THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 23, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:31 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-13, An Act to implement the Protocol of Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I wish to invite committee members to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Senator Michael L. MacDonald, Nova Scotia —Cape Breton.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario —Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Senator Marty Deacon, Ontario. Thank you for being here.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome.
I would like to note that joining us today as well is Senator Moncion of Ontario and Senator Petten. She did not mention it when she introduced herself, but she is the sponsor of Bill C-13 in the Senate.
I want to welcome everyone who may be watching us this morning across the country on ParlVU.
Colleagues, before we begin our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13, I would like to remind senators of a number of points.
First, if, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. This also applies to the chair, by the way. I wish to ensure that, at all times, we all have the same understanding of where we are as we deliberate.
Second, in terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. I’m not anticipating amendments, but just so you know.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Fourth, some amendments moved may have consequential parts on other parts of the bill. It is important to know this. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making.
Fifth, because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one or ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
Six, if committee members have questions about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business. We say “master.” It is ultimately in charge of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we will proceed.
[Translation]
Colleagues, before we begin, I would like to mention that there are officials from Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Finance Canada in the room who are available to answer questions as needed.
[English]
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13? I was going to read out the act. If we’re already agreed, that is great.
Thank you.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be considered in groups of ten? That is not a trick question, but it would make our business easier. Thank you. That’s agreed.
Shall clauses 1 to 10 carry? That is pages 1 to 4. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 11 to 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, agreed. Shall clauses 21 to 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Agreed.
Schedules. Shall schedule 1, that is page 11, carry?
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall schedule 2 carry? Agreed. Thank you.
Shall schedule 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall schedule 4, page 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? Senator Harder?
Senator Harder: Colleagues, I would propose the following observation. Copies are being distributed.
This observation is consistent with our report on the Foreign Service, which we tabled a year ago and consistent with some of the conversations we have been having around the table.
It is very simple.
The committee urges the government to ensure adequate resourcing of the Foreign Service, Trade Commissioner Service and locally engaged staff to support effective implementation of this and other free trade agreements.
I would move this observation.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Harder. Thank you, Senator Al Zaibak, for seconding.
We have an option to go in camera for discussion of this observation. I’m not sure if that is necessary.
Would anyone like to speak to the proposed observation? Okay.
Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: I agree.
The Chair: You agree. Thank you, senator. Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: The observation does not really stand by itself. It does stand by itself — do not want to get complicated — but it is a natural carry-on from our Foreign Services study. I say that out loud because we need to keep this and any opportunity to make sure — and this bill is one example — where we can keep this alive.
The Chair: Thank you. I think all of us who were involved in the study of the Foreign Service at that time would probably agree with your assertion, senator. We’re being consistent then.
Is it agreed, senators, that we will accept the observation as presented by Senator Harder?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other observations? Senator Hébert?
Senator Hébert: I’m sorry, this is my first observation. I was wondering if it is not appropriate to present an observation about the provision that is coming from the amendment pertaining that there will be a comprehensive review of the agreement in three years.
I understand that it is a review from a House of Commons committee and that it’s not a review from the Canadian government, but my concern was that, as we are trying to position ourselves as a reliable and a predictable partner around the world, I was wondering if that wouldn’t have an impact on the perception that our partners might have and that maybe other countries and even investors would have.
If I’m a Canadian company and I want to invest to try to enhance my —
[Translation]
We want to increase exports. Obviously, when I see something like this, I wonder if it might undermine the goals we’re striving for, such as providing stability and predictability to both our investors and our partners. I had prepared a few remarks with the team; should I read them, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes, please.
Senator Hébert: It’s currently being translated; we’re doing simultaneous translation.
[English]
The committee observes that Bill C-13 includes a clause requiring that a comprehensive review of the United Kingdom’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and of the provisions and operation of this act, including the effect of those provisions, be undertaken by a committee of the House of Commons within three years of this act coming into force and then every three years thereafter.
While regular parliamentary review can enhance transparency and accountability, committee members are concerned that the scope and parameters of this review are not clearly defined. In the absence of such clarity, as Canada seeks to position itself globally as a reliable partner, committee members are questioning whether the review mechanisms could create uncertainty for Canada’s investors.
The Chair: Before we start debate on this, I would like to ask Aaron Fowler, the chief negotiator and associate deputy minister who has been with us throughout, for a comment.
Specifically, the question that I would have following Senator Hébert’s suggestion is whether there are any other signatories to the agreement who have put in a provision such as that.
My own concern — I am not a constitutional lawyer — is that somehow this wedges against the powers of the Crown and the Royal Prerogative in terms of conducting our foreign and trade policy. Mr. Fowler, if you could enlighten us, we would be grateful.
Aaron Fowler, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, International Trade Branch and Chief Trade Negotiator, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you, chair, for the question. We are not aware that other CPTPP members have imposed such a review clause in relation to their own ratification of the U.K.’s accession, but I would note that there is a wide range of other government and legislative systems across the different CPTPP members, and the failure to establish such a review clause is not necessarily an obstacle to some of these members electing to undertake such a review at some point in the future. It is difficult to make a one-for-one comparison, but we are not aware of something akin to this linked to the ratification by other members.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that. Colleagues, would anyone like to intervene on debate?
Senator Harder: Substantively, I agree with the comments and the observation made. My suspicion is that this was part of what was necessary to get the other place to agree to the bill’s passage and its timely passage. My only concern about making the observation is that we’re drawing attention to this matter.
Of course, the response to that is “Well, it is in the bill. Isn’t that sufficient?”
I think we may be presenting this by making the observation as a bigger deal than I would like to play it, but I agree with the sentiment.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Colleagues, I want to remind you that we chose not to go in camera, and so this is public and on the record.
Senator Hébert: I understand Senator Harder’s concern. I agree with you.
My only concern is that we see it in many bills coming, and we see it in Bill C-13. We saw it also on Bill C-18, and we know that we have many agreements that are going to be coming.
I was trying to send some kind of signal.
[Translation]
This could have unintended side effects that we haven’t considered, despite the good intentions behind the amendment that was introduced — though I’m not questioning it at all. I’m simply pointing out that, in the world of international relations, we operate in a realm of perceptions. As you know, Canada is trying to position itself internationally as a predictable and reliable actor. If we start doing things like this repeatedly, I wonder whether it might create a certain perception. At the same time, I understand your concern, and I agree with you, Senator Harder. I would be curious to hear from my other colleagues.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
[English]
Senator MacDonald: The other day, I raised some concerns about pensioners from the U.K. I’m concerned about having some leverage on this issue to help them. If we adopt this, would it help to still exert some leverage on these issues?
Mr. Fowler: Thank you for the question, senator.
It strikes me as unlikely that the review clause will generate leverage. I think it is directly linked to the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Hébert.
Because a review clause, especially as framed in the amendment, does not impose conditionality with respect to the implementation of the commitments that Canada has agreed to take on, and suggesting that this review could later be leveraged in order to address a very important and, I think, reasonable issue on the part of Canada may introduce questions about conditionality that are not intended by the desire of the house to undertake such a review.
This is an issue we push whenever we have the opportunity to with our partners in the United Kingdom. They understand very well Canada’s perspective on the question of indexation of pensions. It is an active conversation today. I would argue that we have the ability to advance our positions there, irrespective of the decision that the committee takes on this matter.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments on the proposed observation by Senator Hébert?
Senator Woo: Thank you.
The Chair: We do not yet have a French translation, do we? So we just have the English —
Senator Hébert: I think that I will withdraw it, since it does not seem to be unanimous. I would have —
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. I will return to that.
Senator Woo: To elaborate on Mr. Fowler’s point that other countries who are signatories may not have review clauses but that is not going to stop them from doing a review. The same, of course, applies to us. Even if we did not have this provision, our committee could do a review of the agreement at any time.
I wonder if, instead of putting in the observation, our chair could speak to the report and put the review in context, which is that the committees in the House of Commons and the Senate can, at any time, do a review of this and any other agreement and that it would be advisory to the government in any case, rather than binding them to do so. That would set the proper contexts for how to understand the review.
What we’re afraid of is that our trading partners see the review and think that it is more serious than it is. It is not that serious. Senator Harder has pointed that out.
While we don’t want to draw any necessary attention to it through an observation, it could be something that’s in the Hansard record that one of us, or the chair, could speak to at debate.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo.
Thank you, Senator Hébert, for withdrawing the observation.
Certainly, I’m prepared to touch on this at third reading in the Senate. I think it is an important issue. I understand, also, that in the other place in the House of Commons, there was some discussion on this. There are sensitivities related to it.
With that, thank you, senator, we will proceed.
Are members in agreement with the observation? I think we had an agreement. Thank you.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, sometimes known as steering, be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, thank you.
Is it agreed that this bill, with its one observation, be reported to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)