not only is the United States stepping up to meet Indonesia's demand for oil, but the minister informed the international trade committee that the conversation with the Indonesians was focused on sustainable energy. What he said was that “in Indonesia they also want to go to more sustainable energy. When they talk about sustainable, they talk about nuclear and about LNG, which is a bit lower in terms of carbon emissions when you compare it to crude.”

That was on February 5 of this year. It would seem from the minister's evidence to the committee that Indonesia is not interested in oil, would it not? As it worked out, 15 days after the minister spoke to the committee, Indonesia signed an agreement with the United States that covers, among other things, $15 billion per year in American energy exports to Indonesia, including $3.5 billion of liquefied petroleum gas and $4.5 billion of crude oil. As if that was not enough, just a few days ago it was reported that Indonesia will be increasing its crude oil imports from the United States due to the war in the Persian Gulf. I hope the irony is not lost on anyone listening today.

As I said to the minister at the hearing, “It strikes me that we may have missed the boat in terms of our ability to export those products into this marketplace.” On that day, I used the word “may”. I am now certain, as I think we all are now, that Canada's energy industry missed what could have been a magnificent opportunity for growth. We allowed this opportunity to go to the United States.

The Liberal government makes blunders like these because it fundamentally sees energy as a source of embarrassment rather than a source of power. Liberals can talk all they want about making Canada an energy superpower, but actions, as always, speak louder than words. Becoming an energy superpower requires more than rhetoric, more than speeches and more than press conferences. It requires action, infrastructure and legislative, regulatory and policy certainty. Above all, it requires a clear commitment to ensuring that Canadian energy can reach global markets.

Maybe the reason Indonesia was not interested in discussing Canadian oil, as per the minister, is that it knew we cannot be relied upon to supply it. Yes, it is true that LNG Canada is finally up and running, but let us be honest. One project delayed by years of red tape and regulatory hurdles is not a strategy. It is a lucky break. We have managed just that one LNG facility, in Kitimat. Our competitors on the gulf coast of the United States, however, are building export terminals at a record pace, and they are not just engaging with Indonesia. They are signing contracts. They are eating our lunch because their government views energy as an asset, not a liability and not something to be phased out.

During that same international trade committee hearing, I reminded the minister of the Liberal government's decision to cancel the northern gateway pipeline roughly a decade ago. I pointed out that had that project gone ahead, Canada would today be in a far stronger position to export crude oil to Asian markets. Canada should be well positioned to supply that demand. We have vast energy resources, world-class producers, workers who are second to none anywhere in the world and some of the highest environmental standards in the world. We have just chosen to put obstacle after obstacle in our own way for no good reason.

The obstacles include Bill C-69 and the tanker ban affecting the northern coast of British Columbia. With these laws in place, no new pipelines will be built to carry Canadian crude oil to market, even though the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat can safely host oil tankers, and projects like the Eagle Spirit pipeline can reduce our reliance on the port of Vancouver for west coast energy exports.

The foregoing is why today in the House I introduced a private member's bill that would repeal the tanker ban on the west coast of B.C. I introduced that bill because I believe Canada must confront a certain truth. If we want to become an energy superpower, we cannot simultaneously block the infrastructure necessary to export our energy.

Right now, roughly 240 tankers move crude oil every year between a storage facility in Montreal, via the St. Lawrence River, and a refining facility beside Quebec City. In Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 90 international tankers visit the Whiffen Head facility to export oil brought in by offshore shuttle tankers. There is no logical reason tanker traffic is unacceptable in Kitimat or Prince Rupert but just fine in Quebec City and Vancouver. Anyone working in the energy sector will tell us that the tanker ban represents one of the the most significant barriers to expanding Canadian crude oil exports to global markets.

The CBC published an article yesterday asking this question: “With a crucial oil artery blocked near Iran,” and that would be the Strait of Hormuz, “can Canada fill the gap in global supply?” It shows just how much Canada has to contribute in today's turbulent world and just how much of an opportunity is being missed. It is not just an opportunity to boost our energy sector but also an opportunity to support our allies as they look to diversify away from dictator oil.

The CBC article ended on a disturbing note. It quoted Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, who stated, “in a situation where you have this Iran conflict and you're seeing 20 per cent of global supply impacted, when push comes to shove, you'll start to see countries...importing some Russian supply”. This is not something we want to see happen.

Canada's energy sector has long been one of the pillars of our national economy. It generates billions of dollars in revenue that fund public services, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and drives investment and innovation in communities from coast to coast to coast. Trade agreements like this one with Indonesia must be part of a broader strategy to strengthen Canada's economic position in the world, and that strategy must include all sectors of the Canadian economy, including energy. Trade with Indonesia is a good thing, but a trade agreement is not worth the paper it is written on if the Liberals see it as principally a tool for making themselves look good at home.

Canada must be a leading supplier of oil and natural gas to the world. Our allies need it. We can make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in so many ways and put a lot of information that is questionable, at best, on the record. We would have to go back generations before we would see a prime minister who has been more proactive, whether it is signing an MOU or going to countries like India to talk about energy, have discussions and secure export opportunities second to no other.

I realize the member is relatively new to the House, but does he not realize that when his party's leader was part of the Conservative government, in 10 years, not one inch of pipeline to tidewater—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have the advantage here of being somebody who is not tied to the past. Quite frankly, I am looking forward. I am looking forward to what the opportunities are for our country, what things we can build and what we can achieve. I have no interest in the Liberal failures of the past. I am interested only in what we can do going forward. Trade agreements are a good thing, but we have to have our act together domestically in order to be a valuable trading partner to the world.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the departing member, but I am not sure whether he will understand it. I would like to ask him about palm oil. Indonesia is one of the major producers of palm oil. Palm oil imports are skyrocketing in Canada. This is causing problems with deforestation of tropical forests and is affecting local populations, who are often forced to work on these plantations, as well as indigenous peoples.

Does my colleague think that Canada should follow the European Union's example and create a special group to monitor developments in this area?

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

Mr. Speaker, a trade agreement gives us opportunities to work with other countries around the world. We are not going to immediately be in any position to impose standards or our standards of living upon a trading partner, but it is the beginning of a relationship, and in that, we can grow over time to appreciate different practices. Canada has many of the world's leading environmental, agricultural, industrial and energy practices. When we trade with other nations, we have the opportunity to exchange that expertise and improve circumstances in both countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight on what has happened over the last couple of decades in this place. When Stephen Harper became the prime minister, he did not inherit a single tidewater pipeline project from the previous Chrétien-Martin governments. When he left office in 2015, there were four of these projects, not to mention the number of projects that were actually done in expanding our trade to the United States.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, because my colleague is from Calgary, he talks about oil and gas. He actually knows what he is talking about, unlike the guy who is chirping me across the way right now.

Based on the announcement by the government on the expected value of this trade relationship with Indonesia, I wanted to ask my colleague if he can tell me what the value of one LNG tanker leaving Canada might be worth to our economy in context.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite interestingly, there were some discussions on that very subject earlier today that I was part of. When we look at an export relationship of about $400 million, two LNG tankers would be equivalent to that in terms of value. It is obvious that our greatest opportunity to increase trade, to provide for Indonesia and to provide opportunities for export for Canadian companies is in energy. The value is tremendous, beneficial for both sides and something that we are well behind on because of our domestic situation. We must get to work on that so we can be an effective international trading partner.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to represent the magnificent region of Beauce in the House.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-18 on the Canada-Indonesia economic agreement.

Beauce is considered the entrepreneurial capital of Canada. We have a large number of businesses and entrepreneurs. We also have many farmers. Beauce is home to some of the best farmers in the world. We work hard. We are proud to grow our economy. Beauce, and the people from there, create wealth. That is why, as parliamentarians, we must do everything we can to help them develop new markets, but we must develop them with discipline, care and rigour.

Conservatives have always defended and will always defend free trade, but also trade that is fair and reciprocal. I call these win-win agreements. This approach must remain our priority as Canada seeks to diversify its markets.

Under Stephen Harper's leadership, the Conservatives actively championed free trade with free nations, signing numerous free trade agreements to diversify our trade, but in a cautious and very responsible manner. Unfortunately, under the Liberals, Canada has fallen behind, and our dependence on the Americans and the United States has only grown over the past 10 years. Today, the Liberals are trying to make up for lost time by signing agreements quickly and at any cost, but they are forgetting to do their due diligence.

This brings me to Bill C-18. The Prime Minister called this agreement between Canada and Indonesia revolutionary. There is nothing revolutionary about it. It is pretty marginal.

Canadians need meaningful results. The Liberals are hiding the reality, and the reality is that we are still facing unjustified U.S. tariffs. Beauce borders the United States. Its geographic location allows our businesses, farmers, manufacturers, exporters and retailers to do business with the world's largest economy.

However, the Liberals have failed the people of Beauce. They have basically given up on the relationship with the United States. After promising a speedy trade deal with Washington, they are now at an endless impasse. The people who come up to me day after day are not talking to me about Indonesia. They are talking about the American tariffs. Every day, people in Beauce ask me whether we are going to have a new agreement or a deal with the Americans. I have never heard anyone mention Indonesia. It is simply not the priority.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade travel all over the globe and come back to Parliament with minor free trade agreements. These agreements are minor, but they contain hidden tariff barriers.

A recurring issue raised by Canadian beef producers is that Canadian beef continues to face a technical problem that we call non-tariff barriers. For example, Indonesia requires that beef exports come from cattle born and raised in Canada or that have resided in Canada for at least four months immediately prior to slaughter. These are called non-tariff barriers. Producers have complained. We do not hear much about this from the Liberal government.

According to the Canadian Cattle Association, “The integration of the North American cattle market makes it near impossible to achieve this residency requirement”, so they will not be entering into an agreement or doing business with them, plain and simple. This impossible requirement may prevent our Canadian producers from taking advantage of duty-free access to the Indonesian market.

This apparent non-tariff barrier represents a significant challenge for Canadian beef producers. Although Global Affairs Canada mentions a memorandum of understanding establishing a dialogue on sanitary and phytosanitary issues, we are concerned about this. We are seeing a trend where non-tariff barriers are simply not being addressed by the Liberal government.

Just look at the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union. The Liberals promised to resolve the issue of regulatory differences between Canada and Europe. Today, 10 years later, nothing has changed. European producers have full access to our market to compete with Beauce's farmers, while we are unable to export our pork and beef. The devil is in the details.

Over the past few weeks, the Standing Committee on International Trade has been hearing testimony about the non-tariff barriers that the United Kingdom continues to impose on Canadian beef and pork. The United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership eliminates tariffs on Canadian beef and pork on paper. However, in practice, the United Kingdom continues to impose non-tariff barriers to prevent us from accessing their market. The consequences for our beef and pork producers are devastating.

Allow me to share some figures from the Library of Parliament. In 2024, the United Kingdom exported 42 million dollars' worth of beef products to Canada. In the first half of 2025, 28 million dollars' worth of beef products entered Canada. In 2024, Canada exported only 85,000 dollars' worth of beef products to the United Kingdom. In 2025, brace for this: zero. That is right, zero dollars. It is all well and good to sign agreements, as my colleagues say, just to save face. However, an agreement that serves no purpose is a waste of time and money.

As with the agreement with Indonesia, the Liberal government is prepared to sign the free trade agreement without obtaining any guarantee that our Canadian producers will receive barrier-free access. Meanwhile, our farmers are struggling to remain competitive. Our beef producers raise cattle of the highest quality, some of the best beef in the world. They are proud, and they deserve a government that is willing to fight for them. We need a government that will fight to ensure that Canada's free trade agreements are 100% barrier free. Too often, this Liberal government seems reluctant to fight to eliminate the most significant barriers affecting farmers in Beauce and across the country.

In the meantime, regions like Beauce are facing enormous challenges, including U.S. tariffs, non-tariff barriers in Europe, and major increases in input costs. The Canadian government needs to prioritize producers, defend our industry, and achieve meaningful gains for our farmers. That is the way to protect Canadian producers and put Canada first.

Canada cannot control what the President and other countries' negotiators do, but one thing it can do is control its own destiny. The government must ensure that all non-tariff barriers are removed and secure a firm guarantee that trade will be not only free, but fair. Again, it has to be a win-win situation. We must diversify our trade without leaving our farmers behind. We can strengthen our sovereignty and grow our economy. That is how Canada can take control and put itself first.

In conclusion, farmers in Beauce, as everywhere else in rural Canada, feed the country and the world. However, they are struggling and only benefit from free trade when they have genuine reciprocal access to new markets. Once again, Bill C-18 does not remove all non-tariff barriers, so our farmers will have to continue to fight for fair and reciprocal access.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Marine Transportation; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, The Economy; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about the pork industry. It is an $8-billion industry here in Canada. Less than a year ago, I was with the Minister of Agriculture in the Philippines, where we highlighted industry representatives from the province of Quebec. I have met, as recently as yesterday, with members of the Manitoba pork industry. We understand the true value of that industry. The government sees huge numbers from our pork exports and sees the opportunities being created in that industry. When the Prime Minister talks about getting a trade agreement with the Philippines or when the Prime Minister goes to Japan, these are critical markets in terms of pork.

Would the member not agree that having a prime minister who is going out and about to create export opportunities is the best thing that we can do to protect our pork industry?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Yes, we need to diversify our markets everywhere, we need to improve our businesses, and we need to enter into agreements. However, allow me to repeat myself, the way I do as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade: When it comes to non-tariff barriers, the details of agreements are important. Simply signing agreements is not enough. Signing an agreement is easy; anyone can do it. What matters is getting something in return.

I can give my esteemed colleague an example: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. Under CETA, we were supposed to export 300 million dollars' worth of pork. How much was sent? The answer: zero. Because of non-tariff barriers, access is not guaranteed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a comment and then move on to my question.

Just because no one in Shefford is talking to me about the agreement with Indonesia does not mean that we should not diversify our markets and seek to reduce our dependence on the United States.

As I said earlier, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton succeeded in getting various amendments adopted in committee, including the one I mentioned earlier, which provides for a review of the agreement's operation and effect every three years, with a report to be tabled in the House. I would like to congratulate him on that achievement.

The other amendment stipulates that the government must ensure that companies exploiting natural resources in Indonesia, particularly palm oil plantations, comply with environmental standards and respect workers' rights.

My question for my colleague is this: Why did the Conservatives vote against several of the amendments proposed by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for the question. It is much appreciated.

I would like to acknowledge my committee colleague, who is looking at me and wants to hear my response. I will respond to my colleague's first comment about the importance of diversifying our sector and diversifying the countries we trade with. Yes, I agree that we need to expand our circle of friends in business. I agree on that point.

However, I want to come back to something. She says that we do not hear much about Indonesia. We hear about the United States. However, no one here is talking about that. It seems that we are the only ones talking about it on this side of the House. We share a border with the United States. We do business with the Americans. We are talking about 0.12%. We are spending time on this. To me, it is a waste of time and money. Canada is not lacking in talented entrepreneurs or strong industries. Canada needs a government that takes action, not a government that is asleep at the wheel.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his really informative speech. I think we all agree we need to diversify our markets.

Why does my colleague think Canadians are having trouble believing what the government says it is going to do and are questioning whether any of this is actually going to happen?