Bill 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

Moved 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.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading as the sponsor 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. From here on out, I will refer to this agreement as the CPTPP. Quite the tongue twister, isn’t it?

Colleagues, we have good news and bad news. The good news is that Mexico has now ratified the U.K.’s accession to the CPTPP, meaning the U.K. will be able to access CPTPP provisions with Mexico from June 22, 2026. Now for the bad news: Of the 11 countries that currently make up the CPTPP, Canada is the only member not to have implemented the U.K.’s accession protocol. So let’s keep Bill C-13 moving.

To that point, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to all honourable colleagues for their ongoing support in advancing this bill. Through constructive collaboration, sincere discussion and some lively second reading debate, we have demonstrated our care and commitment to one of the most important issues facing Canada today: our relationship with the world and our trading partners. This gratitude extends specifically to my honourable colleague Senator Housakos as the friendly critic of this bill.

I also wish to thank the members of our Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee for their diligence in hearing from witnesses and appending an observation. Speaking of the witnesses who appeared on Bill C-13, including from the private sector, academia and civil society, thank you for taking the time to share your perspectives.

I would also like to thank Minister Sidhu and officials from Global Affairs Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Finance Canada, whose testimony, I believe, helped clarify the intention of the legislation and the benefits associated with the U.K.’s accession to the CPTPP.

Honourable senators, the U.K. is already one of Canada’s closest economic partners. It is our third-largest trading partner and one of the largest investors in our economy. Since 2016, trade in goods and services between our two countries has increased by over 52%, reaching $61 billion in 2024.

This growth did not happen by accident. It reflects the stability created by strong trade agreements, first under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, our agreement with the EU when the U.K. was part of the European Union, and later under the Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement, which ensured businesses could keep trading smoothly after the U.K. left the EU.

Bill C-13 builds on that success. With the U.K. joining the CPTPP, we strengthen the agreement as a central tool in Canada’s trade diversification strategy. This matters, especially now, because it makes Canada more resilient. Relying too heavily on one region or market leaves us more exposed when things go wrong.

Expanding the CPTPP — and bringing in a major economy like the U.K. — helps ensure that Canada’s economic success does not depend on a single set of relationships. It gives our businesses more routes to market, more sources of inputs and more options when conditions change.

This is especially true for small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs. SMEs make up the vast majority of Canadian businesses and employ millions of Canadians. However, they often face the greatest challenges when looking to export, such as unfamiliar regulations, higher upfront costs and uncertainty about whether it is worth the risk.

Bill C-13 directly addresses these challenges. By bringing the U.K. into the CPTPP, Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises gain access to a large, advanced economy under one familiar set of trade rules. This reduces complexity and lowers the cost of expanding beyond Canada’s borders.

More specifically, for a small manufacturer, it can mean fewer customs surprises and more confidence to pursue a U.K. buyer. For a food exporter, it can mean clearer labelling and tariff rules. For a service-based business, it can mean knowing the rules before investing time and money.

This predictability is essential for SMEs, which often do not have the resources to absorb costly mistakes.

The U.K. economy places a strong emphasis on innovation, research and development and advanced services, areas where Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises often excel.

There are also strong and practical opportunities in agriculture and agri-food, a sector where many exporters are small- or medium-sized businesses.

Canadian exporters already sell products such as pulses and grains, plant-based proteins, maple syrup and seafood to the U.K. Clear rules and reduced barriers help these products reach U.K. consumers more competitively and more consistently.

That matters to grain producers in the Prairies looking to secure long-term buyers, maple syrup producers in Ontario and Quebec expanding beyond North America and seafood processors in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia trying to maintain steady demand year-round.

We also heard from industry in the red meat sector, particularly from beef and pork producers, that there are still issues to be resolved when it comes to ensuring these exporters can fully benefit from this agreement. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the CPTPP continues to deliver significant benefits for the Canadian meat sector.

I trust that the government has heard the concerns raised by industry and will continue to work with the U.K. in an effort to find a solution, be it through our Foreign Service officers or through the U.K.-Canada Economic and Trade Working Group established by Prime Ministers Carney and Starmer with the goal of deepening Canada’s existing trading relationship further, including to address existing market access barriers.

Beyond food, opportunities also exist in critical minerals, infrastructure and transportation, where Canadian expertise and resources are well positioned to contribute to an increasingly competitive global environment.

Honourable senators, this is where the CPTPP plays its most important role. By bringing the U.K. into the CPTPP, we create a single high-standard framework that allows Canadian businesses to operate across multiple markets under the same basic rules. This lowers costs, reduces regulatory complexity and makes international expansion more realistic, especially for smaller firms.

I believe that Minister Sidhu’s comments during his appearance at our Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade provided Canada’s SMEs with additional reassurance regarding the government’s support in diversifying their trade into new markets, including through tools such as the Trade Commissioner Service and the newly created Strategic Exports Office.

Honourable senators, Bill C-13 represents more than just the U.K.’s accession, and there is a clear and practical reason to move forward without delay. Canada is a founding member of the CPTPP and a long-standing champion of its expansion. However, today, following Mexico’s completion of its domestic ratification, Canada stands as the only CPTPP party that has not yet ratified the U.K.’s accession protocol.

Honourable colleagues, just last year, we had the honour and privilege of hosting His Majesty King Charles III in this very chamber when he visited Canada and opened the Forty-fifth Parliament. This timely show of support was a moment that resonated deeply with all of us in this chamber, and I know that, back home, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians paid close attention to His Majesty’s remarks.

During a recent visit to the U.K., I stood before the Newfoundland Gate across from Buckingham Palace in Green Park, one of the Royal Parks of London, England. Colleagues will remember that when Britain entered the First World War on August 4, 1914, Newfoundland, which was then a British dominion, was suddenly at war, too. Almost 1,000 young men signed up to join the newly created Newfoundland Regiment by late September. Many Newfoundlanders would fight and die for the British Empire. In this regard, the gate is a powerful symbol of who we are, where we come from and, of course, the ties that bind us.

Honourable colleagues, our good friends and international partners are waiting for us to pass this bill. Let’s not keep them waiting too much longer. I hope you will all vote in favour of Bill C-13.

Thank you.

Senator Petten, I have a question, and I anticipate you know what my question is, given I have spoken about it numerous times. First, I support the bill, and I thank you for your leadership in shepherding it through the Senate.

There are 120,000 residents of Canada who are recipients of the U.K.’s state pensions. As you know, those pensions are not indexed, unlike the CPP, or Canada Pension Plan, which is indexed regardless of where in the world you live.

Given that the U.K. wanted and needed Canada’s support and passage to join the CPTPP, why did we not use that leverage to insist that they index state pensions, as they do for many countries around the world? If you’re a recipient of the state pension from the U.K. in the Philippines, Iceland or Türkiye, it’s indexed. The list goes on. I see you’re getting some advice, and I will sit down quickly before you get any more.

Thank you, Senator Downe, for the question. I am not surprised that you asked it. I recall it’s a question that has come up many times in this chamber.

Canada believes that the U.K. pensioners who live in Canada should be recognized for the contributions that they have made to our society and treated equally regardless of where they live. However, of course, with that being said, an international trade agreement is not the appropriate mechanism for advocating the issue of pension indexation with the U.K. government.

You mentioned some of the other countries that have already done this. Of course, the other issue is that many of the other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, are also faced with the same issue we have here in Canada. So there are some issues. We hope that this can be resolved and that they will continue in their pursuits on that.

Thank you, Senator Petten, for that. You’re absolutely right. Those other countries are trying to resolve it as well.

Canada has been working on this for at least 30 years — the first correspondence I saw was from then finance minister Flaherty under the Conservative government of Prime Minister Harper, who was trying to get it resolved — and every government since then has been advancing the case. As you know, as their State Pension is not indexed — the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, is indexed, as I said earlier, regardless of where you live — those 120,000 residents in Canada have a declining benefit from their pension, a declining reimbursement. If they end up on Guaranteed Income Supplement, that’s a cost that Canadian taxpayers have to pay, as opposed to the U.K. government.

I’m not sure why, during the one time in 30 years that we had leverage — the U.K. was asking for something, and they needed us to agree to it — we did not use that leverage to fix this issue. They have fixed it for other countries — you named some of them; I named some of them — like Portugal.

The reason I got involved in this issue is that a resident in Prince Edward Island contacted me. If they lived in Bangor, Maine, their pension would be indexed. Over those 10 years, they lost a significant amount of money. Why was it the thinking of the government that this was not the opportune time to fix this problem?

Yes, I understand. I was at the committee, and I heard the witnesses. It was very compelling. Fortunately, this is a trade agreement that has many benefits and has been outstanding. It was just felt that this was not the place for that type of leveraging to take place for the other benefits that were coming from it.

Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading to speak in support 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.

Colleagues, the relationship between Canada and the U.K. cannot be understated. We are deeply bonded historically, and we are strong partners and allies across the board. Despite our exceedingly close relationship, Canada has the unfortunate distinction of being the last Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, member, following Mexico last week, to approve of the U.K. joining this agreement, as my colleague Senator Petten just mentioned.

In terms of trade, as of 2025, the U.K. was Canada’s third-largest single-country trading partner for goods and services, with trade valued at $85 billion. Nearly 3,500 Canadian companies, 93% of which are small- and medium-sized enterprises, export goods to the U.K.

I fully support this bill and the U.K.’s accession to the CPTPP not just as a proponent of Canada’s relationship with the U.K. but of free trade in general. However, I feel it is important to highlight a few issues that sometimes get overlooked in legislation such as this, since Parliament’s role is limited when it comes to trade bills.

First, I wish to underline the study of this bill undertaken by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which I proudly chair. There are often questions about the actual impact parliamentary committees can have on bills to implement treaties and trade agreements, falling, as they do, under the Royal Prerogative, but parliamentarians still must play their role in scrutinizing legislation.

That brings me to my first point, which is the committee’s observation urging:

. . . the government to ensure adequate resourcing of foreign service, trade commissioner service and locally engaged staff to support effective implementation of this and other free trade agreements.

This point, colleagues, is not specific to the trade file. Of course, as senators will recall, the committee undertook a generational study of Canada’s foreign service, on which it released its report in 2023. The principle behind this observation was also evident in the committee’s more recent report, released last December, on Canada’s engagement with Africa.

Colleagues, as the government, past and present, expects government entities, such as the foreign service and Global Affairs Canada at large, to do more with less, we must keep in mind the impact of funding cuts on our ability and capacity to negotiate and implement free trade agreements.

As we have heard consistently for more than a year, Canada is in a precarious trade situation as we can no longer rely on our once friendly and predictable and mutually beneficial trading relationship with the United States. We have heard much about the importance of diversifying our trade relationships. Canada’s new free trade agreement with Indonesia, Bill C-18, which is currently before a committee, is an example of this diversification. But between deals such as these and the upcoming and potentially volatile review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, now is the time to bolster our trade capacity, not to gut it and hope for the best.

A second point the committee discussed regarding Bill C-13 was the amendment passed by the other place that will require a House of Commons committee to undertake a comprehensive review three years after the act’s entry into force and at the end of every successive three-year period.

The utility of this amendment was discussed in public in our committee as a potential observation, but members decided against proceeding so as not to draw attention to what — and I speak for myself here — is an unnecessary provision given that any parliamentary committee with a relevant mandate in either house can decide to undertake such a review at any time.

While mandated reviews such as these are no doubt well intentioned, outlining them explicitly in the law is more trouble than it is worth when a mandate is not required for a review and when Canada wants to be seen as a reliable and predictable trading partner.

And on the subject of reliable partners, I would be remiss if I did not raise the long-standing struggle of British pensioners in Canada whose British pensions have not been indexed to inflation by successive British governments, as Senator Downe just mentioned in his question.

While not a trade issue specifically, the committee did hear from the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners on April 15. As many of us have met with them individually over the years, I will not get too far into the details. Essentially, 40% of British pensioners who live outside the United Kingdom, including those in Canada, do not receive cost-of-living increases, while the other 60% do because they live in countries with which the U.K. has signed reciprocal social security agreements.

This is not normal, colleagues, and in fact, the U.K. is the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, country to pay its pensioners differently based on where they live. The U.K. implemented this “frozen pension” policy more than 70 years ago, and, to no avail, Canada has tried many times over many years to discuss a bilateral social security agreement with successive British governments. It is not a trade issue, colleagues, and it is not going to delay Canada’s agreement to the U.K.’s accession to the CPTPP. It is, however, an unfortunate and discriminatory practice that punishes people who held up their end, by working hard and paying into their pensions, simply because they chose to live in one country over another.

I also wish to raise the concerns of the Canadian Meat Council, whose members process a near-total amount, 90%, of Canada’s red meat. Part of the reason Canadian meat and food products in general are popular around the world is because they are safe and of high quality. However, stringent non-tariff barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary rules in the U.K. and the European Union mean that the U.K.’s accession to the CPTPP will not have a meaningful impact on the bottom line for our own beef and pork exporters.

As the committee heard on April 15 from Jorge Correa, Vice‑President of Market Access and Technical Affairs at the Canadian Meat Council:

For beef, there is a clear interest in high-quality Canadian product, but the U.K. market requires a consistent supply of hormone-free cattle, which remains the key constraint limiting opportunities for the companies otherwise ready and capable of supplying the market.

Without this issue being resolved, free trade agreements between Canada and the U.K. and Canada and the EU “. . . will not unlock the full potential of the U.K. or EU as premium markets for Canadian beef.”

Mr. Correa continued:

For pork, the priority is the removal of burdensome testing requirements, notably for Trichinella, which act as red tape and limit trade flows despite strong demand for Canadian fresh pork. Securing science-based recognition of Canada’s controlled housing and on-farm food safety programs, and eliminating unnecessary, costly testing, could deliver a tangible improvement in pork exports to both the U.K. and the EU in the near term.

I raise these points about the challenges faced by the pensioners and our red meat exporters, colleagues, not to cause any doubt that this bill should pass and that the U.K. should accede to the CPTPP. It is to remind us all that, while free trade is, overall, a very good thing and a key element of national prosperity, there are still people — everyday Canadians, from British pensioners to meat processors and exporters — impacted by the numbers and the decisions.

Some organizations will enthusiastically fight for one free trade agreement and against another, but, as parliamentarians — and particularly senators — we must take the time to understand those varying positions.

With that, I do urge swift passage of this bill. Thank you.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)