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

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member of Parliament mentioned all of the foreign investment, but if we go back and look, every dollar of foreign investment is paired with the taxpayer dollars of investment. If we go back to the Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper days, companies would invest their own dollars, with no government money.

I wonder if the member of Parliament would talk about the value of that, where a business will just come here to make an investment because it makes business sense to make an investment.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been lost over the last 10 years in the government's approach to the economy is the rule of law and respect for the rule of law. That is contract law as well. Members can think about how many companies are not investing in Canada.

The government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, yet every company that would put that infrastructure into place has said, “Not a chance.” There is no chance that this has any clarity as far as investment in Canada goes. The government has even said that we cannot put government money into these projects anymore.

Therefore, there is a stalemate as far as getting our major projects built in Canada. It would require government money. It would require somebody knowing government and having a friend in government to get some taxpayer money to fund a project in Canada, because the rule of law is gone. The rule of contract law is gone. Companies do not want to invest in something because there is no certainty about the outcome in this country anymore, thanks to the policies of the government.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to what my colleague from Huron—Bruce said. He referred to the time when we had a Conservative government here, the Harper government. During that period of time, we signed 38 free trade agreements, alongside numerous foreign investment promotion and protection agreements. We know what that was worth and what the value was.

My question for the member is simply this: Has he seen a number from the government, from the Prime Minister, for what the quantifiable number is or what the impact of these trade agreements he has embarked upon in relation to what the overall trade is with the United States?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very quantitative question. I really appreciate it because the net effect of what the Prime Minister has done, going around the world at this time, has been his signing paper that means nothing. How do we get resources somewhere else when we do not have the ability to deliver those resources? Therefore, going there and signing a co-operation agreement with XYZ company results in zero effective trade with that country for the next Lord knows how many years, but we are all co-operating. Signing paper is easy. The government is one of announceology and of delivering absolutely zero for the taxpayers of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the legislation before us: Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is a long name, but the acronym is the CPTPP.

Before I begin my speech, I want to make a small acknowledgement of a big win in my community. The Keremeos' Similkameen Sparks basketball team proved themselves to be the B.C. champions last weekend, among all schools province-wide. Our whole community is very proud of these amazing young athletes.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

Bill C-13 comes before the House at a time of concern about global tensions in our trading relationships. Let us be clear that Canada is and always will remain a great trading nation. Trade is the foundation of every strong economy in history, and trade with the United Kingdom is a long and deep part of Canadian history.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about this just recently when speaking to British audiences about the potential to strengthen our relationship as allies. That does not mean that we, as a nation, should ever roll over for any agreement. Ultimately, we want to ensure that free trade is reciprocal. That is to say that it is fair. If we are going to give access to Canadian markets, then we need to see access to the other nation's markets in return.

Free trade and fair trade are not in conflict. They are in partnership, or they should be. Bill C-13 should have been a moment for Canada to show strength and strategic thinking on the world stage amid turmoil. Instead, it is another example of a government that consistently leaves Canadians with less than they deserve.

Let us be clear: The United Kingdom joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is not the issue. The problem is how little the government managed to secure for Canadians during those negotiations. When a country like the United Kingdom wants to join a major trade pact with Canada, that is leverage. That is leverage to get more of our products to market and to bring more products that we cannot produce in Canada to Canadians. This point of negotiation is when responsible governments push hard for their own workers, exporters and seniors. However, once again, the Liberals have negotiated a win for someone on the other side of the table when there was much room to secure one for us.

For the last decade, the government has acted as though it is unbothered by the severe trade imbalances with the U.K. British beef enters Canada duty-free and without limits. According to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 28.3 million dollars' worth of beef and 3.6 million dollars' worth of pork to Canada in the first half of 2025 alone. Meanwhile, Canada's beef and pork are forced into tight quotas and face trade barriers. Canada exported only 122,000 dollars' worth of pork and no beef in 2025.

The U.K. still refuses to accept Canada's meat hygiene system, even though it is internationally recognized and it has provided no scientific evidence against it. This was a perfect moment to fix that. The U.K. wanted CPTPP membership. Canada could have insisted on fair treatment for our beef and pork exporters. Instead, nothing changed. The same barriers remain. The same inequities remain. Why did the government not secure real improvements for Canadian producers? It had the leverage, it had the time and it had the opportunity. What the government did not have was the political will to fight for all Canadian interests.

I would also like to mention the thousands of U.K. pensioners living in Canada, including many in British Columbia, whose pensions remain frozen with no cost-of-living increases, no indexing and no adjustments whatsoever.

These are not all permanent residents. Many became the best thing a person can be: They became Canadian. Still, these seniors paid into the system. They worked in the U.K. They built lives in British Columbia and across Canada, yet they are treated unfairly compared to pensioners who seek benefits from other countries. This, too, could have been addressed at the table while the U.K. sought to join the CPTPP. Instead, there was silence, another missed opportunity. Given the Prime Minister's frequent boasting of a close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister and with the United Kingdom as a whole, one would think that he would have talked about this.

The Liberal government might have used this opportunity to advocate on behalf of our agricultural producers or the 100,000 U.K. pensioners during this cost of living and inflation crisis. This is a negotiating pattern with the government. The Liberals have a talent for walking into major trade discussions and walking out empty-handed. Whether it is softwood lumber, steel or aluminum, the result is always the same. Canada gives but gets very little back.

Softwood lumber is key in my riding, as many members know. Hundreds of jobs have already been lost in my riding during these tumultuous times. This is the opposite of negotiation. We are supposed to give something to get something. Families who rely on lumber jobs in my region have now seen an entire year of the Liberal Prime Minister's travels. He has travelled frequently to the United States and around the globe, promising deals but still not delivering for lumber.

Time is not on our side in the lumber sector. At a time of unrelenting attacks from the Trump administration on our softwood lumber industry through unjustified tariffs, sawmills are closing and communities are losing hope. The Liberal government offers a minuscule increase in domestic production and offers loans that will only be added to increasingly indebted lumber mills, which is why many are choosing to close instead. European lumber suppliers are trying to fill the gap in the U.S. market left by these tariffs. Potential Asian markets cannot cover this hole in the balance sheet for Canadian suppliers. A U.K. market would not fill this either.

Canada's lumber industry has the supply, talent and drive to thrive for decades, but only if these communities can stay together. I implore the Prime Minister and his government to work with forest communities, and with the MPs who represent them across all parties, to make an all-hands-on-deck effort in Washington, D.C., to end the decade-long absence of a softwood lumber agreement that has now lasted four separate presidential administrations, all on the Liberals' watch. We know this is possible. The Harper government secured a deal in only a few weeks. Families in my riding, in the Similkameen, Boundary and the Kootenays, cannot wait any longer.

Is what the House is looking for in any trade agreement not ultimately Canadian-specific gains? Where is the progress on the issues that matter to our exporters? Where is evidence that the government used this moment to deliver wins for Canadians?

This could have been the moment the government stood firmly for Canadian farmers and demanded the U.K. finally dismantle the non-tariff SPS barriers that block our products. It could have been the moment it stood up for seniors whose pensions have been frozen for decades. It could have been the moment Canada reminded the world that our market access is valuable and not something that is handed out for free.

Instead, we are left with a bill that updates legislation, cleans up tariff schedules and confirms access the U.K. would have received anyway, all without resolving the issues that matter most. It is very disappointing.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the debates on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, in 2018, the Conservative member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière said, “We will obviously work with the government to adopt the CPTPP as quickly as possible, because it is important to our industry and to farmers.” During debate on the original version of this agreement, the Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of it.

Today, we welcome the United Kingdom as our first new member. This is good news. Does the member agree that adding a G7 partner will strengthen this trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we need to continue creating further trade partners, and that is a good thing.

What I mentioned in my speech was that there were things we could have brought to the table that were not brought, which is going to affect many people across this country, including in my riding. One that I spoke about was the softwood lumber and lumber industry. Another was the beef industry, the cattle industry, which affects my riding. What I think we are trying to say is that this could have been a moment in time when we could have really strengthened our trade negotiations, but unfortunately, that did not happen.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that we are talking about global trade and access to other markets apart from the United States. This is obviously a very positive thing. I think all Canadians understand that we need to diversify our trade. However, not all trade is equal, and not all trade can simply be replaced. I think that is true of forestry. The American market is very vital to our forest industry. I know in northern Ontario, many workers are now without work. They are looking for jobs, struggling to get by and unsure of when the next paycheque is going to come because of the inaction of the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister promised he would get a trade deal with the United States by last year, and of course that has not happened. There is a difference between the rhetoric coming from the Liberal Prime Minister and the reality that forestry workers are facing in northern Ontario and British Columbia. I wonder if the member has any other comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very detailed question and explanation of the situation we are in right now across the country.

It seems as if, with all the travels around the world, the Prime Minister has forgotten that there are whole towns all across this country that are shutting their doors. That is what happens in the lumber and forestry industry because the industry encompasses the entire town. We are not talking about one or two retail stores closing. We are talking about small towns across this country. That needs to be remembered, and we need to have sympathy for these towns, which have survived, many of them, for 100 years or more.

When we are at the negotiating table with any new partner, I ask the government to please bring up softwood lumber.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government is doing a lot of the work externally. The Prime Minister is seeking to build market access and trading relationships around the world.

Is there a country that Canada is seeking to deepen its relationship with and the member opposite disagrees with the direction of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we should be negotiating with countries around the world that have the same moral compass as Canada.

I will give the example of my riding. Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has one of the longest borders with the United States in the country. I think the member is asking if we should be looking elsewhere. We should, but at the same time, we need to keep this relationship with the United States. Ridings like mine, where we have six border crossings, depend on trade with the United States, so we need to keep our trade and we need to keep negotiating with Washington, D.C. during these turbulent times.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kings—Hants.

I am speaking today at the third reading of Bill C-13, which aims to implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.

Before I start talking about international trade, I would like to say a few words about my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, because the decisions made here in Ottawa have a very real impact on our community. My riding occupies a strategic position in the Quebec City region and for Canada. It is located at the junction of several major transportation routes that connect the national capital to all of eastern Quebec and then extend to Europe. Every day, goods pass through our region on their way to the north shore, Sept-Îles, Fermont, all the way to Labrador. Trucks take Highway 40, then Route 138 and continue along the St. Lawrence River to supply the industrial and mining regions of eastern Canada. In concrete terms, this means that our region is part of a bustling economic corridor.

In Beauport, for example, proximity to these highways means that many service companies have been set up. Beauport is home to hotels, restaurants and transportation and logistics companies that, every week, do business with workers from all over: truck drivers, engineers, entrepreneurs and workers in the mining, forestry and even energy sectors. A truck transporting industrial parts to the mines on the north shore can very easily stop overnight in Beauport. A contractor coming to supervise a work site in Sept‑Îles can go through Quebec City to meet with partners. That is the economic reality in my riding.

Limoilou is even more of a hub due to its proximity to the Port of Québec. It is home to companies that deal with handling, warehousing, marine logistics and intermodal transportation. When shipments come in by ship or by train, whether containing minerals, forestry products or even wheat for European markets, they go through this network of companies and workers. These are real jobs for people in my riding.

This reality is a reminder of something important: International trade is a necessary step for every nation that wants to prosper, and sometimes for those just trying to survive.

Across the country, the economy is built on a network of local businesses, such as small family businesses that often go back generations, and firms in construction, transportation, manufacturing, professional services or processing. Some sell only locally, while many have the potential to sell elsewhere. For example, take Quebec's softwood lumber producers, aluminum companies in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, agri-food businesses that export pork, maple syrup or processed foods, and Canadian technology companies that are developing digital and industrial solutions. When these businesses find new markets, they grow, and when they grow, they hire.

We are currently in an international environment marked by a great deal of uncertainty. Geopolitical tensions are on the rise, and supply chains are changing, as are global trade rules. This means that Canada must act strategically. Allow me to make a simple comparison that I am particularly fond of and that I used in my last speech. Sometimes, international economic relations are a lot like chess. Chess players never think only about the next move; they think three, four or even five moves ahead. Each move is meant to strengthen their position, and every piece that is played opens up a new opportunity. Most of all, good players avoid relying on a single strategy. They come up with a variety of options instead.

For a country like Canada, trade diversification works exactly the same way. We cannot depend on one market. We need to have many partners, many avenues and many possibilities, because in an uncertain world, having options becomes a strategic force.

That is exactly what the expansion of the CPTPP represents. Since the agreement came into effect, trade between Canada and its partner countries has grown significantly. Why? It is because free-trade agreements create enough predictability that companies can invest while mitigating their risk.

Companies that want to invest large sums of money to retrofit a plant, carry out research and development or ship their merchandise over long distances need the support of banks for their financing. Having been a banker for close to 20 years, I know that the first aspect bankers examine, one of the most important factors they consider before investing, is the viability of a business. The predictability provided by this type of agreement reassures both businesses and banks in terms of investment. These agreements lower tariffs, eliminate a lot of red tape and allow businesses to invest while knowing exactly what the rules are.

Here is a real-life example. When a Canadian agri-food producer wants to sell their products in other countries, tariffs can be as high as 20%, 30% or more. Trade agreements can do away with those barriers, instantly making that Canadian business more competitive. That can be the difference between winning and losing a contract. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP strengthens that dynamic. The U.K. is one of the largest economies in the world with some 70 million consumers. It is also a partner that shares many of our economic values: the rule of law, trade transparency and predictable rules.

To apply the chess analogy, bringing the U.K. into the agreement strengthens our position on the global chessboard. It expands the economic space in which Canadian businesses can grow, and it opens new doors to our exporters. We have learned an important lesson in the last few years. Depending too heavily on a limited number of markets can make an economy vulnerable. When trade tensions arise, the fallout can be swift. That is why trade diversification is essential. It reduces risk, opens up new markets and creates new opportunities for Canadian businesses.

Now, at third reading stage, our responsibility is simple: We have to ask ourselves whether this bill contributes to Canadians' prosperity. The people of Beauport—Limoilou, like people in the rest of the country, are calling on us to act, protect and build. They want stable jobs, competitive businesses and a future filled with opportunities for their children. If our trade agreements allow our businesses to innovate, export and grow right here in Canada, then they are fulfilling their role correctly. However, this openness must always be paired with vigilance. We have to pay careful attention to sector-specific impacts, protect sensitive sectors and actively support and stand by our businesses so they that can take full advantage of these new opportunities.

The CPTPP expansion is more than a technical measure. It is a strategic decision to choose openness in an uncertain world, to choose diversification over dependency, and more than anything, to choose to create meaningful benefits for the workers, business people and communities that we represent. Like in chess, what counts is not just the next move; it is the position we are setting up for the years to come.

Today, this bill gives us the opportunity to strengthen Canada's position on the global trade chessboard. That is why I urge all members of the House to support Bill C‑13, which seeks to implement the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership for a more diverse, resilient and prosperous economy. In the great global economic game that is now under way, Canada is not merely defending its position, it is playing to win.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Haldimand—Norfolk, beef farming is a way of life and a significant contributor to our local economy. Beef farming in my riding has produced world-class Canadian beef, and beef farmers deserve access to global markets. Can the government explain to the farmers in Haldimand—Norfolk and throughout Canada why their world-class beef still cannot access the U.K. markets like it could before?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the CPTPP market is an incredible market for consumers.

Between 2018 and 2024, beef alone saw an increase from $338 million to $750 million. This is a market that is evolving and moving quickly. There is potential to diversify markets for all sectors.

We are zeroing in on a single sector, but if we consider all Canadian sectors, which is our role here, it is an incredible market. About 70 million additional consumers will be entering the CPTPP. This is good news for Canada and especially for market diversification, which is so important.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-13 has sparked another debate regarding the impact that parliamentarians from all parties, and in Parliament as a whole, have on the international trade agreements signed by Canada. As we know, the role of parliamentarians in that regard is pretty limited at this time. Amendments may be moved only with respect to the bill. They cannot affect the agreement itself. This is different than in the United States, where Congress assigns negotiating mandates. In some European countries, it is the parliaments themselves that adopt the agreements.

We agree with Bill C-13. Does my colleague agree that we should still modernize Canada's practices when it comes to international trade agreements? Is this not an opportunity to completely overhaul these Canadian practices in order to give parliamentarians and Parliament greater influence when it comes time to negotiate such agreements?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which I really appreciate. I am not sure I fully understood the question. I think it contained quite a few elements and was very complex.

Today we are talking about Canada and the United Kingdom, two reliable partners. The word “reliable” has come up a lot in recent months and years. It is important for our companies to do business with reliable partners. That makes a big difference. I talked about predictability earlier. That is a huge issue for our businesses these days. Look at wheat. Farmers have to plant it. They have to rotate their crops and plan what they are going to plant or not plant. That is why they need to know what is going to happen and what they will be able to sell six months down the line.

By bringing reliable countries like the United Kingdom into agreements like the one we are debating today, we increase predictability for the Canadian market.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which I support.

I would like to know this: In his opinion, what kind of growth potential does the CPTPP hold for our Canadian companies?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard.

We are talking about a market that is 99% tariff-free. When we talk about tariffs, people know exactly what we are talking about. The potential is enormous. Take, for example, Japan, one of the member countries. In 2023, we saw 60% growth in this market. In Vietnam, over the same period, growth was 110%.

These are growing markets with nearly 600 million consumers in the CPTPP zone. For our Canadian companies, having agreements and adding countries to them helps diversify markets. As a government, we are helping these companies do business over there and guiding them to these markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-13, that seeks to enable the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a partnership with 11 other countries. I will try to deliver my speech entirely in French. Some of it may be interspersed with English, but we will see.

I have family ties with the United Kingdom. My wife has Scottish heritage. I also have family ties with the United Kingdom on both sides of my family, specifically with communities in Scotland. I also chair the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association. Our parliamentary group includes Conservative and Bloc Québécois members as well as senators. Last week, we had the opportunity to attend a meeting with our British counterparts. We held talks with Prime Minister Starmer and with First Minister Swinney, the head of the Scottish government. The issue we are discussing today is connected to my work, my family ties and my community. Obviously, many people in Kings—Hants trace their heritage to the United Kingdom and Great Britain, which means we have very strong ties with these communities.

First, I would like to point out that the Canada-United Kingdom partnership is absolutely amazing. We have the same King and the same parliamentary tradition. Canada's Parliament is directly modelled on the Westminster system, in London. We also have family ties that bind us together. We fought side by side during the First and Second World Wars. We defended and supported Great Britain during these wars and, of course, we continue to work together through NATO. We have military partnerships with a number of countries, but also with the United Kingdom. Lastly, I believe that Canada and the United Kingdom share the same values.

This bill is fairly straightforward, and I believe that it has cross-partisan support in the House of Commons. At the very least, I believe that the two major parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, are going to move this bill forward because, overall, it is not complicated and it does not raise any major issues.

It is worth noting that 97% of the free trade in products, goods and services between Canada and the United Kingdom is tariff-free. That said, there are some relatively minor issues, which I would also like to point out. I think it is important for all parliamentarians to reflect on how to advance our other partnerships. I believe we have the opportunity to advance our partnerships, including in defence and procurement. For instance, I represent the riding of Kings—Hants in Nova Scotia. Halifax has shipyards where military vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy of the future are being built. We also have BAE Systems, which is managed with the United Kingdom.

There are many examples of our military procurement industry sending goods to the United Kingdom. Their system is the same. The governments in London and Ottawa now both want to increase their defence spending, and we have an opportunity to expand this partnership. I am also thinking about tourism. Nova Scotia has the largest Gaelic-speaking population outside of Scotland. Perhaps this could attract people who speak Gaelic or who have family ties here, for example.

I will now turn to some of the things that make the relationship difficult. We had conversations with our counterparts last week about rules of origin for the automotive sector. Many of the parts used to manufacture vehicles in the U.K. come from the European market, and the British are frustrated with the most favoured nation principle, which requires them to pay 6.1% tariffs to import auto parts from Canada.

However, as my colleague mentioned, we are somewhat frustrated by the lack of access to the beef and pork sectors. We are frustrated because of technical specifications, particularly when it comes to carcass washes, and the fact that our standards do not meet theirs. I understand why the government has raised these issues with regard to access for our farmers and why it wants to continue to raise them. However, I would like to add that, thanks to the work my hon. colleague has done with China, India and other countries, particularly with regard to beef producers, our farmers now have many opportunities.

In the time I have remaining, I want to highlight British pensioners and a little around the specifications in Europe. There are about 100,000 British pensioners in Canada. Their pensions have not been indexed, and this is a point of consternation in our bilateral relationship. British pensioners can go to the United States and have a fully indexed pension, but if they go to 50 of the 56 Commonwealth countries, their pensions are not indexed. There are differing amounts given for what the cost of this would be to the British Treasury, but as the chair of the delegation, I want British pensioners in Canada to know that this is something that was raised.

This is something we continue to press the U.K. government on. We understand there are challenges around their Treasury, but we think it ought to be something that all Canadian parliamentarians would support. We index Canadians on their social benefits and their pensions in the United Kingdom, and we think there should be reciprocity. I want colleagues in the House to know that is the position of the government, and it is something that our former minister of trade and our current Minister of International Trade have raised. It is a bit of an inflection point that we are hoping we can see some resolution on. It is something the government is raising.

Mr. Speaker, you come from a constituency that has a lot of agriculture, dairy, I believe, in Perth—Wellington. I want to raise the European Union regulations around SPS. This is something that the U.K. is in negotiations on right now with Europe. We ought to keep a close eye on those conversations, because Europe is increasingly narrowing the list of products that are available on critical farm inputs. We will continue as a government to make sure that we are raising that with the European Union, but as it relates to the facilitation of trade, particularly in agriculture and agri-food, that is some work that we can continue to do. We have great market access around the world, but this is the next stage.

This bill is not controversial. We should move it forward. The United Kingdom is a great partner, but there are some small, specific areas that we need to continue to focus on in the days ahead. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was a great speech, even though I had to listen to the translation for half of it.

I was surprised that the washing of the carcasses is still an issue in our trade agreement. I remember that before I was a parliamentarian here in 2019, that was a hot topic and basically a non-tariff barrier, so I am quite fascinated as to why it has not been resolved yet. I do not know what the Liberal government was doing all these years about trying to get that fixed.

Also, with respect to pensioners, I am surprised. We are talking about a trade agreement, but meanwhile we are asking the British government to increase taxes on people so they can pay pensioners over here more money. Is there an identical ask from the British government of our Canadian government in this trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding British pensioners, Canada actually indexed Canadians who are living in the United Kingdom with our requisite social safety and our pensions, so we are not unnecessarily having impacts. It is British pensioners in Canada who are not being indexed. There is, of course, a cost to government in the sense that, if this is something that is not addressed, it could be coming out of our treasury to disproportionately pay. It may be a relatively small amount. I assure the hon. member that this is something that is being raised. This is not a matter of political will to raise the issue and to drive it forward. This is a real sticking point. I raise it on the floor of the House of Commons here to be reasonable about what I see as a pathway that we need to continue to work forward.

Regarding the beef and carcass wash, again, on a technical basis, I would agree with the hon. member. There is no scientific basis for why that should not be accepted. We are pressing, but this is part of the political reality that we have to keep an eye on, including with the European Union.

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

Mr. Speaker, recently, a Liberal colleague said that Canada was looking for reliable economic partners and that the United Kingdom was a reliable partner. I support that statement.

That said, in January, the Prime Minister shook hands with Xi Jinping when he signed a trade agreement with China. I would simply like to know whether my colleague considers the regime in Beijing to be a reliable partner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is now important for Canada to have conversations around the world, particularly with governments whose systems and values may differ from ours when it comes to society in general. However, it is now very important to have very strong partners, and China is the world's second-largest economy and largest consumer market. It is important for Quebec exports, for connecting Quebec jobs and for access to markets in general.

Also, when we have disagreements, it is important to be at the table and to have this discussion with leaders. It has been nine years since the last meeting between the previous prime minister and the president—