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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, because the problem is that the major parties here, in this Parliament, despite their many political differences, all share the same high regard for big multinational companies, big oil and big pharma.

Big oil and big banks get the respect of Liberals and Conservatives always, regardless of who is leading the parties, which is at the base of giving them superior rights to Canadian corporations.

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

Mr. Speaker, even though I understand the arguments the member is putting forward, I tend to disagree with them.

Having said that, I think Canadians have an interest in knowing where the Green Party actually might be on the issue of trade. We have numerous trade agreements that were signed in the past. We have a very ambitious trade agenda going forward.

The question I have for the leader of the Green Party is this: What is the Green Party's official position on trade agreements?

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

Mr. Speaker, as with all our policies, the member can find it online. We support trade that is respectful of environmental protections, indigenous rights and labour rights, in other words, fair trade.

In fact, for the record, we voted for the Canada-Ukraine trade deal when every single Conservative voted against it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

The focus of my speech today is going to be on what the difference is between free trade and fair trade. As members have heard today, Conservatives are not opposed to the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP. However, what we are frustrated with is that once again the Liberal government has backed down when Canadian business and industry need it the most.

We have heard a number of times from my Liberal colleagues today that they understand the unfair advantage that beef and pork producers in the United Kingdom and the European Union have over Canadian producers, and that they feel for them, yet once again, when the Liberals could have had some leverage to try to address the non-tariff trade barriers, the Liberal government has done absolutely nothing. In fact it has ignored the issue by trying to fast-track the accession of the United Kingdom into the CPTPP.

Let us be clear: There is some leverage. The United Kingdom cannot join the CPTPP without Canada on its side. A unanimous agreement must happen for a new member to join this trade agreement. To put our agriculture commodities, producers and farmers at risk as part of this agreement without resolving some long-standing trade issues is a failure of the current government.

In 2024, Canada exported approximately $100 billion of agriculture and agri-food products around the world. The sector employs 2.3 million Canadians and is $150 billion of Canadian GDP. To put that in perspective, that is more than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. That is the impact of Canadian agriculture. However, while we are seeing success in some parts of the world, we are seeing a reversal of our success in the United Kingdom and the EU.

I want to highlight just how stark the contrast has been with respect to what is going on with Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union. Under the trade continuity agreement, the United Kingdom has imposed non-tariff trade barriers that have literally shut out Canadian beef and pork exports to the United Kingdom and to the European Union. We are not just raising rhetoric here; the facts speak for themselves.

I will start with beef as the first example. In 2024, Britain exported 42 million dollars' worth of beef from the United Kingdom into Canada. Last year, in the first half of 2025 alone, that number was already at $28 million. The amount of beef imported into Canada has increased year over year.

In contrast, in 2024, Canadian beef exported to the United Kingdom was just 25,000 dollars' worth. Last year, the amount of Canadian beef imported into the United Kingdom was zero. While the United Kingdom's imports continue to flood into Canada, there is no reciprocal or fair trade going the other direction. The Liberal government has been at the helm for more than 10 years and has done nothing to resolve this, as we have seen the discrepancy in those numbers continue to increase.

Pork is no different. In 2024, the United Kingdom exported nine million dollars' worth of United Kingdom pork to Canada. In the first half of last year, that number was already at $3.6 million. By contrast, Canadian pork exports to the United Kingdom in 2023 were zero. In 2025, we were at $120,000, pennies on the dollar compared to what is being brought into Canada.

I want to highlight that it is not any different when we look at the numbers in the European Union, where the trade imbalance is just as bad. In 2024, the European Union exported 92 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada, while Canadian beef exports to Europe fell by 40%, down to only $14 million, less than a quarter of what is being imported into Canada. Pork is much the same. From the numbers we have seen, the discrepancy continues to grow.

This is yet another failure by the Liberal government to stand up for Canadian producers. It is signing onto these agreements or shepherding the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership without addressing any of these long-standing issues. The United Kingdom will not recognize our carcass-washing practices here in Canada, which are of a higher standard than what is done in the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is simply a non-tariff trade barrier that the Liberal government refuses to address. The United Kingdom does not recognize our breeding and hormone practices and animal livestock protection practices here in Canada, even though the standards are recognized around the world.

Instead of addressing these non-tariff trade barriers, the Liberals are willing to hold the hand of the United Kingdom, ignore those problems and ensure it is joining the trans-Pacific partnership. We do not oppose the United Kingdom's being a member of that critical trade partnership. What we are concerned with or oppose is the fact that the Liberals are not addressing any of the long-standing non-tariff trade barriers before being a partner to the United Kingdom's joining that trade partnership.

The secondary issue is that the CPTPP has been an outstanding trade partnership, in that all of the decisions in the trade relationships have been science-based. We have not had any of the non-tariff trade barriers and shenanigans that we are seeing currently between Canada and the United Kingdom. However, if the United Kingdom joins the CPTPP, our concern is whether it would be bringing that philosophy with it to the agreement. Into what has been a very solid partnership among a number of countries, we would now perhaps welcome non-science-based decision-making and non-tariff trade barriers, for all intents and purposes throwing a wrench into a wheel that has been running very smoothly.

However, this is not the first time we have seen the current Liberal government fail when it comes to Canadian agriculture and trade. Only a few years ago, for example, we had a deadline with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the World Organisation for Animal Health for Canada to get negligible risk status for BSE. I was at a conference with ranchers from across Canada and members of CFIA when CFIA said it forgot about the deadline, forgot to apply for negligible risk status and that it would have to wait until the next year. It made it sound like just “Sorry about that. The government forgot.” That cost Canadian ranchers tens of millions of dollars in lost market access. It took us more than 20 years to regain that access after the BSE outbreak.

We have also seen that when the Liberal government has said now and again that it will address the specified risk material, SRMs, which is once again an additional step we have to do in Canada. It costs our producers about $60 a head to deal with SRMs. The United States does not have to do it, and it puts our producers at a competitive disadvantage. Time and again the Liberal government says it is going to address the SRMs. Time and again it has failed to do so, and that irritant is still in place.

Every single time Canadian producers need the Liberal government the most, it is nowhere to be found, and now, when we need to be focused on research and development and sanitary and phytosanitary to push our standards around the world, the Liberal government's response is to close seven research centres across Canada. Two of them, in Lacombe, Alberta, and in Nappan, Nova Scotia, focus on the beef industry and the things we do here in Canada that we need to convince the rest of the world to meet or exceed their standards.

Last, I would be remiss if I did not mention the other issue that the Liberal government did not address, and that is British pensioners' not seeing their pensions indexed to inflation, which happens in the United States. Our cousin in the United Kingdom is not allowing the same rights to 100,000 Canadians who are suffering with that indignity here in Canada, including my wee mother-in-law from Scotland, who is also not seeing her pension indexed. I know she would like to be treated just like British expats right around the world.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member has spoken to anyone in the agricultural sector about this enhanced trade deal with the U.K., and if so, what opportunities they have identified and what their position is on this overall.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, who is doing a great job as the chair of the agriculture committee.

I spend time pretty much every day speaking to producers right across the country. I will say that there is guarded optimism. There is no opportunity to take advantage of these trade agreements, because they do not trust that the elements of those trade agreements will actually come true. We have seen that in what is going on with the United Kingdom and the European Union, in the games that have been played, certainly with China, and in the inability of the Liberal government to rebuild our most important trade relationship, which is that with the United States. More than 70% of our agricultural commodities go south across the border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought that my colleague's speech was very good. He demonstrated just how much of a failed negotiation this was. He explained that the government's negotiations failed with respect to meat exports from Canada and Quebec to the United Kingdom. It seems to me that when doing a favour for a country by allowing it to become party to an agreement as significant as the trans-Pacific partnership, one negotiates. However, there are sanitary and phytosanitary barriers that are not based on much science.

The Conservatives had one thing to do. In committee, I introduced an amendment to the bill. The amendment sought to prevent the agreement from entering into force until a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement was reached with the United Kingdom so that Canadian meat could enter the market. All the Conservatives had to do was vote in favour of that amendment. We would have done the work that the Liberal government did not do. However, the Conservatives preferred to give the government a blank cheque. Now they are crying for the farmers.

Will my colleague call out the hypocrisy of his Conservative colleagues?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I am not aware of the amendment that my colleague moved at committee.

However, I want to be clear that our agriculture stakeholders have changed their position. They want to support the United Kingdom, in good faith, joining the CPTPP. They are upset because the Liberal government should have addressed these issues before the continuity agreement expires and before the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP.

We are a party of free traders. Our agriculture groups are free traders. They rely on that. Again, our point is that the Liberals had the leverage to address this issue and failed to do so.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping my colleague can expand upon what is a failure in negotiations.

At the time of the announcement, Canada was going to be the first country to pass legislation enabling Britain's accession to the CPTPP. Looking forward, beyond this, we have seen the Prime Minister go and sign a number of agreements. While we support the diversification of trade, what other opportunities, particularly for the livestock sector, are we potentially missing in these negotiations, as we could have enhanced imports from other countries and not have reciprocal exports going back out the door?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up an excellent point. The Prime Minister has gone to the United Kingdom on a number of occasions, and he is on his way there again later this week or next week, I believe. It is his second home, for all intents and purposes. He keeps talking about his close relationship with the Government of the United Kingdom and the EU. He calls himself a European.

Why is he not resolving any of these issues? The Prime Minister says he has this close relationship, and our agriculture commodities could be taking advantage of these opportunities, not only in the United Kingdom but certainly around the world. The Prime Minister is a big talker, but there is no delivery. That is where we are seeing the frustration coming from Canadian farmers.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we would be hard-pressed to find another member of Parliament that advocates more for the livestock and agriculture industry than that member. I wanted to state that here. Agriculture is not a partisan issue, and this member has been a champion of that.

I want to say how important the conversation around the indexing of British pensions here in Canada is when we have any discussion on trade.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I ran out of time in my speech, but I agree with the member. The indexing of the British pensions in Canada is a critical piece of this, and I hope that is resolved.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock and to talk about the accession of the U.K. and Northern Ireland to the CPTPP.

As a bit of background, it has been frustrating for me to watch the government let one opportunity after the other pass us by as it governs Canada. It speaks on our behalf around the world. When Brexit happened, I thought that there was a major opportunity for Canada to fill in the void that was going to come from the lack of that EU agreement that had been in place, the free trade that Britain had with the EU. There was going to be a void of product that was going to be able to get into the U.K. from the EU, and there was an opportunity, given the fact of our shared heritage, that Canada could step up to fill the void immediately. All we needed to do was have that relationship nailed down and sorted out, coming into it. We could see for a number of years that this Brexit thing was coming. We could have seen that we could have had a free trade deal with the U.K., and when it did happen, we could have been the first at the table.

This was something that we talked about as Conservatives. We said, “This is happening. Get on it, Prime Minister.” That was 2020. That was five or six years ago, so we could have had a robust relationship.

I want to talk about a number of products that come from northern Alberta: beef in particular, but also softwood lumber. Many people do not know that Canada, for hundreds of years, was a major supplier of lumber to the U.K., and we have lost that position over the last number of years to the point that we are a minimal supplier of lumber to the U.K. We should be able to maintain that relationship.

Many of my colleagues have spoken today about beef, and I am going to talk about that as well. We apparently have this agreement with the U.K. to trade with them, yet we are happy to compete. Many of us talk about the difference in how much beef comes into Canada from the U.K. and how much does not get into the U.K. Actually, in a free trade system, we should not be too concerned if beef is only running in one direction and not the other, but when the beef is not running in the other direction, to the U.K., because the country is blocking it with particular regulations, that is when we get a little frustrated.

We could make the case that their farmers are more efficient, that their winters are less harsh than Canadian winters, that it is a little easier for them to make beef and that their beef is a bit cheaper than Canadian beef, hence it is coming into Canada. We might say, okay, but we are allowed to at least ship our beef into the U.K. We could say, okay, those numbers are not reciprocal, but we understand there are other reasons. However, when particular rules in the United Kingdom are preventing our beef from getting in, that is what gets us quite upset. That is the reality.

This has been a problem going back for a very long time, and I would point out that we have had Liberal governments for over 10 years that have failed to address this issue, even though they have had multiple opportunities to address these issues. Every time there is a change in the relationship, there are opportunities to say that, by the way, this beef issue or this pork issue continues to be a challenge for Canadian producers. We say that we have this free trade agreement with the U.K., yet the U.K. is using other mechanisms to block our beef and our pork from getting in.

Softwood lumber is a different story. We are being out-competed by the Scandinavian countries to get our lumber into the U.K. That is kind of understandable. It is not that they are blocking our lumber from getting in there. It is just that the Scandinavian countries overproduce for their own countries. They are much closer to the U.K., so shipping costs are less. All of that kind of makes sense. We have this free trade deal, and I think there are some tweaks that the Canadian government could do. Building code changes in the U.K. would allow for our style of dimensional lumber to get into the U.K. a little more easily, and there are a number of these things that the government could be working on to ensure that Canadian lumber can get in there.

On the beef side of things, there are blatant regulations that the U.K. has put in place that specifically block our beef and pork from getting in. This is a major frustration.

We hear from the Liberal government all the time that it is a new government and has a new Prime Minister. The Liberals are not wrong in saying they have a new Prime Minister who has a great relationship with the U.K. He was the governor of the central bank in the U.K. Certainly, he would have some contacts over there. It feels to me like this beef problem that we are having and this pork problem that we are having with the U.K. would just need a text message or a phone call for a guy who has a contact list like the Prime Minister does, who has been the Governor of the Bank of England. Certainly he would be able to sort this out in about five minutes.

I have pointed out the multiple opportunities along the way where we have had opportunities to change this. To be fair, that was under a previous prime minister, who may not have understood pork or beef production, who liked his fancy socks and things like that. Today, we have a Prime Minister who is very integrated with the U.K., who knows a lot of people over there, who carries a passport from that side of the ocean and who calls himself a European. Certainly, if there was a Prime Minister of Canada who could get this done, it would be the current Prime Minister. It is a total failure.

Today, we are being asked to accept the U.K. and Northern Ireland into the trans-Pacific partnership, which is something that we support, but this would have been another opportunity to fix some of the frustrations that we have.

We hear over and over again about concerns about unity in this country and frustrations from, particularly, Alberta, that Ottawa never listens to what their concerns are. Here again, we have another one. Alberta beef is the best beef in the world. Alberta produces a lot of beef for this country. Beef in Canada and Alberta beef are quite synonymous. Again, here we have one of the sticking points, one of the reasons that folks in Alberta get frustrated with the Ottawa government, which is that when the priorities of central Canada are a concern, if there is a risk to jobs in central Canada, the Liberal government bends over backwards and burns down the phone lines to get a resolution to these things. When it comes to western Canada's concerns, to get a pipeline to the east coast or to fix some of the trade friction around beef products or other agricultural products, canola exports and all these kinds of things, suddenly the government seems to say that there is nothing it can do about it. It seems to sit on its hands or just to completely forget about it.

Maybe that is the case. Maybe, when the Prime Minister is going over to England, he just fails to remember that there is the beef problem, which is an interesting thing, because he also says to us all the time that he is an Alberta boy. Alberta and Alberta beef are quite synonymous. One would think that, coming from Alberta, he would remember to bring up beef. Those are some of the major frustrations with the Liberal government that we have around a free trade agreement with the U.K.

I look forward to the U.K.'s accession and the agreement being brought in. I know that there are mechanisms within the bill for the resolution of some of these issues. I hope that the government is prepared and that, the moment the U.K. is recognized in the trans-Pacific partnership, we will start using some of these mechanisms for these dispute resolutions, so that we can get reciprocal agreements on beef and pork across the country.

I also hope that we can sort out some of the U.K. citizens' pensions here in Canada. This is another thing that was brought up. I know that many of my colleagues have brought that up. I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned it for the number of constituents in my riding who are facing this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to the member opposite. I have found, when it comes to the issue of trade, that there is a team Canada approach to dealing with it. It concerns me that the member somewhat promotes hatred toward central Canada and does not really justify it. With cattle exports, the product has a lot more to do with drought and so forth.

The Minister of Agriculture was in the Philippines promoting Alberta beef and invited people from the Philippines to Calgary for the Calgary Stampede. This government has been very proactive in the Prairies dealing with and promoting trade. Why would the member want to promote disinformation to cause people in the Prairies to be anti-Ottawa?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say. I do not think the member even listened to my speech. I made the exact opposite case. I said there are sentiments that Ottawa does not listen to Alberta.

Once again, this here is an example. When trying to get our beef into the U.K., we see the dissimilar rules around beef coming into Canada or beef going to the U.K. They are different. Again, it does not feel like the government is listening to Alberta.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to what my colleague said earlier. We share some concerns about things like agriculture and meat.

My Bloc Québécois colleague proposed an amendment in committee that would essentially have required the bill to be conditional on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the U.K. to ensure that Canadian meat can get into the U.K.

Can my colleague explain why his party voted against this amendment even though he says he wants to open up these markets to Canadian meat?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of why we did not vote for that amendment. I am not familiar with the amendment, to begin with.

What I do know is that our allies that are also part of the CPTPP are looking forward to this being assented to, so that the U.K. can enter into the CPTPP. I do not think we want to hold that up. I do not know the particulars of that, but I do know we want this to go through.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Peace River—Westlock that Alberta grain-fed beef is the best in the world. I love our friends from Great Britain, and I want them to benefit from Alberta grain-fed beef, but here is another thing. I love people from Ontario, and I want them to benefit from the best wine in Canada, British Columbia wine.

I know it is not the topic of the day, but can my friend comment on the importance of British Columbia wine in LCBO stores?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I love the topic of free trade. Canada's Conservatives are the party of free trade, and we have been advocating desperately for free trade between the provinces. We have been calling on the federal government to stand on the provinces a little bit to ensure that the barriers between provinces are also eliminated.

While we are excited to be assenting to the free trade agreement with the U.K., we also call on the government to eliminate free trade barriers within Canada.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague was talking about beef production in Alberta. He has also spoken often here in the House about food affordability. Meat prices are very high in Canada, indeed, because there is a shortage of beef coming from Alberta, in particular.

Is the member opposite against increased British exports to Canada at this time?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think I laid that out very well in my speech.

Another thing that is really cool about free trade and free markets is that high prices cause these products to move, so I am excited to see increased production here in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. gentleman from Prince Albert has caught my eye.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really feel honoured to catch your eye. It is a privilege for me to be here on a Thursday afternoon and know that the Speaker has my back.

I think everybody agrees that Bill C-13 should go through. It is common sense. It should be almost like a routine item. I am going to talk about some of the frustrations that we have with the U.K. wanting to join the TPP. I think it is good that it is joining the TPP. I look forward to it joining. I look forward to Costa Rica joining, hopefully, at the end of the month. I think whenever we can expand the TPP to include other countries, we make it a better multilateral agreement. It gives our Canadian manufacturers, producers, farmers and industries a chance to have access not only to another market but to other partners, to compete globally in a lower-tariff environment. Those are all good things.

However, I am disappointed at this lost opportunity. As this agreement was being discussed, as we were talking about the fact that the U.K. wanted to join, we had the opportunity then and there to say that some things in our continuity agreement were not resolved, and they could have been resolved as the U.K. entered the TPP. We could have dealt with the additives in food products. We could have dealt with the carcass wash. We could have dealt with the pension issues. We could have said that these things were stumbling blocks that were really a barrier to the U.K. coming into this agreement and that we needed to come to some sort of agreement on all those issues, not only so the U.K. has fair access to Canada but also so we have fair access to the marketplace in the U.K.

We could also have made the ethical argument about the U.K. treating its own civil servants with respect and dignity no matter where they live, especially if they decided to live here in Canada. I can understand why they would want to live here in Canada. I think we would all agree Canada is a wonderful country. Why would someone not want to live here? It is awesome. Unfortunately, that opportunity was lost and squandered. After 10 years of the Liberal government, there are so many examples of squandered and lost opportunities that have come back to roost at this point in time.

Let us look at a current example. We have the world knocking on our door again looking for natural gas or oil and gas. We could have been developing our pipe and our oil and gas infrastructure, liquefied natural gas, over the last 10 years, and we could have built in and solved some of those problems globally. Now we are trying to do it. I guess it is better late than never, but if we would have done it then, just think of how much wealthier this country would be, how much more leverage this country would have globally and how much better everybody in the world would feel knowing they are getting an ethical supply of oil and gas. That is a lost opportunity that could have been done quite simply and quite effectively over the last 10 years.

When we talk about things that are important to Canada, we have the Prime Minister right now going around the globe talking to different countries, and I actually think that is a good thing. I really do. After 10 years of Trudeau, there is a lot of rebuilding that has to happen. In fact, I can remember sitting in a coffee shop back in Prince Albert. A farmer sat down next to me and asked what we could do about Trudeau and if we could take his passport away or something. Every time that prime minister left the country, there was a disaster that followed, whether it was the India event or the open mic in the U.K. There is example after example of when the former prime minister went and burned goodwill, burned our image abroad and impacted our reputation negatively. Now we have the Prime Minister going around and trying to rebuild that reputation. I think it is good that he is doing that because it has to happen.

With a Conservative government, that would have been the priority of our prime minister, Prime Minister Poilievre. In that scenario, he would have been able to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member knows we cannot use members' names in the chamber, only titles.

I will let the member continue.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I could sneak that in there.

If there was a Conservative prime minister, I know he would be going around the world opening up those markets and rebuilding those relationships. That would be a top priority. In fact, we will see the Conservative leader go to the U.S. next week and do exactly that. He will talk about how Canada is such a great place to invest in and a great place to do business, and he is going to be very successful, just as he was last week in the U.K. and Germany.

One thing he learned when he was in Germany, and here I am going to lead into the next part of my presentation, is the LNG aspect. When Germany came knocking on Canada's door, Trudeau said there was no market or economic potential for LNG going outside of Canada and into the rest of the world. Germany proved him 100% wrong. Look at what Germany did. In a matter of less than 60 days, it approved and permitted an LNG facility. In a matter of six months, it was operating. We should think about that, the urgency with which Germany could move and react to an ongoing crisis. The Prime Minister has been saying that we have a crisis in Canada and that we have to be bold and move forward. If that is the case, then why are we not doing the same thing?

It is okay to go around the world, talk about rebuilding and sign MOUs on trade agreements that were developed by Ed Fast and Prime Minister Harper back in the 2008-15 era. It is nice to see the Prime Minister encouraging companies and people to take advantage of those 51 trade agreements, going out and trying to sell Canada again, but if people cannot get their goods to market, what good are they?

Harper and Ed Fast understood that when we do a trade agreement, we also need to build the infrastructure to deliver the goods to market in a timely manner that is consistent with what the consumer and the supplier agreed upon and in a time frame that is bankable. We do not have that right now. In fact, if members talked to customers in Japan or other parts of Asia, they would say they love Canadian product. I will use the grain sector. They would say they love Canadian wheat but will never give us 100% of their business because they cannot rely on us to deliver it on time in a manner that is consistent and bankable. We have a reputation problem in our ports, in our rail system and in our infrastructure. It does not matter how many trade deals or MOUs we sign; if we cannot get the product to market in a bankable manner, they are useless. That is the scenario we face in Canada today.

Three of our four top ports are in the bottom 15% of the globe. They are the worst in the world. Halifax, to its credit, is in the top 50. I will give Halifax credit. I toured Halifax in 2024. It has done a great job in expanding, utilizing and managing the port. However, in Prince Rupert, Vancouver and Montreal, there is a lot of work that needs to be done and a lot of infrastructure that needs to be put in place.

When we talk to customers and ask what their biggest threat or concern is, let us say, in Vancouver, they say it is congestion. What is being invested today to help with congestion? What is being invested today in the Port of Vancouver to take the wait time of a vessel from 10 days down to two days? If we went to the port of Montreal or Prince Rupert, I think we would see the same issues. These ports need to become the best ports in the world. They need investment and to be able to deliver products when they say they are going to. We need to spend money there and understand that if we truly want to take advantage of all the goods that God has given us and export them around the world, we have to have the infrastructure to do that.

We have not reinvested in our highways. Why do so many heavy semis going from east to west go into the U.S.? For example, a semi coming out of Quebec would go into the U.S. to come to Saskatchewan rather than using the Trans-Canada Highway. Why is that? Why do we rely on a pipeline, line 5, that goes to the U.S. to come back up to Sarnia to provide propane for Quebec and puts Sarnia and the industries relying on natural gas in jeopardy and held up by the U.S.? Where is that infrastructure investment? Where is that commitment to make us self-reliant? It has not showed up or been talked about.

We need to make these ports the best in the world, we need to make our infrastructure some of the best in the world, and we need to look at our rail system and revamp our rail service. Our rail service is so bad in Canada, and it has been bad for years. When I was farming, our biggest complaint on the farm was the rail service and lack of it.

We had CEOs who were more concerned about the shareholders than their customers, and those same CEOs are still more concerned about their shareholders than their customers. They know they are going to get the grain. They know they are going to get the lumber. They know they are going to get the oil. They know they are going to get it, so why do they care when? That is what has happened and it is why, when a customer in Japan is saying, “Listen guys, I love your wheat. I want more of it, but I cannot take more because I do not know when I am going to get it. You may give me a thousand tonnes one week and nothing for the next six weeks,” that has to do with our ports and rails.

When are they going to fix those systems? When are they going to invest in that type of infrastructure? When are they going to make it so that when I have a container of manufactured goods, I know exactly where it is throughout the chain?

We do not have those capacities here, and that was a big frustration in the port of Halifax. People really do not know what is coming into Halifax until it hits Halifax, and the reason they do not know is that the computer systems have not been invested in so that they have the ability to see what is coming in. When they get the paper manifest, that is when they find out what is in that container. Keep in mind that Halifax takes those containers and has a huge opportunity to take those big ships, unload those containers, put them onto smaller ships and go into New York, Boston and all those other harbours. Port of Halifax personnel have that potential if we give them the proper hardware and software to do that, and if the railways and the ports can talk to each other in a manner that is consistent. We do not have that in Canada. We need to put those types of systems in place. It can be done. Other countries in the world have done great jobs on their ports and the port systems in their infrastructure.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. I have never been one for reinventing the wheel unless there is something new that has not been invented before. There are companies and groups in the world, in Singapore for example, who run tremendous port facilities. Why do we not just go talk to them and ask them how we should do it in Vancouver? Why would we not take advantage of that knowledge and that wisdom and make sure that we have that here in Canada?

We want to grow this economy and diversify trade, but if we do not spend the money on the infrastructure and on making sure that we can deliver the products, it does not matter. They can go around the world and sign all the trade agreements they want, but if they cannot get the goods to market, what good is it?

The goods that we have in Canada are what the world wants. Think about it. Just in my province of Saskatchewan there are uranium, forestry products, grains and oilseeds, lentils and pulses, oil and gas, potash and fertilizer. That is just in Saskatchewan. Let us go down into Manitoba. Manitoba has grains and oilseeds and hydro. What does Alberta have? It has all sorts of things.

We can go province by province and we have everything that the world wants. I am sure a lot of businessmen from Asia and around the world, when they come into Canada and they look at the maps, say, “Wow, this is awesome.” Then, they go in and they try to develop it and realize that it is 14 years for a mine, so they say, “Next.” Then they say, “Okay, I can get a mine, but I do not have a train or a truck or a road. Next.” That is what has been reoccurring over the last 10 years here in Canada.

It is not that we do not have the resources. It is not that we do not have the educated workforce. It is not that we do not have the opportunity. We do not have the systems to allow people to say yes. We get in our way. That has been showing up over and over again, and we have left so much wealth on the table. That wealth could have been used for our hospitals, our pharmacare program and our dental care program. It would have been used to balance our budgets. That is how they get the money to provide the social programs that they want to deliver to Canadians.

Norway is a perfect example of that. They have taken their sovereign wealth fund and used it to provide not only social services across Norway but wealth for the next generation and the generation after that. Norwegians know their kids and grandkids are going to be taken care of. We know our kids and grandkids here in Canada cannot buy a house and probably may never be able to buy a house unless something drastically changes.

When we look at that and we see all these opportunities and all the potential and all the things that could be happening here in Canada, it makes us wonder why. What has gotten in the way? It was 10 years of Trudeau, for sure. It was 10 years of bad policy, at both the federal and provincial levels, a lack of infrastructure and infrastructure investment, and a lack of desire to actually allow it to happen. They have people who are basically the “no development” crowd, who say we should not develop anything but should just leave it all in the ground. I am sorry. In this day and age that does not work. That will not feed our kids. That does not provide the wealth that Canadians have come to expect.

Let us go into some of the other aspects that are happening around the globe today. We are talking about the USMCA, or CUSMA, whatever we want to call it. It is a file that I know fairly intimately and that is very close to my heart. If we want leverage in that file, the best thing we can do is develop our country. The best thing we can do is control the things we can control.

We do not know what the President of the U.S. is going to do, and he has every right to do whatever he wants to do. It is his country. The Americans will have those debates among themselves. Congress will decide how much leeway it will give the President when it comes to trade, trade issues and trade files. Again, that is out of our hands. We cannot control that.

We can do our best to influence it. We can do our best to make sure the Americans understand the consequences of it. I was part of a team that did that in 2018. I still remember going there with Brian Masse from the NDP and Wayne Easter and Andrew Leslie from the Liberal Party and talking about the importance of trade and what it meant to them and their districts. I remember working very closely with the embassies down there, making sure we had the proper data and information so that when we sat down with a member, not only did they know when we left what the relationship was, but they knew how many jobs were created because of trade with Canada. They knew exactly how much economic activity was happening in their district because of Canada. They had a good sense and understanding of exactly what that agreement meant.

We can do all that again. I know the embassy down in the U.S. has good people. It really does, and they are doing the best they can. However, the reality is that we are weak, and they know we are weak. The reality is that they know we do not have a lot of leverage, unless we start to develop the things we have.

In fact, we used to use the leverage of critical minerals. We would say to the Americans, when we had disputes over the last four years, that we have critical minerals and that they did not want to piss us off because we have critical minerals. The first year, that worked. The second year, they said, okay, that it is good. They needed critical minerals and did not want to buy their critical minerals from China. The third year, they looked at us and said to prove to them we can get them out of the ground and that we can actually do something.

This is the question I would have for the Prime Minister. It is to prove to Canadians that he is actually going to accomplish something. He has made some great speeches and people are raving about some of the speeches he has given around the world, which is fair enough. Words are good and important, but actions really show who someone is. I ask him show us the actions. He should show Canadians the actions he is going to take to position us properly, and not just for this negotiation because that is irrelevant as it is going to be what it is. It is what it is. Who is going to position Canada going into the future? Who has the vision of Canada to take advantage of the resources we are given, and to do it in a manner that we can all appreciate and respect and that is honourable?

Canada has so much going for it. We have a good rule of law and a great global reputation. We have a great education system. There is no reason we cannot be the best, most popular superpower in the world when it comes to delivering, whether it is resources, finished goods or AI products. Name it and we can do it.

I am going to end with a challenge. If the Liberal government really wants to do something, if it really wants to leave an impact that is going to help our kids, it must get serious about the infrastructure. If it is going to invest in things, it needs to get serious about those types of things and invest in those. If it is not going to get serious on that, if it is not going to get serious about improving our efficiency and our costs of production and getting those down, if it is not going to get serious about doing those types of things, then we are going to have another year until the next election, or whenever that may be, of lost opportunity. Do not let it be an 11-year lost opportunity. Make some changes. I implore the government to do that. If it will not, we will.