House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 095
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 12, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 095
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, March 12, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
Privacy Commissioner
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Privacy Act, a report from the Privacy Commissioner entitled “Special Report to Parliament: Investigation into the contracting practices of the Canada Border Services Agency related to the development of the ArriveCAN application”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between Canada and the European Union laying down the conditions for the participation of Canadian legal entities and products originating in Canada to procurement under the SAFE Instrument”, done at Munich on February 14.
Lawful Access Act, 2026
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[Translation]
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, or APF. The first report concerns its participation in the 40th session of the APF America Regional Assembly, held in Quebec City, Canada, from September 9 to 11, 2025. The second report concerns its participation in the eighth Leadership Workshop for Parliamentarians Women of the APF, held in Paris, France, from November 3 to 7, 2025.
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
A woman is killed by femicide every 48 hours in this country. The bill would go a long way to making the punishment fit the crime. We have aptly named it “Bailey's Law”, after the tragedy that happened to Bailey McCourt.
I thank all members of the committee and all members of each party for supporting the bill and seeing it move forward.
Government Operations and Estimates
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the mighty OGGO, entitled “Appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer”.
This report is important for two reasons. First of all, it is a recommendation from the committee that the government appoint Jason Jacques as the permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years. This recommendation is important because Mr. Jacques's office was recently named by the OECD as the top Parliamentary Budget Office in the world. Additionally, Parliament is without a Parliamentary Budget Officer right now, which means there are no reports coming from the office on the estimates or any other process. This would increase transparency and accountability in this House.
[Translation]
Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑268, an act respecting the spectrum policy framework for Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to improve cellular connectivity in rural areas and on numbered roads. For me, connecting rural areas is a matter of public safety, economic development and fairness, quite simply. Contrary to what some official maps might say, many areas in Canada still need to be connected.
My bill aims to accomplish three things: make coverage data more reliable, update the spectrum framework, and prioritize rural areas and numbered roads in developing cellphone service.
[English]
Cellular connectivity is not a luxury. It is about safety, economic development and fairness between regions. People outside major urban centres deserve reliable service too.
[Translation]
This bill will improve our tools to help us better understand the gaps and promote fairer network development across Canada. I sincerely hope that all parties will work together to move this file forward, as it is essential for our rural communities.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[English]
Income Tax Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (heat recovery tax credit).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today that would fill an oversight that the government has left open in its latest investment tax credits for clean energy production and also for emissions reduction. We have to take the two hand in hand.
Waste heat to power is the most important method we have to make sure we have emissions-free power coming forward. It is low-hanging fruit, quite frankly, and the fact that it has been missed by the government in its investment tax credits is a shame. I am here to correct that today by putting it on the page and making sure that we debate in the House of Commons how we can attain more efficiency in our energy production in Canada and reduce our emissions for that power that is already being produced.
With waste heat to power, an industrial process, we lose 30% to 50% of the heat in the process. Having an investment tax credit to capture that heat would capture about 30% of what is lost and effectively give more power to Canadians with no new emissions, which is the main thing here. It would be a strict win all the way along. The fact that it has not been included, at this point in time, in the government's approach to investment tax credits is purely because most of these industrial processes involve hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are a part of our present and a part of our future.
We need to debate this very clearly. I hope the government takes this on and makes it an even better bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Stand on Guard Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (defence of person).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce the stand on guard act, my very first bill in the House.
Our homes are supposed to be the one place where we can rest and feel safe, but across Canada, home invasions are rising, and too many families are living with fear inside their own homes.
We have all walked through the house at night checking the doors, listening for a creak in the hallway, but for too many Canadians, that fear becomes real when intruders break into their homes. When homeowners defend themselves and their families, they can end up being treated like criminals, taken away by police and forced into costly legal battles just to prove they acted in self-defence. That is not right.
The stand on guard act would strengthen Canada's self-defence laws. It would create a clear presumption that when someone knowingly and unlawfully enters a home, the force used based on what a person believes at that moment to be reasonably necessary to defend themselves and their family is considered reasonable, unless the facts show otherwise, because their home should be their safe place, not the place where the law turns against them for protecting the people they love.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
National Strategy for Children and Youth Act
moved that Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada, be read for the first time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce in the House Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
I would like to thank Senator Moodie for introducing this important legislation in the Senate and for her leadership in championing the well-being of children and youth across our country not just in the Senate but also during her career as a physician. Children and youth represent Canada's future, yet the policies and programs that support them are too often fragmented across jurisdictions and sectors alike.
Bill S-212 would require the federal government to work with provinces and territories, indigenous partners, experts, families and, critically, youth and children themselves to develop a national strategy that would bring greater coordination and accountability to these efforts. The bill would establish a framework for consultations, measurable goals, an action plan and regular reporting to Parliament to help improve outcomes for children and youth across Canada.
I look forward to working with colleagues from all parties to move this important legislation forward.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Weights and Measures Act
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the ninth time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their communities.
Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada. Our once-safe communities have turned into places where people fear for their lives because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail.
The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present petition e-6974.
I want to recognize my constituent TJ Hagarty from Fernie, British Columbia, for his dedication in bringing forward this important issue. Mr. Hagarty's family experienced a significant hardship when they were unable to transfer their son's medical care to Alberta rather than Vancouver due to limitations of the current system.
I am proud to present this petition, which has gathered more than 2,500 signatures from residents across my riding. Since elected in 2019, I have worked hard to support constituents within our health care system. It is my responsibility on their behalf to bring this to the attention of the House of Commons.
Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with the provinces to address the barriers in accessing care across provincial boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the 157,057 Canadians who have signed the historic charter of health freedom petition, one of the largest paper petitions in Canadian history, initiated by the Natural Health Product Protection Association.
Parliament has a duty to respond to a petition of this magnitude, one driven by grassroots, everyday people who want rights that guarantee their freedom to make informed choices about their own health. These rights include the right of every person to sovereignty over their own body, the right to choose how to prevent illnesses or address illness and injury, the right to access treatment options without unnecessary government restrictions, the right to make their own health decisions without undue interference from the state, respect for the constitutional role of the provinces in health care and recognition of the sovereign right of first nations people to practise their traditional medicines.
The charter of health freedom calls for a new legislative framework recognizing natural health products and traditional medicines in their own category, rather than treating them as therapeutic drugs under the Food and Drugs Act.
Canadians deserve a system that protects safety while respecting their ability to care for their own health, and after over 157,000 voices have spoken, now is the time for action for the health freedom of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions in the House.
The first is from citizens who are concerned about the misuse of generative AI, which has led to a rise in disinformation due to deepfakes, or falsely generated videos or images of a person's likeness. AI tools have developed to a point where it is difficult for the most people to determine the authenticity of a video, audio or image source, and AI tools can be used maliciously.
These citizens call upon the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation to acknowledge the risks posed by deepfakes, strengthen the Canadian Copyright Act to include an individual's right to their own body and voice, and ensure enforcement mechanisms are in place at a federal level to support individuals' rights to their likeness.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that, following the genocide in Gaza, Canada has not yet sanctioned any entities for their activities in Gaza and that, according to the United Nations, Israel's latest military campaign has damaged or destroyed 92% of housing units in the Gaza Strip.
These citizens call upon the government to investigate and sanction individuals and entities involved in serious violations of international law across the occupied Palestinian territory, including the systematic destruction of civilian property, and to impose sanctions upon key individuals and entities involved in the demolition of property and civilian objects in Gaza.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition brought by constituents from across Canada who are concerned about Bill C-9. They are concerned that this bill could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. They call on the Government of Canada not to pass this bill. They want to ensure that the Government of Canada protects religious freedom, upholds the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevents government overreach in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Fairhaven, Meadowgreen, Parkridge and Confederation in Saskatoon, who are all concerned about the significant challenges they are facing because of crime, chaos and disorder in their neighbourhoods. They are concerned about the drug use and homelessness that have overrun their neighbourhoods, making public area schools and even private backyards unsafe. Of course, safe supply and harm reduction programs paid for by the federal government have prolonged and encouraged drug use instead of offering treatment.
The petitioners are asking for the government to bring back mandatory minimums for the trafficking, importing and production of illegal narcotics, which were removed in Bill C-5. They want to end the dangerous safe supply experiments that have lowered the cost and increased the supply of narcotics on the street and, most importantly, they want to invest in real treatment for drug users, such as rehabilitation beds, that encourage people to get off drugs.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands on an issue that remains one that I know many members of this place would agree is a national crisis, and that is that we continue to see far too many deaths from opioids, by what are essentially fentanyl poisonings.
I want to particularly pay tribute to one of my constituents, Leslie McBain, who lost her son in that crisis and is one of the founders of an extraordinary group of bereaved parents called Moms Stop the Harm. The petitioners are asking the government to consider that it is ineffective to treat those suffering from drug abuse as criminals. They are people in need of medical assistance and mental health supports to help deal with addiction. In other words, incarceration and treating this as a criminal matter has been ineffective, and rehabilitation through treatment programs is urgently needed.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of residents in my community on Liberal Bill C-9, in particular the Liberal and Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 passed at the justice committee that would remove long-standing protections for the good-faith expression of religious beliefs and the citing of religious texts. That amendment would subject people who read the Bible, the Torah or other religious texts to potential criminal prosecution.
Therefore, residents in my riding are calling on the government to do two things: one, withdraw Bill C-9; and, two, protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
We must continue with Routine Proceedings, and we cannot do that if the hon. member is engaging with a member of the opposition. Order, please.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: To the hon. member for London West, I have heard some unparliamentary terms, which I will let go at this particular time.
Questions on the Order Paper
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
[Translation]
Putting of Questions
The Chair would like to take a few moments to make a statement on the procedure for putting the question and clarify for the House its interpretation of Standing Order 45(1).
To preserve its impartiality, the Chair must intercede as little as possible and, whenever it can, be guided by the will of the House.
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I am trying to read a statement, so the Chair requests respect. I do not want to have to ask a member to leave.
I will start again from the top.
[Translation]
To preserve its impartiality, the Chair must intercede as little as possible and, whenever it can, be guided by the will of the House.
Two recent events have put these limits to the test. On Friday, February 13, 2026, when the question was put on one of the report stage motions for Bill C‑14, by the Assistant Deputy Speaker, members did not indicate if the question should be carried or negatived, nor did anyone ask for a recorded vote. In this unusual situation, the Assistant Deputy Speaker relied on a relevant precedent from the United Kingdom and declared the motion negatived. Then, on Thursday, February 26, during the putting of the question on the motion to read Bill C‑15 a third time, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who is not a member of a recognized party, asked the Chair for a recorded division. The Chair reminded the member that she could not make such a request, as this ability is reserved for members of recognized parties, under Standing Order 45(1).
[English]
That provision of the Standing Orders has been in effect since June 2023 and stems from changes the House has made to its procedures since September 2020, including an end to the practice of calling for “yeas” and “nays”. Prior to that change, any five members could rise to ask for a recorded vote further to the Chair's assessment of the result of the voice vote. Members could also indicate that a question be carried “on division” to denote that the matter was not decided unanimously, without resorting to a recorded vote.
That provision also states fairly clearly the options available to the House, as follows:
When a question is put on a motion, any member participating in person may ask that the motion be carried or carried on division. Any member of a recognized party participating in person may ask that the “yeas” and “nays” be entered in the Journals.
In other words, any single member of a recognized party can trigger a recorded vote. The provision continues:
A request for a recorded division shall take precedence over a request for adoption.
However, as we discovered on February 13, the Standing Orders in current practice are silent on what can happen if the House chooses none of the options on offer. Moreover, the Standing Orders do not seem to offer a way to negative a motion other than by recorded division. Some clarifications are in order.
[Translation]
If the House remains silent or if only one request to negative a motion is made, on or without division—that is, if no member clearly asks that the motion be carried—the Chair will declare the motion negatived.
Conversely, and to be clear, if the Chair hears requests to both negative and carry a matter, in the absence of a request for a recorded division, the Chair would have no alternative but to declare the motion carried, consistent with the options set out in Standing Order 45(1).
[English]
A member of a recognized party may still request a recorded division, which would take precedence over any other request. In all these circumstances, the requests must, of course, come from members participating in person.
Note also that members of unrecognized parties and independent members cannot request a recorded division. This is a rule that the House has given itself. It is, of course, the prerogative of the House to change this rule if it sees fit.
The Chair hopes that these clarifying remarks will guide members when questions are put in the future. I thank all members for their attention.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act
Hon. Maninder Sidhu (for the Minister of Finance and National Revenue)
moved: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, the House respectfully disagrees with the amendment made to the bill by the Senate because Parliament should be the body that decides the rules that govern communication by federal parties with Canadians, the amendment constitutes a substantive reversal of the principle of the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act in Part 4 of Bill C-4, the government intends to bring forward additional privacy provisions in legislative changes to the Canada Elections Act within this parliamentary session, and furthermore, there is a long tradition of the Senate deferring to the House of Commons on amendments to the Canada Elections Act, particularly those which have unanimous support of all recognized parties in the House and which govern the operations of candidates representing political parties seeking election to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that the government is not willing to consider sober second thought, having put forward such a scandalous abuse of omnibus budget bills as is found in Bill C-4.
What we have in Bill C-4, which is titled the affordability act, are many measures that are mostly about affordability, but magically, there is this bizarre inclusion of amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
[Translation]
Part 4 of this bill contains amendments to the Canada Elections Act. What does the Canada Elections Act have to do with the cost of living?
[English]
It is not just bizarre that we find in part 4 of Bill C-4, which is the affordability act, unaccountably, changes to the Canada Elections Act. The content of those changes is, and I will use the word again, scandalous. Canadians will be scandalized, and it is unfortunate that the way of going in this Parliament has been for things to be passed so quickly that people do not even know what they have passed.
Part 4 of Bill C-4 is all about one thing: removing any thought that there is any requirement on the part of any federal political party in this country to protect the personal private information of Canadians. The bill is a bit of overkill, one might say. At one point in part 4 of Bill C-4, it says that any of the provisions for protection of privacy are “deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”
If they were deemed never to have come into force, I suppose it is a bit of overkill to also make sure they are repealed, but it gets worse. The bill then says that part 4 of Bill C-4 will come into force in the year 2000.
I remember the day this bill was tabled in June. I took around the hard copy of Bill C-4 to various friends on the side of the House of the Liberal Party and said, “Look at this. Why does this bill have to come into force in the year 2000?” People would say that it must be a typo, and I would say, “No, that is not a typo, my friend. That is a time machine.”
I have never seen before in this place that a bill in the future tense would come into force 26 years ago.
[Translation]
There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that there are things I have never seen before.
[English]
I am not the only one who has never seen this.
[Translation]
However, for the moment, this is a part of the bill that strikes me as odd.
[English]
The Senate looked at it and asked why, buried in the affordability act, there were amendments to the Elections Act. It is all well and good that, in the preamble the Speaker just read, the government says it is sending this back to the Senate and that they have no business in this, letting them slap them on the wrist for thinking they can presume to tell anybody in this place about the Elections Act, but the government had this coming and was well overdue to start looking at sections of omnibus bills. I think it is scandalous that we did not.
I know a lot of senators were disturbed by Bill C-12. They looked at Bill C-12 in committee, and they said that it had not been properly studied and that it would abuse the rights of refugees, but they held back. They thought that the government would not want to accept their amendments, so they did not make amendments, but they did put on the record that a subcommittee was concerned.
It would have been tough for the Senate to make amendments because the pressure was on them to not make amendments. In fact, the leader of the government in the Senate went so far as to misstate to other senators that Bill C-4 had been carried unanimously in this place.
I noticed they were careful in the preamble we just heard to refer to unanimous support from recognized parties. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc were happy to carry this unanimously, but my objections were recorded on the record, even in the so-called unanimous consent motion. It says, “that the opposition of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted”.
Why do I dig in my heels? Why do I say hurrah for the senators who put forward some common-sense amendments? What is wrong with the government that it will not accept the Senate amendments?
If one has not looked at the Senate amendments, standing by what I have said, it is extraordinary that the Government of Canada would say it is bringing into effect a bill that would take effect 26 years ago. What kind of offence has the Liberal Party committed in the last 26 years that would require a time machine to say that laws that we might have had to protect the personal information of Canadians did not ever exist, were never carried and, on top of that, took effect in the year 2000?
The Senate amendment just says that three years from when Bill C-4 takes effect, three years from now, the government must come up with a way of protecting the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties.
This was not that long ago, so I will cite the source, but there was an iPolitics news story from March 3 of this year where the leader of the government in the House, and of course I will not say his name but we know it, said, after citing that he was the former national director of the Liberal Party, “I can assure you that, for our part, and I assume all parties follow the same basic standard, we essentially comply with PIPEDA”, referring to the acronym for the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
There is currently a court case in British Columbia because the privacy commissioner for British Columbia has said that this is a matter of law. Provincial political parties in British Columbia have to abide by the protection of privacy information for Canadians.
We know that there was a study before the ethics committee back in 2018. The study was entitled “Breach of Personal Information Involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook”.
That particular case study should make us, as parliamentarians, and as people who believe in democracy, deeply concerned that the personal and private information of Canadians can be misused in the hands of those who develop systems, such as Cambridge Analytica did, to target, use algorithms, distort and deliver information that is misinformation directed to particular people who are likely to believe, as they are pre-inclined and predisposed to believe, that misinformation. In that case, in that study, the committee pointed to the need of protecting the personal information of Canadians held by federal political parties.
I will not disagree with the government for one minute, but it would be far better to not bury in an omnibus bill on affordability the taking away of rights regarding the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties. It would be far better to be open about it and say that they are going to amend the Canada Elections Act and talk about the personal and private information of Canadians.
I think the government should be ashamed. Every Liberal, and every floor crosser who has joined this gang, should be ashamed of being associated with a piece of subterfuge as vile as saying that this is an act on affordability, to not look over there at part 4, that it has nothing to do with us, that it is something they are doing about privacy information and they are making sure that it took effect 26 years ago.
If they had nothing to be ashamed of, why would they not bring forward a bill that, on its own, is about updating the Canada Elections Act and that clearly asks Canadians what they want us to do with their personal and private information, those of us who are federal political parties? Certainly, the Green Party tries very hard to abide by all the personal and private information protections, as though the law already applied to us clearly, and we will continue to do so.
This is an abomination. This is a very reasonable amendment from the Senate that, three years from now, once the bill is passed, we would have a better plan of action. The government's motion today said it is planning to bring forward something soon. Will that be sooner than three years from now?
How can the government possibly object to an amendment from the Senate that says to get its act in order within the next three years? We should, in this place, absolutely refuse to accept the government's advice to reject Senate amendments. If there ever was a time for sober second thought, it is now. This is embarrassing. Are all recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc, okay with passing a law that turns the clock back 26 years? Come on. This is embarrassing. I ask members to please accept the Senate amendments.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[Translation]
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 House proceeded to the 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.
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation. It is a part of a much larger picture that the Government of Canada has entered into since the last federal election.
In the last federal election, members will recall that the debate during the election, and the greatest concerns Canadians had, were with respect to economic security and a sense of sovereignty. I would argue that we had the right person, at the right time, leading the Liberal Party. We had a prime minister who understood how important it was to secure an economy that was going to deliver for Canadians even at a difficult time, when we had issues with President Trump and the negotiations and discussions around trade with Canada's single greatest trading partner. That was the issue in the last election, and we had a prime minister who articulated exceptionally well just how important it was that we, as a government, look at opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. borders when it came to trade.
Following that election, we had a prime minister and a government that were focused on that issue. Part of that focus was to build toward a stronger one Canadian economy. That is why members will recall Bill C-5, which was all about taking down provincial barriers, working with provincial governments and building infrastructure, so that we would be in a better position to be able to export. That is what Bill C-13 is all about. It is a reflection of the need for us to have trading partners that go beyond Canada and the U.S.A. As a prime minister, someone who has been the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England and has impeccable economic credentials, he understood just how important that was.
That is the reason we have seen our Prime Minister, along with a number of different ministers, including the minister responsible for introducing this legislation, aggressively look outside of Canada for export opportunities. I have been a parliamentarian for many years and can say that I have never witnessed such a motivated Prime Minister and cabinet, solely focused on increasing exports and building a stronger and healthier Canada.
What I see in Bill C-13 are tangible results with respect to Northern Ireland and England as economic trading partners. Let us look at one aspect many people may not be aware of. We export gold to England. Virtually every region of our country participates in gold exports. Securing markets matters and also assists in building relationships. Whether it is the Prime Minister or virtually any minister who has been travelling on behalf of Canadians, looking to expand that market and to diversify our exports, every single one has commented on how the world wants more Canada, because Canada really and truly has so much potential.
That is one of the reasons I disagree so much with the Conservatives who say that Canada is broken when they tour the country. All they need to do is to go anywhere, to virtually any one of our allied countries, any of the G7 countries or any of the G20 countries, to find that there is a strong desire to have Canada involved or engaged in their respective economies and to build a stronger and healthier relationship.
If we were to put partisanship aside and just look at the number of countries that the Prime Minister has been to, it is a fairly lengthy list. I would ultimately argue that the greatest asset any country has when it comes to expanding exports is its leader. That is why I say we have the right person at the right time, someone who really and truly understands the economy, how it works, the advantages of international trade, and why it is so very important that we expand beyond the Canada-U.S.A. relationship and that the Prime Minister travels.
Today we are talking about an agreement with England and Northern Ireland. One of the industries in Canada that would benefit is the gold industry, but there are other industries as well. It is important that we expand that trade file into the many different industries that are before us.
Yesterday, a member of the Conservative Party was talking about trade and the pork industry. That is an $8-billion industry for Canada, with tens of thousands of good jobs throughout Canada, in particular in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. In Manitoba, we have Maple Leaf, HyLife and other producers, not to mention the hundreds of farmers who support that particular industry in indirect jobs.
I raise that because the Conservative member was talking about a trade agreement with Indonesia, the legislation that we had before us. Some other Conservative members were saying that it is a relatively small percentage of trade, but we have to look at the cumulative total. In Indonesia alone, with the trade agreement that was being debated yesterday, we are talking about billions of dollars in merchandise trade. That is one of the faster-growing economies in an area of the world where we are looking for more opportunities.
The member opposite was talking about the pork industry and saying that there are concerns in Europe, and I agree. There are some concerns with regard to Europe, but we also need to recognize that we have a Prime Minister who has been proactive in virtually all areas of the world.
Representatives of the pork industry in Manitoba were quite pleased to hear about the Prime Minister going to Japan. HyLife has a wonderful processing centre in the community of Neepawa. HyLife is bringing a lot of economic opportunity back to a small, beautiful community in rural Manitoba. I can assure members that the community of Neepawa sees Japan as a wonderful opportunity to continue to grow and expand and be the beautiful community it is.
I could talk about Maple Leaf, which has a huge plant in the city of Winnipeg. The best bacon in the world comes out of that Maple Leaf plant in Winnipeg. Actually, 50% of all bacon consumed in Canada comes from that plant in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
An hon. member: What about Neepawa?
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I just talked about Neepawa. If members want to see how efficient a plant can actually be at processing hogs, they can take a tour of the Brandon plant.
An hon. member: Have you?
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, yes, I have taken the tour, right from where the hogs go in to where the final product goes out, and some of that product actually goes to Maple Leaf in Winnipeg. I understand the pork industry.
When we talk about world trade, what we are seeing today is a good example of a Prime Minister who has incredible connections. There are other world leaders who are anxious to actually meet with our Prime Minister. I think in terms of when he was down in Asia and he met with the President of the Philippines. Between the President and our Prime Minister, there was discussion about seeing whether we can achieve a trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines. There are all sorts of opportunities, whether it is coconut water coming from the Philippines to Canada or pork going to the Philippines from Canada. I hope I said that right: coconut water from the Philippines to Canada and pork from, ideally Manitoba but certainly Canada, to the Philippines. There are wonderful opportunities.
I take a look in terms of what happened with the Prime Minister's going to India. Do members know how much all of Canada would benefit by that, but in particular the Prairies? India wants energy. We have seen a government that is focused on delivering energy to the world and being a leader.
I would suggest that it is so critically important for those who are interested in following the debate on trade and the importance of trade to take a look at what the Canadian government is doing today and realize that, if we look at the world population and Canada's population, we make up about 0.5% of the world population. On the other hand, when we think of world trade, we actually make up about 2.5% of world trade. Those numbers alone clearly demonstrate why it is so important that Canada be engaged in trade. If we want to improve the conditions here in Canada, we must look at the impact that world trade has and continue to look for opportunities.
That is why the circumstances between Canada and the United States have heightened the importance that we not be as reliant on the United States. I love the United States. Americans and Canadians have had a super fantastic relationship for many years, but as the Prime Minister has indicated, things have changed and Canada needs to look at alternative ways we can provide that sovereignty and sense of security, so that Canada is in a better position going forward and cannot be intimidated by a much larger southern neighbour. That is a huge motivating factor.
People across the way, from the Conservative Party, will ask us to show them the deal. It is important for all of us to realize that we need to have a united front. We need to actually approach the United States in a united team Canada fashion, to be able to argue from a position of strength.
One of the ways we do that is by showing that we have trading opportunities in many other countries that want to increase trade with Canada. We have seen an example of that. If we went back generations, I would challenge whether other prime ministers did this 40 or 50 years ago. I would not go far back, but I can tell members that we have an aggressive agenda for building Canada strong. A major part of that, as we are talking about today, is world trade.
This is just one piece of legislation that deals with Northern Ireland and with England. These are trading partners we have had for a long time. Whether it is with trading partners like these or trading partners into the future, I believe there are opportunities. There is a heightened sense of awareness from exporters that want to be a part of world trade and export beyond the United States, and beyond even Canadian borders, obviously.
I had the opportunity to travel to the Philippines on a trade mission of sorts. There were literally hundreds of business representatives and entrepreneurs gathered in Manila to talk about trade opportunities between Canada and the Philippines. Another time when I was in the Philippines, we opened up the Agri-Food Office. That headquarters serves, I believe, 35 countries in the Pacific area for agri-food products. I had a tour of a grocery store in the Philippines that was highlighting Canadian-produced products—
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speech by the member opposite from the beginning. I am rising because we are supposed to be discussing Bill C-13, which deals with the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. However, most of the member opposite's speech has been focused on relations with the United States, the Philippines—
The hon. member knows full well that the Chair gives a lot of latitude when it comes to the nature of the speeches that can be given, and the parliamentary secretary has referred several times to the agreement and to trade with the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I would therefore ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to resume his speech.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I understand and respect the comments, but I think we need to take a look at the larger picture, which is why I also made reference to one of the greatest exports Canada has. The member represents a Quebec riding, and for the province of Quebec, one of the biggest exports, which I referenced, is gold. Gold is produced in virtually all regions of the country. It is one of the biggest trading things that go towards this particular agreement.
This is important, because when we talk about trade agreements, as we have today and as we did with respect to Indonesia yesterday, I think it is widely accepted that members understand the true value of trade, which is why there is support for legislation of this nature. I would hope that we would continue to have that sort of support going forward. I really do believe that Canada needs to be and should continue to be a leader when it comes to trade.
The European Union and the U.K. are very strong allies of Canada, but we should also be looking at creating relationships with other nations, whether it is G20 countries, countries in Asia, or many more. Part of the G20 includes countries from Asia. We need to look at ways in which we can enhance trade opportunities, because that means a stronger, healthier Canada that is able to provide the type of jobs we want into the future. It is good for Canada to get trade agreements passed through the House of Commons.
It was a pleasure to share a few thoughts on the issue.
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Winnipeg North speak about the Canadian pork industry. I think he raises some valid points, but unfortunately he left out the real and pressing issues that Canada has with the United Kingdom as they relate to non-tariff and trade irritants specifically for the exportation of pork.
The Library of Parliament outlines that Britain exported 5.6 million dollars' worth of pork to Canada in 2023, 9.1 million dollars' worth in 2024, and 3.6 million dollars' worth in the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported no pork to the U.K. in 2023, 75,000 dollars' worth in 2024 and only 122,000 dollars' worth in 2025.
The Canadian Pork Council outlines that the reasons it cannot export to the U.K. are trichinosis testing and animal production and processing rules that prevent the great pork producers in the member's riding and across the province of Manitoba from doing so.
Why did the Prime Minister not use this opportunity to remove those trade irritants and include them in Bill C-13 so Canadian pork producers in Manitoba could sell more product on the international market?
Madam Speaker, Canada, like the United States, has a different process for pork processing, which has proven to be very difficult in getting our pork to market in the EU and the U.K. That is well established. It was there prior to the current government, and it is something that, I would suggest, is a work in progress.
While we work on that area, it is important to consider Japan and other countries, such as the Philippines, because this increases the overall export of pork. That is what we want. If members were to check with HyLife in the community of Neepawa, for example, they would find that its biggest concern is actually Japan. There are literally hundreds of jobs in Neepawa through HyLife, and its interest is in Japan.
Yes, we have some concerns in Europe in regard to pork, just like the United States has concerns—
I understand. I think the hon. member was trying to make a comparison.
The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am going to dig a little deeper into the subject I touched on in my point of order earlier. The Chair did not consider it a point of order, so I imagine this will be fine as a point of debate.
In his speech, the member talked almost exclusively about our relationship with the United States and with the Philippines. He actually had a lot to say about the Philippines. I think it was the topic of almost half of his speech. Honestly, I have nothing against the Philippines. My partner is from the Philippines. However, Bill C‑13 is about the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The member makes endless speeches in Parliament. He talks about all kinds of things, but I get the impression he is not very familiar with the subject we are discussing today because he did not talk about it. Here is my question for him. Maybe, if he is unfamiliar with a subject, he could give other members who are familiar with it an opportunity to talk because he gets so many opportunities to talk.
What are his thoughts on that?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member is trying to hurt my feelings, but I thought I was very clear. There is a very strong and healthy relationship between the United Kingdom and Canada. I highlighted what I thought was a very important industry from which Canada has benefited immensely, which is the export of gold. If the member wants to challenge that thought, he is welcome to do that. If he wants to highlight other industries, he is welcome to do that also.
Yesterday we talked about the Indonesia trade agreement. There were discussions in regard to an area of trade that I am very much interested in, that being pork. I am surprised at the member opposite, because the pork industry is so important to the province of Quebec. I know that. I would have thought he knew that and would have been interested in hearing me talking about pork, because it matters in Quebec as it matters in the province of Manitoba.
The general gist of my discussion was to talk about how important trade is to Canada. Trade means jobs, whether in B.C., Manitoba, Quebec or Halifax, or up north. That is what we should be talking about: the principles of it. We all know, care and understand the benefits of the EU—
Madam Speaker, my colleague has brought up a lot of good points about trade, but I am wondering whether, in the trade agreements, there is any commitment to get our own house in order as a nation.
The member referred to the plant in Neepawa. The biggest limiting factor for that plant is the requirement to have veterinarians and to maintain the Canadian national standard. We can make all the promises in the world, travel all over the world and say what we have for sale, but if we cannot get our own house in order, there are big problems. The Canadian agriculture industry has hit these roadblocks several times in the past, putting in question how much of a reliable supplier we are.
In this agreement, is there any commitment to analyze our own Canadian system to help veterinarians and to get our own production systems in line?
Madam Speaker, within this specific agreement, the short answer would be no, not that I am aware of, but I could be wrong on that. At the end of the day, when we look at trade as a whole and what the member is referring to, this is an issue about which I have had discussions with both the Government of Manitoba, in particular the minister of immigration, and federal ministers. Veterinary services play a very important role in our agricultural community.
A question was asked about why we cannot export more pork to Europe. Part of that is about trying to break down some of the barriers, and we are not alone. The pork industry in the United States has the same issue. How do we try to continue to produce in a way that we are very familiar with and work with, and get the EU and the U.K. to accept the pork as we are producing it? That is a challenge in—
[Translation]
[English]
Madam Speaker, I was very interested to listen to our colleague's speech and also to compare it to what we heard yesterday on the topic of Indonesia, when we heard some Conservative voices saying that we were spending or wasting too much of members' time talking about trade.
Does the member believe we are spending too much time in the House investing in trade relationships and building a stronger economy?
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague because I really and truly believe he, as do I and members of the Liberal caucus, understands the true value of trade. We heard that yesterday during debate on another trade agreement, the Indonesia trade agreement, when Conservatives stood and said there is such a small amount of trade between Canada and Indonesia. I believe they support the agreement, but they were downplaying it because of the amount of trade.
What we are talking about with that particular agreement is billions and billions of dollars in merchandise trade today and how we can continue to enhance that. We want to trade with the world because that is how we are going to build a stronger and healthier Canada and provide jobs into the future.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, this debate exposes Parliament's limited ability to amend treaties. Amendments can be made only to the bill and not to the treaty itself.
In the United States, the U.S. Congress grants negotiating mandates, making it more difficult for negotiating teams to conclude unsatisfactory agreements. In Canada, the executive branch acts alone, without any parliamentary oversight. In most industrialized countries, parliaments adopt treaties. This forces executive branches to maintain an ongoing dialogue and perhaps even reorient negotiations. In other words, Canada has a democratic deficit.
I am running out of time, so I will ask my question. Does my colleague not think that we should review how Canada and Parliament approach treaties, instead of allowing the executive branch to act alone?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.
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—
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.
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?
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?
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.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
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.
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.
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?
[Translation]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has once again shown how well he knows his file.
How would it actually change the way things are done right now?
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, it would ensure that parliamentarians are not being played for fools, that they are not just here to rubber-stamp agreements. It is my understanding that we were elected by the people to represent interests and values, so doing actual work on agreements should be a big part of our responsibility.
What the bill would have done, for example, is set a minimum time frame to ensure that we have time to study an agreement before it is tabled and debated here in the House. There would be an actual study in committee. The idea is never to repeat what we went through in late 2020, when we studied an agreement without having the actual text of that agreement. It was beyond ridiculous. The bill would also guarantee Parliament's support for an agreement before it is signed, not just its rubber stamp after the fact. At the end of the day, this bill would ensure that parliamentarians do actual work on agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to truly thank my colleague for his speech on investor-state dispute settlement. I actually think that things are worse than how he described them in his speech. My colleague said that large transnational corporations currently have the right to take part in agreements, but it is worse than that. They currently have more rights than Canada does in such agreements.
Could my colleague comment on the fact that trade agreements do not always have to include an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism?
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when we examine a trade agreement implementation bill in committee, there is not much that we can amend, but this is one of the few things that we can change. Since the implementation bill has to change the legal system to recognize the ISDS, it is a legal clause. However, I am always just about the only committee member to vote against that clause. I vote in favour of most of the clauses in these agreements, and I generally vote in favour of the trade agreements themselves, but I always vote against this particular clause. In the past two Parliaments, when the NDP was a recognized party, its members usually voted with me against these agreements. I was not the only one to vote against them, but now I am. I do not understand how we can abdicate our sovereignty in this way.
As my colleague said, this likely puts these companies above states, but it also creates pressure upstream on public decision-makers. It creates a climate of self-censorship. It is also important to point out that the potential victims of the actions of multinationals do not have the same rights under trade agreements. There is no protection mechanism. The government often boasts about the chapters on the environment and workers' rights, but they are often purely symbolic. There is no legal mechanism for that, whereas the multinationals have a mechanism to protect their right to profit.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, this is interesting because the Bloc has consistently indicated that trade agreements should be debated well before they are actually signed off on. I think Canada is actually in a very unique situation. We are the only country of the G7 that has trade agreements with all G7 countries. Canada has been very successful in terms of world trade, and today is yet another example of how we continue to expand export opportunities. There are literally hundreds of trade treaties between Canada and other nations.
With all the consultation with stakeholders, provinces, industries and parliamentarians, I am not convinced that changing the process is in Canada's best interests. Can the member explain why he believes that is the case?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is enough time, but I would like to put a question back to him. What is the point of having an official policy if it is not followed?
My colleague tells us that there is no need for a change in procedure, and yet Canada's official policy made up a substantial part of the legislation that we introduced and that was unfortunately defeated. That policy can be found on the Global Affairs Canada website. I can no longer recall the exact title, but it was something like the “treaty ratification policy”. Canada's official policy involves a minimum period of 21 days between the time an agreement is announced and the time it comes before Parliament. In the case of the United Kingdom, it took 15 days. What is the point of having a policy?
It was the Liberals who adopted that policy, not me. That is the policy that they are normally proud of. It is supposed to be in force. In committee, we heard from senior officials who said that as far as they were concerned, the policy was in force, but that they had received a political directive. What is the point of having a policy if it is not followed? That is why we think that this policy ought to be made into law. Then, perhaps the government would follow it.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga East—Cooksville.
I am very pleased to rise today as a proud member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. This is my fourth year serving on that committee and it is always very interesting. We have studied a number of free trade agreements. Today, I am rising to discuss Bill C‑13, which seeks to implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.
First of all, it is important to remember that this bill does not create a new trade agreement. The CPTPP already exists. Canada has been a member of it since 2018, along with 10 other major economies in the Indo-Pacific region. What we are doing today is welcoming a new partner into the agreement, a major addition. With the United Kingdom's accession, the CPTPP will go from 11 to 12 economies and will represent close to 600 million consumers, or around 15% of global GDP.
International trade is central to Canada's prosperity. Our nation is a trading nation. About one in five jobs depends on exports, and more than 60% of our gross domestic product is tied to international trade. Every year, Canadian companies export more than $780-billion worth of goods and services around the world. These exports support millions of jobs in every region of the country.
In an ever-changing world, it is essential for Canada to diversify its trading partners. Just look at what is happening south of the border. That is one of the main reasons we need to diversify our markets. It is therefore strategic for our country to open up more markets elsewhere in the world.
The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP is a step in that direction. The United Kingdom is the world's sixth-largest economy, with a GDP of over $3 trillion and a population of nearly 70 million. Bilateral trade between Canada and the United Kingdom already exceeds $40 billion annually. It is our third-largest trading partner. The United Kingdom is also one of the largest investors in Canada, with more than $90 billion in direct investment in our economy. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP will therefore strengthen these economic ties and open up new opportunities for our businesses.
This bill is also strategic for another reason. It positions Canada as an economic hub between Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. Canada is in a unique position given that it is a member of the CPTPP and has a trade agreement with the European Union. We are one of the few countries in the world that has preferential access to markets representing more than 1.5 billion consumers. This creates extraordinary opportunities for Canadian businesses. In my riding in the Lower Laurentians, which includes Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes, many businesses depend directly on international trade.
There is a very large aerospace industry in the Lower Laurentians, as well as a sizable agri-food and food processing industry. We have innovative small and medium-sized businesses, thriving manufacturers and entrepreneurs who export their products all over the world. Trade agreements are not abstract concepts for these businesses. They represent real opportunities for growth. They mean new markets, new partners and new jobs here in Quebec and Canada. Several key sectors of our economy will benefit from this expansion of the CPTPP.
As I mentioned earlier, the aerospace, agri-food, clean technologies, service and innovative industries come to mind. These sectors play a vital role in the Canadian economy. For example, the agri-food industry accounts for $140 billion in economic activity in Canada and employs more than two million Canadians. Aerospace, for its part, accounts for nearly 215,000 highly skilled jobs and contributes more than $28 billion to the Canadian economy. Access to new markets can therefore have a direct and positive impact on these industries.
I want to raise another point. As chair of the Liberal women's caucus, I want to highlight an important dimension of modern trade. International trade needs to be more inclusive. Today, a growing number of women are running businesses in Canada. Women-owned businesses account for 18% of Canadian SMEs and that number continues to grow. However, many entrepreneurs still face barriers when it comes to accessing international markets. Modern trade agreements, like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP, can help create more opportunities for women entrepreneurs by making it easier to access markets and by supporting the growth of SMEs. When women succeed in business, the entire economy benefits.
It is also essential that international trade reflect the values we stand for. The CPTPP includes important provisions on labour rights and environmental protection. These provisions help ensure that economic growth respects high standards and is in line with sustainable development. Trade can be a powerful driver of prosperity, but it must also be fair, responsible and sustainable.
In a global context marked by economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions and rapid changes in supply chains, it is more important than ever for Canada to strengthen its partnerships with countries that share our values. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP sends a clear message. It demonstrates that Canada believes in open international trade based on rules founded on co-operation between reliable partners.
This bill will open new doors for our businesses, support job creation, and strengthen Canada's position in the global economy. Trade agreements are not just legal documents. They are tools for prosperity. When they are well negotiated, as is the case with the CPTPP, they allow Canada to export not only its products, but also its values: high standards for workers, for the environment, and for fair competition.
That is exactly what this bill does today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech.
There is a very important issue, and we have an opportunity to correct this situation. U.K. citizens who receive a pension and live in Canada do not receive the annual cost-of-living increase. In the U.S. and the U.K., they receive this increase, but not here.
Is there a possibility of adding that to this agreement?
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that comes up often at the Standing Committee on International Trade: The pensions of British citizens who live in Canada are not indexed, unlike in the United States. I understand that this is a really important issue for them, but I do not believe this is the right forum to resolve this situation. However, that does not mean that we are not aware of what these people are experiencing. People who receive their pensions from Great Britain must continue to try to resolve this situation.
Mr. Speaker, in the previous speech, my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton referred to an amendment he proposed at a committee that he sits on along with my colleague, the Standing Committee on International Trade. This amendment called for an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures with the U.K. so that Canadian meat exports can enter the U.K. market. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable and extremely important amendment. However, my colleague voted against it.
Can she explain why she voted against that amendment when, I repeat, this proposal seemed entirely reasonable and even very sensible in the context of negotiations?
Mr. Speaker, obviously, reciprocity in health standards is always a delicate issue, and it came up when we negotiated the free trade agreement with Europe.
I must say that the quality of the products we produce here, whether it be poultry, beef or pork, is higher and meets higher standards. It was surprising that there was a problem with England, when we know very well that Japan is accepting our exports, because we have some of the best standards in the world.
We have not been able to really clarify this issue, but there is no doubt that products from here in Canada meet the highest standards in the world.
As a former grocer, I believe in our Canadian products.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can expand on that particular point. One of the reasons we have such a proactive government looking for ways in which we can expand trade opportunities that go beyond the United States' borders is that we have so much diversity and such high standards here in Canada with our exported products. That is something that all of us benefit from, and it is one of the reasons it is so critically important that we continue to do the things we are doing.
Our greatest asset today is the Prime Minister, someone who is recognized around the world as a genuine economist and as understanding how economies work. Trade really matters. It creates jobs. I wonder if the member could comment on how important this is, not just with regard to Ireland and England and how it has been incorporated into this trade agreement, but on the fact that trade is good for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
Indeed, given that we were heavily dependent on our neighbours to the south, the Prime Minister is someone who will make Canada less vulnerable.
We need to open up more markets, actually ensure that we open up other markets. Adding the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, is certainly a good thing. However, we need to do more. We also have the Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which is a growing market, and the Canada-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement. We will be able to participate and exchange products, sell products, with Latin America. We have incredible expertise in aerospace. There are many companies in the Montreal area that are behind this, particularly in my constituency.
There is no such thing as a bad opportunity to make us less vulnerable to our neighbours to the south.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-13, legislation that would implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP.
At its core, this debate is about more than a trade agreement. It is about Canada's place in the world. It is about the kind of economy we are building and the opportunities we create for the people we are here to serve.
Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation. From the very earliest days of our history, Canadians have looked outward, building relationships, forging partnerships and connecting our ideas, our talent and our resources with the world. Trade is not simply a policy choice for Canada. It is woven into the fabric of who we are and how we grow.
In the modern era, Canada has shown extraordinary leadership in building a global network of high-standard trade agreements that open doors for our workers, our farmers, our entrepreneurs and our innovators. The CPTPP is one of the clearest examples of that leadership. When the future of this agreement was uncertain, Canada stepped forward. We worked with partners across the Pacific to preserve the ambition of the agreement and ensure that it remained a modern, high-standard framework for trade in the Indo-Pacific region. Because of that leadership, the CPTPP entered into force in 2018.
Alongside Canada, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership brings together a diverse group of economies across the Pacific and beyond. This agreement includes Australia and New Zealand, two advanced agricultural exporters with strong demand for Canadian resources and technology. It includes Singapore, a global financial and logistics hub that connects Canadian companies to Southeast Asian markets. It includes fast-growing Southeast Asian economies such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei, with their expanding manufacturing and energy sectors, representing rising markets for Canadian exports. In the Americas, our partners include Mexico, Chile and Peru, which are countries with strong mining, agriculture and industrial ties to Canada and growing two-way trade and investment relationships. It also includes Japan, one of Canada's most important trading partners in Asia and a major market for Canadians.
Japan has about 250 large companies here in Canada, and I can tell members that Mississauga, from the leadership of our former mayor Hazel McCallion, attracted over 100 of those companies. We have such a strong relationship with Japan, and through CPTPP, we continue to grow that. It means a world of difference to so many Mississaugans and so many in my community of Mississauga East—Cooksville.
Together, these partners, along with the first new member of CPTPP, the U.K., create a broad network of markets that supports Canadian exporters, strengthens supply chains and expands trade opportunities across multiple regions of the global economy. Put simply, in 2026, this agreement represents one of the most dynamic and forward-looking economic partnerships in the world, and the impact has been real. Since its adoption, trade between Canada and our CPTPP partners has grown significantly.
Canadian exporters, from seafood harvesters to grain farmers, manufacturers and technology companies, are reaching new markets and building new relationships across the Indo-Pacific. That growth represents opportunity for a family-owned manufacturer in a small town that is exporting its products for the first time, opportunity for farmers who are finding new customers halfway around the world, opportunity for Canadian innovators who are competing and winning on the global stage. That is what trade diversification looks like in practice, and it is why our government is pursuing the most ambitious trade diversification agenda in a generation.
Canada will always have a deep and enduring relationship with the United States. It is our closest ally and our largest trading partner. However, in a rapidly changing global economy, Canada must continue to expand its reach and strengthen its ties with partners around the world. That is why we have set an ambitious goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Let us think about what that means. It means more Canadian companies entering global markets. It means more investment in Canadian communities. It means more good-paying jobs for workers across our country. Reaching that goal does not just happen by accident. It will take determination, leadership and a true team Canada effort.
That is where Bill C-13 comes in. Welcoming the United Kingdom into the CPTPP would be a powerful step forward for the partnership and for Canada's trade diversification strategy. The United Kingdom is one of the world's largest economies and one of Canada's closest friends and allies. Our countries share deep historical ties, vibrant people-to-people connections and a common belief in democracy, transparency and the rule of law.
By joining the CPTPP, the United Kingdom would become part of a dynamic economic partnership that stretches across the Indo-Pacific and connects markets representing hundreds of millions of customers. For Canada, this would strengthen a partnership built on high standards, open markets and fair rules. It would create new opportunities for Canadian exporters in advanced manufacturing, financial services and the digital economy. It would strengthen a resilient supply chain among trusted partners and reinforce our trading relationship with a trusted and true Commonwealth partner at a time when those bonds are more important than ever.
Opening doors is just the beginning. The crucial work and next step is to ensure that Canadians walk through those doors. Achieving our goal of doubling non-U.S. exports will require every region in this country to be engaged, every province, territory, riding and community, because the potential to trade with the world does not belong to just one part of Canada. It belongs to all of Canada.
As members of Parliament, we each have a role to play. Yes, we pass the legislation that brings agreements like this into force, and many members on the trade committee have spoken about the legislation. We focus on reviewing the trade bills and completing studies centred on how we can improve Canada's trade ties. However, we can do a lot more than that. We can make sure businesses in our communities know that Canada has one of the most extensive networks of free trade agreements anywhere in the world. We can work hand in hand with our chambers of commerce and boards of trade to promote opportunities.
I do this whenever we have a trade agreement. I bring in all stakeholders to the Mississauga Board of Trade to ensure they understand the agreement and are able to capitalize on it and the opportunities it represents.
We can engage with our universities and colleges, which are nurturing the next generation of entrepreneurs, innovators and global business leaders. We can help connect Canadian businesses, especially small and mid-sized enterprises, with the tools and knowledge they need to succeed in these international markets. When they get that first order, organizations like Export Development Canada, our regional development agencies and more have programs and supports available to make that growth happen, so they can scale up to new heights. That is the team Canada approach.
Canada helped lead the creation of the CPTPP. We helped bring it to life. Today, we have the opportunity to make it that much stronger. By supporting Bill C-13, and welcoming the U.K. into the partnership, we would expand opportunity for Canadians, strengthen our economy and reinforce Canada's leadership in building a more open and prosperous global trading system. Together, with a team Canada approach, we can grow our exports, expand our horizons and build a future of shared prosperity for Canadians in my community, Mississauga and every part of our country. That is a future worth standing up for.
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that trade deals are important. Sometimes we do not get the benefit we think we will get because the work in the details is not done to make sure our specifications, if they are different from our trading partners', are harmonized.
I am interested in the agreement that exists. Does the member have information about how much trade has increased since we got the deal and how much we expect to get as we add the U.K. and Northern Ireland to it?
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have an ambitious goal to double our non-U.S. trade around the world over the next decade, and this deal is so important to that.
Let me give the member a clear example. I have spoken with the meat stakeholders. They have increased their trade through the CPTPP, from the beginning of the trade deal in 2018 to where we are today, by 122%. That means it was $338 million in 2018 and is now $751 million, just for that particular sector. We need to continue to do that. We need to double and triple that. We need to really double down on our efforts to make sure these agreements lead to diversification.
The member is right. As I said in my speech, it is not just about the agreement but about bringing the agreement to life and being able to get our exporters to open up those new markets.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that parliamentarians each have an important role to play when it comes to international trade agreements. However, Parliament and parliamentarians have a very limited role in examining these treaties. The amendments they propose can only relate to the legislation itself, not to the treaty.
Things are different in the United States and Europe, where parliamentarians have a much greater impact on treaty negotiations. Does my colleague not think that we should modernize and thoroughly review Canada's practices for signing and negotiating international trade agreements?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we are leaders in trade negotiations. Other countries look to Canada to see how we provide expertise in our negotiations to get deals that are good for Canada and for Canadians. That is what we do. How we do that is by reaching out to stakeholders right across our country. We also do it here in Parliament and at committee. I sit on the international trade committee. We have stakeholders who come to committee to provide testimony. We take that feedback and are able to incorporate it into making our bills even that much better.
I can tell members that the world looks to Canada when it comes to trade deals. We have done it with CETA, we are doing it with the CPTPP, and we continue to do it with countries right around the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there are many regions in Canada and many different countries throughout the world. Diversity is the key.
The member made reference to Mississauga and how successful the community has been with Japan, for example, as well as the United States.
I wonder if the member can pick up on that point, how the uniqueness of Canada's different regions has an appeal to different countries, and talk about why it is so important for the Prime Minister to go to all the different countries in the world to try to increase export opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to highlight what a great country we have. We touch every sector right across this country, whether it be the softwood lumber in British Columbia, our natural resources, our agriculture industry, the aerospace sector in the prairie provinces or our seafood, and I could go on. In Mississauga, of course, there is a lot of manufacturing that happens in my community.
The breadth of the countries involved with the CPTPP allows for complementary trade, which is a win-win, as we are able to help one another continue to grow our economies, provide good-paying jobs for our communities—
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the residents of Calgary Centre to discuss this very important bill to acquiesce to the U.K. and Canada agreeing to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The U.K. is coming into this family of trading partners around the world, and we are, of course, at the lead.
The Conservative Party of Canada, the party of free and fair trade around the world, has upheld that in so many ways. Part of free and fair trade, of course, is fair trade for Canadians. Let us discuss some of that in the House today.
Before I do that, let us talk about what existed before the acquiescence to this new trade agreement with the United Kingdom. After the U.K. split from the European Union, we had the trade continuity agreement with the U.K., which has governed our trade between Canada and the United Kingdom since that point in time.
Now, interestingly, if we go back 10 years, and I know the government always talks about doubling trade with other partners around the world, except the U.S., over the next 10 years, we will note that, in the last 10 years, inflation has gone up 30%. As much as it is a big flag that the Liberals have put on the wall, saying we are going to double our trade with people outside the United States, is that double in Canadian dollars? How much is inflation going to continue to increase so that doubling actually amounts to about the same volume of trade? We are running such high deficits that the Canadian dollar will be worth less as far as the merchandise that trades around the world.
That is an important factor. We can measure these things by deflated dollars, as the government is deflating dollars for all Canadians, and deflated dollars mean less trade at the end of the day. We have to get ahead of what the government actually means, as opposed to just putting a flag up on the wall about doubling trade to non-U.S. partners.
Let us look at the trade we actually perform, trade actually exported from Canada to the U.K. The bulk of it is metals, and the biggest metal that we trade with the United Kingdom is gold. Canada produces a lot of gold and ships it. The U.K. is acquiring that gold. The U.K. is one of the world reserves where countries from around the world store their gold. The United Kingdom banking system has a long history with gold, including things like the gold fix. There were five banks around the world, five individual private banks, that more or less set the price of gold for over a century. Now that is shared somewhat with the United States, but gold is on a roll here.
Gold is at almost $7,000 Canadian today as it trades, because it is in demand around the world. As governments like Canada's current government debase their currencies with larger and larger deficits, precious metals like gold become more valuable. We are exporting that in spades.
Do members know what central bank around the world does not hold gold? It is Canada's central bank. The Bank of Canada holds no gold. It holds a bunch of U.S. dollars. It has increased its U.S. dollar sales by $60 billion already this year. This is not because the U.S. dollar is doing well; it is actually doing poorly compared to most other currencies around the world.
The Bank of Canada is acquiring U.S. dollars because it is manipulating Canada's currency. That is not supposed to be the goal, but I do not know the other goal. I was a former portfolio manager. The bank is buying dollars that are going down. It is buying U.S. dollars as they decline, which means it is failing as far as the value equation goes. There is another objective there, and the rest of the world knows that. The rest of the world is lightening up on the U.S. dollar purchases, and all their currencies are going up as a result. That is an aside.
Let me get back to the trade agreement. One of the things we have in Canada, thinking about a trade agreement, is foreign direct investment. Now, this is an important part, but Canada is so far behind as far as flowing money out. It is a net creditor to the United Kingdom, as far as money that has flown out of Canada towards safer investment jurisdictions around the world. The United Kingdom is one of those jurisdictions where Canadian dollars continue to find better prospects for investments around the world than they do in Canada. That is a fault of the government's policies.
There are no good returns here. Everything the government participates in means it has to backstop it in order for somebody to put a buck in in Canada. It is a government that has to have friends in order to get investment into the country because the rules do not matter anymore with the government's manner of running the Canadian economy. The regulatory system here is more burdensome and more expensive now than the actual cost of the capital projects to invest in Canada. That has to change, and we know that.
Getting back to the U.K., if I may, we are acquiescing to the United Kingdom coming here. It is a change from the trade continuity agreement to this new agreement, which we have with several other countries around the world, a comprehensive progressive agreement on trans-Pacific partnerships. That is important, but there were also negotiations. I do not know who does the government's negotiations. The government keeps bragging about the great Prime Minister and how he has great relationships with the United Kingdom, but what did we get from that trade negotiation?
I ask because there are a whole bunch of holes here that should have been filled and a bunch of industries across Canada asking why we do not have free and fair trade with the United Kingdom in certain key industries. One of those, of course, is in Alberta, where I am from, and that is the cattle industry.
The cattle industry has asked continuously for the cancellation of the trade continuity agreement because it puts Canadian cattle producers at a disadvantage to U.K. cattle producers. For relevance, as far as the size of the cattle industry goes, Canada has a cattle herd of about 11 and a half million cattle and the U.K. has a cattle herd of about nine and a half million cattle, yet the U.K. exports cattle to Canada. Does that make sense? Canada's population is much lower than the U.K. population. We have about 40 million people in Canada, compared to about 65 million in the U.K, yet the U.K. is exporting parts of a smaller cattle herd for our consumption in Canada, and the U.K. does not trade with Canadian cattle. Is something wrong with Canadian cattle? There is nothing wrong scientifically. We trade cattle with every other country in the CPTPP, so this something that should have been negotiated as part of the CPTPP agreement with the U.K.
I will also give some statistics as to pork. Canada's pork herd, at any one point in time, is about 13.9 million head. The U.K. has about 4.7 million head, yet it does not accept Canadian pork. Is the U.K. going to tell Japan, Korea, China and every other jurisdiction that Canada trades with, about the quality of Canadian pork and why it is not good enough for U.K. consumers? It is not good enough because there is a protective measure in place. The United Kingdom has to protect their industry at the expense of free and fair trading nations around the world, which we think includes Canada.
This is one of the opportunities that the government has missed. I do not know what their negotiators got in return for leaving that off, but one of the other issues that my constituents have repetitively told me about is pensions. There are a number of U.K. citizens in Canada, and 100,000 U.K. citizens draw pensions from the U.K. For some reason, pensioners in Canada do not get their cost of living adjustments, like they do in most other countries around the world. It is prejudicial to Canadians who got their pension from the U.K. and then moved to Canada. United Kingdom pensioners are not treated the same way in the United States. Why not? It is because Canada seems to have weaker negotiators.
I am going to ask the government about this again. I hear members pumping the tires of the Prime Minister, saying he is such a great negotiator and the man of the hour. Well, this seemed like a pretty easy asset to get over the line here, and he did not even accomplish that.
This is about fairness for these pensioners. They have earned this after spending their entire working lives in the United Kingdom. They then emigrate to Canada, and they do not get to collect the cost of living increases that every one of their compatriots around the world, as well as those in the U.K., get as a result. This is a shame and something that the government clearly missed. It did not even put it on the horizon, yet I and many of my colleagues have written to the government to ask it to please include that and make sure the Government of the United Kingdom pays attention to this because it matters to our constituents.
There are a bunch of other issues, but I am going to talk about something else here. I ask members to think about the United Kingdom's trade in energy products. I can tell members right now that, in 2024, the U.K. imported $19.5 billion of foreign oil from all kinds of countries, mostly Norway and the United States, all the way across the Atlantic to the United States. How much did it import from Canada? That is a big fat zero. Way to go. That is great negotiation and great availability of our product to our partners around the world. It is likewise with natural gas. The U.K. imported 39 billion dollars' worth of natural gas last year. How much of that was from Canada? It is another big fat zero because we have not been prepared. We have not done anything for our resource development for the last 10 years.
I should say that I am splitting my time today with a good friend of mine, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Manning. On that, I will yield the floor, with thanks.
Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to a 20-minute speech. At the end of the day, I find that the member is somewhat misguided. When we think of foreign investment, outside of the United States, can the member give an indication of what other country has derived more foreign investment per capita?
I think the member would be very challenged to find that, and I think he is a bit premature. The Prime Minister has been in the Prime Minister's chair for a year. We can take a look at the results we have achieved within that year, with literally billions and billions of additional investments coming into Canada, including major projects and record amounts of LNG being exported out of Canada. There are all sorts of things that are actually good news.
I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the good news.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is exactly right. It is good news that we are finally exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada. It took way too long, and there is one plant. One plant is exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada, when we should have a significant amount more. There are now 12 coming from the United States, and this is in the same time period it took for us to get one up and running in Canada. That is a shame, and it is a failure of government, at the end of the day.
Let me give my colleague some facts. Canada's net trade position, net current balance with the European Union, which concludes in the numbers, unfortunately, that the U.K. is about a half-trillion-dollar creditor, where Canadian investment goes over to the U.K. That is a net number, with half a trillion more in Canadian money being invested in the European Union and U.K. than there is coming back from that jurisdiction into Canada. This is something that has to turn around, and that is because of the bad economic policies of—
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member of Parliament mentioned all of the foreign investment, but if we go back and look, every dollar of foreign investment is paired with the taxpayer dollars of investment. If we go back to the Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper days, companies would invest their own dollars, with no government money.
I wonder if the member of Parliament would talk about the value of that, where a business will just come here to make an investment because it makes business sense to make an investment.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been lost over the last 10 years in the government's approach to the economy is the rule of law and respect for the rule of law. That is contract law as well. Members can think about how many companies are not investing in Canada.
The government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, yet every company that would put that infrastructure into place has said, “Not a chance.” There is no chance that this has any clarity as far as investment in Canada goes. The government has even said that we cannot put government money into these projects anymore.
Therefore, there is a stalemate as far as getting our major projects built in Canada. It would require government money. It would require somebody knowing government and having a friend in government to get some taxpayer money to fund a project in Canada, because the rule of law is gone. The rule of contract law is gone. Companies do not want to invest in something because there is no certainty about the outcome in this country anymore, thanks to the policies of the government.
Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to what my colleague from Huron—Bruce said. He referred to the time when we had a Conservative government here, the Harper government. During that period of time, we signed 38 free trade agreements, alongside numerous foreign investment promotion and protection agreements. We know what that was worth and what the value was.
My question for the member is simply this: Has he seen a number from the government, from the Prime Minister, for what the quantifiable number is or what the impact of these trade agreements he has embarked upon in relation to what the overall trade is with the United States?
Mr. Speaker, that is a very quantitative question. I really appreciate it because the net effect of what the Prime Minister has done, going around the world at this time, has been his signing paper that means nothing. How do we get resources somewhere else when we do not have the ability to deliver those resources? Therefore, going there and signing a co-operation agreement with XYZ company results in zero effective trade with that country for the next Lord knows how many years, but we are all co-operating. Signing paper is easy. The government is one of announceology and of delivering absolutely zero for the taxpayers of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the legislation before us: Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is a long name, but the acronym is the CPTPP.
Before I begin my speech, I want to make a small acknowledgement of a big win in my community. The Keremeos' Similkameen Sparks basketball team proved themselves to be the B.C. champions last weekend, among all schools province-wide. Our whole community is very proud of these amazing young athletes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Helena Konanz: Bill C-13 comes before the House at a time of concern about global tensions in our trading relationships. Let us be clear that Canada is and always will remain a great trading nation. Trade is the foundation of every strong economy in history, and trade with the United Kingdom is a long and deep part of Canadian history.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about this just recently when speaking to British audiences about the potential to strengthen our relationship as allies. That does not mean that we, as a nation, should ever roll over for any agreement. Ultimately, we want to ensure that free trade is reciprocal. That is to say that it is fair. If we are going to give access to Canadian markets, then we need to see access to the other nation's markets in return.
Free trade and fair trade are not in conflict. They are in partnership, or they should be. Bill C-13 should have been a moment for Canada to show strength and strategic thinking on the world stage amid turmoil. Instead, it is another example of a government that consistently leaves Canadians with less than they deserve.
Let us be clear: The United Kingdom joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is not the issue. The problem is how little the government managed to secure for Canadians during those negotiations. When a country like the United Kingdom wants to join a major trade pact with Canada, that is leverage. That is leverage to get more of our products to market and to bring more products that we cannot produce in Canada to Canadians. This point of negotiation is when responsible governments push hard for their own workers, exporters and seniors. However, once again, the Liberals have negotiated a win for someone on the other side of the table when there was much room to secure one for us.
For the last decade, the government has acted as though it is unbothered by the severe trade imbalances with the U.K. British beef enters Canada duty-free and without limits. According to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 28.3 million dollars' worth of beef and 3.6 million dollars' worth of pork to Canada in the first half of 2025 alone. Meanwhile, Canada's beef and pork are forced into tight quotas and face trade barriers. Canada exported only 122,000 dollars' worth of pork and no beef in 2025.
The U.K. still refuses to accept Canada's meat hygiene system, even though it is internationally recognized and it has provided no scientific evidence against it. This was a perfect moment to fix that. The U.K. wanted CPTPP membership. Canada could have insisted on fair treatment for our beef and pork exporters. Instead, nothing changed. The same barriers remain. The same inequities remain. Why did the government not secure real improvements for Canadian producers? It had the leverage, it had the time and it had the opportunity. What the government did not have was the political will to fight for all Canadian interests.
I would also like to mention the thousands of U.K. pensioners living in Canada, including many in British Columbia, whose pensions remain frozen with no cost-of-living increases, no indexing and no adjustments whatsoever.
These are not all permanent residents. Many became the best thing a person can be: They became Canadian. Still, these seniors paid into the system. They worked in the U.K. They built lives in British Columbia and across Canada, yet they are treated unfairly compared to pensioners who seek benefits from other countries. This, too, could have been addressed at the table while the U.K. sought to join the CPTPP. Instead, there was silence, another missed opportunity. Given the Prime Minister's frequent boasting of a close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister and with the United Kingdom as a whole, one would think that he would have talked about this.
The Liberal government might have used this opportunity to advocate on behalf of our agricultural producers or the 100,000 U.K. pensioners during this cost of living and inflation crisis. This is a negotiating pattern with the government. The Liberals have a talent for walking into major trade discussions and walking out empty-handed. Whether it is softwood lumber, steel or aluminum, the result is always the same. Canada gives but gets very little back.
Softwood lumber is key in my riding, as many members know. Hundreds of jobs have already been lost in my riding during these tumultuous times. This is the opposite of negotiation. We are supposed to give something to get something. Families who rely on lumber jobs in my region have now seen an entire year of the Liberal Prime Minister's travels. He has travelled frequently to the United States and around the globe, promising deals but still not delivering for lumber.
Time is not on our side in the lumber sector. At a time of unrelenting attacks from the Trump administration on our softwood lumber industry through unjustified tariffs, sawmills are closing and communities are losing hope. The Liberal government offers a minuscule increase in domestic production and offers loans that will only be added to increasingly indebted lumber mills, which is why many are choosing to close instead. European lumber suppliers are trying to fill the gap in the U.S. market left by these tariffs. Potential Asian markets cannot cover this hole in the balance sheet for Canadian suppliers. A U.K. market would not fill this either.
Canada's lumber industry has the supply, talent and drive to thrive for decades, but only if these communities can stay together. I implore the Prime Minister and his government to work with forest communities, and with the MPs who represent them across all parties, to make an all-hands-on-deck effort in Washington, D.C., to end the decade-long absence of a softwood lumber agreement that has now lasted four separate presidential administrations, all on the Liberals' watch. We know this is possible. The Harper government secured a deal in only a few weeks. Families in my riding, in the Similkameen, Boundary and the Kootenays, cannot wait any longer.
Is what the House is looking for in any trade agreement not ultimately Canadian-specific gains? Where is the progress on the issues that matter to our exporters? Where is evidence that the government used this moment to deliver wins for Canadians?
This could have been the moment the government stood firmly for Canadian farmers and demanded the U.K. finally dismantle the non-tariff SPS barriers that block our products. It could have been the moment it stood up for seniors whose pensions have been frozen for decades. It could have been the moment Canada reminded the world that our market access is valuable and not something that is handed out for free.
Instead, we are left with a bill that updates legislation, cleans up tariff schedules and confirms access the U.K. would have received anyway, all without resolving the issues that matter most. It is very disappointing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, during the debates on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, in 2018, the Conservative member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière said, “We will obviously work with the government to adopt the CPTPP as quickly as possible, because it is important to our industry and to farmers.” During debate on the original version of this agreement, the Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of it.
Today, we welcome the United Kingdom as our first new member. This is good news. Does the member agree that adding a G7 partner will strengthen this trade agreement?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we need to continue creating further trade partners, and that is a good thing.
What I mentioned in my speech was that there were things we could have brought to the table that were not brought, which is going to affect many people across this country, including in my riding. One that I spoke about was the softwood lumber and lumber industry. Another was the beef industry, the cattle industry, which affects my riding. What I think we are trying to say is that this could have been a moment in time when we could have really strengthened our trade negotiations, but unfortunately, that did not happen.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that we are talking about global trade and access to other markets apart from the United States. This is obviously a very positive thing. I think all Canadians understand that we need to diversify our trade. However, not all trade is equal, and not all trade can simply be replaced. I think that is true of forestry. The American market is very vital to our forest industry. I know in northern Ontario, many workers are now without work. They are looking for jobs, struggling to get by and unsure of when the next paycheque is going to come because of the inaction of the Liberal government.
The Prime Minister promised he would get a trade deal with the United States by last year, and of course that has not happened. There is a difference between the rhetoric coming from the Liberal Prime Minister and the reality that forestry workers are facing in northern Ontario and British Columbia. I wonder if the member has any other comments on that.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very detailed question and explanation of the situation we are in right now across the country.
It seems as if, with all the travels around the world, the Prime Minister has forgotten that there are whole towns all across this country that are shutting their doors. That is what happens in the lumber and forestry industry because the industry encompasses the entire town. We are not talking about one or two retail stores closing. We are talking about small towns across this country. That needs to be remembered, and we need to have sympathy for these towns, which have survived, many of them, for 100 years or more.
When we are at the negotiating table with any new partner, I ask the government to please bring up softwood lumber.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government is doing a lot of the work externally. The Prime Minister is seeking to build market access and trading relationships around the world.
Is there a country that Canada is seeking to deepen its relationship with and the member opposite disagrees with the direction of that?
Mr. Speaker, we should be negotiating with countries around the world that have the same moral compass as Canada.
I will give the example of my riding. Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has one of the longest borders with the United States in the country. I think the member is asking if we should be looking elsewhere. We should, but at the same time, we need to keep this relationship with the United States. Ridings like mine, where we have six border crossings, depend on trade with the United States, so we need to keep our trade and we need to keep negotiating with Washington, D.C. during these turbulent times.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kings—Hants.
I am speaking today at the third reading of Bill C-13, which aims to implement the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.
Before I start talking about international trade, I would like to say a few words about my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, because the decisions made here in Ottawa have a very real impact on our community. My riding occupies a strategic position in the Quebec City region and for Canada. It is located at the junction of several major transportation routes that connect the national capital to all of eastern Quebec and then extend to Europe. Every day, goods pass through our region on their way to the north shore, Sept-Îles, Fermont, all the way to Labrador. Trucks take Highway 40, then Route 138 and continue along the St. Lawrence River to supply the industrial and mining regions of eastern Canada. In concrete terms, this means that our region is part of a bustling economic corridor.
In Beauport, for example, proximity to these highways means that many service companies have been set up. Beauport is home to hotels, restaurants and transportation and logistics companies that, every week, do business with workers from all over: truck drivers, engineers, entrepreneurs and workers in the mining, forestry and even energy sectors. A truck transporting industrial parts to the mines on the north shore can very easily stop overnight in Beauport. A contractor coming to supervise a work site in Sept‑Îles can go through Quebec City to meet with partners. That is the economic reality in my riding.
Limoilou is even more of a hub due to its proximity to the Port of Québec. It is home to companies that deal with handling, warehousing, marine logistics and intermodal transportation. When shipments come in by ship or by train, whether containing minerals, forestry products or even wheat for European markets, they go through this network of companies and workers. These are real jobs for people in my riding.
This reality is a reminder of something important: International trade is a necessary step for every nation that wants to prosper, and sometimes for those just trying to survive.
Across the country, the economy is built on a network of local businesses, such as small family businesses that often go back generations, and firms in construction, transportation, manufacturing, professional services or processing. Some sell only locally, while many have the potential to sell elsewhere. For example, take Quebec's softwood lumber producers, aluminum companies in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, agri-food businesses that export pork, maple syrup or processed foods, and Canadian technology companies that are developing digital and industrial solutions. When these businesses find new markets, they grow, and when they grow, they hire.
We are currently in an international environment marked by a great deal of uncertainty. Geopolitical tensions are on the rise, and supply chains are changing, as are global trade rules. This means that Canada must act strategically. Allow me to make a simple comparison that I am particularly fond of and that I used in my last speech. Sometimes, international economic relations are a lot like chess. Chess players never think only about the next move; they think three, four or even five moves ahead. Each move is meant to strengthen their position, and every piece that is played opens up a new opportunity. Most of all, good players avoid relying on a single strategy. They come up with a variety of options instead.
For a country like Canada, trade diversification works exactly the same way. We cannot depend on one market. We need to have many partners, many avenues and many possibilities, because in an uncertain world, having options becomes a strategic force.
That is exactly what the expansion of the CPTPP represents. Since the agreement came into effect, trade between Canada and its partner countries has grown significantly. Why? It is because free-trade agreements create enough predictability that companies can invest while mitigating their risk.
Companies that want to invest large sums of money to retrofit a plant, carry out research and development or ship their merchandise over long distances need the support of banks for their financing. Having been a banker for close to 20 years, I know that the first aspect bankers examine, one of the most important factors they consider before investing, is the viability of a business. The predictability provided by this type of agreement reassures both businesses and banks in terms of investment. These agreements lower tariffs, eliminate a lot of red tape and allow businesses to invest while knowing exactly what the rules are.
Here is a real-life example. When a Canadian agri-food producer wants to sell their products in other countries, tariffs can be as high as 20%, 30% or more. Trade agreements can do away with those barriers, instantly making that Canadian business more competitive. That can be the difference between winning and losing a contract. The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP strengthens that dynamic. The U.K. is one of the largest economies in the world with some 70 million consumers. It is also a partner that shares many of our economic values: the rule of law, trade transparency and predictable rules.
To apply the chess analogy, bringing the U.K. into the agreement strengthens our position on the global chessboard. It expands the economic space in which Canadian businesses can grow, and it opens new doors to our exporters. We have learned an important lesson in the last few years. Depending too heavily on a limited number of markets can make an economy vulnerable. When trade tensions arise, the fallout can be swift. That is why trade diversification is essential. It reduces risk, opens up new markets and creates new opportunities for Canadian businesses.
Now, at third reading stage, our responsibility is simple: We have to ask ourselves whether this bill contributes to Canadians' prosperity. The people of Beauport—Limoilou, like people in the rest of the country, are calling on us to act, protect and build. They want stable jobs, competitive businesses and a future filled with opportunities for their children. If our trade agreements allow our businesses to innovate, export and grow right here in Canada, then they are fulfilling their role correctly. However, this openness must always be paired with vigilance. We have to pay careful attention to sector-specific impacts, protect sensitive sectors and actively support and stand by our businesses so they that can take full advantage of these new opportunities.
The CPTPP expansion is more than a technical measure. It is a strategic decision to choose openness in an uncertain world, to choose diversification over dependency, and more than anything, to choose to create meaningful benefits for the workers, business people and communities that we represent. Like in chess, what counts is not just the next move; it is the position we are setting up for the years to come.
Today, this bill gives us the opportunity to strengthen Canada's position on the global trade chessboard. That is why I urge all members of the House to support Bill C‑13, which seeks to implement the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership for a more diverse, resilient and prosperous economy. In the great global economic game that is now under way, Canada is not merely defending its position, it is playing to win.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in Haldimand—Norfolk, beef farming is a way of life and a significant contributor to our local economy. Beef farming in my riding has produced world-class Canadian beef, and beef farmers deserve access to global markets. Can the government explain to the farmers in Haldimand—Norfolk and throughout Canada why their world-class beef still cannot access the U.K. markets like it could before?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the CPTPP market is an incredible market for consumers.
Between 2018 and 2024, beef alone saw an increase from $338 million to $750 million. This is a market that is evolving and moving quickly. There is potential to diversify markets for all sectors.
We are zeroing in on a single sector, but if we consider all Canadian sectors, which is our role here, it is an incredible market. About 70 million additional consumers will be entering the CPTPP. This is good news for Canada and especially for market diversification, which is so important.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-13 has sparked another debate regarding the impact that parliamentarians from all parties, and in Parliament as a whole, have on the international trade agreements signed by Canada. As we know, the role of parliamentarians in that regard is pretty limited at this time. Amendments may be moved only with respect to the bill. They cannot affect the agreement itself. This is different than in the United States, where Congress assigns negotiating mandates. In some European countries, it is the parliaments themselves that adopt the agreements.
We agree with Bill C-13. Does my colleague agree that we should still modernize Canada's practices when it comes to international trade agreements? Is this not an opportunity to completely overhaul these Canadian practices in order to give parliamentarians and Parliament greater influence when it comes time to negotiate such agreements?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which I really appreciate. I am not sure I fully understood the question. I think it contained quite a few elements and was very complex.
Today we are talking about Canada and the United Kingdom, two reliable partners. The word “reliable” has come up a lot in recent months and years. It is important for our companies to do business with reliable partners. That makes a big difference. I talked about predictability earlier. That is a huge issue for our businesses these days. Look at wheat. Farmers have to plant it. They have to rotate their crops and plan what they are going to plant or not plant. That is why they need to know what is going to happen and what they will be able to sell six months down the line.
By bringing reliable countries like the United Kingdom into agreements like the one we are debating today, we increase predictability for the Canadian market.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which I support.
I would like to know this: In his opinion, what kind of growth potential does the CPTPP hold for our Canadian companies?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard.
We are talking about a market that is 99% tariff-free. When we talk about tariffs, people know exactly what we are talking about. The potential is enormous. Take, for example, Japan, one of the member countries. In 2023, we saw 60% growth in this market. In Vietnam, over the same period, growth was 110%.
These are growing markets with nearly 600 million consumers in the CPTPP zone. For our Canadian companies, having agreements and adding countries to them helps diversify markets. As a government, we are helping these companies do business over there and guiding them to these markets.
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.
[English]
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.
Mr. Speaker, it was a great speech, even though I had to listen to the translation for half of it.
I was surprised that the washing of the carcasses is still an issue in our trade agreement. I remember that before I was a parliamentarian here in 2019, that was a hot topic and basically a non-tariff barrier, so I am quite fascinated as to why it has not been resolved yet. I do not know what the Liberal government was doing all these years about trying to get that fixed.
Also, with respect to pensioners, I am surprised. We are talking about a trade agreement, but meanwhile we are asking the British government to increase taxes on people so they can pay pensioners over here more money. Is there an identical ask from the British government of our Canadian government in this trade agreement?
Mr. Speaker, regarding British pensioners, Canada actually indexed Canadians who are living in the United Kingdom with our requisite social safety and our pensions, so we are not unnecessarily having impacts. It is British pensioners in Canada who are not being indexed. There is, of course, a cost to government in the sense that, if this is something that is not addressed, it could be coming out of our treasury to disproportionately pay. It may be a relatively small amount. I assure the hon. member that this is something that is being raised. This is not a matter of political will to raise the issue and to drive it forward. This is a real sticking point. I raise it on the floor of the House of Commons here to be reasonable about what I see as a pathway that we need to continue to work forward.
Regarding the beef and carcass wash, again, on a technical basis, I would agree with the hon. member. There is no scientific basis for why that should not be accepted. We are pressing, but this is part of the political reality that we have to keep an eye on, including with the European Union.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, recently, a Liberal colleague said that Canada was looking for reliable economic partners and that the United Kingdom was a reliable partner. I support that statement.
That said, in January, the Prime Minister shook hands with Xi Jinping when he signed a trade agreement with China. I would simply like to know whether my colleague considers the regime in Beijing to be a reliable partner.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is now important for Canada to have conversations around the world, particularly with governments whose systems and values may differ from ours when it comes to society in general. However, it is now very important to have very strong partners, and China is the world's second-largest economy and largest consumer market. It is important for Quebec exports, for connecting Quebec jobs and for access to markets in general.
Also, when we have disagreements, it is important to be at the table and to have this discussion with leaders. It has been nine years since the last meeting between the previous prime minister and the president—
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his very eloquent speech, in which he explained the importance of the CPTPP.
Can he elaborate on how participating in this agreement will benefit Canada and Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, this is a critical moment for Canada. We need to create different free trade ties with our partners and other countries. We need to build new relationships.
More specifically, this bill seeks to expand the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership by adding another reliable partner. This is good news for exporters in Quebec and across the country, as well as for British investment in businesses and projects here in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning, a great parliamentarian to work with, a thoughtful guy and a friend.
Today, we are debating trade, if members have been paying attention. There are few issues that are closer in the minds of Canadians at the moment. Across the country, Canadians are worried about their families and their savings and whether they will be able to make it to the end of the month. Some have already lost their jobs, and I think many are wondering if theirs are next. This is a reality that Canadians are facing. Some of it is entirely outside of their control, but many also understand that much of it is possibly within their control.
I want to be super clear about something as we dig into this. Canadians are not the ones failing. I think they are being failed. They go to work every day. They support their families. They contribute to their communities. They are learning new skills and just trying to create a better life. If anyone is failing them, it is the government, which fails on the promises it makes.
I will say this: Conservatives support free trade because we are a trading nation. That is very obvious. Our prosperity depends on selling goods and resources to the world, and for many of us in this place, we have no idea what life was like before free trade, especially with our biggest partners.
We also support, though, fair trade. This is where I want to focus in on the discussion. Fair trade means ensuring that Canadian producers have real access to markets that are open here at home. It means standing up for Canadian ranchers and farmers and producers when they are treated unfairly. I know there are a lot of people in this place who believe that food comes from a grocery store, but there are a whole lot of people who get it there, like those who raise cattle, those who grow our food and those who get it onto our tables. For them, this is what brings us to the conversation of the U.K. and why we should pay attention to this.
Under the trade continuity agreement, the U.K. imposed non-tariff barriers on Canadian pork and cattle that are not rooted in science, and that is a problem. The U.K. refuses to accept something called carcass wash, which is used safely in Canadian slaughter plants, and it has regulations against Canadian beef about the way that we do things in terms of our own regulations here. These measures have effectively kept these products out of the U.K. market. When we are talking about trade, it has to be equal.
The result of this is a glaring imbalance. I know that our agricultural critic has these numbers off the top of his head, but I had to look it up at the Library of Parliament. Britain exported 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, $42 million in 2024 and $28 million in just the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported only 85,000 dollars' worth of beef in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and none at all in 2025.
The story is the same with pork. Britain exported in the millions of dollars' worth, while Canada exported no pork to the U.K. in 2023 and topped out at just about $120,000 in the last year. This is not fair trade, and anybody who looks at the numbers can understand that.
After nearly a decade in power, there is real, big talk now of trade from the Liberal government. It failed to resolve these issues, and that matters. It matters for our producers, and it matters for people who consume those products here in Canada. This is about far more than agriculture. It exposes, I think, a deeper failure of the government and one that should make anyone question this new, big talk on trade. This is where we sort of get into the nitty-gritty details. Now the government is asking Parliament to approve the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP without reversing these barriers and without making it fair. It appears the government is preparing to grant new access to the Canadian market while leaving our farmers locked out of the U.K.'s. That is not strong negotiating, and everybody understands that.
There is another issue that the government has ignored. Despite the member's raising it, they are actually getting into this without resolving it, and that is the more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners who live in Canada. Unlike pensioners who retire in countries like the United States, their pensions are not indexed to inflation, and we all know what has happened with inflation over the last couple of years under the Liberals' watch.
The pensioners have been raising the issue for years and asking for the same treatment as pensioners in other countries, because that is only fair. Given the close relationship between the Prime Minister and his counterpart in the U.K., one might have expected the government to use these negotiations to advocate for Canadian farmers and for those 100,000 pensioners who are living here in Canada during a cost-of-living crisis. Instead, those issues remain unresolved.
Today, we are talking about Bill C-13, and the conversation in the House would lead us to believe that this is a brand new trade agreement, or that this is some major breakthrough. It is not. Bill C-13 is not a new trade agreement. It is simply legislation to update Canadian law, years after a deal was already negotiated. In other words, Parliament is not debating a new strategy on Canadian trade. We are being asked to stamp changes required for negotiations that took place years ago. Even though the government managed to delay the process, and I can understand the urgency now, this is participation medal stuff. This is not where we need to go in order to expand our markets at a critical time.
The Liberals often speak about the importance of trade diversification, yet Canadians were among the last CPTPP members to ratify the U.K. accession, and that delay matters. It matters for Canadian businesses, who waited longer for access to the U.K. market that this membership could have provided them with.
While the government celebrates the technical amendments of a trade agreement, the reality is that Canada's most important trade relationship remains deeply unstable. More than 70% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. We all know that, yet today that relationship is clouded, obviously, by uncertainty, tariffs, unresolved disputes and the lack of a serious trade strategy that does not ignore reality.
For Canadians, a lot of questions remain: Where are we in all of this? What is the plan? What does the Prime Minister think when it comes to American auto, or resources, or really everything? We may never know. We have news of the minister heading down to Washington and then radio silence about the whole thing. Canadians need an update, otherwise they get more of these debates in the House about technical amendments about accession to an agreement that was negotiated a long time ago.
I will add one more point. Trade agreements are important, but trade agreements alone cannot solve Canada's deeper economic problems. They cannot compensate for an economy that has been made less competitive with higher taxes and more regulation. Over the past decade, we have seen falling investment per worker and weak productivity growth compared to our peers. These are not abstract statistics that we talk about when we talk about trade, because trade is all about attracting partners here and getting our products elsewhere. They also translate directly into fewer jobs, slower wage growth and fewer opportunities for Canadians. When businesses decide where to invest and whether to expand at home or move elsewhere, those factors really matter. Building a competitive economy actually matters in all of this: one that rewards work, encourages investment and removes the unnecessary barriers to growth, which is how we get ahead in trade.
We intend to support expanding markets for Canadian products. We always have and we always will, but we will also scrutinize the government's failure to secure real wins and real results for Canadians, which is what this debate is about. We do not quite understand why we are signing on to something that makes us worse off. Why did the Liberals let something languish to the point where our pork producers, our beef producers and 100,000 U.K. pensioners are all worse off, and this still goes ahead?
Canadians deserve an agreement that works for Canada. That means for this agreement and every single other one. We are not going to celebrate with a participation medal something that should have been done a long time ago. That is why I wanted a say in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that the issue of British pensions extends back to far before the time of this government. The Harper government was not able to resolve it. We agree with what she is saying, and we are continuing to push.
The member is the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. She is certainly a fair dealer, and I am going to ask this question with the desire of getting an honest answer.
The government is doing a lot of work around the world to build relationships. I asked the last colleague this question as well: Is there a country that Canada has either signed a trade arrangement or worked with that the Conservative Party does not agree that we should have? If the answer is China, I am curious as to what she would say to farmers in the western provinces about why the government should not have engaged to remove canola tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I know this is supposed to be a gotcha question, but this is the party of free trade. This is a party that signed more free trade agreements and had the richest middle class before the Liberals took over more than 10 years ago. We support expanding trade, but the matter here is that free trade has to be fair for all of the participants.
We also cherish our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and we are going to lead with those values in every conversation we have around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals brought up the issue of China. The government operations committee today heard of hundreds of millions of daily attacks on the government's cyber system. The Communications Security Establishment points its finger at China as our number one issue.
I wonder what my colleague thinks about the government's focus and obsession with China as a strategic partner while, at the same time, its own security agency is saying it is the number one threat to our cybersecurity.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot written and said about the government's new focus on China. I think our U.S. counterparts would also be rather concerned.
The matter at hand is the difference between securing a trade relationship, opening markets to farmers, and creating a strategic partnership with a country that does not share our values or our national security interests and, frankly, has kidnapped Canadians and reached out its arm of transnational repression to our people here.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the leader of the Conservative Party has made the decision to finally go to the U.S.A. to talk about issues in Canada. Another Conservative member, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, has already gone to the States. We will remember that he met with the President and the Vice-President, and then he came back and said that Canadians are having a hissy fit.
When can we expect the member's current leader is going to be meeting with the President and Vice-President, and will he come back and provide an informed report too?
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Leader of the Opposition went to the U.K. and Germany, and that visit was received very well. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Prime Minister about his visit to the U.S. and stands ready to help. He is going to go to Michigan to speak about auto and to Texas to speak about our resources, to ensure that jobs are kept in Canada. We look forward to that visit.
I know the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition, and we stand ready to help in this relationship whenever possible.
Mr. Speaker, one thing I can never get over is that the Liberals, in the last two questions, took an opportunity, instead of talking about what Canada is going to offer and do for Canadians, attempted a gotcha moment and heckled us. Unfortunately, we are talking about a trade agreement that is going to enhance Canadians.
I asked the member for Winnipeg North this morning if there is anything in this agreement for Canadians, and he answered no. Can the member reply to that?
Mr. Speaker, once in a while the member for Winnipeg North tells the truth in this House. I will leave it to them.
I laid out very clearly that free trade needs to be fair trade. Access of products to our market and fairness for U.K. pensioners should be at the centre of this conversation, and they certainly have not been.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure in the history of Canadian Parliament there have been bills with longer names, but we have to admit this one is a mouthful: 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. It is a very long name for a trade agreement. This does not flow easily off the tongue. I should think some bright staffer could have come up with a snappier title, something like the “let the U.K. join the club act”. I guess we will just have to refer to it as Bill C-13.
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, is a free trade agreement enforced between Canada and 10 other countries in the Indo-Pacific region: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. In 2023, CPTPP parties signed an accession protocol with the United Kingdom. The CPTPP will enter into force for the U.K. once all the CPTPP members and the U.K. complete their respective ratification processes. Bill C-13 is a part of the ratification process.
Once the agreement is fully implemented, Canada will have duty-free access to CPTPP countries for 90% of Canadian agriculture and agri-food product exports, 99% of Canadian industrial product exports, 100% of Canadian fish and seafood product exports, and 100% of Canadian forest product exports. This is indeed good news for Canadian business. It is also good news that the U.K.'s accession would provide broader services access for construction, legal and veterinary services and longer visa durations for business visitors and investors than were set out in the Canada-U.K. Trade Continuity Agreement that was negotiated following Brexit.
It is not good news that the Liberal government has failed to address some of the outstanding trade issues with the U.K.
The CPTPP would provide limited practical gains for Canadian beef and pork exporters who want to access the U.K. market. Canada secured additional duty-free volumes for pork and beef into the U.K. over the previous agreement, but Canadian export volumes are unlikely to increase, given the U.K.'s non-tariff barriers relating to sanitary measures. It is worth noting that the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Pork Council have both indicated opposition to the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP due to that country's non-tariff barriers to Canadian pork and beef producers.
The U.K. is Canada's third-largest trading partner and ally, and with this new relationship I can see the opportunity for increased trade. However, there have been missed opportunities, and not only with pork and beef, but I will finish my speech after question period.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
International Women's Day
Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago for International Women's Day, 12 students from McGill University walked up to Parliament to shadow and learn from women parliamentarians. Yesterday, we welcomed 85 students from McGill, Toronto Metropolitan University and the University of Ottawa to this chamber to shadow women parliamentarians across party lines.
Women in House has now welcomed more than 5,000 young women to Parliament, who have moved on to careers in public service, advocacy and, yes, even politics. Women have long led efforts to advance policies that address social and economic challenges. A powerful example of this is our government's $10-a-day child care, which is reshaping how we think about economic resilience and growth.
Despite this incredible progress, Canada still ranks 73rd in the world for women's political representation. Our work to continue opening doors for women must go on. Canada is better when more young women can see themselves not only in these halls but at every table where decisions are made.
Happy International Women's Day.
Child Care
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a bad habit of announcing big programs for big money that do not actually work.
In Kitchener South, Mohammad Keshvani invested $1.6 million of his own savings and loans to build Angus Valley Montessori, a beautiful child care centre that can serve 100 children. Parents are calling every day and more than 450 families are on the wait-list, yet those spaces are almost all sitting empty.
Why is this? It is because the subsidy system is broken. The federal government takes money from taxpayers in Kitchener, brings it up to Ottawa, sends some of that to the province, the province sends some of that to the municipality and, at the end of that chain, 450 tax-paying families are not seeing a dime of what they put into the system.
The Liberals want to take credit for a universal child care system, but they never take responsibility when 14,000 families in Waterloo region cannot find proper child care. I call on the Liberals to fix their broken child care system so that Mr. Keshvani and his wife can live their dream of providing high-quality child care to my friends and neighbours in Kitchener. Conservatives will restore child care—
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.
In less than a year, our government is delivering for Canadians. We have cut income taxes. We have delivered affordable child care and affordability tax credits. We are strengthening buy-Canadian procurement to support Canadian workers and Canadian industry, and we are investing in the infrastructure that Canada relies on: ports, transit, Hamilton's LRT project, roads and bridges, sports facilities and recreation centres.
We are building more housing and protecting jobs in the steel and auto sectors. We are growing the shipbuilding and life sciences sectors in Hamilton, strengthening health care and reducing our reliance on the United States by expanding new markets for Canadian businesses. We are creating new jobs and opportunities across the country, including here in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.
Canadians elected a government that is strong, stable and focused on building a more prosperous future for our country. I am proud to share some of the great work we have achieved so far.
Religious Freedom
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to censor and control Canadians. Their Bill C-18 blocks Canadians from news on social media. Bill C-11 controls what Canadians see and say online. There is their extra “online harms bill,” yet the laws to combat these exist but are not enforced. Their energy censorship stops Canadian businesses from telling the truth about innovation and the environment. Who can forget the unconstitutional Emergencies Act?
These same Liberals are at it again with Bill C-9, which would strip the long-held religious defence from Canada's hate speech laws and criminalize passages from sacred texts like the Bible, Torah and Quran, with Canadians already in danger as global conflicts plague our streets. The Liberals are clear: Religious texts and believers should be prosecuted.
True to form, the Liberals shut down debate to censor MPs and ignored the countless Canadians who urged us to reject Bill C-9. Conservatives will always defend freedom of religion, assembly and expression because a free, democratic country does not police faith or prosecute scripture.
[Translation]
Fire in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun
Mr. Speaker, a sad incident occurred in my riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun on February 23. The former Saint-Paul church was destroyed in a major fire, which forced nearly 100 seniors to be evacuated from their nearby home in the middle of the night.
Thanks to the bravery and professionalism of the Montreal fire department and the rapid support of the Canadian Red Cross, no lives were lost.
[English]
However, a vital community lifeline lost everything.
[Translation]
The La Main Qui Partage food bank, which feeds the most vulnerable and offers hope and dignity to over 200 families, lost all of its equipment. Our community came together.
[English]
Residents stepped up. Volunteers showed up, and members of Parliament from across Montreal answered the call to offer concrete support to help the organization replace its equipment. I cannot thank my colleagues enough.
[Translation]
The food bank's mission is to ensure that no one falls through the cracks. When hardship strikes, our community comes together and acts in solidarity—
[English]
Religious Freedom
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 expands the definition of hate in the Criminal Code while also removing the long-standing religious defence. This change is significant and raises serious concerns for Canadians of faith who could be vulnerable to criminal prosecution simply for quoting passages from their own sacred texts.
If the government can decide that parts of religious books are hateful and make it a crime to talk about them, without clear protections in law, it takes us down an extremely dangerous path. This matters because religious freedom is not a privilege granted by a government, but rather it is a right guaranteed by Canada's Constitution. It is a cornerstone of our free and democratic society.
Tens of thousands of Canadians have exercised their voices. They have written and called members of Parliament asking for Bill C-9 to be scrapped. As members of Parliament who are duly elected, we have a duty of care to listen to the voices of those constituents. All sincerely held beliefs must be protected, and Bill C-9 must be withdrawn.
Women's Basketball
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the University of New Brunswick's women's basketball team on their historic season. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Reds made it to the U Sports women's basketball championship.
[Translation]
Despite fierce competition in the finals, their determination, discipline and unwavering team spirit led to a historic win.
[English]
Though they did not bring home gold, they have inspired a generation of young players, including my very own 13-year-old daughter. She was jumping around the living room because she was so excited by the accomplishment.
I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating the UNB Reds women's basketball team on this remarkable milestone.
Oil and Gas Industry
Mr. Speaker, the PC government of Newfoundland and Labrador was finally able to do what Liberal governments could not do. Despite years of Liberal anti-oil policies, they finally signed the deal for Bay du Nord. This will bring $6 billion of royalty revenue to the province, and 95% of its subsea work was guaranteed for the province, which is estimated at 31 million man-hours over its lifetime. To sweeten the pot, Equinor and BP agreed to build a floating dry dock to equip our province for long-term employment in shipbuilding opportunities.
This is a good deal by Premier Wakeham, and I will fight to make it even greater. Currently, the contracts to build the FPSOs are on tender, and we should make sure that they are built in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Will the government reinstate the oil and gas investments back into the Atlantic investment tax credit to lower taxes and give local companies a fighting chance?
[Translation]
Orchestre symphonique de Drummondville
Mr. Speaker, the Drummondville symphonic orchestra has just scored a major coup. It has won another Opus award, this time in the regional impact category, for Mes mers intérieures, presented in 2025.
It is safe to say that Drummond cannot help itself from standing out. This award is no small feat. It is presented by the Conseil québécois de la musique to outstanding projects in Quebec. The Drummondville symphonic orchestra has won it five times in under ten years, making it the most awarded regional orchestra. We are not known for doing things in half measures.
Mes mers intérieures, a concert that sensitively addresses infant loss, was performed by soprano Marianne Lambert, conducted by Julien Proulx and directed by Isabeau Proulx-Lemire. From the moment the orchestra strikes its first note, the tones ring true and resonate long after the last note. The strains can be heard all across Quebec.
It is heartwarming to see Drummond shine in big concert halls. Bravo to the maestro and the musicians. Everything is pitch perfect, allowing our talents to shine.
[English]
Donald Rickerd
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Donald Rickerd, a distinguished Canadian whose contributions to law education and public service left a lasting impact on our country.
Don Rickerd studied at Queen's, Oxford and Osgoode Hall. He practised law and served as a faculty member and administrator at York University. He later served as president of the William H. Donner Foundation and the Donner Canadian Foundation and participated in charitable and community work across the country. As a member of the McDonald commission, he helped strengthen accountability in matters of national security.
Beyond his formal achievements, Don was known for his generosity, intellectual curiosity and deep commitment to his students. A gifted storyteller and a warm presence, he built connections across generations and disciplines.
On behalf of the House, I extend my sincere condolences to his wife Julie, his son Christopher and all those whose lives were enriched by his kindness and wisdom.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources promised that Canada would “do its part” to bring down oil prices, so this question follows: What exactly are we going to do?
Today is the day that we are smacked in the face with the outcome of more than 10 years of Liberal “keep it in the ground” law and policy respecting our petroleum industry. The fact is that the Liberal government has starved our energy industry of essential strategic infrastructure. Bill C-69 is an unworkable approval permit law. The Liberals have blocked pipelines and banned oil tanker shipping.
Fortunately, my private member's bill would at least repeal the west coast oil tanker ban. When it comes to strategic reserves, thankfully Pierre Poilievre has proposed the emergency energy supply plan that will allow us to assist our friends abroad in times of crisis and would blunt energy shocks that further drive up the cost of living and hurt Canadians.
I call on the Liberal government to adopt our plan—
Polar Plunge for Special Olympics
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I was joined by the Surrey police and fire departments to deliver a speech and to cheer on everyone at the Polar Plunge for Special Olympics BC. The Polar Plunge is about the belief that everyone deserves a place to belong. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Polar Plunge for Special Olympics BC, which has raised more than $2 million to support athletes.
In August, Alberta hosts the Special Olympics Canada Summer Games. As a father of a child with a disability, I have seen first-hand how sport builds confidence, friendships and joy. It opens doors for athletes, families and entire communities. Through Special Olympics, people are defined not by their challenges but by their courage, their determination and their incredible abilities.
People who took the plunge this year should remember that they did not just brave the cold but also helped to create a more inclusive world where every athlete is celebrated.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, there have always been conflicts abroad, but we have never seen them spill onto our streets the way they have under the Liberal government. Last week, three synagogues were shot at in the GTA, and now an Iranian dissident has gone missing, which is being investigated as a homicide.
Today we are calling on the Liberals to table a plan within one week to do the following: enforce deportation orders for regime officials and close the loopholes that allow them to stay here in Canada, coordinate Canada's Iranian sanctions to ensure effective compliance, end the regime's money laundering efforts here in Canada, evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level, identify any gaps in Canada's national security legislation and, finally, complete Canada's foreign influence registry.
The Liberals have failed to provide a plan to combat the regime in Tehran and their predations in Canada, so we have done the work for them because Conservatives believe that Canadians deserve to feel safe here at home.
[Translation]
International Women's Day
Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to mark International Women's Day, which took place on March 8.
On Saturday, in my riding, we had the honour of celebrating and recognizing, for the fourth consecutive year, 19 exceptional women from Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester who actively contribute to our community. Through their commitment, leadership and dedication, they strengthen our communities and inspire us all to continue to take meaningful action.
[English]
International Women's Day reminds us of the importance of recognizing women's achievements and continuing our efforts to promote gender equality and equity. On March 8, we honour the women who built, the women who resisted, the women who innovated, the women who make a difference in their community and the women who, every day in their personal and professional lives, create a more humane, more united and more courageous world.
[Translation]
When women succeed, everyone succeeds.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government treats inflation as if it were a natural disaster, something it cannot control, when in reality it is a policy it authored.
The Liberals are not just watching prices rise; they are actively driving the spike with a tax-and-spend agenda that ignores the reality of the Canadian kitchen table. The industrial carbon tax is a prime example. It is not just another number on a ledger. It is an extra seven cents a litre today, climbing to 17¢. These taxes and red tape hit our farmers, our truckers and our food processors like a man-made storm. Canadians see the carnage at every stage, from the fuel needed to plant the seed, to the final total at the grocery checkout.
This affordability crisis was made right here in Ottawa by the members on the other side of the House. They keep pointing south of the border to shift the blame, but they cannot hide the math. Their taxes are making life more expensive. It is time to stop the excuses and put Canadians first. It is time to cut the taxes that fuel inflation. It is time to make decisions that favour our families. Finally, it is time to bring back hope for a better Canada.
World Kidney Day
Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Kidney Foundation of Canada are on the Hill this week. March 12 is World Kidney Day, and the foundation is launching its national strategic framework for chronic kidney disease, Canada's first unified road map to move kidney care from reactive and fragmented to proactive, coordinated and resilient.
As someone born with a solitary kidney, who has undergone dialysis and who has received a transplant, I know the importance of early detection, timely treatment and strong medical teams. I am grateful to all the medical professionals and to organizations like Canadian Blood Services that offer hope to patients nationwide. Thanks to the dedicated medical and transplant teams at Vancouver General Hospital, I am here today. I thank the Kidney Foundation for its leadership and its commitment to a healthier future.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made the absurd promise that Canada would “do its part” to help stabilize global oil markets, but Canada cannot do its part because after a decade of Liberal energy policies, we do not have a strategic oil reserve. When allies need energy and markets need stability, Canada has nothing to offer but the minister's promises.
Conservatives have proposed a strategic reserve to fuel our allies abroad and give Canada real leverage, especially at times like these, so will the Liberals adopt our plan so Canada can be stronger at home and more reliable abroad?
Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the member opposite the way the IEA works. Net importers have strategic oil reserves; net exporters do not. That is how it works.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain something back. Just because one does not have to do something, it does not mean they should not, especially when they lead their allies to believe that they will. We have a name for that.
The Liberals cannot paper over a 10-year record of shutting down the oil and gas sector, leaving our country weaker, more dependent and unable to step up when it matters. They can say the words and they can sign the MOUs, but we all know that the minister's new project office has not approved a single new project.
Will the government finally scrap the anti-pipeline law, repeal the emissions cap, lift the tanker ban and approve real projects so we can get Canadians to work and be there for our allies?
Mr. Speaker, apparently the Conservatives do not agree with the premier of Alberta that now is the time to build.
The new Liberal government signed and will deliver the promise of the Canada MOU. We will build strong with indigenous peoples. That is why Canadians elected the new Prime Minister, because the new Prime Minister knows how to work with the premiers and knows how to work with indigenous peoples to build things. Unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition does not.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources promised here in the House that Canada would do its part to help release oil reserves in order to stabilize the market. That is a good idea, but we have a bit of a problem: We do not have a strategic oil reserve, in part because for 10 years the fine people facing me right now have shown contempt for Canadian oil. Our party is proposing a strategic reserve of energy and minerals. Today, the Conservative leader wrote to the Prime Minister calling for such an initiative to go ahead.
Will the Prime Minister say yes to this creation of wealth and thus create an essential lever in this uncertain world?
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to creating an energy superpower, Canada is already there. The minister just explained that oil-exporting countries generally do not have reserves. Importing countries are the ones that do.
Canada will also be a renewable energy superpower, whether through the sale of uranium or through support for renewable energy and technologies across the country. Canada is and will remain a conventional and renewable energy superpower.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has been in office for a year, but the minister who just answered that question has been here for 10 years. For 10 years, he and his fellow ministers have snubbed Canadian oil. We are now paying the price. All Canadians are paying the price.
There is also food inflation. Sadly, Canada, a major G7 country, has the worst food inflation at 7.3%. What is the result? Families in Saint‑Georges, in Beauce, will go buy groceries 50 kilometres away in Jackman, where they are 7.3% less expensive.
Why do Canadians have to pay more at the grocery store?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, who has also been here for 10 years, also has a record. He has consistently voted against every support measure to protect Canadians from rising costs, including dental care, school food programs and the Canada child benefit. This member has systematically voted against every initiative. He has not approved one single support measure for one single Canadian.
When will he start doing so?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we cannot control what is happening abroad, but we can fix things here at home.
The majority of Canadians now report that they are worse off today than when the Prime Minister took office, and they are right. Under his leadership, Canada now has the worst food price inflation and the only shrinking economy in the G7. The Liberal Prime Minister was warned that imposing his industrial carbon tax and adding a fuel standard tax that is now at 7¢ a litre and that he is raising to 17¢ a litre would drive up prices, but he did it anyway. Canadians cannot afford this.
When will the Prime Minister remove his inflationary taxes so Canadians can afford to eat?
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative leader was in Europe trying to reboot his tarnished image and meeting with leaders who wondered why he was even there, do members know where the Prime Minister was? He was in the Indo-Pacific signing trade deals with Japan, Australia and India. We can talk about the $2.6 billion of uranium from Saskatchewan. Did the Saskatchewan members even comment on that? Premier Scott Moe certainly supported it.
On this side of the House, we are going to continue to build our economy. That side is full of rhetoric and obstruction.
Mr. Speaker, if someone believes that answer, I have an oceanfront property I will sell them in Alberta.
Everyone knows that when the government charges higher fuel and carbon taxes on fertilizer, fuel and equipment for farmers, food processors and truckers, it drives up the cost of food. It is going to get worse as long as the Liberals keep on hiking these taxes. Canada now has the highest food price inflation and the worst shrinking economy in the G7, and it has gotten worse since the Prime Minister took office. We cannot control what is happening abroad, but we can fix things here at home.
Why will the Liberals not reverse their taxes so Canadians can afford to eat?
Mr. Speaker, I am standing up for my daily reminder that studies show that the industrial carbon price adds zero dollars to the cost of food. If the Conservatives want to speak about taxes, I can point out that on this side of the House, we cut them. If they want to talk about imaginary taxes, they can go ahead, but we are going to make sure that we support Canadians with real measures.
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Ali Al Salem Air Base was the target of an Iranian missile strike on March 1. This military complex is home to Camp Canada, a Canadian Armed Forces operational base. In other words, on March 1, Iran targeted Canadian military personnel. The government, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and, of course, the Prime Minister, were aware of this attack on the Canadian Armed Forces in Kuwait.
Why did the government fail to inform parliamentarians and the public about this attack?
Mr. Speaker, Canada was not consulted, did not participate and will not participate in offensive strikes against Iran. All Canadian Armed Forces members in the region are safe and sound and have been located.
For operational security reasons, we cannot provide more details, but I want to thank the Canadian Armed Forces for the work they do every day for our country.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 9, the government proposed a take-note debate on the conflict in the Middle East in response to requests from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. It has been eight days since the Ali Al-Salem military base was attacked by Iranian missiles. It has been eight days, and the Liberals have not seen fit to mention it to parliamentarians. The information was made public by La Presse. We would not know about that today were it up to the Liberals.
Are there other attacks like this that the government is trying to hide from us, and why should we trust it?
Mr. Speaker, as I said, all Canadian Armed Forces members in the region are safe and accounted for. As we keep saying, Canada reaffirms that international law applies to all parties and actors, including the United States and Israel, which must follow the rules of international law.
Once again, I would like to thank the Canadian Armed Forces for all of the work that they do for our country.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the conflict, the Prime Minister said he supported the United States and Israel. Since then, he has been reconsidering his position on a daily basis. The lives of Canadian Armed Forces soldiers in Kuwait have been threatened by Iranian missile fire. The Prime Minister knew about it, as did the Minister of National Defence and perhaps the entire cabinet, but parliamentarians and the public were not informed.
Did the Prime Minister support the American offensive because the Camp Canada military base in Kuwait was targeted by missile fire?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that all Canadian Armed Forces members in the region are safe and accounted for. For operational security reasons, we cannot provide further details, but I would like to be clear: Canada has not been consulted regarding offensive strikes against Iran, has not participated in them and does not intend to participate in them, period.
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals blame the world for the fact that families are struggling more than ever to make ends meet, but it is actually the government's policies here at home that are driving up the cost of food. Canada has the highest food inflation rate out of the G7. A big factor in this is the hidden carbon tax, also known as the clean fuel standard. It is making life more expensive because it is driving up the cost of fuel for trucks, farmers and fishermen.
When will the Liberals take responsibility for their actions here at home and take off these taxes that are punitive for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it seems like the members opposite from the Conservative Party have a big interest in the clean fuel standard. Let me talk to them and to their constituents about the opportunities that are created by this. Canola farmers in Alberta will actually see an increase in the value of their product. They will actually see an increase in their farm revenue. We see the Imperial renewable diesel facility is going to use up and require 50% of the canola produced in Alberta. This is an opportunity for farmers in her riding and in all the rest of her caucus members' ridings. We stand up for—
Mr. Speaker, the minister, who is entirely out of touch with the people in western Canada and, I would dare say, all Canadians, would like them to believe that there is a benefit to this tax, that there is a benefit to driving up the cost of groceries and forcing seniors to have to choose between groceries and their medications or having families choose between giving their daughter formula or having to cut back on the essential amount. These are the types of tough decisions that Canadians are making, yet the minister says that this is an opportunity for them.
When will the government listen to Canadians, see Canadians for what they are saying and the challenges they are facing, and do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, judging from recent opinion polling, it is not us who are out of touch with the people of Alberta. It is, in fact, the Liberal government that is delivering on the promise of a memorandum of understanding with the Province of Alberta. It is this government that is making markets, creating revenues and increasing the incomes of canola farmers across Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The question for the opposition is this: When will they get behind this western Canadian agenda?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching know that the government always has an excuse ready, but they cannot keep passing the buck when we have the highest food inflation and the worst economic growth in the G7. Backward Liberal policies imposed domestically, like the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax, are harming our economy and making life more expensive for Canadians.
Enough excuses. Will the Liberals scrap these self-inflicted taxes they are forcing on Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, enough rhetoric from that side of the House. This is a government that is supporting Canadians right across the country. We have delivered on the groceries benefit, which in my riding is going to help over 30,000 of my constituents. I expect something similar in that member's riding as well. That benefit is going to help deliver close to $1,900 this year for a family of four. It is the part of our plan that is making an actual difference in the lives of Canadians.
When are these Conservatives going to get on board and back us up?
Mr. Speaker, how can Canada stand on its own two feet in the world if the Liberals keep cutting our legs out from under us? Amid global instability, the government should be doing everything it can to make life more affordable right here at home. Liberal taxes are leaving Canadians more exposed to global shocks, conflicts and decisions by foreign governments.
When will the Liberals stop making excuses and scrap these taxes?
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is a man of good spirit and good heart. Let me help him with his talking points.
Canada is the second-fastest growing in the G7. We have one of the lowest debts to GDP. He should rejoice about the place of Canada in the world. We have the most educated workforce. We have strong industry. We have critical minerals. We have energy. We have trade agreements. We have everything to lead in the world of the 21st century. We believe in Canada and—
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to blame everyone else for rising food prices, but it is their own policies here at home that are driving prices up. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7. Instead of helping, the Liberals are now adding new fuel costs, which will rise from 7¢ to 17¢ a litre. For every new tax that increases the cost of planting, harvesting and transporting food, farmers cannot absorb them and consumers cannot afford them.
Please, Mr. Prime Minister, flip-flop again. Scrap these costly policies and finally show some mercy to the hard-working Canadian families and the farmers who feed them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Before the member starts, I just want to remind members that we address the Chair. We are not addressing any member of the House directly, and I will just remind the member of that too.
The hon. Secretary of State for Rural Development.
Mr. Speaker, there is more good news as my colleague likes to say. The headlines in the newspapers in Saskatchewan state, “Saskatchewan grain terminals seeing increase in canola sales”. Saskatchewan is optimistic on oil and gas. Saskatchewan is building. Why is Saskatchewan building? It is because Canada works. That was the message we heard from the Conservative opposition for the last 10 years. I am here to say we love Saskatchewan, and everything that we do we do for Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, that answer shows just how out of touch these Liberals are. That member represents a riding in Saskatchewan, which is the breadbasket of Canada and the world, yet there have been 27 confirmed cases of scurvy in that member's riding. These are not people who are coming over in wooden ships across the Atlantic in the 1600s. Unfortunately, this is just another day in Liberal Canada.
When will the government be morally or ethically serious and stop these crazy policies that are driving up food inflation in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to speak with our premier, Scott Moe, in Saskatchewan, but I cannot get a hold of him. He is too busy signing deal after deal with the Prime Minister, which means benefit after benefit for the Saskatchewan people.
Any day of the week, I will compare the Prime Minister's and our government's ability, credibility and capability versus a phantom plan designed by an anonymous economist and led by someone who never worked in the private sector before.
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of living is hitting my constituents, Quebeckers and Canadians hard.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I must interrupt the hon. member.
Some members are still talking about the last exchange. I am going to ask them to settle down.
We may have to extend oral question period.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of living is hitting my constituents, Quebeckers and Canadians hard. We have the worst food inflation in the G7.
Despite this, the Liberals are determined to make life even more difficult by increasing the fuel tax, which is going up from 7¢ per litre to 17¢ per litre. That leads to higher prices for our farmers and our carriers.
When will the government put an end, once and for all, to these taxes that are a burden on Canadian families?
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I am saddened to see him rise in the House when, on previous occasions, he failed to defend the interests of his constituents, protect them from the rising cost of living and fight for affordability and their purchasing power.
I am thinking of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, for example, which helps 12 million Canadians, including three million Quebeckers. That is $1,800 per family for the most vulnerable families. There is also the increase to the Canada child benefit and a tax cut for the middle class. However, it is not just that. This is also about building major projects, such as the expansion of the Port of Saguenay, which creates good jobs for the economy in my colleague's riding and for Quebec's economy.
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which includes my Liberal colleagues, unanimously adopted a motion calling for a commission of inquiry into the failures of the following federal IT systems: Phoenix, ArriveCAN and Cúram.
The Quebec National Assembly has also unanimously called for such a commission of inquiry. The federal government's IT track record shows taxpayers' money going into flawed systems and people ending up in trouble as a result. These billions of dollars could have been better invested. It is time to shed light on all of this.
When will there be an independent public inquiry?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear with the member. The government tabled a response at the public accounts committee in January. There were over 50 pages of documentation on the progress of the benefits delivery modernization program that are publicly available and can be found online, so what the member has asked for has already been conducted. Just this morning, he also participated in a technical briefing with the department, where he learned that the benefits system is providing services to over 7 million Canadians and is on track, and that so far the expenditure is under budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister criticized us for not attending a briefing on Cúram. However, that briefing session was held today, and we were in attendance. The bottom line is that Cúram is still causing problems. Tens of thousands of seniors are still without their old age security benefits. The bills keep coming. Cúram continues to cause the same problems, and thousands of people are still anxious and worried.
What are the Liberals waiting for? Instead of holding briefings to defend their bad system, when will they set up a commission of inquiry?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Bloc Québécois members, who finally agreed to attend a technical briefing that I believe will help them understand this issue. With regard to the Cúram system, the direct costs of the project are lower than expected.
It is important to remember one thing: 7.7 million Canadians are receiving their OAS payments through Cúram. What the Bloc Québécois is proposing is completely unacceptable. It would leave millions of seniors to rely on an archaic system that is doomed to obsolescence, that is vulnerable and that put the financial health and security of millions of seniors across the country at risk.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, it is a new day, and that means there is another CMHC housing report that is warning that housing starts are falling because projects simply no longer work financially. Government taxes, fees and regulations now account for up to half the cost of a new home.
When government takes that much, fewer homes get built, so will the Liberal government please just listen to the Conservatives, listen to experts and take the immediate step to improve the economics of housing and eliminate the GST on all new homes?
Mr. Speaker, we have some good news in that CMHC report, which shows that average rents across the country are coming down. We are making progress. We are seeing the price of housing come down as well, and mortgage rates are also down, so we are seeing trends in the right direction that achieve affordability, which every member of the House seems to want to deliver on. We could deliver even more for Canadians by passing the Build Canada Homes act in the House and getting $13 billion to set up Canada's affordable housing agency permanently.
Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising the minister read only a part of that report, because the report actually talks about how housing starts are falling. They are dropping dramatically, and the reason they are dropping is that the cost of government is just too high and housing construction is too expensive.
My question is simple. Instead of creating a fourth federal housing bureaucracy with the new Build Canada Homes, why will the government not deal with the real barriers to home building, which are taxes, fees and approvals, so builders can get building the homes that Canadians can afford?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for pointing that out, because we are cutting taxes for first-time homebuyers by up to $50,000, for young Canadians to be able to buy their first home. We are reducing the amount of red tape across the country. The housing accelerator fund is delivering for 241 cities across the country. We are seeing permitting and approvals move faster. We are delivering infrastructure investments to bring down development charges so fees for homebuilding go down. We are delivering on all these points. We need to take it to the next level with the members opposite.
Mr. Speaker, CMHC's spring housing report is out, and the headlines are concerning. Here it is: Condo sales have collapsed, inventory of all types of housing has surged and financial conditions have worsened for homebuyers. However, here is the most concerning thing about that report. It says Canadians are delaying starting a family because of housing and affordability. They are delaying marriage and delaying having children, which are the very foundations of our society, because they cannot afford a home.
We have offered one positive solution: Remove the GST on new homes for all Canadians. Will the minister commit to doing that today?
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that Canadians are challenged with buying a home right now, when there is a war in the Middle East. There is no surprise.
In the first 100 days of Build Canada Homes, we have secured agreements with Nova Scotia, with B.C and with Nunavut. We are delivering thousands of homes. We are up to 9,000 homes that are being delivered through Build Canada Homes for Canadians, and we are just getting started. If we pass the Build Canada Homes act in the House in the days ahead, we can supercharge the construction of affordable housing, and that is what Canadians need.
Mr. Speaker, there is an excuse for every problem, but this is a new one: The war in Iran is the cause of our housing crisis. Wow. I do not know how the Liberals figure that, or square that circle.
The minister boasts about 9,000 new homes. He promised 500,000 new homes. That is not even 2% of his target. Guess what. CMHC says that only 259,000 were built last year, which is only half of the target again, so at the rate the minister complacently brags about, we will never hit the target.
Will the minister take our idea and remove GST on all new homes for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we had a very strong year last year for housing starts across Canada, one of the best in our history. Almost 260,000 homes were started. We need to keep that continuing. Sales are challenged right now. The economy is challenged.
This side of the House is focused on delivering for Canada on affordability, boosting our economy, creating jobs and cutting the costs and the challenges Canadians have. That starts first and foremost with our housing. We are going to deliver that with Build Canada Homes. I invite the members opposite to support the act moving forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that Canada needs to build more homes. The Liberal solution is to build more bureaucracy. The only thing the Liberals have managed to build is another bureaucratic structure. The fourth Liberal housing bureaucracy is Build Canada Homes. It is going to cost Canadians $13 billion. It will build 5,000 homes per year, or 1% of what the country needs.
When will the Prime Minister cut the red tape and eliminate the GST on all new homes instead of creating yet another new bureaucratic structure?
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad my opposition colleague asked us that question, because it gives me an opportunity to point out that Quebec was the first province to sign on to Build Canada Homes with my seatmate, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure. Already, hundreds and thousands of housing units are being built across the country, including in Quebec. I am very happy about that, and I encourage my colleague to watch developments closely because we will build ambitiously, rapidly and efficiently.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I have good news: our leader today, the Minister of Public Safety, tabled a bill respecting lawful access, with the underlying objective of giving law enforcement agencies the modern tools they need to combat organized crime, as well as further capacity to act swiftly to prevent criminal activities such as extortion.
Could the Minister of Public Safety elaborate on the critical importance of the bill and how the passage of the legislation would contribute to the safety and security of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed good news. I want to thank my colleague from Oakville West for her hard work. We have been clear that lawful access measures are necessary to give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect Canadians.
Canada is the only Five Eyes G7 country to not have a lawful access measure in place. It is time that Canadian law enforcement had Canadian solutions to go after criminals. With the new measures proposed in Bill C-22, law enforcement would have the tools it has been asking for to combat childhood sexual exploitation, extortion, human trafficking and money laundering. I want to ask—
Automotive Industry
Mr. Speaker, for months we have said that the punishing auto tariffs that have been put on our auto industry are devastating and would devastate the industry. With 10,000 jobs lost, the Liberals did nothing. Three plants closed, and the Liberals did nothing. There has been 2.5 billion dollars' worth of tariffs charged to our auto manufacturers, and now the roosters have come home to roost. StatsCan reports that sales of vehicles and light-duty vehicles are down 32%, exports are down 32% and parts are down 21%. These are the worst export numbers since COVID.
When will the Liberals realize they are failing our auto workers?
Mr. Speaker, when my colleague and the Conservatives talk about the auto sector, I do not know why they are scared to talk about the auto tariffs. I do not know why they are not condemning the trade war against us. At the same time, I do not know why they are not supporting what another Conservative is saying, Premier Ford, who is supporting our new auto strategy.
Notwithstanding all the headwinds against our auto workers, we have been there fighting for them, supporting them and creating new jobs. I was in Windsor with Premier Ford last week. We just created 3,000 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the minister's answers to questions about the auto sector are some combination of suggesting that we are not doing enough, and fake news.
Let us look at the results, which are clear. The exports to the United States are down 32% for light-duty and passenger vehicles. That is billions of dollars. This is a direct result of the tariffs the Liberals said they would have removed by Canada Day 2025. It is approaching Canada Day 2026. They failed to get the tariffs off, which they said they would do. The auto industry has been devastated.
Why do the Liberals not admit their failures and apologize to auto workers and the auto sector?
Mr. Speaker, when we look auto workers in the eye, we know that they know they can trust us. Why is that? It is because we have a plan, notwithstanding all the headwinds against our auto workers and against the auto workers of the entire world.
This morning I was in conversation with the new CEO of Audi. We are working on attracting new investment to Canada. We will use our defence procurement to attract new investment in our auto sector. We will use every single lever of the government to make sure we can defend the sector's jobs. At the end of the day, this is not fake news but real news.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto exports have fallen to their lowest levels in years. More than 5,000 auto workers have already lost their jobs as shifts are cancelled and production lines, such as the third line in Oshawa, are shut down. In communities like mine, auto workers and their families know exactly what that means. When the auto industry suffers, entire communities feel it.
Will the Liberals finally put Canadian auto workers first, or will they keep using Canadian tax dollars to subsidize foreign-made vehicles while our jobs disappear?
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of time and respect for my colleague. I know that the Oshawa community is going through hardship right now because of the fact that GM cut the third shift. However, she should talk to her colleague from the Oshawa region as well, who went to Washington and forgot to advocate for the auto workers in his riding. That is the first point.
The second point is that we need to work as one team Canada, because the unions in the U.S. are now in favour of our position, which is no tariffs on auto workers. We need to work to put pressure on the D3, including GM. I was in conversation with GM this week. We will make sure we create jobs—
Mr. Speaker, it would be awfully nice if the Liberal government would go to Washington and fight for Canadian auto workers. We cannot control what Donald Trump does, but we do know what we can control, and that is our policies here at home. The Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister can certainly control their constant flip-flopping.
Conservatives have a plan: Scrap rebates for foreign-made EVs and remove the HST on Canadian-made vehicles to spur investment and protect jobs here at home.
Will the Liberals finally adopt our proposals and join Conservatives in supporting the resilient auto workers in Oshawa and across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the minister has set out the numerous ways in which we have expressed confidence in, support for and the complete backing of our auto workers and auto sector in Canada. Those are the things we can control.
Here is one thing the member can control. She should tell her colleague to stop going to Washington and accusing Canadians of putting up a hissy fit in response to unfair, unjust and costly tariffs on our citizens, our auto sector and our workers in Canada. The member should go over a few seats and tell the member to stop the hissy fit talk.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto exports fell to their lowest level in years this January. More than 5,000 auto workers have already lost their jobs. In Niagara alone, there are two EV plants that have either not opened or been delayed because of a declining EV market, yet the Liberals are subsidizing foreign-made electric vehicles. It makes no sense at all.
Will the Liberals finally adopt our strategy to protect Canadian workers in the auto sector, or will they continue to push ahead with their disastrous plan to subsidize foreign-made electric vehicles?
Mr. Speaker, members talk about the auto sector. What about the workers? What about a vision for this country? What about a plan? We have exactly that. They say they stand for working people. We have an opportunity now to rally around those working people with a serious approach to governance and policy. It is exactly what we are doing every single day. They quote unions in this House. We have the unions' backs and their families' backs.
We will not stop until this country is on the right footing. We are going to get that work done.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, last year the RCMP seized eight kilograms of fentanyl near Swift Current. This dangerous drug was caught moving through my community. While the police did a great job catching criminals behind the opioid crisis, their heroic efforts have been undermined by Liberal catch-and-release. One year later, federal Crown prosecutors said they are staying charges against two traffickers because they are following their federal policy playbook.
My question is this: What federal policy could possibly justify this decision?
Mr. Speaker, today we introduced Bill C-22, an incredibly important tool that law enforcement from across Canada have been asking for. It would enable law enforcement to address issues such as extortion, intimidation and harassment, and also to ensure that those who commit childhood sexual exploitation are given the necessary sentencing required. Lawful access will give law enforcement the tools it has been asking for.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister was not paying attention to the question I just asked. Fentanyl is a dangerous and lethal drug. Eight kilograms means potentially millions of doses. Millions of doses means that Canadians will be murdered by this drug and its dealers. What happened in Swift Current is one example among too many of the radical left's pathetic views on crime. Families are being torn apart, loved ones are being lost and those criminals should be behind bars.
If the Liberals were serious, they would adopt our plan to give life sentences to people trafficking enough fentanyl to kill thousands of Canadians. Why will they not do it?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is taking very important measures to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. We have Bill C-14, which would address the issues around bail and sentencing, the issues the member opposite is talking about. We also have Bill C-16, which is about supporting victims and ensuring the administration of justice.
Just today, I had the opportunity to introduce Bill C-22, on lawful access, an important tool that all in law enforcement have been asking for. I am going to ask the members opposite if they will support this. Will they pass this bill today?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Quebecor's investigative journalists have reported that 239 visas have been revoked over links to Iran's revolutionary guard. However, only one person has been deported, just one. We are talking about a terrorist regime on Canadian soil.
We also found out that a Canadian Armed Forces camp on a military base in Kuwait was the target of attacks, of Iranian missile strikes. Fortunately, there were no injuries. I am of the opinion that the Iranian regime is not our friend. The Liberal government is keeping these criminals here under the pretext that they have rights and have applied for asylum.
Will the Prime Minister deport them or not?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the IRGC was listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code in Canada in 2024. The state of Iran has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. We have been working to ensure that those who are inadmissible are removed forthwith. Any information that is received by law enforcement, by CBSA, of alleged members of the IRGC who are in Canada, is investigated thoroughly. The issues that the member opposite is referencing have been addressed.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when crime occurs, the Liberals say they are wholeheartedly behind the victims, but when we ask for members of a terrorist organization to be deported, they tell us that these people have rights.
There are Iranian women protesting against the regime, and they report that members of the regime are taking photos of them during the demonstrations. They no longer feel safe. This week, a critic of the Iranian regime disappeared, and the police are investigating a possible murder.
What will it take for the Liberal government to grow a backbone and deport the 238 members of a recognized terrorist group who are enjoying the good life in Canada at taxpayers' expense?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, to be clear, on the number the member opposite is referencing, they were never allowed into Canada. Those visas were revoked as they were outside of Canada.
Let me just say for the record that individuals who are believed to be members of the IRGC are being thoroughly investigated by the Canada Border Services Agency. They are going through the legal process of being removed. Some have already been removed. We will continue to ensure that every single member who is inadmissible to Canada and those who were members of the IRGC are removed.
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Speaker, cancer affects nearly every family in Canada. I myself lost my wife Stéphanie at the age of 34 to this disease.
Stéphanie firmly believed in the importance of research to advance treatment for this disease and support life-saving progress. In Canada, it is estimated that about four in 10 cancer cases could be avoided with better risk reduction and prevention measures.
Can the minister tell us about investments we are making in cutting-edge research on cancer prevention?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for sharing his personal story with us.
It is precisely for people like Stéphanie that our government is investing more than $40 million in cutting-edge research for cancer prevention. These investments are saving lives and reducing the burden of cancer on families across the country. By supporting these projects, we are advancing science, improving prevention and moving toward a future where cancer treatment is more effective.
[English]
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals handed out a $200-million loan at below market value to a company to build a wind farm in Nova Scotia. It turns out that the chair of the company is the former leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party, and three of the directors are close family members of former Liberal MPs. Given that, are we to believe that it is just a coincidence that this cabal of Liberal insiders received this $200-million sweetheart loan?
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite likes to think about cabals and conspiracies. Maybe he should talk to the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia, who stood beside us and said that this was one of the best projects he had ever seen.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a $200-million sweetheart loan to Liberal insiders. Canadians deserve to know that their tax dollars are not being handed out on the basis of political connections to this government.
If, in fact, everything is above board, the Liberals should have no trouble releasing all of the documents and all of the terms of the loan. Will they?
Mr. Speaker, this is a large megawatt wind farm that is producing thousands of jobs in Nova Scotia and giving the opportunity to people in Nova Scotia to buy renewable power. This is good for Nova Scotia. That is why the Premier of Nova Scotia stood beside it and said it was a great project.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the scandals never end. The wind is blowing in the right direction for Liberal wind turbines.
This week, it came to light that the Liberals issued a $205-million loan at a below-market rate as well as $150-million in subsidies for a wind farm in Nova Scotia. In fact, to get a seat on the board of directors, a person has to be a former Liberal MP or part of the Liberal family—no exceptions.
Why is the Liberal family getting subsidies and below-market interest rates courtesy of Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Financial Institutions
Mr. Speaker, over one-third of Canadians are hit with NSF fees, non-sufficient funds fees, and those fees can be as high as $50. That is money Canadians could be using to put towards rent, food and other essential items.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House how we are helping Canadians with affordability by capping NSF fees and lowering banking costs?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a great question. I know that everyone wants to hear more good news. It is Thursday. In fact, she is right: Yesterday we announced that we are capping the non-sufficient funds fee to $10.
We know that one out of three Canadians is affected by these fees. It is going to save $600 million for Canadians. We are going to continue our quest to make life more affordable, to help Canadians and to build a strong country.
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, later today Vancouver Islanders will gather at the British Columbia Afghanistan Memorial in Victoria to mark the 12th anniversary of the end of Canada's mission in Afghanistan and remember the 165 Canadian lives that were lost there.
Canada's mission in Afghanistan was the longest military campaign in our country's history, where more than 40,000 Canadians served. We remember the courage, sacrifice and service of those who answered the call.
It saddens me to ask, however, why the Liberal government has failed to build the dedicated Afghanistan war memorial here in Ottawa that was announced 12 years ago. It is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, we thank all Canadian Forces members and their families for their service to Canada. We acknowledge the incredible contributions that Canadians made in Afghanistan, including the 158 who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Acknowledgement of Canada's serving members is incredibly important, and we continue to move forward with that. I look forward to sharing more with the member opposite in due course.
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, while Israel and the United States are attacking Iran on the false premise of the nuclear program, the entire region is in going up in flames. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is taking advantage of the situation to once again drop bombs on Lebanon.
Hundreds of civilians have been killed, thousands injured and nearly 80,000 displaced after fleeing in terror. France is clearly supporting Lebanon, its people and its sovereignty. What is the Liberal response here? Nothing. It is silence. It is embarrassing.
When will this government find the courage to say “enough is enough” and stand up for the people of Lebanon?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my hon. colleague heard today's announcement, but our government has announced support for Lebanon. It consists of $37.7 million in humanitarian aid for people suffering due to the situation in Lebanon.
We will continue to be present with humanitarian aid. We will continue to ensure that we support—
[English]
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, because the Liberal fisheries minister has failed to explain the Pacific salmon allocation policy review, misinformation is spreading across the west coast. Recreational fishing is essential to many Vancouver Island communities, which are uncertain about their future, and that confusion is fuelling division and racism.
This review was directed by the courts to update an outdated policy with conservation first, recognition of constitutionally protected indigenous fishing rights and fairness for everyone on the water.
Explaining what this review actually means is the minister's job. When will she show leadership and set the record straight?
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, it was an extensive review. The policy was established in 1999. In due course, obviously, we needed to look at this. There were six years when the terms were reviewed. There was a full year of consultation, which closed in the middle of January. We are now reviewing the work, and when we are ready, I will be pleased to bring our findings forward.
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Thursday question, the day on which all of CPAC's servers experience a massive spike. We hope its IT department is well prepped for what is about to happen.
I wonder if the government House leader could update the House as to the business in the chamber for the rest of this week and the week after our constituency work week. I am especially curious to hear whether he is going to be tabling any kind of action plan to not just ban new IRGC agents from entering the country but deport the ones who are in this country, who are causing so much harm to Canadian citizens and security and, of course, funding a terrible regime in Iran.
I also wonder if he could update the House as to whether the Liberals are going to repeal any of the hidden taxes that add to the cost of groceries, like the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax, which adds seven cents a litre and is rising to 17¢ a litre. In this affordability crisis that the Liberals have caused, will they at least bring in some legislation to provide relief at the grocery store for hard-working Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to ask CPAC which of the two of us more people tune in to see, because both of us, as the member well knows, tend to be very lovable and appreciated by all Canadians as we talk about the Thursday question.
I will say, in response to my hon. friend, that we will be coming back next sitting week to Bill C-9, which I know was a solemn election commitment by his party as well as mine. I know we all look forward to protecting community centres, temples, synagogues and mosques in Canada. These are obviously important things, especially as we watch the conflict in the Middle East.
[Translation]
We will continue the debate at third reading 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.
Tomorrow, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C‑20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.
[English]
Finally, Tuesday, March 24, shall be an allotted day.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
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 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.
Mr. Speaker, the U.K. is Canada's third-largest trading partner and ally, and with this new relationship, I can see the opportunity for increased trade. However, there have been missed opportunities, and not only with pork and beef.
Like many members of the House, I have met with representatives of 127,000 British state pensioners living in Canada, who have raised the issue of their pensions with me. Those state pensions are equivalent to our Canada pension plan. They and their employers made payments for years before retirement. However, unlike the CPP, their pensions are frozen at the rate they were at when first received and do not increase with inflation. This has been British policy for decades. That does not seem fair to me, because British pensioners are fully indexed in other countries, including the United States.
The Government of Canada has made multiple representations to the U.K. government over the years with the aim of negotiating a social security agreement to end this discriminatory policy, but there has apparently been no willingness on the part of Britain to have such an agreement. The CPTPP was a perfect opportunity to revisit the issue. After all, the British policy comes with a cost to Canadian taxpayers. It has been estimated that this policy costs Canada about $470 million annually.
Canada's social security pensions are indexed, increasing the purchasing power of our citizens wherever they choose to live in retirement and ensuring they have sufficient funds to live. In failing to provide reciprocity, the British government is relying on Canada to provide for its citizens if they should find themselves in need. The Liberals missed the opportunity to address this issue when they negotiated the Canada-U.K. Trade Continuity Agreement. They missed it again when it was not included as a part of the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP.
The U.K. is Canada's third-largest single-country trading partner for goods: $39.4 billion in 2024. It is also the third-largest single-country trading partner when it comes to services: $21.6 billion in 2024. In the last decade, bilateral trade in goods and services has increased by 52.9%. Working to increase trade with someone we already have a strong relationship with would seem to be a good thing. The U.K. is also Canada's second-largest investment partner. Inbound direct investment to Canada totalled $97 billion in 2024. We want to see that number increase.
Bill C-13, if passed, provides immediate duty-free, quota-free, unlimited access to sweet corn. There is no volume limit, as there was under the previous agreement. It provides more liberal rules of origin for Canadian agriculture export interests, including meat, processed foods, sugar-containing products and pet food. It will provide enhanced protections for investors and their investments in the U.K., with greater predictability and transparency.
Canadian investors will also have access to arbitration for resolving disputes related to U.K. measures that breach CPTPP investment provisions. These are positive outcomes. As well, there will be guaranteed access to U.K. procurement opportunities at all levels of government, including regional and local contracting authorities, as well as guaranteed access to U.K. procurement opportunities undertaken by bodies governed by public law, including schools, universities and colleges, national museums and galleries, and national park authorities. This is good news for Canadian business.
Yes, the government failed to address some of the issues that should have been a priority when it was negotiating this agreement. Our beef and pork industry will still have complaints about the inequity of treatment compared with how U.K. producers are treated in Canada, and those U.K. pensioners living here will continue to be treated as a second-class citizens, unfairly, by their government because Canada's Liberal government did not do the right thing and stand up for fair treatment. I am sad that our government did not take a more principled stand.
However, I think we can all agree that Canada needs more trade and more diversified trade. We have seen the results when we put too many eggs in one basket. Could this bill have been better? I think that is true of any trade agreement. Sometimes compromises are made to allow an agreement to move forward. That may be the situation we find ourselves in here.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Manning for his excellent remarks, which started before question period, and for raising the issue about the British pensioners and his knowledge on that. It was surprising to hear that is a $470-million cost to Canada.
Why does the hon. member believe that the government was unsuccessful in so many missed opportunities to remedy that issue? Is it lack of will or laziness? What is the reason?
Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that, in life, that we do not get what we deserve; we get what we negotiate.
I believe that the government has failed to negotiate well to finally resolve this issue, which costs the Canadian economy close to $500 million a year and made it unfair for some of the pensioners. They deserve to get a fair shot out of their investment for life, especially as seniors.
Negotiations could and should have been done better. This is an opportunity we have missed for the second time, and the government could have done a better job.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked of the previous member.
Talking about the United States, a member of the Conservative Party, the MP for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, went down to the United States. He met with the President and the vice-president, came back and gave a report saying, in essence, that we should not have a hissy fit against the Americans. Following that visit, the leader of the Conservative Party will be going too. I am not sure when or if he will be meeting with the President and the vice-president.
Does the member believe that he will come back with a report that he can share with Canadians at some point?
Mr. Speaker, if the government does its job, no one has to do anything, but the government is not doing its job. The hon. member knows that.
The Liberals have failed to come back to Canada and deliver on their promises. It has been one deadline after the other, and we still have not seen a result. If the government is suggesting that people should sit around, do nothing and not stand for Canada, then that is the member's problem. It is not our problem. I believe that we should never politicize this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Manning for raising the issue I have also been working on for years on behalf of British pensioners within Saanich—Gulf Islands.
There have been many years and many missed opportunities to try to negotiate with the British government on how it indexes the pension for Canadian expats. It does not make sense, and as the member rightly pointed out, it is a cost to the Canadian economy. It is also a needless worry to wonderful people. I am sure that each member in their own riding has had people come see them about this unfairness.
I carried with me a stack of petitions to try to hand directly to Boris Johnson when I went to a COP in Glasgow, and I had the help of my hon. colleague. I will not say his riding name because it will take too long, but we tried really hard to hand it directly to the Prime Minister of the U.K. so we could say that this is so unfair.
What do we do now? This agreement is in front of us. What can we all do collectively to push the government to get a proper deal with the U.K. government to defend our pensioners?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Green Party and I were together for many occasions when we met with those pensioners, trying to, first of all, listen to them and understand the issue—
I have to interrupt the member. There is an incredible amount of noise coming from courtyard, and there are people outside of the chamber interfering with the work of the chamber. Right now, I cannot even hear the member for Edmonton Manning.
I will let the member for Edmonton Manning restart from the point where he was to continue his reply.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Green Party and I were together, more than once, to meet with these pensioners who, we believe, have been treated unfairly.
I believe that there is still a chance for Parliament to ask the government to push for that. This could be the second time that we miss such an opportunity, but it would be great if we could do it. It would be historical. We would help a lot of people, and it would be an act of fairness to all these people who deserve it the most.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Canada accepting the U.K. into the CPTPP. It is my understanding that Canada trades freely with the other countries in that agreement with respect to beef and pork.
Do Canadians have a legitimate concern that the government has failed to come to that agreement with the United Kingdom?
Mr. Speaker, it is true. People in the beef and pork industries are not happy with this. The government could have negotiated better to get this because, again, this is a golden opportunity to do something better, and if that is missed, the industry will be hurt. It will be affected by it.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being acknowledged. You always look good in the chair and you do a really good job. I am hoping you will give me some leniency while I am speaking.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I am thrilled to share my time with her, as I consider her to be a close friend in this place.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-13, which is 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 CPTPP. I often try to say that five times really fast to see if I can get the acronyms right. Nonetheless, it is an important agreement that Canada is a part of. This particular piece of legislation deals with United Kingdom's becoming part of that agreement and Canada's ratification for that particular accession.
Very similar to what I did yesterday, when I was speaking to Bill C-18, which deals with the Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done on this important legislation and this agreement, starting with the officials at Global Affairs Canada, who work extremely hard in representing our country. They work diligently and they make us proud. They wave our flag boldly and proudly, so I want to take this opportunity to thank them.
I also want to acknowledge the work of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We have a really good committee with all three recognized parties. We work well together in co-operation. The work that took place in relation to Bill C-13 is an example of that. Again, I want to acknowledge all members from the official opposition, from the third party, the Bloc Québécois and, of course, the government members for their thoughtful work in this regard.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the British high commissioner to Canada, Robert Tinline, for his work. It is a pleasure to work with him. I also thank our folks at the High Commission of Canada in the United Kingdom, Canada House, including the deputy high commissioner, Robert Fry, who is a seasoned diplomat. Also, as of this week, former member of Parliament, a colleague from this place, the Hon. Bill Blair, has assumed his role as the high commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom. He will be serving as well. It takes all of us to do this important work, and I am really mindful of the participation and the role of all of us in this endeavour.
CPTPP, or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is an important trade agreement that includes 11 founding members that make up the agreement. They include countries like Australia, Chile, Mexico, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, Vietnam, our own country Canada, Malaysia and Peru. For the first time, a new member has been added, and that is United Kingdom. The way the CPTPP is designed, it requires consensus among all founding members to agree to new members becoming part of it. Therefore, the 10 countries, including Canada, have collectively negotiated and have agreed that the United Kingdom can be made part of CPTPP. It is an important step and a symbol, in terms of the group of countries that have trans-Pacific as a natural point of bond, reaching out to a European country like United Kingdom and making it part of it.
In this moment in time, it is a very important message being sent, that we are not going to go the way of protectionism as we are seeing stated explicitly by the current administration of the United States. Putting tariffs on countries is not how we are going to grow our economy. In fact, we think that a free trade, liberalized trade, rules-based trading system is the best way to grow our economies, where we actually rely on each other's economy, leverage our comparative advantage in things that we are self-sufficient in producing and growing, exchange that, sell to each other and be able to benefit from other economies.
For Canada and the United Kingdom, as natural allies and friends with deep historical ties, to be able to take that step to join in and be part of this really thoughtful, large and comprehensive agreement is a very important message to the world and to other countries, which says that protectionism is not the way to create prosperity for our citizens. In fact, the way we should do it is by creating alliances, by making sure that we are part of each other.
I think it is also important to recognize that the U.K., as I was mentioning, from a cultural, historical and a people-to-people ties perspective, is very close to Canada. We share a lot. Economically, the United Kingdom is also an important partner of Canada's. In fact, the U.K. is Canada's third largest single-country trading partner, which is remarkable. I believe the United States is first, China is number two and the United Kingdom is the third largest single-country trading partner for Canada. We continue to see really impressive trade growth between our two countries.
According to the notes that I have, since 2016, Canada-U.K. trade increased by almost 53% to $61 billion in 2024, and that was under the signed Canada-EU economic agreement. That was then continued through the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement. Our two respective leaders, our prime ministers, our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, are also working very closely together because they want to grow that relationship. They want to make sure that there is more trade taking place between Canada and the United Kingdom. This agreement, of course, is going to play an important role.
We did hear from a lot of stakeholders who came to the committee and presented really thoughtful opinions. I know that, in the House, members have been talking about it. We heard from the cattle industry, which has some concerns about access to the U.K. market, and we are quite sympathetic to those concerns. We are continuously engaging with the government of the United Kingdom to reduce these barriers. Having, of course, a more coordinated approach and making sure that we are part of an agreement like this will give us more opportunities to open those markets, but I do want to acknowledge their concerns. I want to say that we are quite aware of them.
The other issue is, and I know this will be discussed, British pensioners. Of course, a lot of us have heard from those British pensioners. They also presented at committee. It is an important issue. It is an issue that Canada continues to raise with the United Kingdom. In fact, just last week, some of us parliamentarians, from both the Liberal and Conservative sides, were in the United Kingdom as part of the Canada-U.K. Inter-Parliamentary Association. If someone were to ask all the members who were on the trip, we would tell them that, in every single meeting with U.K. MPs and with U.K. ministers, the issue of British pensioners was raised. It was always a very thoughtful, robust conversation. We did our utmost best to really highlight the unfairness on the British government's part in not indexing the pensions of British pensioners who live in Canada. We will continue to do that work, and we will continue to advocate for them.
At the end of the day, this agreement is a good news story. I urge all members in the House to support the legislation so that the U.K. can become part of the CPTPP. Therefore, we could have even stronger ties and bonds and economic prosperity, both for Canada and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is the bill by which the United Kingdom will be brought into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. All of the other countries, and I believe there are 11 of them besides Canada, accept beef imports and pork imports from Canada, yet the United Kingdom is putting up non-tariff barriers to that. I wonder if the member could comment on that. Was that an oversight on the part of the Canadian negotiating team?
Mr. Speaker, the member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights was one of the members I had the chance to travel with, and I got to know him personally quite well. I appreciate his public service and his representation of his community. He would remember that in every conversation we had, including with the Minister for International Trade from the United Kingdom, we brought up the issue of these non-tariff barriers, saying that we should find a way to move forward to ensure that our cattle ranchers and beef producers are able to export to the United Kingdom. There are some issues around sanitary and phytosanitary circumstances. By having a deeper relationship and making sure the U.K. is part of this agreement, there will be more opportunities for us to really make effective arguments to the U.K. and to bring those barriers down for our ranchers.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I studied this agreement together at the Standing Committee on International Trade. I was disappointed that he voted against almost all of my amendment proposals, which were nothing more than requests for transparency, for reports on certain elements, on the environment, on human rights and on lawsuits by multinationals against governments. All I was doing was demanding transparency and accountability.
That said, I was even more disappointed that he voted against my amendment to ensure that the agreement would not come into force before an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures was reached. It seems to me that, during negotiations, particularly when we are doing the United Kingdom a favour by helping it join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, we could have requested that meat be allowed to enter freely there.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to work with my colleague on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He has contributed a great deal to the work of that committee. The committee adopted an important amendment that was put forward by the opposition member.
[English]
That particular amendment would enhance transparency. It would allow for Global Affairs Canada to report back on the progress and the implementation of the agreement. I thought that was a good amendment, and that is why we agreed and made it part of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, thank you so much for all the work that you are doing to boost international trade—
Members should address comments to the Speaker, through the Chair, not directly to the member.
I will let the member continue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all the work that he does to boost Canada's trade globally. Canada has a goal to increase our non-U.S. trading, to double it over 10 years. I just wondered if my hon. colleague would expound upon the importance of partnerships like this one.
Mr. Speaker, it will require a lot of hard work for us to really meet the objective of doubling our non-U.S. exports in the next 10 years. The work that is necessary is to deepen relationships with our existing partners and to build new partnerships. The United Kingdom is a really good example. It is a nation that, as I mentioned earlier, enjoys a very long-lasting relationship with us. This agreement would allow us to make it even deeper and create more opportunities to open more markets.
Similarly, we were talking about Indonesia yesterday. That is a new market that we are opening for our farmers, for our energy providers and for our manufacturers. Similarly, there is the work we are doing in negotiating an agreement with the ASEAN countries, like Thailand and the Philippines, and with the Mercosur countries, which include Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. In all those places, the work we are doing creates more opportunities for Canadian businesses and for Canadian farmers to be able to sell our produce. This will allow us to meet that particular objective that the member was referring to.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for splitting his time with me.
This is an alphabet soup, as people have mentioned. It is sometimes hard to see why the U.K. is suddenly joining the CPTPP and why we are discussing it today, but there are overlays and previous trade agreements. Perhaps something of a narrative might work to quickly review how we got to where we are today, and then I can highlight the concerns the Green Party has about it.
The trans-Pacific partnership agreement started quite a long time ago. As others have mentioned, there is a long list of countries that were initially involved, all of course in the Pacific region. There is Singapore, Malaysia and Japan, but then there are ones we do not necessarily expect, such as Peru as well as Canada and New Zealand. Of course, one of the instigators of the original trans-Pacific partnership agreement was the United States. However, back in President Trump's first term in 2017, he pulled the U.S. out of the trans-Pacific partnership.
Going back to Canada's trade relationships with the U.K., this is obviously not the first or even the most important of Canada's trade agreements with the U.K. Again, this goes back to trade agreements that countries enter into, and then when somebody pulls out, the pieces have to sort of reassemble.
Looking back at Canada's first trade agreement with the U.K., it was when the U.K. was part of the European Union, before the very tragic events that led to Brexit. For the U.K., and indeed the European Union, it was dreadful, with the skullduggery, the use of algorithms and social media, Cambridge Analytica and the sort.
There is a tremendous documentary for people who want to see how vulnerable our democracies are to the misuse of social media and those kinds of campaigns. It is called Brexit: The Uncivil War. I am not going to give a whole film review, but it does star Benedict Cumberbatch, in case anyone wants to look it up on Netflix. Members can watch it, and for parliamentarians or someone who runs for elected office, it may leave them feeling quite shaken about how vulnerable we are to misinformation and how the British public was misled into pulling out of not just a very good trade agreement but a governance agreement within the European Union that had a lot of benefit for the U.K., and that also had benefit for the European Union when the U.K. was in it.
Canada's first trade deal with the U.K., back to this particular piece, was the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which was negotiated between Canada and the EU. Of course, part of the EU at that time was the U.K. Therefore, we had a lot of pre-existing negotiations and conversations, and then there was the TPP, which was negotiated without the U.K. but with the U.S.
What are the differences between these two agreements? Do they entirely overlap since we already negotiated them? We went back once the U.K. left the European Union, and Canada renegotiated the bits we needed so that Canada would continue to have a trade deal with the U.K. once the U.K. left the European Union. That got done. We have an existing trade agreement with the U.K., which is still called the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, but between Canada and the U.K. It is largely based on the previous agreement that was done with the European Union. Now we have the TPP and the CPTPP, which is without the United States but with the U.K.
Why do I go through all this other than to remind people of the threads they may have heard before? It is because there are differences between these agreements, and one is less advantageous to Canada and Canada's environment than the other. Both the CPTPP, which we are debating today, and the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, the CETA, include things called investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton has been the most engaged on this subject as we continue to debate it. I certainly agree with him and have always supported any efforts Canada can make to get out of such lopsided agreements, which inevitably, invariably and always give superior rights to foreign corporations investing in Canada or operating in Canada. Even if they do not invest, they can open up a post office box somewhere and be considered an investor.
Private sector corporations are bestowed with rights under investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms and agreements, the very first of which, by the way, we are now out of, which was chapter 11 of NAFTA, which ironically did not survive into the new negotiations when it became CUSMA. I am very glad chapter 11 of NAFTA is no more, but it was a prototype. Here is what it did. It said that if what a government does to a foreign corporation can be considered tantamount to expropriation, then that foreign corporation can sue the country in which it is operating. We have had S.D. Myers sue Canada. We had Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia, sue Canada.
Canada tends to lose on these challenges. Not only does Canada lose, but in general, the larger economic power wins. It is not always the corporation that wins, but if a U.S. corporation sues a government and the U.S. corporation is a giant, the U.S. corporation will win. If a Canadian corporation sues the U.S, the Canadian corporation will lose. There is a pattern. The larger economic power tends to win. The arbitrators are drawn from a rank of four. They are operating, $500 an hour, $1,000 an hour, lawyer kinds of people. The investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms, as has been established through numerous global studies, tend to favour the larger economic power.
It was a shocker when it first happened. This means that decisions and laws passed democratically by governments, whether at the provincial or federal level, could be overturned by secret tribunals run by for-profit secret lawyers who make a case and argue that something was done that cost the corporation money. They do not even have to allege that it was done with animus or that it was discriminatory towards that country or nation or corporation, just that it cost them money. For example changing the regulations to protect the environment or changing the regulations to protect workers, if it costs them money, the Government of Canada is going to pay out and pay a company from the U.S, which has happened to Canada an unfortunate number of times.
As we negotiate and discuss this agreement today, the CPTPP, it includes investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms that are of an order that is slightly less fair and slightly less transparent than similar agreements that were negotiated with the European Union under the CETA. Between the two, they both have investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms, but the one we are debating today, to which we are adding the U.K. and which means U.K. corporations will be able to sue Canada under the CPTPP, just as we are now allowing Peruvian or, more likely, Canadian companies to sue Peru if we are mining in their country and do not like the laws to which we are being subjected, will have less transparency than if we were working under the CETA. This is because there were enough elements that the European Union refused to pass the CETA as long as these investor-state dispute resolution measures were included.
[Translation]
I do not have much time left to wrap up my speech so I will end by saying that it is too late at this point to renegotiate and remove the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.
[English]
However, it is time to shine a light on them and decide that henceforth Canada should get out of agreements that allow foreign corporations to have more power to sue the Canadian government, a province, a first nation or a municipality, for that matter. These agreements are corrosive to democracy. It is time to shine a light on them and start carving them out. It has now become routine with trade deals to throw in investor-state dispute resolutions. They are noxious.
Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with her with respect to investor-state dispute resolution. I know that she believes in the rule of law, so surely she must agree that when the Canadian government violates the rule of law, treats companies in a discriminatory fashion or expropriates their property or investments, there should be recourse. There is through these ISDS provisions. They are not secret. The Government of Canada is there defending those decisions. The decisions are almost always public and written, so the Canadian public can see what arguments were made and the decision made.
What is her solution to when the Canadian government is behaving badly, discriminating against companies or expropriating their property?
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. colleague from York—Durham that, for an absolute fact, there is absolutely nothing illegal about things the Canadian government has done for which we have ended up having to shell out money.
As for being secret, I recommend that the member have a look at the Canada investment promotion and protection agreement with the People's Republic of China, which must remain entirely secret throughout the entire tribunal. The results may be made public by Canada at the end, but the fact of a challenge by the People's Republic of China against the Canadian government is secret and must remain secret. We are bound to it for 35 years without ever having had a vote in the House, because it was approved by Stephen Harper's cabinet.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for her kind words about the work I did on investor-state dispute settlement. I would also like to ask her about that.
How does she explain the fact that the two pro-multinational parties in the House, which have been trading power back and forth in Canada since the beginning, are constantly signing agreements with these archaic provisions? These provisions basically elevate multinationals to the status of sovereign powers, as though no other state-to-state remedies involving diplomacy exist. There is the World Trade Organization's dispute resolution body, for example. States are going to be facing off against one another.
Indeed, some countries are going to react badly to investments and behave in unacceptable and unfair ways, but that is where diplomacy comes in. There are adjudicative bodies. The notion of giving multinationals the right to subvert the democratic will of countries is outrageous. Does Canada condone the lawsuits brought against countries for anti-tobacco measures, minimum wage, carbonated drinks, the cancellation of pollution-causing projects and all kinds of other things?
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.
[English]
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 member knows we cannot use members' names in the chamber, only titles.
I will let the member continue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: Questions and comments, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
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?
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.
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.
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.
[Translation]
Message from the Senate
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.
[English]
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 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.
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.
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.
I want to remind members using “you” to not speak directly to the member but through the Chair.
The member for Edmonton Southeast.
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.
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.
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.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the bill, as I said in my speech, with great displeasure. We know that the bill needs further amendments, and we know that there is room for further ratification that needs to be done. I look forward to the Liberal government's making sure that the agreement, when it comes into effect, is balanced for both the U.K. and Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I was actually here when the EU agreement was signed with 27 countries. It was a Liberal government that signed it.
Can the member opposite tell us, does he believe it was a Liberal government that signed the EU agreement, or was it the Conservatives?
Mr. Speaker, again, if we go into the details, it was the Harper government. It was the Conservative government that laid out all the framework for that agreement to be signed.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, legislation that would 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. At its core, the bill would update Canadian legislation so the United Kingdom can formally join the CPTPP trade agreement so Canada can meet its obligations under that accession protocol.
I will begin by acknowledging the broader context in which this legislation is being debated.
Canada's economy is deeply tied to international trade, as members are well aware. Millions of jobs in this country depend on exports and on our ability to access global markets. Over the past several years, we have been reminded about how fragile global supply chains can be and how risky it can be for Canada to rely too heavily on a single trading partner. We acknowledge, as New Democrats, that diversifying our trade relationships matters, that strengthening economic co-operation with democratic allies matters, and that building resilient, rules-based trading systems is in Canada's long-term interest.
The United Kingdom is an important partner in that effort. It is a G7 country, one of the world's largest economies and a nation with which Canada shares deep historical ties, cultural connections and long-standing diplomatic relationships. Expanding trade opportunities between Canada and the United Kingdom has the potential to support Canadian exporters, encourage investment and reinforce the global rules-based trading system at a time when that system is facing increasing pressure. It is for those reasons that there is value in strengthening our economic partnership with the United Kingdom.
However, supporting trade diversification does not mean giving the government a blank cheque. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that trade agreements serve Canadians fairly, protect our public interests and deliver real benefits for workers, farmers and communities across this country. On that front, Bill C-13 raises several important concerns that must be addressed.
The first concern is transparency. Under the Government of Canada's policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, when the government introduces implementing legislation for a new free trade agreement, it is required to table an economic impact assessment outlining the projected costs and benefits of the agreement. This policy exists for a simple reason, which is that members of Parliament cannot make informed decisions about trade agreements without understanding their economic implications.
The requirement was introduced after repeated calls for greater transparency in trade negotiations. In fact, in 2020, the government committed to strengthening parliamentary oversight of trade agreements by ensuring that economic impact assessments would accompany implementing legislation. However, in the case of Bill C-13, no economic impact assessment has been tabled. This undermines accountability and weakens the ability of the House to properly scrutinize the agreement before us.
The second concern we have relates to the ongoing barriers faced by Canadian agricultural producers in accessing the United Kingdom market. For years, and we heard this in the House today repeatedly, Canadian beef and pork producers have raised concerns about the United Kingdom's sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. These rules relate to food safety and to animal and plant health, but in practice, they function as non-tariff barriers that prevent Canadian products from entering the U.K. market.
Despite years of discussions, consultations and negotiations, these barriers remain largely unchanged. This needs to be fixed. The result is a trading relationship that is far from reciprocal. In fact, the numbers tell a very clear story: There were no Canadian beef exports to the United Kingdom in 2024 and none in 2025. At the same time, imports of U.K. beef into Canada have increased significantly. They rose from $16.6 million in 2023 to $42.5 million in 2024, representing an increase of more than 150% in a single year. This is not the outcome Canadian producers were promised when the negotiations began.
Organizations representing Canada's agricultural sector, including the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Meat Council, have all raised serious concerns about the lack of meaningful market access. They need to be consulted.
Canadian farmers and ranchers operate under some of the highest food safety standards in the world. They produce high-quality products that are competitive in markets around the globe, and they deserve fair and reciprocal access to markets, especially when Canada is opening its own market to imports. Without meaningful access to the U.K. market, the benefits of this agreement will remain limited for many Canadian producers.
The third concern relates to investor-state dispute settlement provisions, commonly known as ISDS. These provisions allow foreign investors to challenge government policies through international arbitration if they believe those policies harm their investments. Under NAFTA, Canada faced numerous ISDS claims from foreign investors. More than 60% of the cases filed against Canada under NAFTA were linked to environmental or natural resource measures. That is deeply concerning.
These experiences raise serious questions about the impact of ISDS provisions on the government's ability to regulate in the public interest. That is one of the reasons Canada removed the ISDS from the renegotiated Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA.
In the case of Bill C-13, the government has not secured a side letter with the United Kingdom to exclude ISDS provisions between our two countries. This is particularly puzzling because the United Kingdom has already signed such side letters with Australia and New Zealand in their agreements. Canada could have negotiated the same arrangement, and we hope it will. Instead, these provisions remain in place.
A coalition of civil society organizations, labour unions and academics from both Canada and the United Kingdom has called on the government to remove ISDS protections from this agreement. We are hoping that the government will act. If Canada has already recognized these risks in other agreements, then it is reasonable to expect the government to address them here as well.
We have heard a lot today that there is another issue connected to Canada's relationship with the United Kingdom that deserves attention in this debate. It is a decades-long issue of fairness that affects tens of thousands of seniors living here in Canada. I am referring to the problem of frozen British pensions. At the outset, I want to thank Ian Andexser from Nanaimo, the chair of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, for his leadership on this issue, as well as all those who are members of that organization.
More than 100,000 British pensioners live in Canada and receive a state pension from the United Kingdom. Those pensions are frozen at the rate the pensioners first received when they retired or when they moved abroad. For over 70 years, unlike British pensioners living in the United States, Israel, Turkey, the Philippines, the European Union or several other countries, British pensioners here in Canada do not receive annual cost of living increases. This is unfair.
Canada itself does not treat pensioners this way when they move overseas. Whether a Canadian retiree lives in Vancouver, in London, or in Sydney, Australia, their CPP benefits continue to increase with inflation. The U.K.'s policy stands in stark contrast to that. The consequences are very real for many seniors. As inflation rises and living costs increase, the purchasing power of frozen pensions declines year after year.
Some seniors are struggling to afford basic necessities such as food, heating and medication. I think about Anne Puckridge, a 100-year-old veteran, who is receiving literally less than half of her pension because she chose to retire in Canada. While pensioners in the U.K. receive 176 pounds a week, the freeze means she is getting only 72 pounds a week. Like Anne, many were unaware of this policy before they moved to Canada. We know that a third of women who are over the age of 65 in this country are living in poverty.
People like Anne who spent decades contributing to the U.K. pension system, believing their retirement income would follow them wherever they chose to live, which it should have, have instead discovered too late that their pension would never increase. Because these pensions remain frozen, many seniors eventually rely on Canadian income support programs, including the guaranteed income supplement. In effect, Canadian taxpayers end up helping to fill the gap created by the U.K. government's policy. Estimates suggest this situation costs Canada hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Successive Canadian governments have raised this issue with the United Kingdom repeatedly, and each time the U.K. has declined. That raises an important question: If Canada is strengthening trade relations with the United Kingdom and deepening our economic partnership through agreements like this one, why is this long-standing injustice not being addressed as part of those negotiations? Trade negotiations are moments of leverage. They provide opportunities to resolve long-standing disputes and secure fair outcomes exactly like this one, yet once again the government appears to have failed to use that leverage.
Bill C-13 represents an important step in Canada's trade relationship with the United Kingdom. Trade diversification matters. Building stronger partnerships with trusted allies matters. Strengthening the global trading system matters, but Parliament must ensure these agreements are fair, transparent and in the public interest.
This means providing the economic analysis needed for informed decision-making. It means ensuring Canadian producers receive meaningful access to international markets. It means protecting democratic policy-making by addressing problematic investor-state dispute resolution settlement provisions, and it means standing up for fairness for the tens of thousands of seniors in Canada affected by the U.K.'s frozen pension policy.
Trade agreements should reflect more than economic opportunity. They should reflect fairness, reciprocity and respect for the people whose lives are shaped by these policies.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of non-tariff restrictions has come up a great deal throughout the debate. It is important to put it into the perspective that, unfortunately, even within provinces we have non-tariff-related restrictions that hamper freer trade among Canada. The federal government is working on that.
Unfortunately, there are the same sorts of restrictions, whether it is with the EU or the U.K. For example, whether someone is a pork producer or cattle producer here in Canada or the United States, there are restrictions overseas that create those non-trade barriers and cause restrictions. The government will continue to work on that, but we still support the need to have this particular agreement.
Does the member actually support the principle of trade and this specific agreement?
Mr. Speaker, as I outlined at the beginning, we of course support trade, and we put conditions on how we support trade. It cannot be a blank cheque from the government. We also believe in reciprocity. We outlined, regarding the pork producers and the beef producers, that it is not reciprocal. These countries are getting access to our market, but we are not getting the same access to their markets. That is unfair. That actually has to be addressed when we negotiate. Of course, there are issues outside of this that we need to have at the table, like the British pension issue that I talked about. These issues all need to be part of the conversation, but we need to make sure it is fair.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think we share a lot of the same concerns about Bill C-13.
My question is about investor-state dispute settlement and the tension between our legitimate need to ensure national sovereignty, in other words, that everyone who does business here is working within the same laws, and this kind of parallel mechanism that international trade agreements often tend to put in place.
What are my colleague's thoughts about this mechanism that will allow investors from the United Kingdom to bypass our courts and our common law systems by going directly to an arbitration mechanism?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc raises a really important point. It is something I hopefully addressed, for the most part, in my speech, but he is absolutely right. This exposes Canada when it comes to the environment and when it comes to sovereignty here at home. We were able to get those ISDS, or investor-state dispute settlement, provisions removed from CUSMA. It should be something we could also negotiate in this agreement. I do not understand why the government is not putting that in as part of this agreement. I am glad to see the Bloc and the New Democrats advocating for this, so that this is dealt with and there is a responsible way forward when it comes to Bill C-13.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is about bringing the United Kingdom into the comprehensive trade agreement with the Pacific. The member for Courtenay—Alberni mentioned frozen pensions for U.K. pensioners who decide to retire here in Canada. It seems deeply unfair, particularly since the U.K. does not do that for other countries like the United States. As a matter of fact, it seems to be picking on Commonwealth countries. This agreement seems like the perfect opportunity to resolve that problem, yet the Prime Minister has failed to do that.
I would like to hear the member's comments on what that says about the Prime Minister's ability, or perhaps lack thereof, to negotiate good deals for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, like I said earlier, U.K. pensioners living in the United States, Israel, Turkey, the Philippines and the European Union are actually not penalized like this. Their pensions are not frozen. They are indexed, just like our pensions are for Canadians who are retiring abroad. However, for some reason, Canada has not been able to get an agreement with the U.K. The Prime Minister supposedly has this great relationship with the U.K. He should be able to negotiate this unfairness and this unjust policy by the U.K. government.
Like I said earlier, a third of Canadian women over the age of 65 are living in poverty. This is absolutely a critical step to addressing that and this injustice. I hope that the government will take it seriously. This is an opportune moment, when it comes to a trade agreement, to address irritants like this that are impacting the lives of British citizens who are living here in Canada.
Is the House ready to hear the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it pass on division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[Translation]
Criminal Code
The House resumed from November 25, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois immigration critic, I want to tell the House our position on the bill introduced by my Conservative colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. We will vote in favour of Bill C-220 so it can be studied in committee. This is to allow for continued democratic discussion on the important issue of sentencing in criminal cases where the accused does not have citizenship status.
However, my colleague should curb her enthusiasm, because we have several reservations about this bill. These are serious reservations, which I will summarize in two points. First, we believe that the current legal situation is well balanced. Second, we believe it is important to preserve judicial discretion, in order to avoid inappropriate decisions that fail to take the circumstances of individual cases into account.
Before I go over our reservations, let us look at the bill and its purpose. Bill C-220 contains a single clause that seeks to amend the sentencing portion of the Criminal Code. The clause reads as follows: “A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender's immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family”. If this bill were to pass, a judge would simply not be able to consider the impact of a criminal conviction on a non-citizen's immigration status. Why does my Conservative colleague want to go in that direction?
We got some answers from an article published in the National Post on December 1, which reported that the Conservative Party was outraged that a court had permitted an adjournment in a criminal case to allow an accused to weigh how his reaction to the charges would affect his immigration status. Adjournments are very common in our courts. In this particular case, the adjournment allowed the accused to gather information and ultimately make an informed decision, which was to plead guilty. It also meant avoiding a trial and allowing a victim of sexual assault to avoid having to testify, as that was what the case was about.
I am struggling a bit with this, but the National Post article states that the Conservative Party has identified several cases where it feels that criminal sentences for non-citizens were determined in such a way as to reduce the sentence in order to avoid deportation. The purpose of this bill is therefore to prevent judges from reducing sentences for non-citizens by considering the effect a conviction would have on the criminal's immigration status.
To help the people watching at home understand what comes next, I want to say a few words about the consequences of a criminal conviction for an immigrant. The impact depends on the person's status, but the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides for adjustments when someone has been convicted of an offence. If the person is a Canadian citizen convicted of certain more serious offences, they will not be able to sponsor family members.
For non-citizens, the penalties are more severe. If a temporary resident, such as a student, worker or visitor, is convicted, they may become inadmissible. If a temporary or permanent resident is convicted of a serious offence, the sentences can range from more than six months in prison or at least 10 years in prison. That person will be inadmissible. It should also be noted that a criminal conviction will generally prevent someone from obtaining Canadian citizenship.
That being said, let us come back to the Bloc Québécois's reservations. First, what is the current state of the law when a judge is sentencing a non-citizen? It is set out in the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in R v. Pham. We can discuss that of course, but in my view, the rule is fairly well balanced. I will summarize it by quoting a few passages from that Supreme Court decision.
It reads, in part:
A sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, [judges currently have the right to do so] provided that the sentence ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The significance of collateral immigration consequences will depend on the facts of the case. However, it remains that they are but one of the relevant factors that a sentencing judge may take into account in determining an appropriate sentence. Those consequences must not be allowed to skew the process....
That is the state of the law.
In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found Mr. Pham guilty of producing and possessing marijuana. At trial, he was found guilty but also sentenced to two years in prison. After the trial, his lawyer realized that if he had been sentenced to two years less a day, he would not have lost his right to appeal a removal order against him. That is when an appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal. What the ruling shows is that the Crown prosecutor believed that a sentence of two years less a day was fine. The Crown would have agreed to it if it had been asked. The question was whether the Court of Appeal could intervene in such a case.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the current rule when it comes to sentencing is proportionality. That is a fundamental principle that is very simple to understand. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
Another important principle is the principle of parity and the correctional imperative of sentence individualization. Each sentence must fit the individual in order to have a deterrent effect and to reflect the degree of moral blameworthiness of each defendant. In this analysis, the court will be able to look at the collateral consequences of a sentence. It will consider any effect that the sentence will have on the offender themselves. The immigration status of the convicted person will be one of the collateral consequences and will be part of the judge's analysis. The judge has to weigh various objectives in determining the sentence, including the objective of assisting in rehabilitating the offender.
The Supreme Court states that:
...collateral consequences related to immigration may be relevant in tailoring the sentence, but their significance depends on and has to be determined in accordance with the facts of the particular case.
The general rule continues to be that a sentence must be fit having regard to the particular crime and the particular offender.
[However], a sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, provided that the sentence that is ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence....
I will close with this passage:
These [immigration] consequences must not be allowed to dominate the exercise or skew the process....
That is how things currently stand. Basically, if someone has been convicted and is in the process of immigrating, the impact their conviction will have on their immigration status will be taken into account, but it cannot be a decisive factor. There are already examples in case law that prove the opposite, where people tried to have their sentences reduced by saying that it would prevent them from being deported, but their argument was rejected. Most notably, those arguments have been rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The case of Guzman v. R in Quebec is another example. The Conservatives need to prove that the current system needs to be changed.
Our other argument is that it is important to preserve judicial discretion, because each judge can look at each case to ensure that a humane and appropriate decision is made. If judges are prevented from taking this factor into account, mistakes could be made. In short, we are willing to look at everything to try to improve the system, but above all, we do not want to make it worse.
Royal Assent
[Royal Assent]
[Translation]
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
March 12, 2026
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 12th day of March, 2026, at 4:36 p.m.
Yours sincerely,
Ken MacKillop
Secretary to the Governor General
The schedule indicates the bill assented to on Thursday, March 12, was Bill C‑4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Criminal Code
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a great private member's bill from my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. This is a good bill. What I like about it is its simplicity. It is very simple and common sense. I want to commend the member for her hard work on this and her understanding of where Canadians are. This bill resides at the intersection of two key areas. One is crime, which people have lots of things to say about, and immigration is the other. When we look at polling and talk to people in, say, my riding, and I know that all of us talk to people in ridings every day, we hear about crime and immigration.
People are very concerned about the system we have today, so this bill really comes at the intersection of that. In crime, we have things like revolving doors and low or no penalties. In the immigration system, we have problems with asylum, temporary foreign workers, international students and wait-lists. The intersection is when judges in the criminal system consider sentencing and take immigration status into account when they sentence individuals. That is what this bill aims to address.
Many bills in the House, I would say, are quite complicated. Members often have to look at them multiple times to understand what they say. Others are very simple, and this bill happens to be a very simple one. I am going to read part of it. It says, “A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family.” Simply put, a judge considering a sentence for somebody found guilty of a crime would not be able to consider the impact it would have on their immigration status. In other words, there would not be a two-tiered system of sentencing in Canada. Today, we have a two-tiered system where judges take into account immigration status, where one criminal gets a lesser sentence than another simply because of immigration status. I am going to give some examples of that and show why that is a problem.
First of all, I want to make it clear that we are talking about non-citizens, people who are not yet Canadians. In our current law, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it is very clear that, when certain thresholds are met for crimes, such as the length of time that has been imposed for a sentence, there are consequences. The one that most people are aware of is, if a person gets a sentence of more than six months, it means that they have to be deported. That is often a major consideration when judges are looking at sentences.
I want to give some examples because I think the help everybody to understand. We would like to think that our system is clean, that everybody is looking at it in a fair, common-sense and logical way, and it just does not work that way. I will give an example of this later, but, unfortunately, some judges are activists who want to impose their own thinking and take advantage of the the laws to do things that are not really fair and that create this two-tiered sentencing system.
In the first example, a non-citizen was facing charges of drug trafficking and possession of a weapon. This person was facing a three-year sentence and deportation because of that. This person wanted to plead guilty and the judge did not want to accept that because the judge was concerned that the accused did not understand the implications to his immigration status. The judge stopped the trial and tried to get the person to understand the implications of pleading guilty. This person somewhat understood, but still wanted to plead guilty, yet, even then, the judge stopped the trial and essentially forced this guy to talk to an immigration lawyer, almost as if to say, wink, wink, he needed to talk to somebody because he could get a better deal if he just waited. The judge was essentially acting as the lawyer for the person he was sentencing. By the way, this same person was facing a manslaughter charge, so this was not a one-off thing. This person was facing some serious time.
A second example is another non-citizen who stabbed a victim with a knife. The victim required 18 stitches and 50 staples to heal their body. This was a serious crime. The Crown asked for four years, and the defence asked for a conditional sentence. Why did it ask for a conditional sentence? It was because it would avoid the deportation angle and also allow the accused the ability to appeal their immigration status, should they need to do so. What did the judge do?
The judge said, “Oh, you are right. We need to be careful about this because of the immigration status, so we are going to go with the conditional sentence”, which is not what would have happened to any other Canadian citizen had they been in this situation. Here, again, we have a case where the judge was lenient to an extreme degree, so much so that the Crown appealed this to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The higher court found that the judge had used the collateral immigration consequences at issue here to reduce the respondent's sentence to the point where it became disproportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Thankfully, in this case, the B.C. Court of Appeal was able to catch this and fix it, but there have been many other cases where it has not been caught.
Another example is a non-citizen who was out on bail for trafficking cocaine. The judge cut his sentence in half, citing the tough life the criminal had, injuries and immigration status. Another example was a man who was trying to procure sex from a 15-year-old girl. The judge said the conviction would not only delay his citizenship by four years but could prevent him from sponsoring his wife and obtaining his engineering licence, and that those immigration and professional consequences were far more severe than jail. Again, here was a judge who was using immigration status to determine a sentence.
All of these cases and many more show why this private member's bill is so important. They show why this bill is critical to closing a loophole that exists in our system and that judges are abusing to give people lesser sentences, thus giving us this two-tiered system.
How did we get here? A big part of this is because of the Liberal justice reforms that happened. I want to focus on Bill C-75, which is a bill that fundamentally shifted the power balance to criminals. We talk about bail, not jail. Everyone has heard that comment many times. We have talked about it a lot. It really comes from Bill C-75, which was passed by the Liberal government.
The principle of restraint was the new thing introduced in this bill, and it essentially means this: It instructs judges to give sentences that are no more restrictive than necessary. They are to release the accused at the earliest opportunity. They are to release them on the least onerous conditions, and imprisonment should only be used when absolutely necessary and for the shortest duration possible.
These were the instructions given by the Liberal government to judges. Go easy on people is essentially what this means. The judge has the ability to go easy on the person. Guess what. Judges took this principle of restraint, married it up with the immigration issues that we have been talking about to this point and started applying this to immigration cases. That is how we ended up with sentences that were disproportionate to the crime, and how we ended up with this two-tiered sentencing system that we have.
This is something that is a big problem and that is why I am happy to stand to speak to this bill today, because this bill that was submitted by my great colleague fixes this in a very simple way. It creates a single system of sentencing for all people in Canada.
There are other problems that we have in our sentencing system. I also wanted to mention, and I talked about it earlier, activist judges. I just want to highlight this one example that really describes the problem. I am reading from an article from the National Post. I just want to read a couple of things from of it. It says:
In 2013, Toronto lawyer Avvy Yao-Yao Go described herself as a “loudmouth activist for politicians to contend with.”
This person was very aggressive in providing leniency to people who were not citizens of Canada. The government, in its wisdom, decided to make her a federal court judge in 2021. She has done incredible things to halt revocation proceedings against people. There have been all kinds of things that she has done to provide leniency through her court. At the very end, it says:
...decisions in the last year alone show a pattern of leniency for rule-breakers, country-shoppers.... Each instance takes state capacity away from cases that truly matter.
There are many examples we can think of. I just want to conclude by saying this bill, Bill C-220, is a good bill. It fixes a major gap that we have in our system. It is a wonderful, simple bill that I support wholeheartedly. I would implore all members to pass this bill when it comes time to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-220, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. My remarks today will focus on the immigration implications of the bill and what I believe is at stake for all of us as Canadians.
Before I turn to the substance of the legislation, I want to say something that I believe deeply and that I know the vast majority of Canadians share. We are a nation of immigrants. From the very earliest days of Confederation, people have come to the country from every corner of the world, bringing with them their talents, their traditions, their determination and their dreams. They have built our cities. They have staffed our hospitals and our schools. They have started businesses that employ our neighbours. They have served in our armed forces. They have enriched our culture, strengthened our economy and made us who we are.
Canada is the envy of the world, and that is not by accident. It is because of the extraordinary diversity of the people who call this country home. Our strength has always come from our differences, from our willingness to welcome those who seek a better life and to stand together across lines of language, faith and heritage.
This is the Canadian story, and it is one we should tell with pride every single day. In my riding of Davenport, I see the story lived out in real time. I represent one of the most diverse communities in this country. Families from Portugal, from Latin America, from the Caribbean, from Southeast Asia and from across Africa and Europe have built a vibrant, thriving neighbourhood. They volunteer in our schools, care for our elderly and show up for each other. They are the backbone of our community, and I am honoured to stand here on their behalf.
When I talk to newcomers in Davenport, I hear the same thing over and over. They chose Canada because of what this country stands for: fairness, opportunity and the rule of law. They came here to contribute, to raise their families in safety and to be part of something bigger than themselves. That is the promise of this country, and it is a promise we must honour. Every generation of newcomers has made Canada stronger, more innovative and more resilient, and the generation arriving today is no different.
Let me be unequivocal. Anyone in the process of becoming a Canadian, whether they are an asylum seeker, a temporary worker, an international student or in any other immigration stream, who commits a serious crime should face the full consequences of the law, including deportation, period, with zero tolerance. Committing serious crimes while enjoying the privilege of being in Canada is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already provides for exactly that. It defines serious criminality. It provides for inadmissible findings, deportation orders and, in many cases, a permanent ban on returning to Canada. The framework is robust, and it is enforced.
The question before us is not whether criminals should face consequences. They absolutely should, and they do. The question is whether Bill C-220 actually makes Canadians safer or our system fairer. The answer is no.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, when a permanent resident or foreign national is sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment, that constitutes serious criminality. They lose the right to appeal their deportation order. For lesser offences, the immigration appeal division can examine factors such as length of time in Canada and the best interests of children.
The law is clear. Serious offences mean serious consequences. Bill C-220 would prohibit judges from even being aware of these consequences when determining a fit sentence. It would force a one-size-fits-all approach, asking courts to ignore the fact that a sentence of six months and a day carries a life-altering, drastically different penalty from a sentence of six months.
Let me correct the misconception. When a judge considers immigration consequences, the offender can still be found inadmissible for serious criminality. They are still subject to a deportation order. There is no free pass in marginal cases. The individual retains the right to argue their case before the Immigration and Refugee Board, an expert, independent tribunal that weighs public safety against individual consequences.
In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada, under a Conservative government, unanimously recognized in R v. Pham that immigration consequences are a legitimate factor in crafting a fit sentence. The court was explicit: A sentence must always remain proportionate to the crime and the offender's responsibility. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill was a cabinet minister when that decision was issued. The Conservatives had two full years to legislate on this if they believed there was a problem. They did not. A decade later, the Conservatives brought forward a bill that ignores the jurisprudence, the evidence and the realities of both the courts and the immigration system.
The opposition members argue that this creates a two-tier justice system. I would argue exactly the opposite. The punishment is already two-tiered. A non-citizen can also face a second and far more severe consequence that a citizen does not: deportation, permanent removal from their family and the only country that many of them may have ever known. Allowing judges to consider that reality is not special treatment. It is what ensures that the total consequence is proportionate.
We have heard examples from members opposite. The Crown already has the ability to appeal any sentence it believes is unfit. Appellate courts can and do intervene. There is no evidence of courts systematically reducing sentences inappropriately. Due process is not a loophole. It is what ensures that enforcement decisions are lawful, credible and sustainable. Bill C-220 would create a disconnect between two statutes that Parliament has designed to work together.
Let me close where I began. Canada's greatness lies in the people who have come here and chosen to build a life in this country. We owe it to them and to every Canadian to maintain a system that is fair, principled and effective. We enforce the law firmly against those who break it, but we must also reject legislation that is built on rhetoric rather than evidence, that would undermine judicial independence and that would make our system less fair without making anyone safer.
On this side of the House, we believe in an immigration system that reflects who we are: a generous, law-abiding, diverse nation that holds people accountable and treats them with fairness. Bill C-220 would not advance that vision. The government cannot support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to speak to Bill C‑220, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding immigration status in sentencing. I think it is a shame that we have to talk about immigration this evening because of a bill. What we should be talking about are the business owners and claimants who are paying the price for the unacceptable delays caused by the mismanagement of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. In Laurentides—Labelle, people are concerned and upset and their trust in democratic institutions is suffering. That is the real problem we should be dealing with.
The Bloc Québécois is cautious about Bill C-220 because this Conservative bill is rife with disinformation, demagoguery and populism. We are getting used to that. This bill is biased because it conflates facts and perceptions. It conflates the law with the conception of an idea and a value rather than what should take precedence in law: the facts. It is actually harmful to democracy, because not relying on facts is harmful to democracy. That is why the Bloc Québécois wants the bill to go to parliamentary committee so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights can examine the facts, the reality, the case law, and do diligent work.
The judicial system is under attack across the western world. This is a tactic used by the extreme right and alternative movements. Let us not bring this discussion into our province. Quebec is a place that has been spared this rhetoric, and it is our duty as parliamentarians, but also as Quebeckers, to fight against the current trend of having politics interfere with justice. Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have said this many times, and it worries me: weaponizing the justice system and judges is a road to nowhere. All it does is inflate dubious theories. It is the job of parliamentarians to look into the matter. If there is a problem, then it is up to us to fix it, but please, let us not use partisanship to undermine our institutions.
I have a question for the Conservatives. They claim to be in favour of law and order, so why did the Harper government amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, to reduce the criterion for serious criminality from two years less a day to six months? I think that is a valid question. Why did the Conservatives amend the IRPA to prohibit a person from appealing a removal order if they are inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality? Generally, those who support law and order also support fairness in the justice system. They support transparency in the justice system. They support a justice system that judges everyone equally. However, that is not the premise of this bill.
The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle that the effect that a sentence has on the offender's immigration status cannot be the determining factor in sentencing. However, that should not be done with a negative view. The Conservatives mentioned the Pham case, but do they understand it? The 2013 ruling does not state anywhere that the immigration consequences of a sentence must take precedence. The court simply noted that the immigration consequences of a sentence are one consideration among many. In addition, Bill C‑220 also states that a judge would not be able to consider the effect that a sentence might have on a family member. I want to point out that I am deeply uncomfortable with this provision. It could have the effect of undermining the best interests of a child. That is very concerning.
I am also concerned about the Conservatives' attempts to restrict judges' discretion. In order for judges to do their job, they must have the freedom to impose sentences that are individualized and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. They must be able to weigh all the factors. I want to be clear: The Supreme Court does not order judges to impose sentences based solely on a person's immigration status, but rather to consider it as one factor among others so that the sentence and its consequences are proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The Conservatives want a system of revenge. What I want, and what my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois want, is an impartial, transparent justice system that is free of partisanship.
Do we want an American-style system riddled with abuse, or do we want a real justice system? A justice system is what defines a government. I am a sovereignist, as everyone knows. I want Quebec to be a republic, as everyone also knows. In the meantime, I live in Canada and I do not want to live in a society where the justice system is at the mercy of the government in power. That is dangerous.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak to Bill C-220, a bill that has been very thoughtfully presented to Parliament by my outstanding colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. She has done an exceptional job, not only with this bill but also in pointing out the numerous ways that the Liberal government has taken an immigration system that was once the envy of the world and made it the laughingstock of all people who want to take advantage of Canadian generosity.
The bill is of great importance, not only to my constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill but indeed to all Canadians. Ten years of disastrous Liberal immigration and soft-on-crime policies has given birth to a two-tiered justice system that prioritizes the comfort and feelings of offenders over the safety of our communities. Right now, due to hug-a-thug Liberal laws, judges can consider immigration status when deciding convicted criminals' sentences. Yes, that is right: If a Canadian and a non-Canadian commit a crime, the Canadian will go to prison, but the non-Canadian will get a bit of a break because they have an immigration status pending.
I do not know how that makes sense. It makes absolutely no sense, as it did not make sense when the member for Davenport said that we would be taking these people away from their families. Here is a news flash for the member for Davenport and for all of the Liberals across the aisle: If someone is a criminal, they belong in jail and they are going to be away from their family anyway. Their family is not going to be in prison with the criminal.
Judges are actively considering immigration status and are reducing sentences for serious criminals, specifically to keep them below the threshold that triggers automatic deportation. Here is another news flash for the Liberals: Canadians do not want non-citizen criminals in their communities. When we allow different sentencing standards based on immigration status, we send a message that the law is negotiable and that Canadian safety is secondary.
Non-citizen criminals are celebrating this weakness. They are celebrating the Liberal laws that allow them to commit heinous crimes and receive reduced sentences to stay in the country where they can continue to terrorize our communities. The Liberals are creating a class of offenders who can commit crimes on Canadian soil without facing the price of losing the privilege to stay here. It is an insult to every law-abiding immigrant who followed the rules, and it undermines the very foundation of equality under the law.
The consequences of this failure are written in the headlines of our local papers. Take the case of Medhani Yohans in Guelph. A non-citizen, high-risk sex offender and frequent flyer in our courts, Yohans was arrested again and again on February 3, 2025, just hours after being released. This is a man who has proven time and time again that he has no regard for Canadian life or law. Why is a non-citizen with a track record still here to victimize our community? This is bewildering, not only to me but also to Canadians across our country.
Even more disturbing is a case from Bradford. A 47-year-old man raped a young girl, resulting in pregnancy. This level of depravity should meet the unyielding force of Canadian law. Instead, our system hit the pause button. The court granted this predator an adjournment, specifically to explore the effect his plea would have on his immigration status. That is mind-blowing. While the victim lived through an unimaginable nightmare, the judicial system allowed accommodation for the perpetrator so he could dodge deportation.
There is also the case of Munir Ahmad Malhi, a former Pakistani cop linked to crimes against humanity. Despite his 37-year career with a force known for atrocities, a federal court judge recently gave him another shot at refugee status so he can stay here and terrorize Canadians. When crimes against humanity are met with a second chance to stay in Canada, our refugee system has lost its moral compass, as I believe the Liberals have. The Liberals' high tolerance for non-citizen criminals extends beyond the courtroom. They are more sympathetic to non-citizen criminals than to the victims who have been raped, murdered, extorted or assaulted.
For years, Conservatives have sounded the alarm about the IRGC, a designated terrorist organization operating freely on Canadian soil. While the Liberals give speeches, the reality on the ground is a disgrace. The CBSA has identified at least 26 individuals currently in Canada who merit deportation due to their ties to this repressive regime. News outlets have reported there are more than 700 individuals in Canada with alleged links to the Iranian regime. Many have been accused of intimidation, surveillance and harassment of our own citizens right here in Canada, in our communities. How many have actually been removed? Here is a newsflash: It is just one. One person has been removed from Canada from all these characters who are here, perpetrating havoc in our communities. There has been just one single deportation, while dozens of regime agents continue to treat Canada as a safe haven, because the Liberal government has allowed that to happen.
The media reports for the last two weeks have been chilling. We have seen reports of IRGC-linked sleeper cells and acts of intimidation against the Iranian diaspora in our communities. This is the safe Canada the Liberals have built, a country where foreign agents feel comfortable to intimidate people on our streets, because they know the government lacks the spine to kick them out.
We are also seeing a surge in non-citizen criminals using the asylum system to avoid accountability. We see it in cases of extortion rings, where individuals, once caught, suddenly claim refugee status to freeze their removal. This is what the Liberal government has allowed. By filing last-minute, baseless claims, extortionists buy years of time in Canada in our backlogged asylum system. That is another Liberal immigration failure, where it is highly possible these non-citizen criminals receive better health care coverage than most Canadians receive at a time when many Canadians cannot find a family doctor.
Here is the reality. Under the Liberals, non-citizen criminals get a pass and victims get punished. If the Liberals spent as much time figuring out how to protect people as they do twisting themselves in knots to be kind to thugs, murderers and rapists, Canada would be safer, and our immigration system would be more respected.
Canadian citizenship is one of the most coveted prizes in the world. Canada offers safety, freedom and opportunity, and in exchange, the newcomer pledges to uphold our laws. When a non-citizen commits a serious crime, they have violated that agreement, and they should be thrown out of our country. It is not fair to Canadians to consider immigration consequences when sentencing convicted criminals.
Actions have consequences. Non-citizens who rape, extort and murder should not be allowed to stay in our country, yet the current system is geared towards letting the criminals stay through endless appeals and lenient sentences. That is why this bill, put forward by my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, would specify in the Criminal Code that sentences should not depend on the potential impact on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender or that of their family members. It is so desperately needed. Conservatives will always fight to protect Canadians, the value of our citizenship and the safety of every person who lives here.
Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, not a right. Right now, we are losing economically productive immigrant entrepreneurs, job creators and highly skilled workers. They are making productive contributions to the economy and want to stay in Canada to build a better life, but they look at Canada's skyrocketing cost of living and nightmare immigration system and are deciding to move to the United States or back home. We are witnessing a brain drain of the talent we need.
The Liberals' immigration policy seems to be making a trade-off. While they cover for non-citizen criminals to stay in Canada, law-abiding job creators, skilled workers and those humbly looking for a better life, which the vast majority of immigrants are, get left out in the cold. The current trajectory of the government is a betrayal of the Canadian promise to immigrants. Anyone seeking residence or citizenship in Canada has responsibilities as well as rights. Liberals need to stop prioritizing the immigration consequences of criminals and start prioritizing the safety of Canadian families. The vast majority of Canada's immigrants and temporary residents abide by the law. Removing non-citizens convicted of a serious crime is a no-brainer.
I will end with this. There are two directions Canada can go in: the Liberal direction, which is high chaos on everything related to immigration and crime in our country, or the Conservative approach, which is to value Canadian citizenship, have that restored, deport non-citizen serious criminals, reward honest immigrants and restore our immigration system back to a system that Canadians can be proud of again. That is why I wholeheartedly support and would urge every member in the House to support Bill C-220, put forward by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill.
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by responding to the member for Davenport. I wholeheartedly look forward to using every ounce of my media reach to refute her position that there is no evidence showing the need for this bill. Much like the government House leader, who said that there was no evidence that rapers had not used these loopholes to remain in the country, I would say to her that I am so looking forward to using that quote over and over again to show how many instances of evidence there are to show the need for it. In the next week, I will be taking that quote from her and repeatedly showing her how many times she is so very wrong.
If there are immigration officials watching in the lobby, I would ask them to tell the member for Davenport to get ready, because she said there was no evidence showing the need for this and I will be strongly refuting her as many times as possible over the next week before the vote to show how much evidence there is, which colleagues have brought forward during this debate, so she can giddy up on that. Here we go.
The second thing is that the member for Davenport said that non-citizen criminals face the consequences of their actions. We know that is not the case. In fact, just to strongly further refute her comment that there is no evidence of this, I will also be refuting that over the next week. Therefore, if members would like to, they can tune into my Substack or any of my social media feeds, where her quote that there is no evidence will be strongly featured over the next week. They should stand by as it will be very awesome.
I want to comment very substantively on some of the concerns from my Bloc colleagues. They talked about the balance between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government. I am concerned that when it comes to immigration law, we have seen a disproportionate influence, particularly at the federal level of the judiciary, and interference not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level. The Supreme Court ruling that was issued on Friday, as it relates to Quebec's decision to restrict benefits to certain classes of non-citizens, is problematic for not just the province of Quebec but every province across the country.
It is also problematic for federal immigration law. Federal immigration law is predicated on the Constitution Act of 1867, which states that not only does this place have the right to make laws over immigration, but the provinces in some aspects do as well, and that non-citizens are treated differently than citizens in Canada. That is what our entire immigration system is predicated on. The Friday Supreme Court ruling, which overturned a Quebec government benefit decision, which was put in place in order to manage a decade of Liberal mismanagement, completely upended that. Therefore, I would say this: We need to reassert our right in this place over the judiciary to make laws when it comes to the immigration system. Members can expect to hear more from the Conservative Party of Canada on that.
On the specific concerns that some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues raised with regard to the Pham decision, I would note this. The court ruling explicitly ruled that this consideration does not constitute a charter right, a remedy or a charter breach. In fact, the ruling did not even mention the charter once. Furthermore, the ruling also made it clear that the flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences, and that to do so would be circumventing Parliament's will.
If my Bloc colleagues maintain the right for Quebec to assert its jurisdictional rights on certain grounds, then I would ask them to pay specific attention to what I have clarified here, because what has happened is that federal courts have started to overcome provincial jurisdiction in these matters. That is also part of the reason why I put this bill forward. What we are seeing is that the spirit of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has been overturned. This bill will correct that.
I encourage all colleagues in this place to vote in favour of it and to stay tuned to my social media.
The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to follow up on a question I asked about ethics, in particular, the Prime Minister's ethics. I think all members of the House would agree that all Canadians expect the highest level of ethics and transparency from the highest leader in the land. Unfortunately, there continue to be instances where that does not seem to be the case. I will give some examples that I think appear to be more than coincidence when it comes to the Prime Minister and his former business dealings. Of course, I encourage successful people to seek public office, but we want people to be transparent about their investments and transparent about their business dealings. It appears to me that that has not been the case.
I will share just a few examples. On April 30, 2025, just a few days after the election, the Prime Minister was personally lobbied by NorthRiver Midstream, a Brookfield portfolio company. On May 6, 2025, after a meeting with the President in Washington, the Prime Minister met with Sam Pollock, the CEO of Brookfield Infrastructure, also in Washington, who is also now subject to his ethics screen. On September 27, 2025, while in London, the Prime Minister attended a working breakfast with the high commissioner and a number of institutional investors. Four of those investors were from companies that have major connections to Brookfield.
On August 11, just one month after the ethics screen was put in place, Mr. Carney was seen speaking with—
I have to interrupt the member. The Prime Minister's name cannot be used in the chamber. He can only be referred to by his title.
I will let the member for York—Durham continue.
Mr. Speaker, on August 11, just one month after the ethics screen was put in place, the Prime Minister was seen speaking with and taking photos with, again, none other than Mr. Pollock, who is, as I mentioned, a part of Brookfield Infrastructure. Then, on October 3 of last year, the Prime Minister met again with the CEO of Brookfield, Justin Beber. All of these things taken individually may be understandable, but when we consider the entire picture of all of the meetings and lobbying that has taken place with the Prime Minister and his former business associates, it leads to questions. When the CEO of Brookfield appeared at the ethics committee, he suggested a very simple means to address some of these concerns, which was for the Prime Minister to divest himself of these assets.
Given there is a simple solution to this issue, which is to sell the assets, why has the Prime Minister not done so yet?
Mr. Speaker, I will start off by indicating that the Prime Minister followed all the rules, even before they were actually required. These are rules that the Conservatives put in place under former prime minister Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister took this step from day one.
The Leader of the Opposition has been here for 20 years and still does not necessarily deal with issues of great national importance. Before I expand on that particular point, I want to talk about how the official opposition has played constant gutter politics with respect to character assassination, and that is why I am reluctant to say “official opposition”. One gets tired of it over the years. Conservative member after Conservative member has stood up in this place, even when I was in opposition, and consistently attacked the character of an individual, including the leader of the Liberal Party.
There is no conflict. I would think the Conservative Party, or at least some of its members, would understand that. Instead what we see are the people who want to put on a tinfoil hat to say that here or there is a great conspiracy. It is a ridiculous approach by the Conservative Party to deal with public policy, when we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible history and is respected around the world as an economist, a former Bank of Canada governor and a former Bank of England governor.
All the Conservative Party wants to do is assassinate his character, when the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, if we talk about Brookfield, there are a number of members of the Conservative caucus who have investments in Brookfield. I say shame on the members of the Conservative Party of Canada for their character assassination.
Instead of doing that, why do they not focus on what is in the best interest of Canadians and deal with public policy? They should have some honour. Instead what we see is a sad state where the far right has taken over the Conservative Party of Canada. That is fine. Conservatives can keep it up. I hope they will be in opposition for many more years to come, because they are not going to fool Canadians.
I can tell the House that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to focus on the Canadian economy and on building a stronger and healthier Canada. That is the priority of the government, because we understand the issues of affordability, the importance of international trade and the importance of building a strong, healthy infrastructure.
Although Conservative Party members are inwardly focused, thinking about nothing else but moving further to the right, and their own political interests, at least the government party, and maybe a few red Tories who might be left on the other side, will continue to focus their attention on Canadians in improving the quality of life of all Canadians in every region of our great nation. It is a great nation, contrary to what the leader of the Conservative Party tells Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed and saddened by the member's response. Not once did I impugn the Prime Minister. Not once did I cast aspersions on his character. I simply asked questions about his ethics screen, which is applicable to him as the Prime Minister. That is a fair question. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. The member can protest all he wants. He can yell all he wants, but that does not change the facts of the matter.
My follow-up question is this: The Prime Minister is about to take another trip to Europe, and I would like the parliamentary secretary to confirm for us that he will not be taking any meetings with any Brookfield-related companies while on that trip.
Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the member read the question he asked, because it is the reason we are here this evening.
If you reflect on the question, how can you not say that it is about character assassination—
The member is speaking directly to the member for York—Durham and is supposed to speak through the Chair.
I invite the member to continue.
My apologies, Mr. Speaker.
In one sense, it is almost something that is encouraged, because we see that it comes right from the leadership. The member, in his comments, talked about Canadian expectations that the Prime Minister would do X and Y. What is the Canadian expectation regarding getting a security clearance?
Why has the leader of the Conservative Party not gotten his security clearance? There are lots of internationally sensitive issues, yet the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to do what is in Canadians' best interest, and they want him to get the security clearance.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are feeling economic pressure, it is more important than ever that all levels of government work together. Municipalities are under growing strain. The cost of building and maintaining infrastructure continues to rise, while local councils are still expected to deliver essential services and support the growth of their communities at the levels residents deserve.
It is my pleasure to work with the mayors and councillors of 18 municipalities across my riding of Yellowhead. It takes nearly eight hours to travel from north to south, and while it is not always possible to be everywhere on every occasion, I remain in constant contact with my municipal and provincial counterparts.
I want to thank my municipal leaders for their dedication, hard work and commitment to their communities. Their leadership makes a real difference in the lives of residents every day. By working together, we can move projects forward and ensure that our communities continue to grow and succeed.
As tax season is under way, families across the country are gathering documents to comply with our voluntary self-reporting tax system. Meanwhile, my fellow CPAs and accountants are working long hours helping Canadians navigate an increasingly complex system. My colleagues in the profession are doing a great job. To them, I say stay strong; May is coming soon.
However, there is an elephant in the room. While hard-working people are doing the right thing, I continue to hear that the CRA creates confusion and unnecessary errors. Too often, a single parent who made a mistake faces a lengthy and difficult process to correct it, while large corporations can see millions in tax debt forgiven with no transparency.
As the only CPA with public practice experience in the House, I proactively engage with the accountants in Yellowhead and across Canada to bring forward their concerns and their ideas for change, specifically with respect to authorizations. Together, we will restore common sense, accountability and fairness to the CRA.
I recently asked the Liberals to remove the taxes and red tape holding Canadians back. I asked a simple question: What are they waiting for? Sadly, what Canadians heard was an attempt by the government to blame everyone else for problems it had created. Yes, global uncertainty and trade tensions matter, but Canada's economic weakness did not start yesterday. For years, businesses across the country have been warning about rising taxes, endless regulatory delays and inflation fuelled by the Prime Minister's $78-billion deficit. Those decisions are made here in Ottawa.
The facts speak for themselves. Canada now has the weakest economic growth in the G7, and GDP per capita has shown negative growth. Investment is leaving the country, productivity is failing, and too many businesses are choosing to expand elsewhere instead of here. Instead of dismissing the legitimate concerns of hard-working Canadians as a “hissy fit”, as the Liberal parliamentary secretary did in response to my question, the government should listen to these workers, entrepreneurs and families who are living with the consequences of its policies every day.
If the government truly wants to create good-paying jobs, it must restore confidence in Canada as a place to invest, build and grow. When will the government finally take responsibility and remove the barriers holding back Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House after a short time of being away. I was fortunate, and I will start by thanking my wonderful wife, who has delivered another baby girl to our family. That is our third girl.
It is great to be back in the chamber and in debate with members opposite, whom I respect, even though I strongly disagree with the premise of the member's question. In response to the member, I would say that the government is actually doing a lot of the things that he is calling for. We have cut income tax by 1% in the lowest income tax bracket, which is saving dual-income families an average of $840 per year. We have cut GST on new home purchases of homes valued under $1 million, which will save families $50,000 on average. We have cut the carbon tax. In budget 2025, we have also put in place tax breaks and tax incentives for businesses to boost productivity. The Bank of Canada governor has come to committee and confirmed that those tax incentives, including the investment tax credits but also all of the different capital investment tax breaks that we have offered to Canadian businesses, are going to help boost productivity.
We are already seeing examples and signs within our economy that there is movement, and that for our manufacturing industries, for example, the PMI, the purchasing managers index, has been improving. It is at a 13-month high. We have seen that foreign investment in Canada has surged to the highest level since 2007, with net investment in Canada exceeding net outflows by $17.4 billion. Also, Canada's dollar has become a top pick in the $9.5-trillion-a-day foreign exchange market. Canada is projected by the IMF to have the second-strongest growth in the G7. Top economists in Canada actually had to revise their forecasts after budget 2025, and they revised them up to show that there would be growth in the economy. This is all despite being in a trade war, with tariffs obviously having a drag on the sales of our economy.
The Canada pension plan, which is world-class, was just announced as second in the world. That is pretty impressive, I would say. Also, we have heard quite a lot from investors around the world who are looking at Canada as a place to invest their capital. With FDI up as a measure, we can see that that is actually realizing itself.
We have seen that the Prime Minister and cabinet's attention to trade diversification is having an impact. Canada and India agreed to sign a new comprehensive economic partnership, doubling trade between the two countries to $70 billion a year. Canada and India signed a $2.6-billion agreement for Cameco in northern Saskatchewan to supply 22 million pounds of uranium for nuclear energy. Canada and India signed another strategic energy partnership focused on renewables: solar, wind, hydrogen and battery storage.
Canada and Australia recently, with the biggest superannuation pension funds in Australia, agreed to boost investments in Canada by $10 billion over the next nine years.
Canada and China have reached an agreement to open up market access for canola and seafood, which is good news for many of our canola and seafood producers across Canada.
Similarly, Canada and Japan signed a new comprehensive strategic partnership as well, and we have seen that the Port of Churchill just entered into an agreement with Belgium, one of the biggest—
Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could tell me if he has any information or any statistics on this mythical unicorn of a first-time homebuyer who is spending $1 million to get $50,000 off their taxes.
I have never actually seen a first-time homebuyer buy a brand new home. This GST that you are supposedly giving back to them is only for their very first home, on a brand new home. People in my riding cannot afford a $1-million home the first time they are buying a home. They are never going to get this $50,000, which you said was an average but have said before is actually the maximum.
I am just wondering if you have any actual statistics to show that there are people buying new homes as their first home.
Despite it being Adjournment Proceedings, the requirement is still to speak through the Chair and not directly to the member. This is just as a reminder for the member for Yellowhead.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, yes, there are families in my riding purchasing homes that are in the average of $700,000 to $800,000, which I admit is a high price for a new home, but it is the case in many parts of where I live in the GTA, the greater Toronto area. Cutting the GST on new home purchases for homes under $1 million, which is what the policy does, is actually very beneficial.
However, it is not the only thing we have done. We are also increasing housing supply through Build Canada Homes. I am sure I will get to talk more about housing with the next question. We have reduced mortgage insurance by 25%. We have amortized mortgages over 30 years to decrease payments. We have offered tax-free home savings accounts for the first purchase of a home. There are lots of things, which all compound to make it easier for people to buy a home.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I had a round of questions in question period about Canada's housing affordability crisis hitting young people particularly hard. Normally, supply meets demand, which is just economics 101, but the current real estate market is in such a state of imbalance that the new homes that buyers want and can afford are just not being built. That was the basis of my question.
I noted that despite demand, CMHC was reporting a reduction in new housing starts over the next few years. The response I received was that we should just support the Liberals' housing plans, which are the ones that have been missing the mark and causing all the problems in the first place.
I was directed to Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which a couple of sitting days later I actually had the opportunity to speak to. I am not going to repeat that speech, but I will highlight a couple of quotes from Professor Friedrich Hayek, the 20th-century free market economist of the classical liberal tradition.
I noted, and will note again, that the current Liberal Party has abandoned classical liberal economics and replaced it with central planning socialism. This is why I quoted Friedrich Hayek, because he spent a good part of his academic life attacking central planning socialism and pointing out its weaknesses. He said, “The beauty of the market lies in its ability to coordinate actions without requiring omniscience.” He also said, “No single mind can comprehend the complexity of modern economic activity—only a decentralized process can manage it.”
The Liberals used to believe that, but they do not anymore. They have become central planning socialists. They think that they are, in the professor's words, the “omniscience” or the single mind that can comprehend the complexity of modern economic activity. They think that just one more little tweak or a little adjustment to our comprehensive plans, one new bureaucracy, and the problem will be solved and the market will start to behave the way they think it should behave.
The Liberals have failed so far, and they will continue to fail until they understand that the best thing they can do is to just get out of the way of the free market and let the market decide how it is going to be. The answer is not another bureaucracy and not an over-regulated economy. It is just to let the market behave the way it should. Do they agree with that?
Mr. Speaker, very simply put, no, I do not agree with the member opposite. I do not agree with his assessment of the problem. I do not agree that the free market is actually going to solve the problem he is talking about. I think we have seen evidence of that with the federal government under Conservative leadership. It made no investment in housing for over a decade under Stephen Harper, and we saw the problem get worse and worse.
Our government stepped up under previous leadership and created the national housing strategy. I have evidence in my riding of 220-million dollars' worth of investments across my region that have repaired 1,838 housing units and built 1,236 new units, with 29,000 more over the next decade built into housing accelerator agreements, as well as 137 new shelter beds and 177 supportive and transitional housing units. That has all been built in my region.
I have seen first-hand that delivering investments in my community through the federal programs that our government has put in place have made a substantive difference for people in my riding and the ridings adjacent to mine, with the exception of the Conservatives' ridings because they never advocate for those funds. They actually talk down those investments in the House every single day and vote against them, and then they do not actually stand up to help their communities by getting those investments into their communities, which is a shame and actually making the problem worse. I would suggest that Conservative members use the programs and initiatives the federal government has put in place to help solve the problems in their communities instead of complaining about them.
Our government has stepped up with Build Canada Homes, which has gone even further. It is a new approach. It is a new strategy. It is not based on central planning. It is based on what Canadians have told us across the country, which is that we need to build at scale. We need to adopt and embrace the new modernized construction methods that can really decrease the cost of housing. We have cut taxes. We have encouraged municipalities to move faster on approvals. We have used and leveraged federal lands to help get more housing built, and we are removing the cost of acquisition on that land and property to build those properties.
We are doing all of that. We are also buying Canadian. There is the desire, which I think is shared by all Canadians, to utilize materials that are Canadian and use a Canadian workforce to build those homes. We are actually using every lever we can think of to decrease the price for the average consumer.
The fact is that the market would not solve the problem. It is not building enough affordable and deeply affordable housing. That is exactly how we got into this mess over 30 years. Our government has done the lion's share of work with no help from the Conservative Party, which is a shame. The Conservative Party says we should just do nothing. Getting out of the way is basically synonymous with saying to do nothing and that the market will solve the problem itself. It will absolutely not do that. I fundamentally disagree.
It is not socialism to have temporary government intervention. Intervention is responsible government. It is listening to the public, being sensitive to their needs and responding to those needs with smart policies that are going to get at the root causes of the problem. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, if all that wishful thinking would actually solve the problem, we would not have a problem. I think the member will agree that we actually do face a housing affordability crisis.
I just want to give a couple of examples of the government getting in the way. In a British Columbia setting, we have the provincial government chasing away investment dollars that drive the pre-sale market, which is one of the pillars of condo market financing. Number two is the national building code driving an aggressive green agenda that is not tied to economic reality. Third is the wild west in development cost charges by municipalities that is taking any profit away from builders. I was talking to one land developer who says that until there is a change in attitude, they are leaving their money in a GIC, which is much safer and returning a better profit these days.
Mr. Speaker, in relation to development charges, our government has incentivized municipalities to freeze or lower those development charges through the housing accelerator fund. All of those funds that go directly to municipalities are predicated on municipalities either freezing or lowering those charges to make it easier for developers to afford and to make the math work on new housing developments.
That is exactly why we went forward with the housing accelerator fund. It was both to incentivize municipalities to build medium density but also to speed up the approvals and planning processes, and to lower or at least freeze development charges. Those things have been put in place. I know that many of the members opposite actually secretly, in defiance of their leader, advocated for that program to continue, and there was quite the shake-up in the Conservative Party. Why? It is because they know that program works. Their leader just does not like it or want to admit it.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer