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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the cattle producers in the farm-filled riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-13, an act to bring the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership.

Canadians who were watching TV in the 1980s may remember a popular Wendy's commercial that asked a simple question, “Where's the beef?” It was such an effective commercial that the slogan became a cultural catchphrase for a lack of substance. For beef producers in my riding and across the country who look at this bill, the question, “Where's the beef?” is quite literal.

For over a decade now, the Liberal government has failed to reach a deal with the United Kingdom to end the unfair treatment of Canadian beef. This bill is our leverage to end the U.K.'s non-tariff barriers on our beef. Currently, the U.K. does not approve of a carcass wash applied at Canadian processing plants. The U.K. also opposes growth promotants in beef or pork production. These objections are not rooted in scientific evidence. They have evolved to keep Canadian products out of the U.K. market.

The results are clear. In 2024, the U.K. exported over $42 million to the Canadian market. That same year, we exported $25,000 in beef to the U.K. That is not free trade. That is not fair trade. This is another Liberal failure.

In the last 360 days, our anglophile Prime Minister has met with the U.K. Prime Minister at least four times. That is not even including their late-night phone calls sharing the latest London gossip. Since the U.K. left the European Union, its five successive prime ministers have been desperately searching for new trade partners. Of all the people we would expect to understand the leverage Canada has over the U.K., we would think it would be the U.K.'s former central banker, yet despite these four meetings and another planned for this weekend, there has been no deal reached to end this unfair treatment.

Maybe all those years living in the U.K. have given our Prime Minister a preference for furry Scottish beef. We can only speculate. After all, it was the Prime Minister who sold himself to Canadians as the ultimate insider, with his central banker superpowers of negotiation, yet despite holding all the cards, he keeps folding. His 24 foreign trips as Prime Minister have been a capitulation carnival. Only one new trade deal has been reached, but do not worry, Canada, we have six new strategic partnerships.

On the Prime Minister's fourth international junket, he signed a new strategic partnership with the European Union. On his sixth trip, he signed a strategic partnership agreement with Poland, which, last we checked, is in fact part of that European Union. On his ninth trip, he signed a strategic partnership with Mexico, Mexico of course being a country that we have two trade deals with, both CUSMA and the trans-Pacific partnership. On his 21st trip, he infamously formed a strategic partnership with the Communists who control China. He even promised this partnership would lead us to a brave new world order. Just this month, he signed a new strategic partnership with Japan.

Unfortunately for my grandsons, there was no promise of a Super Mario World order in that agreement. That we could have a strategic partnership with both China and Japan or with the EU and an EU member is telling. Canadians are right to ask, “Where's the beef?” These fake agreements are all bun and no patty.

The term “strategic partnership” is a major victory for the consultant class. It sounds meaningful, but it signifies nothing. It is the empty suit of international agreements. It is the perfect metaphor for the Prime Minister: all hat and no cattle.

Aside from this bill being a painful reminder of the government's failure to support farmers, it opens another window into the government's latest gaslighting of Canadians. The cynicism of the Liberal Party can be quite shocking at times. It picked a self-professed globalist for its new leader but then ran on an overtly protectionist and national campaign platform while denouncing the protectionist national U.S. President. To much fanfare and fawning headlines, the Liberals announced they were implementing a new buy Canadian policy. Here is what the Prime Minister said during the announcement of this cynical policy: “Canada's public procurement is following outdated rules of free trade order that no longer exists.”

This is another example of how the Prime Minister's soaring rhetoric puts him over his skis. How can he claim that free trade order no longer exists while tabling a bill to expand the free trade order? The bill would bring the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement, but one of the major provisions of this deal is that we cannot have procurement policies that discriminate against companies from partner countries. The Prime Minister knows this very well, yet he is willing to bet that the bought-and-paid-for media will never call him out on this. This is a profound mistake.

What is worse is that the mistake has been made before. The Davos classes learned nothing from the nationalist backlash to globalization. All too often, cynical politicians have used trade agreements as political cover instead of doing the hard work of defending the principle of free trade. The benefits of globalization have not been fairly shared. Those enriched by globalization have used their wealth and privilege to enact policies that make the situation worse. They erect new gates and hire tens of thousands of new gatekeepers to protect the value of their assets. They outsource compassion and charity to the state, freeing up their time to earn more money while workers lose time stuck in traffic, commuting from affordable exurbs such as Arnprior.

It used to be that a single blue-collar worker could provide enough income to own a home and raise a family. Now every family needs two incomes just to cover the Liberal tax bill.

Many of the hard-working Canadians in my riding and in ridings just like it are proud Canadians who will hear the Prime Minister's promise of buy Canadian and believe it. They will believe it right up until the minute they learn that the company they work for was underbid for a government contract by a company in the United Kingdom. That does not just make them lose faith in Liberal politicians. It makes them lose faith in democracy.

The Prime Minister chose a cynical approach because he is a coward. He could not find the courage to defend his beloved consumer carbon tax. He hides behind buy Canadian slogans while signing strategic partnerships to buy communist. He builds his majority coalition of cowards—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in regard to parliamentary language. I do not think that associating the word “coward” with the Prime Minister is appropriate.

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

I agree. It does cause disruption.

I would like the hon. member to please withdraw the comment.

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

Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that and try to think of another word. He builds his majority coalition, which is too afraid to face its constituents.

I withdrew.

There is an alternative approach. Instead of selling cynical policies, we can provide hope. I encourage Canadians to watch the Conservative leader's recent speech in London. They will see a politician who is not afraid to defend his beliefs in free trade and free markets, a leader who reaches for optimism, not cynicism, a leader who will give it to us straight.

The Prime Minister said he would explore the variable geometry of our alliances. We saw how he tried to square that one in Iran. He then tried to triangulate with the anti-American elements in caucus. All that Canadians saw was him going around in circles. The Prime Minister would rather twist himself into a pretzel than give a straight answer. With each flip and each flop, he strains his credibility, not just with Canadians but with foreign leaders, allies and enemies alike.

As he departs on his 27th foreign trip, he leaves behind a worsening economy and a deteriorating balance sheet. Meanwhile, the economic carnage adds up. Tens of thousands of public servants are laid off so he can give billions in corporate welfare to Brookfield. Lumber and steel mills continue to shutter. Our auto industry is out of gas. In a few weeks, he will hike taxes on carbon and alcohol. Our economy is shrinking while he is off to secure his next meaningless strategic partnership. His failure to secure a deal for our cattle producers is a warning that every Canadian should heed. His time is running out. With every backroom deal he makes and with every Italian holiday he takes, Canadians are watching him. A day will come when his polling numbers start to falter and Canadians will ask, where is the beef?

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

Madam Speaker, there were many fundamental flaws, I would suggest, in the member opposite's speech. She seems to take great exception to the fact that we have a Prime Minister who understands the economy and the benefits of trade and building relationships beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Understanding that has led to literally billions of dollars of investment coming into Canada.

We have also seen export opportunities created and enhanced, meaning jobs and a stronger Canadian economy. That is the reality. Whether Conservative members want to acknowledge that reality or not, quite frankly, from my perspective, does not really matter, because Canadians understand it and see the benefits of having a proactive prime minister who is going out and bringing jobs in.

Can the member provide her thoughts on whether or not her leader's travels are something she supports?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the question, although I am very disappointed in the member across the way, and he knows why. However, he can make it up to me by taking me to lunch at Odi's Kingburger in Renfrew, where we do not have to ask, “Where's the beef?”, like we do in Bill C-13.

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

Madam Speaker, in a previous question, I mentioned to my Liberal colleague that when it comes time for Canada to sign international trade agreements, there is a serious democratic deficit because Parliament does not really have a say in the matter, unlike the United States, for example, and other industrialized countries.

Does my colleague not think that there should be a comprehensive review of how this government and this Parliament conclude international treaties?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's sentiment. I do not think the Liberal government can do that. We will have to wait until we have a strong majority Conservative government to get that done.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment for the hon. member, and I am sure she will agree with me. Based on a lot of the comments we have been hearing from Liberal members during the debate today, they keep imploring Canadians to trust the Prime Minister because of his résumé. I would like to look at the facts.

The facts are that the Prime Minister promised a free trade deal with the United States by last year, but it has not happened. I know forestry workers are among the many across the country who are facing the devastating results of that. The Prime Minister also promised that we would have the strongest economy in the G7 and we now have the only economy that is shrinking in the G7. There is certainly a difference in the rhetoric coming from the Liberal government and the reality that Canadians are facing.

I hear that in my riding, and I am wondering whether the member has any comments on it.

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

Madam Speaker, we definitely do see that. Canadians will see and feel that when each household's tax bill rises by $6,000 just to cover the $60-billion Alto mess that is on the way.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's response on that important conversation. With all the challenges we have, whether it is on trade or the economy, we can see continually that the Liberal members and the Liberal government are saying one thing and we are not really seeing any action as a result of it.

The Prime Minister has been in office now for a year but continues to say that he is new on the job. Canadians are noticing, and at some point we are going to need to see some results from the government.

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

Madam Speaker, getting back to trade agreements, one of the trade agreements that we are looking at now is with the trans-Pacific one, but what concerns Canadians is the strategic partnership with China and allowing Chinese-owned companies to export 49,000 electric vehicles to start. There is a reason Canadians, and especially government workers, are concerned about TikTok. A Chinese-owned electric vehicle has far more security concerns than even TikTok. The Liberals should wake up. Does the Prime Minister not have his security clearance so he can get the NSA advisories?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to build on my colleague's excellent speech. The Prime Minister has spent a great deal of time travelling abroad, signing memorandums of understanding and participating in high-profile international events. While international engagement certainly plays an important role in advancing Canada's interests, it cannot come at the expense of the pressing priorities we face here at home. Canadians are looking for leadership that is grounded, focused, and attentive to the challenges facing families, workers and entrepreneurs across this country, but right now they are not seeing it.

Our trade agenda is only as strong as our domestic economy. The reality is simple: No agreement abroad will fix Canada's outdated tax system. No foreign handshake or high-level summit will modernize our regulatory structures. None of these trips will improve the service delivery of our public institutions, increase the personnel of our military or update our privacy and intellectual property laws to reflect a rapidly changing global environment. These are the tasks that require committed national leadership, leadership that begins here, not on the international conference circuit.

On October 22, 2025, the Prime Minister announced in Ottawa an ambitious goal: to double Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Conservatives take that objective seriously. We worked constructively with the government and granted the Liberals unprecedented authorities under Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, to empower the government to pursue those ambitions. We believe that if the government were prepared to act boldly, we could collectively position Canada for long-term economic strength, but a year has passed, and the patience of Canadian entrepreneurs is wearing thin.

Consider the economic picture before us. Over the last decade under the Liberals, approximately $500 billion in foreign capital has left Canada. This is not an abstract figure. It represents lost opportunity, lost productivity and lost confidence in Canada's economic direction. Investment that could have helped build industries, create jobs and support innovation has instead gone elsewhere, to countries like Ireland, where the Prime Minister has citizenship. Ireland has robust foreign direct investment through a modern taxation system.

At the same time, according to the Business Development Bank of Canada, Canada today has 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs than we did 10 years ago, even though our population has grown by 10 million. This is a staggering shift. It means fewer new businesses, fewer new ideas and fewer pathways for economic growth. For a country built on ambition, creativity and enterprise, this decline should ring alarm bells for every policy-maker in Ottawa, but is not being talked about.

Canada's economic challenges will not be solved through symbolism abroad or even by Bill C-13, but through practical action here at home. Therefore, if the Prime Minister is truly committed to strengthening Canada's economy, here is what I believe he must do right now.

First, we need to reform Canada's tax system. We need a system that rewards effort, investment and innovation rather than penalizes them. Entrepreneurs must see Canada as a place where risk-taking is supported and where success is not met with punitive tax burdens. That means revisiting profit-sharing models, capital gains rules and the taxation environment for start-ups so talented Canadians can build their ideas into thriving enterprises that scale up in Canada.

Second, the Prime Minister should work with the Conservatives to repeal anti-energy laws that have contributed to pushing investment out of this country. He knows these policies are not working. They have created uncertainty, discouraged development and weakened one of Canada's greatest competitive advantages. It is time to scrap them, not go over them and leave them in place, in order to reverse the capital outflow we are seeing. Yesterday I was pleased to support a private member's bill from the member for Calgary Signal Hill to do exactly that by removing the moratorium on oil tankers in British Columbia.

Third, we must move away from the government's habit of picking economic winners and losers. The Minister of Finance's experiment with large production subsidies for automakers has not delivered the results Canadians expected. We were promised a thriving auto industry less than two years ago in the House. This example should stand for all Canadians that big subsidies to big corporations do not result in better jobs for Canadian workers and families.

Fourth, we need to reform service delivery within the public service. The public service has grown exponentially, but we are not seeing the necessary results. We have to do that work.

Fifth, the government must outline and commit to essential infrastructure upgrades. The ports in British Columbia are wonderful. We love them. However, they are not performing at their capacity. We lack the strategic infrastructure investments across Canada to move people and goods in a way that is commensurate with a G7 economy. We have to grow up and get that work done.

The sixth thing is very important. The Prime Minister should dedicate as much time to engaging with first nations leaders here at home as he does with world leaders abroad. Why do I say that? The Supreme Court of Canada has made many rulings in the last number of years outlining the rights and titles of first nations. For economic reconciliation at large to take place, we have to look at new models of engaging with our first nations.

I believe in a Canada where first nations people on reserve are all millionaires, have more economic potential and economic drive than the average Canadian and are pushing new projects in rural Canada that are lifting up Canada's economy and contributing to our GDP in ways we never thought imaginable. The Prime Minister has a social license to do that right now, but he prefers to go on international trips than to engage with Canadians here at home.

On that point, seventh is that in B.C. we are facing some real and significant challenges on private property and fee simple land. B.C. is the gateway to doubling our exports abroad. If the Prime Minister does not take seriously the concerns of everyday British Columbians on ensuring that fee simple land and private property are essential to Canada's economy, people will continue to move their money outside British Columbia. We will not see the strategic mineral reserves developed nor exports grow; we will see the opposite. He has to be on top of this file. We cannot live in a society where private property is not protected, but this is the number one issue coming up in B.C. right now.

Finally, we must improve Canada's intellectual property laws and privacy laws. We are outdated, not modern, and it is hurting our entrepreneurs. We have to do better. The Minister of Industry needs to bring forward the requisite legislation to improve things like open banking, to ensure that children are protected on the Internet, and to ensure that we are giving our tech companies the biggest bang for their buck if they decide to stay in Canada.

Despite the challenges we face, Canada's potential is extraordinary. We are blessed with abundant resources like no other nation on earth is, but we are squandering a critical period in time when we could be doing so much more. By refocusing on the fundamentals, prioritizing economic growth at home and making the structural reforms to our economy that we can do only in the chamber, we can restore some confidence in Canada's economy, bring 100,000 entrepreneurs back into Canadian society and reverse the outflow of foreign direct investment. None of these trade deals will matter if we do not get our economic house in order.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the member points to the fact that we need to double our exports to non-U.S. destinations in the next few years. He also knows that Canada has what the world needs in that context.

I am surprised, however, to hear his leader say that the PM needs to stay at home; that if he were the PM, he would stay at home; that we should not travel to meet global and business leaders who will be investing billions of dollars into our economy and building a stronger Canada for all workers; and that we should not engage and meet people where they are in the world.

Does the member agree with that point of view of his leader?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Québec Centre's question was a great one. In fact, I think he is a great member of Parliament. I wish he were still in cabinet, because I believe he could make some real reforms for the public service that are not taking place under the Treasury Board Secretariat right now.

I will address the member's point. What I was outlining in my speech is that we are not focusing on the economic fundamentals here in Canada. We can sign whatever MOU or strategic partnership we want, but if we do not reform our taxation system and if we do not get our rules on energy development modernized, all that work abroad means nothing. If we do not have our economic house in order, we are failing as a nation. That is why I am encouraging the Prime Minister today to stay at home and to work on the economic fundamentals. He should not try to be a puppeteer but should roll up his sleeves and operationalize everything Canadians want right now.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate today. We are talking about international trade treaties.

There is one treaty that has already been ratified by most of the officials on both sides, the one with Taiwan. About six weeks ago, we heard the Taiwanese ambassador wonder why the Prime Minister has chosen not to sign this agreement, which has had the green light since last April. In Davos, the Prime Minister said that we need to forge alliances with stable and reliable allies, and I think that Taiwan is such an ally.

Could my colleague tell me what the Prime Minister is thinking by not signing this agreement, when all that is missing is his signature?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Bloc asked an excellent question about Taiwan. Indeed, Canada has a long history and a growing economic relationship with Taiwan. I think that is where we need a strategic partnership by recognizing its sovereignty in standing up to Chinese ambition, which may lead to a global conflict in the next 20 years. We need to be on the side of Taiwan, not on the side of Communist China as it relates to that sovereign country.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from British Columbia has really hit the nail on the head. We all stood in this place in support of Bill C-5, the major projects bill. That was more than eight months ago. We know that Germany was able to build an LNG facility in less than seven months; the Netherlands in six months; and Finland in four months. We have had MOUs. We have had photo ops. We have had press releases. However, we have had no shovels in the ground and no results. My colleague has outlined a number of practical actions that we can take to make sure our economy is ready to take advantage of the fact that Canada does have everything the world wants.

Maybe the member can elaborate a bit more on that.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the great honours I have in being a member of Parliament is that I get to meet with incredible entrepreneurs across Canada. They have heard the words of the Prime Minister and have been hopeful, but that hope is running thin. It is time to act. It is time to see shovels in the ground. It is time to use the advantages that we have been gifted in this country to our economic success.

For example, if we built a pipeline in northern British Columbia, that one project would exceed the total worth of all our trade with China today. How could we not take that opportunity right now? How are we not moving on that like those other countries in Europe have when action was required?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13. I always get these numbers mixed up. We always end up losing track because there are so many bills. However, as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade, I want to reassure my colleagues that I know what this bill is about.

This is an agreement that the committee I serve on was able to study. Although this agreement does not change much in the sense that it involves the United Kingdom's entry into an existing agreement, it is still a good thing. However, we are going to take a few detours and talk about several aspects of this matter that are different. Members will recall that this concerns the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, an existing agreement that goes back several years. However, since the United Kingdom regained its customs sovereignty, most of the agreements had to be redone.

Allow me to take a brief detour and draw a comparison with the situation in Quebec. For a long time now, Quebec has been having a great debate, which is still ongoing and will soon come to an end in the next few years. I am talking about Quebec's independence, of course. An important referendum was held in 1995. In fact, we just commemorated the 30th anniversary of this referendum last fall. At the time, we were told that Quebec would not automatically be included in the trade agreements that were negotiated by Canada.

Jean Charest could pass for either a Liberal or a Conservative these days, but he was a Progressive Conservative at the time. He used to speak on behalf of the “no” side while waving a Canadian passport that was not his own, because it was the wrong colour. As a federal member of Parliament, his passport should have been green. He was waving a blue passport, which was not his, to express his pride. His pride was based on being someone he was not. Now, let me get back to the matter at hand.

At the time, Jean Charest said there would be a transition period. He said that an independent Quebec could perhaps take part in NAFTA, but that there would nevertheless be a transition period during which Quebec would not take part in trade agreements. During that time, companies would not have the guaranteed market access that is provided for in the agreements negotiated and signed by Canada. Certain precedents did exist at the time, but they referred to multilateral agreements. There was no real precedent for what happens when a country wins or regains its trade sovereignty or what happens with agreements negotiated by customs unions like Canada or the European Union.

We got an answer to what happens in that situation in the form of Brexit, which happened a few years ago. What happened? Brexit proved exactly what one might expect, and that is, common sense prevailed. The trading partners of a country that regains its trade sovereignty will usually all want to continue doing business with that country. It makes sense. It is crystal clear. It is that simple.

Brexit came into effect on January 1, 2021. In 2020, the United Kingdom quickly copied and pasted all the agreements previously negotiated by the European Union. They were known as temporary agreements. They included the continuity agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada, which Canada debated right here at the time. This proves that, in record time, the United Kingdom was able to simply renew the agreements that the EU had negotiated and signed and remain in those agreements. As a result, there was no period of uncertainty, no period during which British businesses were disconnected from the partners with which the EU had signed agreements. That same year, the U.K. was even able to sign an agreement with Japan, which did not have an agreement with the EU.

A nation that regains its trade sovereignty rekindles the interest of outgoing partners and can even create new partnerships, as with the U.K.'s entry into the Trans‑Pacific Partnership. The U.K. is a relatively small country in terms of population; it is an island. This supports Jacques Parizeau's point that, regardless of a country's size, it is completely viable when it is in a large market.

We are pleased to see this, and I thank Canadian parliamentarians, because by supporting the U.K.'s entry, probably unanimously, they are defusing the very argument they might have raised a few years from now against Quebec's independence. I thank my good friends in advance.

Thanks to the lottery, my colleague from Jonquière tabled a bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, for which I was the critic, that sought to enhance Parliament's role in trade negotiations and in the process of ratifying the results of the negotiations. These agreements are like vampires, in that they turn to dust in the light of day, so the goal was to change that and find a way for us to know a little more about what was happening.

Speaking of the United Kingdom, I was once in a committee meeting in which we were asked to review the agreement with the U.K. without having the text in front of us. That is the Canadian monarchy at work. That is what happens when a Parliament only cares about the executive branch and a handful of strong ministers. It claims to be part of British tradition, where Parliament is king and master of everything, but in reality, opacity is the order of the day and nobody knows anything.

It is well known that, in the Canadian system, parliamentarians have to study an implementation bill in which hardly anything can be amended. In committee, every time I try to amend bills implementing agreements, the first thing that happens is that the chair tells me that my amendment is out of order because it goes against the intent of the bill or because it would require new funding, a new budget. When we suggest creating new committees, oversight committees or other types of committees, we are immediately told that that would be out of order because we cannot change the intent. Only a few pages of the implementation bill can be amended, but trade agreements sometimes contain thousands of pages of regulations.

Of course, the agreement has already been signed by the time it is even tabled in Parliament. In the end, we just rubber-stamp it, but then later, whenever we want to change or object to something in an agreement, we are accused of being against the very principle of trade. The logical fallacy could not be clearer.

Another problem is the waiting period. On paper, there is no law requiring a minimum waiting period between the time an agreement—which, I would remind members, can sometimes be thousands of pages long—is announced and the time it is presented to Parliament. Theoretically, it could be announced one day and be tabled in Parliament the next morning. Nothing in the law prevents that. This is one of the elements of the bill that the Bloc Québécois highlighted a few weeks ago.

I find it astounding that a majority of parliamentarians are saying that they do not want to do their job, that they are not interested in doing their job and that they are going to trust the government. Even the official opposition says that it will blindly follow the government into the abyss, if necessary. Studying trade agreements would be too much work. That should not happen. Talk about an official opposition.

Our bill would have enshrined into law the principle of a minimum waiting period of 21 days from the time an agreement is made public to the time it is brought before the House. However, I remember that representatives of the Liberal Party rose and said that that bill was not necessary because there was already an official policy that referred to this 21-day period. Well, a policy is not legislation, as today's debate proves, because only 15 days went by between the time the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom to the Trans-Pacific Partnership was made public and the time it was tabled in the House. That is proof that we need legislation and that it is not enough to just have a policy that mentions a minimum waiting period.

Shame on the government for doing this, thinking no one would notice. I am sorry, but I noticed. This shows why we need legislation setting out the minimum waiting period from the time an agreement is made public to the time it is presented and tabled here in the House. I think that is the bare minimum.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the Canadian Constitution that would allow a province that is opposed to an agreement to veto it. This stands in sharp contrast to Belgian federalism. In Belgium, if one region opposes an international agreement, the whole country cannot move forward, even if the Belgian parliament supports it. That is what open federalism really means. That is federalism that is respectful of its regions. Canada does not have that kind of federalism, and we have the proof right here.

There is also nothing that would allow Quebec or any other province to say that it would like its own negotiators, that it would like to nominate someone to sit at the table to negotiate agreements and defend its interests and values. There is nothing like that in there.

Now let us talk about the substance of the agreement. We do not have any major issues on that front. It is a free trade agreement. The U.K. is not generally associated with modern-day slavery. It will not violate human rights, nor is it responsible for major environmental disasters. It is a developed society. On the surface, there is no reason to believe it will engage in unfair competition.

The U.K. is also a country with a robust aerospace sector. It is Quebec's second-largest partner behind the United States. It is very far behind the U.S., but it is still the second-largest export partner. There is a lot of collaboration and exchange in the aerospace sector. The agreement is therefore welcome on that front. Members will recall that Montreal is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse, and it is one of only three places where all the parts needed to assemble an entire aircraft are available. We do not assemble entire aircraft, but if we wanted to do that in the greater Montreal area, we could. We have enough SMEs and large businesses and sufficient wherewithal to say that we can provide the parts to assemble an entire aircraft. The aerospace sector is extremely important. I am also troubled by the fact that Canada does not have an aerospace policy. It is the only country with such a large cluster that does not have an aerospace policy. The government has repeatedly promised a policy, most recently at the end of its last term. However, no such policy materialized, and that is simply disgraceful, given the importance of our industry and our sector. Nevertheless, as I was saying, we are okay with that part.

There are no further concessions on supply management, either. Unfortunately, some concessions were made under the CPTPP, but the damage is done. With regard to the quotas that have already been lost, there was an agreement that with the United Kingdom's accession, they would be distributed across what had already been given up. However, the problem is that each time new concessions are made on supply management, we are told not to worry because we are supposedly gaining something else somewhere. With the agreement with the EU and with the CPTPP, we were told that the Canadian meat industry was going to get access to the European market. We know that with the United Kingdom specifically, as well as the EU, there are non-tariff barriers. It is true that on paper, tariffs on pork and beef have been lowered for farmers, but there are all kinds of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in place that have no scientific basis. What we need is reciprocity of standards. We should negotiate with these countries to reach an agreement to make sure that when a product is imported, the scientific rules are actually based on science.

I moved an amendment during the consideration of the bill we are discussing today. The amendment called for the agreement to take effect after a sanitary and phytosanitary protocol with the U.K. had been negotiated and signed. Unfortunately, the two parties did not want to support my amendment, even though that is how negotiations work in real life. In a way, allowing the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP would be doing that country a favour, even though we will also benefit from an economic standpoint.

Canada has shown us time and again that it is an amateur when it comes to negotiations. I would think that a good negotiator takes time to sit down for preliminary discussions. If we say we are ready to allow the U.K.'s accession and that we know that we are doing the country a big favour, should we not at least sit and talk? Even more so considering that technically, the U.K. allows Canadian meat imports, but no Canadian meat actually gets into the country. It would therefore be appropriate to sit down and talk before allowing its accession to the CPTPP in order to reach an agreement to ensure that our meat actually gets into the U.K. Cheese from the U.K. has already been allowed into Canada. We have given them a few concessions here and there. In exchange, the U.K. has not allowed our meat into their country, so we should sit down and reach an agreement.

It is unfortunate that my amendment, which sought to prohibit the coming into force of this agreement before an agreement could be reached, was rejected. A case like this could have been dealt with very quickly. It is unfortunate that I saw the Liberals and the Conservatives carry on like the best of friends and reject an amendment that could have served our farmers and their interests.

I will now turn to my final point. I am still trying to understand why Canada signs agreements and why its official position is one of support for investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. I also spoke to that yesterday in my speech on Indonesia. I speak to that whenever trade agreements come up in the House. It always sounds very abstract, very legal and very complex. It seems very far removed from the concerns of average Canadians, but in fact, it is a huge deal. In practice, it is about giving multinational corporations sovereign powers and allowing them to sue states when governments or legislative bodies adopt measures in favour of better environmental protection, more social justice and stronger workers' rights.

For example, when Mexico imposed a tax on sugary drinks to combat the Mexican obesity epidemic, it was sued by a multinational corporation. When Egypt raised the minimum wage, it was sued by a multinational corporation. Canada is signing trade agreements that allow for clauses like this. When Australia moved to introduce plain packaging to limit cigarette promotion, it was sued by Philip Morris.

In my colleague's constituency, Lac‑Saint‑Jean, there is a lawsuit going on right now that was filed by an American company over the cancellation of Énergie Saguenay's Quebec LNG project. How much is it costing the government?

From a democratic standpoint, what does it mean when Canada proudly says it supports investor-state dispute settlement and supports self-censorship of its own policies? Why is it supporting the idea that, when Parliament stands up and overwhelmingly passes a law that aligns with the public interest, a profit-motivated multinational corporation can sue it before a tribunal established under trade agreements? Does that make sense? I really want to know. I do not think it makes sense, because peoples do have rights, after all. Democracies do have rights.

There may be other ways to resolve disputes. Before NAFTA made this mechanism so common, disputes were simply settled at the country level. If a company felt it had been wronged by a government policy in another country where it was investing, it would call upon its own country, its own government. Obviously, governments could misuse these mechanisms. Not everything is fair. However, it was more diplomatic, and if the dispute had to be resolved through a lawsuit, it happened between governments. I think that is much more sensible than elevating multinationals to the status of fully sovereign powers, which is very costly.

The two parties in the House that are friends of multinational corporations believe very strongly in the benefits of investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, so I proposed an amendment to this agreement, like the one I proposed to the agreement with Indonesia, which we debated yesterday. Since ISDS is so great, I proposed that the minister table an annual report on its costs and effects. The two parties that are friends of multinationals rejected that amendment. They believe so strongly in the benefits that they do not want to tell us what they are. That is just great. Good job, guys.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development reported that ISDS resulted in a win for the multinational or an out-of-court settlement in 60% of cases. That means that the multinational was able to completely or partially override the democratic will of the political system in 60% of cases. However, there is something that cannot be quantified, something that the figures do not show, and that is how this works upstream as well. Behind closed doors, political decision-makers must be deciding not to implement certain measures because they are worried about being sued. There is also an upstream self-censorship effect.

Once again, I do not understand why Canada is signing up for this.

I see that my time is up. We will continue this conversation with our our esteemed colleagues in just a moment during questions and comments.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel good about two things that my colleague mentioned in his remarks. The first is that we are once again debating a free trade agreement that is excellent for jobs across Canada, including in Quebec. The second is that the Canadian government and the Prime Minister are successfully working on economic security and national security. He rightly mentioned the aerospace industry.

Is he also aware that this work is having a significant impact on the shipbuilding industry in the greater Quebec City area? The Davie shipyard and its thousand suppliers are creating a major shipbuilding hub in the greater Quebec City area because of this combination of national security and economic security.

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

Mr. Speaker, the link between national security and economic security is obvious, especially at a time of grave geopolitical and economic peril like today. I would not call the Davie shipyard a success; it was a long time coming. There were many setbacks. There was a bipartisan consensus to create a lot of problems.

Having said that, I do not have a problem with the agreement itself. However, I would not call it a great success for Canadian diplomacy in this area, particularly for the reasons that I mentioned. When one knows how to negotiate and there is a major irritant with a country that is largely being given a favour and that will come out the big winner by being allowed to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the major irritant should be resolved. In this case we are talking about sanitary and phytosanitary barriers. That is what happens when one knows how to negotiate. Unfortunately, Canada does not know how to negotiate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member.

There really are a lot of agreements, but no effort has been made to harmonize the specifications. Right now, we cannot send our meat to the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom can send its meat here. That is not good.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, a good part of my speech was about that, and I talked about it in my previous answer, but I have no problem repeating it.

Expanded meat access was one of the promises in the agreement with the European Union. Cheesemakers in Quebec were told to accept the breach, the slight setback, because in exchange, our meat could be exported to the large European market.

However, the European Union, or rather the United Kingdom, which has regained its trade sovereignty, is applying sanitary and phytosanitary barriers that are not based on actual scientific standards. Tariffs are indeed going down, but in reality, non-tariff barriers are preventing more of our meats from being exported.

If Ottawa knew how to negotiate, it would have ensured that there was an agreement or a real resolution to the issue of non-tariff barriers on Canadian meat before allowing the United Kingdom to enter into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.