Debates of March 12th, 2026

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

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has once again shown how well he knows his file.

In his remarks, he briefly alluded to Bill C‑228, which is sponsored by the member for Jonquière and which deals with international trade treaties. I would like the member to explain to our colleagues here today how that bill would change the way Canada drafts international trade agreements.

How would it actually change the way things are done right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, it would ensure that parliamentarians are not being played for fools, that they are not just here to rubber-stamp agreements. It is my understanding that we were elected by the people to represent interests and values, so doing actual work on agreements should be a big part of our responsibility.

What the bill would have done, for example, is set a minimum time frame to ensure that we have time to study an agreement before it is tabled and debated here in the House. There would be an actual study in committee. The idea is never to repeat what we went through in late 2020, when we studied an agreement without having the actual text of that agreement. It was beyond ridiculous. The bill would also guarantee Parliament's support for an agreement before it is signed, not just its rubber stamp after the fact. At the end of the day, this bill would ensure that parliamentarians do actual work on agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to truly thank my colleague for his speech on investor-state dispute settlement. I actually think that things are worse than how he described them in his speech. My colleague said that large transnational corporations currently have the right to take part in agreements, but it is worse than that. They currently have more rights than Canada does in such agreements.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that trade agreements do not always have to include an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when we examine a trade agreement implementation bill in committee, there is not much that we can amend, but this is one of the few things that we can change. Since the implementation bill has to change the legal system to recognize the ISDS, it is a legal clause. However, I am always just about the only committee member to vote against that clause. I vote in favour of most of the clauses in these agreements, and I generally vote in favour of the trade agreements themselves, but I always vote against this particular clause. In the past two Parliaments, when the NDP was a recognized party, its members usually voted with me against these agreements. I was not the only one to vote against them, but now I am. I do not understand how we can abdicate our sovereignty in this way.

As my colleague said, this likely puts these companies above states, but it also creates pressure upstream on public decision-makers. It creates a climate of self-censorship. It is also important to point out that the potential victims of the actions of multinationals do not have the same rights under trade agreements. There is no protection mechanism. The government often boasts about the chapters on the environment and workers' rights, but they are often purely symbolic. There is no legal mechanism for that, whereas the multinationals have a mechanism to protect their right to profit.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is interesting because the Bloc has consistently indicated that trade agreements should be debated well before they are actually signed off on. I think Canada is actually in a very unique situation. We are the only country of the G7 that has trade agreements with all G7 countries. Canada has been very successful in terms of world trade, and today is yet another example of how we continue to expand export opportunities. There are literally hundreds of trade treaties between Canada and other nations.

With all the consultation with stakeholders, provinces, industries and parliamentarians, I am not convinced that changing the process is in Canada's best interests. Can the member explain why he believes that is the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is enough time, but I would like to put a question back to him. What is the point of having an official policy if it is not followed?

My colleague tells us that there is no need for a change in procedure, and yet Canada's official policy made up a substantial part of the legislation that we introduced and that was unfortunately defeated. That policy can be found on the Global Affairs Canada website. I can no longer recall the exact title, but it was something like the “treaty ratification policy”. Canada's official policy involves a minimum period of 21 days between the time an agreement is announced and the time it comes before Parliament. In the case of the United Kingdom, it took 15 days. What is the point of having a policy?

It was the Liberals who adopted that policy, not me. That is the policy that they are normally proud of. It is supposed to be in force. In committee, we heard from senior officials who said that as far as they were concerned, the policy was in force, but that they had received a political directive. What is the point of having a policy if it is not followed? That is why we think that this policy ought to be made into law. Then, perhaps the government would follow it.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am very pleased to rise today as a proud member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. This is my fourth year serving on that committee and it is always very interesting. We have studied a number of free trade agreements. Today, I am rising to discuss Bill C‑13, which seeks to implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.

First of all, it is important to remember that this bill does not create a new trade agreement. The CPTPP already exists. Canada has been a member of it since 2018, along with 10 other major economies in the Indo-Pacific region. What we are doing today is welcoming a new partner into the agreement, a major addition. With the United Kingdom's accession, the CPTPP will go from 11 to 12 economies and will represent close to 600 million consumers, or around 15% of global GDP.

International trade is central to Canada's prosperity. Our nation is a trading nation. About one in five jobs depends on exports, and more than 60% of our gross domestic product is tied to international trade. Every year, Canadian companies export more than $780-billion worth of goods and services around the world. These exports support millions of jobs in every region of the country.

In an ever-changing world, it is essential for Canada to diversify its trading partners. Just look at what is happening south of the border. That is one of the main reasons we need to diversify our markets. It is therefore strategic for our country to open up more markets elsewhere in the world.

The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP is a step in that direction. The United Kingdom is the world's sixth-largest economy, with a GDP of over $3 trillion and a population of nearly 70 million. Bilateral trade between Canada and the United Kingdom already exceeds $40 billion annually. It is our third-largest trading partner. The United Kingdom is also one of the largest investors in Canada, with more than $90 billion in direct investment in our economy. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP will therefore strengthen these economic ties and open up new opportunities for our businesses.

This bill is also strategic for another reason. It positions Canada as an economic hub between Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. Canada is in a unique position given that it is a member of the CPTPP and has a trade agreement with the European Union. We are one of the few countries in the world that has preferential access to markets representing more than 1.5 billion consumers. This creates extraordinary opportunities for Canadian businesses. In my riding in the Lower Laurentians, which includes Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes, many businesses depend directly on international trade.

There is a very large aerospace industry in the Lower Laurentians, as well as a sizable agri-food and food processing industry. We have innovative small and medium-sized businesses, thriving manufacturers and entrepreneurs who export their products all over the world. Trade agreements are not abstract concepts for these businesses. They represent real opportunities for growth. They mean new markets, new partners and new jobs here in Quebec and Canada. Several key sectors of our economy will benefit from this expansion of the CPTPP.

As I mentioned earlier, the aerospace, agri-food, clean technologies, service and innovative industries come to mind. These sectors play a vital role in the Canadian economy. For example, the agri-food industry accounts for $140 billion in economic activity in Canada and employs more than two million Canadians. Aerospace, for its part, accounts for nearly 215,000 highly skilled jobs and contributes more than $28 billion to the Canadian economy. Access to new markets can therefore have a direct and positive impact on these industries.

I want to raise another point. As chair of the Liberal women's caucus, I want to highlight an important dimension of modern trade. International trade needs to be more inclusive. Today, a growing number of women are running businesses in Canada. Women-owned businesses account for 18% of Canadian SMEs and that number continues to grow. However, many entrepreneurs still face barriers when it comes to accessing international markets. Modern trade agreements, like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP, can help create more opportunities for women entrepreneurs by making it easier to access markets and by supporting the growth of SMEs. When women succeed in business, the entire economy benefits.

It is also essential that international trade reflect the values we stand for. The CPTPP includes important provisions on labour rights and environmental protection. These provisions help ensure that economic growth respects high standards and is in line with sustainable development. Trade can be a powerful driver of prosperity, but it must also be fair, responsible and sustainable.

In a global context marked by economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions and rapid changes in supply chains, it is more important than ever for Canada to strengthen its partnerships with countries that share our values. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP sends a clear message. It demonstrates that Canada believes in open international trade based on rules founded on co-operation between reliable partners.

This bill will open new doors for our businesses, support job creation, and strengthen Canada's position in the global economy. Trade agreements are not just legal documents. They are tools for prosperity. When they are well negotiated, as is the case with the CPTPP, they allow Canada to export not only its products, but also its values: high standards for workers, for the environment, and for fair competition.

That is exactly what this bill does today.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech.

There is a very important issue, and we have an opportunity to correct this situation. U.K. citizens who receive a pension and live in Canada do not receive the annual cost-of-living increase. In the U.S. and the U.K., they receive this increase, but not here.

Is there a possibility of adding that to this agreement?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that comes up often at the Standing Committee on International Trade: The pensions of British citizens who live in Canada are not indexed, unlike in the United States. I understand that this is a really important issue for them, but I do not believe this is the right forum to resolve this situation. However, that does not mean that we are not aware of what these people are experiencing. People who receive their pensions from Great Britain must continue to try to resolve this situation.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous speech, my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton referred to an amendment he proposed at a committee that he sits on along with my colleague, the Standing Committee on International Trade. This amendment called for an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures with the U.K. so that Canadian meat exports can enter the U.K. market. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable and extremely important amendment. However, my colleague voted against it.

Can she explain why she voted against that amendment when, I repeat, this proposal seemed entirely reasonable and even very sensible in the context of negotiations?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, reciprocity in health standards is always a delicate issue, and it came up when we negotiated the free trade agreement with Europe.

I must say that the quality of the products we produce here, whether it be poultry, beef or pork, is higher and meets higher standards. It was surprising that there was a problem with England, when we know very well that Japan is accepting our exports, because we have some of the best standards in the world.

We have not been able to really clarify this issue, but there is no doubt that products from here in Canada meet the highest standards in the world.

As a former grocer, I believe in our Canadian products.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can expand on that particular point. One of the reasons we have such a proactive government looking for ways in which we can expand trade opportunities that go beyond the United States' borders is that we have so much diversity and such high standards here in Canada with our exported products. That is something that all of us benefit from, and it is one of the reasons it is so critically important that we continue to do the things we are doing.

Our greatest asset today is the Prime Minister, someone who is recognized around the world as a genuine economist and as understanding how economies work. Trade really matters. It creates jobs. I wonder if the member could comment on how important this is, not just with regard to Ireland and England and how it has been incorporated into this trade agreement, but on the fact that trade is good for Canada.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Indeed, given that we were heavily dependent on our neighbours to the south, the Prime Minister is someone who will make Canada less vulnerable.

We need to open up more markets, actually ensure that we open up other markets. Adding the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, is certainly a good thing. However, we need to do more. We also have the Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which is a growing market, and the Canada-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement. We will be able to participate and exchange products, sell products, with Latin America. We have incredible expertise in aerospace. There are many companies in the Montreal area that are behind this, particularly in my constituency.

There is no such thing as a bad opportunity to make us less vulnerable to our neighbours to the south.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-13, legislation that would implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP.

At its core, this debate is about more than a trade agreement. It is about Canada's place in the world. It is about the kind of economy we are building and the opportunities we create for the people we are here to serve.

Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation. From the very earliest days of our history, Canadians have looked outward, building relationships, forging partnerships and connecting our ideas, our talent and our resources with the world. Trade is not simply a policy choice for Canada. It is woven into the fabric of who we are and how we grow.

In the modern era, Canada has shown extraordinary leadership in building a global network of high-standard trade agreements that open doors for our workers, our farmers, our entrepreneurs and our innovators. The CPTPP is one of the clearest examples of that leadership. When the future of this agreement was uncertain, Canada stepped forward. We worked with partners across the Pacific to preserve the ambition of the agreement and ensure that it remained a modern, high-standard framework for trade in the Indo-Pacific region. Because of that leadership, the CPTPP entered into force in 2018.

Alongside Canada, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership brings together a diverse group of economies across the Pacific and beyond. This agreement includes Australia and New Zealand, two advanced agricultural exporters with strong demand for Canadian resources and technology. It includes Singapore, a global financial and logistics hub that connects Canadian companies to Southeast Asian markets. It includes fast-growing Southeast Asian economies such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei, with their expanding manufacturing and energy sectors, representing rising markets for Canadian exports. In the Americas, our partners include Mexico, Chile and Peru, which are countries with strong mining, agriculture and industrial ties to Canada and growing two-way trade and investment relationships. It also includes Japan, one of Canada's most important trading partners in Asia and a major market for Canadians.

Japan has about 250 large companies here in Canada, and I can tell members that Mississauga, from the leadership of our former mayor Hazel McCallion, attracted over 100 of those companies. We have such a strong relationship with Japan, and through CPTPP, we continue to grow that. It means a world of difference to so many Mississaugans and so many in my community of Mississauga East—Cooksville.

Together, these partners, along with the first new member of CPTPP, the U.K., create a broad network of markets that supports Canadian exporters, strengthens supply chains and expands trade opportunities across multiple regions of the global economy. Put simply, in 2026, this agreement represents one of the most dynamic and forward-looking economic partnerships in the world, and the impact has been real. Since its adoption, trade between Canada and our CPTPP partners has grown significantly.

Canadian exporters, from seafood harvesters to grain farmers, manufacturers and technology companies, are reaching new markets and building new relationships across the Indo-Pacific. That growth represents opportunity for a family-owned manufacturer in a small town that is exporting its products for the first time, opportunity for farmers who are finding new customers halfway around the world, opportunity for Canadian innovators who are competing and winning on the global stage. That is what trade diversification looks like in practice, and it is why our government is pursuing the most ambitious trade diversification agenda in a generation.

Canada will always have a deep and enduring relationship with the United States. It is our closest ally and our largest trading partner. However, in a rapidly changing global economy, Canada must continue to expand its reach and strengthen its ties with partners around the world. That is why we have set an ambitious goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Let us think about what that means. It means more Canadian companies entering global markets. It means more investment in Canadian communities. It means more good-paying jobs for workers across our country. Reaching that goal does not just happen by accident. It will take determination, leadership and a true team Canada effort.

That is where Bill C-13 comes in. Welcoming the United Kingdom into the CPTPP would be a powerful step forward for the partnership and for Canada's trade diversification strategy. The United Kingdom is one of the world's largest economies and one of Canada's closest friends and allies. Our countries share deep historical ties, vibrant people-to-people connections and a common belief in democracy, transparency and the rule of law.

By joining the CPTPP, the United Kingdom would become part of a dynamic economic partnership that stretches across the Indo-Pacific and connects markets representing hundreds of millions of customers. For Canada, this would strengthen a partnership built on high standards, open markets and fair rules. It would create new opportunities for Canadian exporters in advanced manufacturing, financial services and the digital economy. It would strengthen a resilient supply chain among trusted partners and reinforce our trading relationship with a trusted and true Commonwealth partner at a time when those bonds are more important than ever.

Opening doors is just the beginning. The crucial work and next step is to ensure that Canadians walk through those doors. Achieving our goal of doubling non-U.S. exports will require every region in this country to be engaged, every province, territory, riding and community, because the potential to trade with the world does not belong to just one part of Canada. It belongs to all of Canada.

As members of Parliament, we each have a role to play. Yes, we pass the legislation that brings agreements like this into force, and many members on the trade committee have spoken about the legislation. We focus on reviewing the trade bills and completing studies centred on how we can improve Canada's trade ties. However, we can do a lot more than that. We can make sure businesses in our communities know that Canada has one of the most extensive networks of free trade agreements anywhere in the world. We can work hand in hand with our chambers of commerce and boards of trade to promote opportunities.

I do this whenever we have a trade agreement. I bring in all stakeholders to the Mississauga Board of Trade to ensure they understand the agreement and are able to capitalize on it and the opportunities it represents.

We can engage with our universities and colleges, which are nurturing the next generation of entrepreneurs, innovators and global business leaders. We can help connect Canadian businesses, especially small and mid-sized enterprises, with the tools and knowledge they need to succeed in these international markets. When they get that first order, organizations like Export Development Canada, our regional development agencies and more have programs and supports available to make that growth happen, so they can scale up to new heights. That is the team Canada approach.

Canada helped lead the creation of the CPTPP. We helped bring it to life. Today, we have the opportunity to make it that much stronger. By supporting Bill C-13, and welcoming the U.K. into the partnership, we would expand opportunity for Canadians, strengthen our economy and reinforce Canada's leadership in building a more open and prosperous global trading system. Together, with a team Canada approach, we can grow our exports, expand our horizons and build a future of shared prosperity for Canadians in my community, Mississauga and every part of our country. That is a future worth standing up for.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that trade deals are important. Sometimes we do not get the benefit we think we will get because the work in the details is not done to make sure our specifications, if they are different from our trading partners', are harmonized.

I am interested in the agreement that exists. Does the member have information about how much trade has increased since we got the deal and how much we expect to get as we add the U.K. and Northern Ireland to it?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have an ambitious goal to double our non-U.S. trade around the world over the next decade, and this deal is so important to that.

Let me give the member a clear example. I have spoken with the meat stakeholders. They have increased their trade through the CPTPP, from the beginning of the trade deal in 2018 to where we are today, by 122%. That means it was $338 million in 2018 and is now $751 million, just for that particular sector. We need to continue to do that. We need to double and triple that. We need to really double down on our efforts to make sure these agreements lead to diversification.

The member is right. As I said in my speech, it is not just about the agreement but about bringing the agreement to life and being able to get our exporters to open up those new markets.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that parliamentarians each have an important role to play when it comes to international trade agreements. However, Parliament and parliamentarians have a very limited role in examining these treaties. The amendments they propose can only relate to the legislation itself, not to the treaty.

Things are different in the United States and Europe, where parliamentarians have a much greater impact on treaty negotiations. Does my colleague not think that we should modernize and thoroughly review Canada's practices for signing and negotiating international trade agreements?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are leaders in trade negotiations. Other countries look to Canada to see how we provide expertise in our negotiations to get deals that are good for Canada and for Canadians. That is what we do. How we do that is by reaching out to stakeholders right across our country. We also do it here in Parliament and at committee. I sit on the international trade committee. We have stakeholders who come to committee to provide testimony. We take that feedback and are able to incorporate it into making our bills even that much better.

I can tell members that the world looks to Canada when it comes to trade deals. We have done it with CETA, we are doing it with the CPTPP, and we continue to do it with countries right around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there are many regions in Canada and many different countries throughout the world. Diversity is the key.

The member made reference to Mississauga and how successful the community has been with Japan, for example, as well as the United States.

I wonder if the member can pick up on that point, how the uniqueness of Canada's different regions has an appeal to different countries, and talk about why it is so important for the Prime Minister to go to all the different countries in the world to try to increase export opportunities.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to highlight what a great country we have. We touch every sector right across this country, whether it be the softwood lumber in British Columbia, our natural resources, our agriculture industry, the aerospace sector in the prairie provinces or our seafood, and I could go on. In Mississauga, of course, there is a lot of manufacturing that happens in my community.

The breadth of the countries involved with the CPTPP allows for complementary trade, which is a win-win, as we are able to help one another continue to grow our economies, provide good-paying jobs for our communities—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the residents of Calgary Centre to discuss this very important bill to acquiesce to the U.K. and Canada agreeing to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The U.K. is coming into this family of trading partners around the world, and we are, of course, at the lead.

The Conservative Party of Canada, the party of free and fair trade around the world, has upheld that in so many ways. Part of free and fair trade, of course, is fair trade for Canadians. Let us discuss some of that in the House today.

Before I do that, let us talk about what existed before the acquiescence to this new trade agreement with the United Kingdom. After the U.K. split from the European Union, we had the trade continuity agreement with the U.K., which has governed our trade between Canada and the United Kingdom since that point in time.

Now, interestingly, if we go back 10 years, and I know the government always talks about doubling trade with other partners around the world, except the U.S., over the next 10 years, we will note that, in the last 10 years, inflation has gone up 30%. As much as it is a big flag that the Liberals have put on the wall, saying we are going to double our trade with people outside the United States, is that double in Canadian dollars? How much is inflation going to continue to increase so that doubling actually amounts to about the same volume of trade? We are running such high deficits that the Canadian dollar will be worth less as far as the merchandise that trades around the world.

That is an important factor. We can measure these things by deflated dollars, as the government is deflating dollars for all Canadians, and deflated dollars mean less trade at the end of the day. We have to get ahead of what the government actually means, as opposed to just putting a flag up on the wall about doubling trade to non-U.S. partners.

Let us look at the trade we actually perform, trade actually exported from Canada to the U.K. The bulk of it is metals, and the biggest metal that we trade with the United Kingdom is gold. Canada produces a lot of gold and ships it. The U.K. is acquiring that gold. The U.K. is one of the world reserves where countries from around the world store their gold. The United Kingdom banking system has a long history with gold, including things like the gold fix. There were five banks around the world, five individual private banks, that more or less set the price of gold for over a century. Now that is shared somewhat with the United States, but gold is on a roll here.

Gold is at almost $7,000 Canadian today as it trades, because it is in demand around the world. As governments like Canada's current government debase their currencies with larger and larger deficits, precious metals like gold become more valuable. We are exporting that in spades.

Do members know what central bank around the world does not hold gold? It is Canada's central bank. The Bank of Canada holds no gold. It holds a bunch of U.S. dollars. It has increased its U.S. dollar sales by $60 billion already this year. This is not because the U.S. dollar is doing well; it is actually doing poorly compared to most other currencies around the world.

The Bank of Canada is acquiring U.S. dollars because it is manipulating Canada's currency. That is not supposed to be the goal, but I do not know the other goal. I was a former portfolio manager. The bank is buying dollars that are going down. It is buying U.S. dollars as they decline, which means it is failing as far as the value equation goes. There is another objective there, and the rest of the world knows that. The rest of the world is lightening up on the U.S. dollar purchases, and all their currencies are going up as a result. That is an aside.

Let me get back to the trade agreement. One of the things we have in Canada, thinking about a trade agreement, is foreign direct investment. Now, this is an important part, but Canada is so far behind as far as flowing money out. It is a net creditor to the United Kingdom, as far as money that has flown out of Canada towards safer investment jurisdictions around the world. The United Kingdom is one of those jurisdictions where Canadian dollars continue to find better prospects for investments around the world than they do in Canada. That is a fault of the government's policies.

There are no good returns here. Everything the government participates in means it has to backstop it in order for somebody to put a buck in in Canada. It is a government that has to have friends in order to get investment into the country because the rules do not matter anymore with the government's manner of running the Canadian economy. The regulatory system here is more burdensome and more expensive now than the actual cost of the capital projects to invest in Canada. That has to change, and we know that.

Getting back to the U.K., if I may, we are acquiescing to the United Kingdom coming here. It is a change from the trade continuity agreement to this new agreement, which we have with several other countries around the world, a comprehensive progressive agreement on trans-Pacific partnerships. That is important, but there were also negotiations. I do not know who does the government's negotiations. The government keeps bragging about the great Prime Minister and how he has great relationships with the United Kingdom, but what did we get from that trade negotiation?

I ask because there are a whole bunch of holes here that should have been filled and a bunch of industries across Canada asking why we do not have free and fair trade with the United Kingdom in certain key industries. One of those, of course, is in Alberta, where I am from, and that is the cattle industry.

The cattle industry has asked continuously for the cancellation of the trade continuity agreement because it puts Canadian cattle producers at a disadvantage to U.K. cattle producers. For relevance, as far as the size of the cattle industry goes, Canada has a cattle herd of about 11 and a half million cattle and the U.K. has a cattle herd of about nine and a half million cattle, yet the U.K. exports cattle to Canada. Does that make sense? Canada's population is much lower than the U.K. population. We have about 40 million people in Canada, compared to about 65 million in the U.K, yet the U.K. is exporting parts of a smaller cattle herd for our consumption in Canada, and the U.K. does not trade with Canadian cattle. Is something wrong with Canadian cattle? There is nothing wrong scientifically. We trade cattle with every other country in the CPTPP, so this something that should have been negotiated as part of the CPTPP agreement with the U.K.

I will also give some statistics as to pork. Canada's pork herd, at any one point in time, is about 13.9 million head. The U.K. has about 4.7 million head, yet it does not accept Canadian pork. Is the U.K. going to tell Japan, Korea, China and every other jurisdiction that Canada trades with, about the quality of Canadian pork and why it is not good enough for U.K. consumers? It is not good enough because there is a protective measure in place. The United Kingdom has to protect their industry at the expense of free and fair trading nations around the world, which we think includes Canada.

This is one of the opportunities that the government has missed. I do not know what their negotiators got in return for leaving that off, but one of the other issues that my constituents have repetitively told me about is pensions. There are a number of U.K. citizens in Canada, and 100,000 U.K. citizens draw pensions from the U.K. For some reason, pensioners in Canada do not get their cost of living adjustments, like they do in most other countries around the world. It is prejudicial to Canadians who got their pension from the U.K. and then moved to Canada. United Kingdom pensioners are not treated the same way in the United States. Why not? It is because Canada seems to have weaker negotiators.

I am going to ask the government about this again. I hear members pumping the tires of the Prime Minister, saying he is such a great negotiator and the man of the hour. Well, this seemed like a pretty easy asset to get over the line here, and he did not even accomplish that.

This is about fairness for these pensioners. They have earned this after spending their entire working lives in the United Kingdom. They then emigrate to Canada, and they do not get to collect the cost of living increases that every one of their compatriots around the world, as well as those in the U.K., get as a result. This is a shame and something that the government clearly missed. It did not even put it on the horizon, yet I and many of my colleagues have written to the government to ask it to please include that and make sure the Government of the United Kingdom pays attention to this because it matters to our constituents.

There are a bunch of other issues, but I am going to talk about something else here. I ask members to think about the United Kingdom's trade in energy products. I can tell members right now that, in 2024, the U.K. imported $19.5 billion of foreign oil from all kinds of countries, mostly Norway and the United States, all the way across the Atlantic to the United States. How much did it import from Canada? That is a big fat zero. Way to go. That is great negotiation and great availability of our product to our partners around the world. It is likewise with natural gas. The U.K. imported 39 billion dollars' worth of natural gas last year. How much of that was from Canada? It is another big fat zero because we have not been prepared. We have not done anything for our resource development for the last 10 years.

I should say that I am splitting my time today with a good friend of mine, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Manning. On that, I will yield the floor, with thanks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to a 20-minute speech. At the end of the day, I find that the member is somewhat misguided. When we think of foreign investment, outside of the United States, can the member give an indication of what other country has derived more foreign investment per capita?

I think the member would be very challenged to find that, and I think he is a bit premature. The Prime Minister has been in the Prime Minister's chair for a year. We can take a look at the results we have achieved within that year, with literally billions and billions of additional investments coming into Canada, including major projects and record amounts of LNG being exported out of Canada. There are all sorts of things that are actually good news.

I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the good news.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is exactly right. It is good news that we are finally exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada. It took way too long, and there is one plant. One plant is exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada, when we should have a significant amount more. There are now 12 coming from the United States, and this is in the same time period it took for us to get one up and running in Canada. That is a shame, and it is a failure of government, at the end of the day.

Let me give my colleague some facts. Canada's net trade position, net current balance with the European Union, which concludes in the numbers, unfortunately, that the U.K. is about a half-trillion-dollar creditor, where Canadian investment goes over to the U.K. That is a net number, with half a trillion more in Canadian money being invested in the European Union and U.K. than there is coming back from that jurisdiction into Canada. This is something that has to turn around, and that is because of the bad economic policies of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.