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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York—Durham, Ethics; the hon. member for Yellowhead, the Economy; the hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights, Housing.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good day in the House of Commons when we all agree that we need to boost our trade and that we need to invest in infrastructure.

However, I am really puzzled when I hear a member opposite talk about the importance of improving our ports, roads and railways and talking about the importance of infrastructure to drive down food prices, when the member opposite voted against a $5-billion trade diversification corridor fund that was in budget 2025, which was aimed specifically at new port infrastructure, railway upgrades and road and airport projects tied to trade flows. Time and time again, there are massive investments being made on this side of the House and members opposite vote against them.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if I remember that bill, it was an ominous bill that had all sorts of things in it, including that. When we put a piece of pie in with a bunch of garbage, it is still a bunch of garbage. We do not get the chance to separate the piece of pie.

There are things the member said that I would agree with, vote for and say they are good investments in Canada. However, the way the Liberals went about doing it made it impossible to support. Yes, they had their political wedge, and I congratulate them on it, good job, but did they do Canada any favours? No, they did not.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about the investor-state dispute settlement, which, among other things, allows investors to sue states directly before an international tribunal.

In the North American Free Trade Agreement, there was a provision in Chapter 11 that was removed when the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement was renewed in 2020. This chapter was abolished so that multinational corporations and large institutions would not have a disproportionate amount of power to sue countries and make it more difficult for them to legislate in their own jurisdiction. The World Trade Organization already exists to allow countries to settle such disputes among themselves.

I would like my colleague to explain why he agrees with giving more power to multinational corporations and limiting government action and intervention, when there are already international tribunals, including the World Trade Organization, that can resolve these disputes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I am in favour of ISDR when it makes sense to have an investor-state dispute mechanism.

When we looked at removing chapter 11, the history of it and the number of disputes, the amount paid out versus the amount of trade we actually did was very small. The percentage was so small it was unreal. When we looked at what was being paid out, the reality is that it was because of the nationalization of a pulp mill. If a pulp mill is nationalized by a provincial government, does one not think that company deserves some sort of settlement?

Let me reverse it. If a Canadian company is investing in another country and all of a sudden that country changes its constitution, changes its laws and comes back saying it is nationalizing that facility and the company has no recourse, is that fair? That is the idea behind ISDR, investor-state dispute resolution. It can be a small or medium-sized enterprise that is engaged in that type of situation. It does not have to be a big corporation, which everybody from the left seems to want to say is what is going on. The left has raised more money on investor-state dispute resolution than what the actual facts show. There are times we need those types of agreements in our trade agreements in order to make sure the investments we do abroad are protected. That is why they are there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech, specifically what he had to say around critical pieces of key infrastructure. We have heard many times throughout this debate that Canada has what the world wants and needs, but we have to be able to get it out to the world.

Of course, northern Ontario is home to the Ring of Fire, which hosts many critical minerals. The Province of Ontario is moving ahead with a road to the Ring of Fire, and the federal government is dragging its feet and completely not at the table. This is the type of nation-building project Canadians want to see moving forward, so we can ensure our economic self-reliance and support our economy. The member mentioned a bit about that. I wonder if he has any further comments on the need for that critical piece of infrastructure.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need the Ring of Fire. The reality is that for the types of goods and products we are producing into the future, the elements sitting in the Ring of Fire have to come to market. Either we bring them to market or the Chinese are going to bring them to market. If we want economic independence and the ability to take care of ourselves and our allies, the Ring of Fire becomes very crucial to seeing that develop.

I will compliment Premier Ford for moving forward with that road. I am very concerned that the federal government is dragging its heels. It needs to shape up, get out of the way and make sure things happen. I am sorry, but it should not take five years to approve a mine that has been talked about for the last 15 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech to be interesting. The member talked about ports and that Canada needs to do a better job with respect to ports. If we look at the top 10 ports in the world, they are not in the United States or Canada.

When the member talks about ports, he has to be fair with the comments he raises. For example, we have a prime minister and a government that are investing in a massive expansion of the Montreal port. We have the first Prime Minister in generations talking about developing a port in Churchill, Manitoba. I think we need to recognize that we have a prime minister who has made significant strides on that, not to mention the billions in infrastructure commitments, and this is all within the last 12 months. I am interested in his thoughts on that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Prime Minister if that is actually what he ends up doing at the end of the day, once he proves to me that he has shovels in the ground and is doing it.

However, where have you been for the last 10 years? How did we get into such a bad deficit situation in the last 10 years? Where have you been? The same Liberal members are sitting over there with a different guy leading them. That is all it is. You are telling me one person can now make all this happen? Where have you been for the last 12 years?

Churchill is a perfect example. Wab Kinew, and I give him credit, is promoting that. I think that is a great idea. I am standing behind it. It seems to me that makes a lot of sense for bringing grains out of western Canada into the European marketplace. I would think it is great for LNG, and maybe even oil and gas.

Where have you been for the last 10 years when we were talking about the port of Churchill? SARM has been on it, and a lot of other groups have been talking about it. Where has the Liberal government been? It has been nowhere to be found.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I continue questions and comments, I think it is a good time to remind members that when using “you”, it is through the Chair.

I have been here for a few terms now. I think it has been just over 10 years.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for what was an excellent speech, highlighting the fact that Canada does indeed have what the world wants, but through a suite of Liberal policies over the last 10 years, as he described, we have become an unreliable trading partner and had our port infrastructure and major trade-enabling infrastructure fall apart. In fact, Vancouver was recently ranked 347th out of the 348 most effective ports in the world.

We now have a government using the powers under Bill C-5 to name the Alto project, a $90-billion, turning into a how many billions more, boondoggle.

Could the member talk a little about how the priorities of ports and trade-enabling infrastructure, whether that be Vancouver or, rightfully so, Churchill, contrast with other government policies, like a marine protected area and a national park proposal, which would get in the way of any of the infrastructure that, even if we built it, could actually get trade to market?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question.

The member talked about the Alto train and the $90 billion, which will probably be $150 billion and which will probably be $200 billion by the time it is actually built and completed, where the average ticket cost will probably be around $2,000 one way in a corridor that actually is already being served by bus, existing rail and airplane.

If the government has that kind of money, just think what it could do for port infrastructure and highway infrastructure that could actually bring revenue and royalties back to our country and provide the social programs that we want to see going forward. It is not that we do not want to dream. Dreams are fine, but reality does have to set in once in a while, and practicality has to rule the day.

The reality is we have more priorities that have to come first before we see something like the Alto rail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just quickly dispute the notion that we have brought more money into protest groups than Canada paid out. Canada paid out $8 million for a perfectly legal decision rendered by the federal Minister of Environment, John Baird at the time, and the Progressive Conservative provincial Minister of Environment for Nova Scotia. Bilcon of Delaware got away with murder and took our money.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member laid out an example that I am not familiar with. I do not know the details and cannot answer the question effectively.

The member and I are going to dispute investor state dispute settlements, because she looks at it through a different window than I do. I look at it as the mechanism for making sure that things are done fairly, equally and properly, and that everybody is protected, no matter what happens.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it that, in relation to Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, the Senate does not insist on its amendment with which the House of Commons disagreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

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

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with another member of the House. It is an honour to be here and speak to Bill C-13, an act implementing U.K. accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, commonly known as CPTPP.

Common-sense Conservatives support free trade. Canada is a trading nation, and we know that through free trade, we get better economic results. Free trade lowers prices for consumers and provides a greater variety of goods. Having more producers in the market drives down costs and leaves the consumer better off. It increases efficiency. With international competition, businesses are encouraged to improve their resource allocation and utilization.

Finally, it allows us to specialize to our advantages. Canada has many resources and a lot of human capital. That benefits us in the global economy. It helps Canada to be the global leader it is in many industries and sectors.

The Conservative Party has a strong legacy in promoting free trade. It was the old PCs under Mulroney who created NAFTA, leading to free trade in North America. Later on, former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper may have been the greatest proponent of international trade in Canadian history. Under his Conservative government, Canada concluded 15 free trade agreements with 51 countries, giving Canada preferential access across the world.

The CPTPP, the very trade agreement we are discussing, also fits into the Harper legacy. His legacy put Canada in a strong position globally, one that, unfortunately, the Liberal government has squandered, namely with the United States. The Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win by July 21 last year. We are now well into 2026, and there is no deal. On August 1, President Trump's government raised tariffs to 35% on Canadian goods not covered by CUSMA. That was a great job, Prime Minister.

The free trade uncertainty is far from over as the government prepares for the July 1, 2026 CUSMA review. Even the Prime Minister has expressed uncertainty, expressing that Canada may need to change the terms for U.S. access to our market if the negotiations fail. This is our biggest trading partner, but the Prime Minister has yet to establish respect from Americans, flip-flopping on our commitments to them and even recently being called governor in a social media post by the President.

I think we can all see the writing on the wall, that the current Liberal government may fail us just as they have in the past, and Liberal failures are having a real impact on Canadians. I look at the Food Banks Canada “Hunger Count 2025” report. The results are sad, but unfortunately, unsurprising. Canada is becoming a country where hunger is normalized. Food prices have risen 25% in the last four years, and the month of March saw over two million food bank visits. This is the highest ever in Canadian history.

I recently attended an event in my riding, hosted by Infinity Safety Awareness and organized by Sunil Phool. We discussed the intersection of food insecurity and mental health. I met with students, single parents and many suffering from this insecurity. I learned how much this affects families and children. Imagine kids going to school with no food. This affects their mental health, not just their stomachs.

How sad is it that we now live in a country where working families are forced to use food banks? This goes to show what 10 years of Liberals have done to this country. With the current failure to keep jobs in Canada, things may only get worse. Every plant moving to the U.S. or shutting down due to lack of market access means more and more families will have to turn to food banks to keep their stomachs full.

With regard to this legislation, where we are approving the necessary legislative changes for the U.K. to join the CPTPP, there is a major sector that the Liberals fail to defend, and that is the beef industry, an important industry for Canadians and Albertans. The United Kingdom exported over 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, over $42 million in 2024 and $28 million in 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported only $85,500 dollars' worth of beef to the U.K. in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and no beef at all in 2025. How can this be, given that Canada is one of the largest beef producers in the world, with the best quality of meat and world-class safety standards?

This comes at a time when beef exports are doing well. In 2024, Canada exported $3.88 billion in beef, with Alberta exporting $3.8 billion, almost all of it. The reason we have no exports to the United Kingdom is that it refuses to approve the carcass washing applied at Canadian slaughter plants and opposes the use of growth promotants in beef production. These objections are not based in fact. In fact, the U.K.'s position is anti-scientific. Canadian food, especially Alberta beef, is some of the best quality in the world, and the vast majority of countries recognize our standards as world-class.

The U.K. is using non-tariff barriers to keep Canadians out of its market, but at the same time, we let it into ours. That is not fair, and that is why the Canadian Cattle Association has called for the termination of the Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement previously. The Liberals have failed beef producers and Albertans by not standing up on this trade irritant. Instead, they expect us to approve the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP without anything in return. This is a bad negotiation strategy and goes to show what we already know, which is that the Prime Minister does not care about farmers, he does not care about the beef industry and he does not care about Alberta.

Conservatives will support the expansion of our trade market, but it is with great displeasure that beef producers and, in turn, Albertans were not taken into account. Otherwise, the U.K. has and will continue to be a close partner for Canada. Our history is intertwined. Our country, our values and our democracy, including this very House of Commons, come from the U.K. It is good for both countries to maintain their ties and open market at a fair level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that it appears the Conservative Party will be voting in favour of the legislation, but I find it unfortunate that the member has put a great deal of questionable information on the record. I will give an example.

When you talk about the Harper era, you say 50-some countries. That is just not true. You cannot say there were 50-plus countries that signed off on an agreement or that were a part of an agreement. Ed Fast did not score the goal on the issue. The Conservatives might have done some advanced negotiations, but it is not true and the member should not give that kind of information. Throughout his comments, there were incidents, like when he said the government does not care about Alberta. Again, it is not true.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I want to remind members using “you” to not speak directly to the member but through the Chair.

The member for Edmonton Southeast.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the member opposite is famous for twisting myths around to sound like they are real. I said that during Stephen Harper's time, we signed 15 trade agreements with 51 countries. That is a fact. The member does not have anything to refer to saying that my information is incorrect or is not well informed, so I encourage him to come up with the facts and the sources he is relying upon.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my almost-neighbour from Edmonton, made a great comment.

One of the issues that has come up a lot today is about the need to reduce red tape. According to StatsCan, as well as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, there are currently well over 300,000 individual regulations in Canada right now. Of course, here come the Liberals to the rescue, creating another bureaucracy to fight bureaucracy: a department of red tape reduction that employs well over 30 employees. Last year it managed to cut 89 regulations, so we have only 320,900 to go.

I wonder if the member could comment about how the government's focus seems to be on adding bureaucracy rather than reducing bureaucracy and red tape, which would actually get our economy and productivity going.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful question. My take on the Liberals' stand of adding bureaucracy is that it gives them more airtime to make statements and slogans. If there is less bureaucracy, then time has to be spent on actual results. When we cannot get results, all we have to rely upon are slogans and statements.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to trade agreements such as the ones we have just studied in committee, the Conservatives often get all worked up and rightly accuse the government of not knowing how to negotiate. However, by supporting the amendments I proposed, they would have had the opportunity to change that and correct certain mistakes.

Why did the Conservatives not do that, preferring instead to fall obediently into line behind the government in this fine Liberal-Conservative coalition?