Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-13, that seeks to enable the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a partnership with 11 other countries. I will try to deliver my speech entirely in French. Some of it may be interspersed with English, but we will see.
I have family ties with the United Kingdom. My wife has Scottish heritage. I also have family ties with the United Kingdom on both sides of my family, specifically with communities in Scotland. I also chair the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association. Our parliamentary group includes Conservative and Bloc Québécois members as well as senators. Last week, we had the opportunity to attend a meeting with our British counterparts. We held talks with Prime Minister Starmer and with First Minister Swinney, the head of the Scottish government. The issue we are discussing today is connected to my work, my family ties and my community. Obviously, many people in Kings—Hants trace their heritage to the United Kingdom and Great Britain, which means we have very strong ties with these communities.
First, I would like to point out that the Canada-United Kingdom partnership is absolutely amazing. We have the same King and the same parliamentary tradition. Canada's Parliament is directly modelled on the Westminster system, in London. We also have family ties that bind us together. We fought side by side during the First and Second World Wars. We defended and supported Great Britain during these wars and, of course, we continue to work together through NATO. We have military partnerships with a number of countries, but also with the United Kingdom. Lastly, I believe that Canada and the United Kingdom share the same values.
This bill is fairly straightforward, and I believe that it has cross-partisan support in the House of Commons. At the very least, I believe that the two major parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, are going to move this bill forward because, overall, it is not complicated and it does not raise any major issues.
It is worth noting that 97% of the free trade in products, goods and services between Canada and the United Kingdom is tariff-free. That said, there are some relatively minor issues, which I would also like to point out. I think it is important for all parliamentarians to reflect on how to advance our other partnerships. I believe we have the opportunity to advance our partnerships, including in defence and procurement. For instance, I represent the riding of Kings—Hants in Nova Scotia. Halifax has shipyards where military vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy of the future are being built. We also have BAE Systems, which is managed with the United Kingdom.
There are many examples of our military procurement industry sending goods to the United Kingdom. Their system is the same. The governments in London and Ottawa now both want to increase their defence spending, and we have an opportunity to expand this partnership. I am also thinking about tourism. Nova Scotia has the largest Gaelic-speaking population outside of Scotland. Perhaps this could attract people who speak Gaelic or who have family ties here, for example.
I will now turn to some of the things that make the relationship difficult. We had conversations with our counterparts last week about rules of origin for the automotive sector. Many of the parts used to manufacture vehicles in the U.K. come from the European market, and the British are frustrated with the most favoured nation principle, which requires them to pay 6.1% tariffs to import auto parts from Canada.
However, as my colleague mentioned, we are somewhat frustrated by the lack of access to the beef and pork sectors. We are frustrated because of technical specifications, particularly when it comes to carcass washes, and the fact that our standards do not meet theirs. I understand why the government has raised these issues with regard to access for our farmers and why it wants to continue to raise them. However, I would like to add that, thanks to the work my hon. colleague has done with China, India and other countries, particularly with regard to beef producers, our farmers now have many opportunities.
In the time I have remaining, I want to highlight British pensioners and a little around the specifications in Europe. There are about 100,000 British pensioners in Canada. Their pensions have not been indexed, and this is a point of consternation in our bilateral relationship. British pensioners can go to the United States and have a fully indexed pension, but if they go to 50 of the 56 Commonwealth countries, their pensions are not indexed. There are differing amounts given for what the cost of this would be to the British Treasury, but as the chair of the delegation, I want British pensioners in Canada to know that this is something that was raised.
This is something we continue to press the U.K. government on. We understand there are challenges around their Treasury, but we think it ought to be something that all Canadian parliamentarians would support. We index Canadians on their social benefits and their pensions in the United Kingdom, and we think there should be reciprocity. I want colleagues in the House to know that is the position of the government, and it is something that our former minister of trade and our current Minister of International Trade have raised. It is a bit of an inflection point that we are hoping we can see some resolution on. It is something the government is raising.
Mr. Speaker, you come from a constituency that has a lot of agriculture, dairy, I believe, in Perth—Wellington. I want to raise the European Union regulations around SPS. This is something that the U.K. is in negotiations on right now with Europe. We ought to keep a close eye on those conversations, because Europe is increasingly narrowing the list of products that are available on critical farm inputs. We will continue as a government to make sure that we are raising that with the European Union, but as it relates to the facilitation of trade, particularly in agriculture and agri-food, that is some work that we can continue to do. We have great market access around the world, but this is the next stage.
This bill is not controversial. We should move it forward. The United Kingdom is a great partner, but there are some small, specific areas that we need to continue to focus on in the days ahead. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.