← Your dashboard·HoC · 45-1passed
Official record· LEGISinfoHouse of Commons · Bill C-13

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

Introduced Oct 21, 2025·Sponsor: Maninder SidhuLPCLOW
AI-assisted analysis
At a glance
  • Implements the UK's accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
  • Updates definitions related to the Agreement in several Canadian Acts.
  • Aligns Canadian laws with obligations from the new trade agreement.
International trade entitiesCanadian businessesForeign investors
AI-assisted analysis
What's actually in this bill
Why this bill matters

This bill is significant for Canada as it modifies trade agreements and tariff structures, potentially influencing economic relations, consumer prices, and opportunities for businesses. It aims to enhance trade dynamics with the UK and across the Trans-Pacific region.

The tradeoff

A principal compromise is the balancing act between boosting trade and competitiveness through lower tariffs, while potentially reducing government revenue and the ability to fund public services, thereby impacting broader societal welfare.

BROADTITLE: MISLEADINGA broad omnibus bill spanning 5 related subjects.
Why the title misleads

The title does not mention specific domestic impacts such as changes to tariff rates or classifications for agricultural products.

What it actually covers
Amendments to Trade AgreementsTrade agreements with specific countriesChanges to agricultural product classificationsChanges to tariff ratesAccession of UK to Trade Agreement
Full billAmendments to Trade Agreements
What it does

This part of the bill updates the definitions and provisions concerning the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and related trade agreements in various financial and trade acts. It also establishes new tariff rates and conditions related to the United Kingdom.

Why it matters

These amendments affect international trade agreements, which can influence economic relations and tariffs, potentially impacting prices for consumers and businesses in Canada. The adjustments aim to facilitate trade between Canada and partner countries.

The problem it addresses

This aims to align Canadian laws with updated trade agreements and ensure compliance with international obligations.

Who benefits

Businesses engaged in international trade with countries involved in these agreements will benefit from clearer definitions and potential tax reductions.

The tradeoff

There may be a reduction in revenue from tariffs on certain imports, which could impact government funding; this may lead to higher tax burdens or reduced services elsewhere as the government adjusts to the changes.

Canadian businessesInternational trade entitiesGovernment agenciesConsumers purchasing imported goodsForeign investors
Read the actual text (25)
2018, c. 23, s. 16

1Schedule VII to the Financial Administration Act is amended by replacing “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018.” with the following: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018, and any accession protocol that is listed in the schedule to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act .

2018, c. 23, s. 31

2Schedule 2 to the Commercial Arbitration Act is amended by replacing “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018” in column 2 with the following: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018, and any accession protocol that is listed in the schedule to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

2020, c. 1, s. 153

3The definition regulated foreign entity in section 2 of the Trust and Loan Companies Act is replaced by the following: regulated foreign entity has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Bank Act ; ( entité étrangère réglementée ) Trust and Loan Companies Act Clause 3 : Existing text of the definition: regulated foreign entity means an entity that is (a) incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV of the Bank Act is applicable, and (b) subject to financial services regulation in that country or territory; ( entité étrangère réglementée )

2020, c. 1, s. 158

4Paragraph (a) of the definition regulated foreign entity in section 2 of the Bank Act is replaced by the following: (a) incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV, and Bank Act Clause 4 : Relevant portion of the definition: regulated foreign entity means an entity that is (a) incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV is applicable, and

2020, c. 1, s. 159

5Section 14.11 of the Act is replaced by the following: Schedule IV 14.11 For the purpose of implementing Canada’s international trade obligations, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule IV by adding, deleting or amending any item .

14.11For the purpose of implementing Canada’s international trade obligations, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule IV by adding or deleting the name of a trade agreement.

2020, c. 1, s. 160

6Subsection 239(3.1) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception (3.1) Subject to subsection 245(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. Clause 6 : Existing text of subsection 239(3.1): (3.1) Subject to subsection 245(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory other than Canada in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV is applicable or of a regulated foreign entity.

2020, c. 1, s. 163

7Subsection 251(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception (3) Subject to subsection 245(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. Clause 7 : Existing text of subsection 251(3): (3) Subject to subsection 245(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory other than Canada in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV is applicable or of a regulated foreign entity.

2020, c. 1, s. 164

8Paragraphs 597(2.1)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following: (a) incorporated in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV; or (b) a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. Clause 8 : Relevant portion of subsection 597(2.1): (2.1) Subject to subsection 245(1.1), subsection (2) does not apply to an authorized foreign bank that is: (a) incorporated in a country or territory other than Canada in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV is applicable; or (b) a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory other than Canada in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV is applicable or of a regulated foreign entity.

2020, c. 1, s. 166

9Subsection 816(1.1) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception (1.1) Subject to subsection 822(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. Clause 9 : Existing text of subsection 816(1.1): (1.1) Subject to subsection 822(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory other than Canada in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV is applicable or of a regulated foreign entity.

2020, c. 1, s. 169

10Subsection 828(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception (3) Subject to subsection 822(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. Clause 10 : Existing text of subsection 828(3): (3) Subject to subsection 822(1.1), subsection (1) does not apply to a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory other than Canada in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV is applicable or of a regulated foreign entity.

2020, c. 1, s. 170; SOR/2021-146, s. 1

11Schedule IV to the Act is replaced by the Schedule IV set out in Schedule 1 to this Act.

2020, c. 1, s. 171

12The definition regulated foreign entity in subsection 2(1) of the Insurance Companies Act is replaced by the following: regulated foreign entity has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Bank Act ; ( entité étrangère réglementée ) Insurance Companies Act Clause 12 : Existing text of the definition: regulated foreign entity means an entity that is (a) incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, in which a trade agreement listed in Schedule IV of the Bank Act is applicable; and (b) subject to financial services regulation in that country or territory; ( entité étrangère réglementée )

2018, c. 23, s. 40

13The definition CPTPP tariff in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Tariff is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (j), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (k) and by adding the following after paragraph (k): (l) the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff. ( tarif PTPGP ) Customs Tariff Clause 13 : New.

14Section 27 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: CPUKT refers to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff. ( TUKGP ) Clause 14 : New.

Application of CPUKT

15The Act is amended by adding the following after section 52.81: Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff 52.82 (1) Subject to section 24, goods that are entitled to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff are entitled to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff rates of customs duty. “A” final rate for CPUKT (2) If “A” is set out in the column entitled “Preferential Tariff” in the List of Tariff Provisions following the abbreviation “CPUKT” in relation to goods entitled to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff, the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff rate of customs duty that applies to those goods is the final rate of “Free”. “F” staging for CPUKT (3) If “F” is set out in the column entitled “Preferential Tariff” in the List of Tariff Provisions following the abbreviation “CPUKT” in relation to goods entitled to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff, the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff rate of customs duty that applies to those goods is the initial rate, reduced as provided in the “F” Staging List. Staging for CPUKT (4) Subject to subsection (5), if “X78”, “X79” or “X80” is set out in the column entitled “Preferential Tariff” in the List of Tariff Provisions following the abbreviation “CPUKT” in relation to goods entitled to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff, the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff rate of customs duty that applies to those goods is, (a) if “X78” is set out, the initial rate, reduced, (i) effective on the first day on which the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is in effect between Canada and the United Kingdom, to three elevenths of the initial rate, (ii) effective on January 1, 2026, to two elevenths of the initial rate, (iii) effective on January 1, 2027, to one eleventh of the initial rate, and (iv) effective on January 1, 2028, to the final rate of “Free”; (b) if “X79” is set out, the initial rate, (i) without reduction, effective on the first day on which the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is in effect between Canada and the United Kingdom, (ii) reduced, effective on January 1, 2026, to three quarters of the initial rate, (iii) reduced, effective on January 1, 2027, to one half of the initial rate, (iv) reduced, effective on January 1, 2028, to one quarter of the initial rate, and (v) reduced, effective on January 1, 2029, to the final rate of “Free”; and (c) if “X80” is set out, the initial rate, reduced, (i) effective on the first day on which the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is in effect between Canada and the United Kingdom, to one quarter of the initial rate, and (ii) effective on January 1, 2029, to the final rate of “Free”. No retroactive effect (5) The rates of customs duty set out in subsection (4) shall have no effect in respect of a period before the first day on which the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is in effect between Canada and the United Kingdom. Rounding of specific rates (6) If a reduction under subsection (3) or (4) results in a specific rate of customs duty that includes a fraction of one hundredth of a cent, the rate shall be rounded down to the nearest one hundredth of a cent. Rounding of ad valorem rates (7) If a reduction under subsection (3) or (4) results in a rate of customs duty that includes a fraction of one per cent, the resulting percentage shall be rounded down to the nearest one tenth of one per cent. Rounding of ad valorem rates — fraction other than 0.5 (8) If, for any goods other than motor vehicles of heading No. 87.01, 87.02, 87.03, 87.04 or 87.05, a reduction under subsection (3) or (4) or a rounding of rates under subsection (7) results in a rate of customs duty that includes a fraction of one per cent other than 0.5, the resulting percentage shall be rounded down to the nearest percentage that divides evenly by 0.5. Elimination of rates of less than 2 per cent (9) If, for any goods other than motor vehicles of heading No. 87.01, 87.02, 87.03, 87.04 or 87.05, a reduction under subsection (3) or (4) results in a rate of customs duty that is a percentage of less than two per cent, the rate shall be further reduced to “Free” immediately.

Extension of entitlement

52.83(1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend the schedule to extend entitlement to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff to any goods that originate in a CPTPP country. Retroactivity (2) An order made under subsection (1) may, if it so provides, be retroactive and have effect in respect of a period before it is made, but no such order may have effect in respect of a period before the first day on which the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is in effect between Canada and the United Kingdom. Content of order (3) An order made under subsection (1) (a) must specify the date on which the order becomes effective; (b) must, if the order partially extends entitlement to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff, indicate the goods to which entitlement to that Tariff is extended; and (c) may exempt goods from the conditions set out in subsection 24(1) and prescribe any conditions that apply.

2018, c. 23, s. 44

16(1) The portion of paragraph 76(4)(b) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following: (b) may — in respect of goods that are entitled to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Tariff — be in effect during the period beginning on December 30, 2018 and ending Clause 16 : (1) and (2) Relevant portion of subsection 76(4): (4) An order made under subsection (1) ... (b) may be in effect during the period beginning on the day on which this subsection comes into force and ending (2) Subsection 76(4) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b): (c) may — in respect of goods that are entitled to the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff — be in effect during the period beginning on the day on which this subsection comes into force and ending (i) on the third anniversary of the first day on which the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership is in effect for the United Kingdom, if the order is in respect of goods for which the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff is at its final rate of “Free” on that anniversary, and (ii) on the day on which the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff rate of customs duty is reduced to its final rate of “Free”, if the order is in respect of goods for which the Comprehensive and Progressive United Kingdom Tariff rate of customs duty is not at its final rate of “Free” on the anniversary referred to in subparagraph (i).

17The List of Countries and Applicable Tariff Treatments set out in the schedule to the Act is amended by adding, in the column “Tariff Treatment / Other”, a reference to “CPUKT” opposite the references to “Channel Islands”, “Isle of Man” and “United Kingdom”.

18The List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Act is amended by (a) adding in the column “Preferential Tariff / Initial Rate”, above the reference to “GPT”, a reference to “CPUKT:”; (b) adding in the column “Preferential Tariff / Final Rate”, above the reference to “GPT”, a reference to “CPUKT:”; (c) adding in the column “Preferential Tariff / Initial Rate” a reference to “Free” after the abbreviation “CPUKT”, and adding in the column “Preferential Tariff / Final Rate” a reference to “Free (A)” after the abbreviation “CPUKT”, for all tariff items except those tariff items set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to this Act; (d) adding in the columns “Preferential Tariff / Initial Rate” and “Preferential Tariff / Final Rate”, a reference to “N/A” after the abbreviation “CPUKT” for those tariff items set out in Schedule 2 to this Act; and (e) adding in the columns “Preferential Tariff / Initial Rate” and “Preferential Tariff / Final Rate” after the abbreviation “CPUKT”, for each tariff item set out in Schedule 3 to this Act, the rates of customs duty and staging categories set out with respect to that tariff item in that Schedule.

19The definition Agreement in section 2 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act is replaced by the following: Agreement means the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018, and any accession protocol that is listed in the schedule . ( Accord ) Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act Clause 19 : Existing text of the definition: Agreement means the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018. ( Accord )

For greater certainty

20Section 9 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 9(1) and is amended by adding the following: (2) For greater certainty, any accession protocol that is listed in the schedule is also approved. Clause 20 : New.

21Section 47 of the Act is repealed. Clause 21 : The existing text of section 47 is not reproduced here because it is a provision that has produced its effect. Its repeal is consequential to clause 22 and ensures that spent schedule references in the Act are deleted.

22Schedules 1 to 13 to the Act are replaced by the schedule set out in Schedule 4 to this Act.

Order in council

23This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Schedule 1Trade agreements with specific countries
What it does

This part identifies specific countries and territories where existing trade agreements with Canada apply.

Why it matters

This matters because it clarifies which international agreements can influence trade relations and economic opportunities for Canadian businesses and consumers. Understanding these agreements helps in anticipating trade dynamics that could affect prices, availability of goods, and investment opportunities.

The problem it addresses

The provision addresses the need to establish a clear list of countries linked to specific trade agreements for regulatory and legal clarity.

Who benefits

Canadian exporters and businesses benefit from enhanced market access and reduced tariffs in the identified countries.

The tradeoff

The increased trade may lead to greater competition for Canadian businesses, which could impact domestic producers not covered by these agreements and potentially affect local employment in some sectors.

Canadian businessesConsumersTrade organizationsExportersDomestic producers
Schedule 2Changes to agricultural product classifications
What it does

This part of the bill revises the classification of various agricultural products by updating the tariff items listed in Schedule 2.

Why it matters

These classifications affect trade and tariffs on agricultural products, which can impact pricing and availability for consumers. Changes may also influence farmers and the agricultural sector by altering competitive dynamics.

The problem it addresses

The revisions aim to modernize and clarify the classification system for agricultural products, addressing outdated categorizations.

Who benefits

Agricultural producers and businesses benefit from clearer classifications that may facilitate trade and reduce confusion in tariff applications.

The tradeoff

The tradeoff primarily affects consumers, who may face price changes as a result of new tariff classifications impacting agricultural product costs.

farmersagricultural businessesconsumersimportersexporters
Schedule 3Changes to tariff rates
What it does

This part of the bill modifies the tariff rates for a range of goods, effectively reducing some charges to 'Free' or adjusting the initial rates.

Why it matters

This matters because lower tariff rates can help reduce costs for consumers and businesses, potentially boosting trade and economic activity. However, it may also lead to reduced revenue for the government.

The problem it addresses

The bill addresses the need to update and lower tariffs to adapt to changing economic conditions and support various industries.

Who benefits

Businesses importing these goods benefit from reduced tariffs, which can lead to lower costs and increased competitiveness.

The tradeoff

The tradeoff involves reduced government revenue from tariffs, which could impact public services that rely on this funding, presenting a cost to society as a whole.

Importing businessesConsumersGovernment revenue agenciesTrade associations
Schedule 4Accession of UK to Trade Agreement
What it does

This part includes a protocol that allows the United Kingdom to join a specific international trade agreement known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Why it matters

This accession may enhance trade relations and economic opportunities between Canada and the UK, potentially leading to economic growth. It signifies Canada's commitment to engaging with global trade partners.

The problem it addresses

The provision addresses the need for formal processes to include new countries in existing trade agreements, expanding international cooperation.

Who benefits

Canada and UK businesses may gain from increased trade opportunities and access to each other's markets.

The tradeoff

The increased trade may come at the cost of domestic industries that face heightened competition from UK imports, potentially impacting local jobs and businesses that are unable to compete.

Canadian businessesUK businessestrade policymakerslocal job marketsconsumers
Official record· parl.ca
Official drafter summary (parl.ca)

This enactment implements 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, done at Auckland and Bandar Seri Begawan on July 16, 2023, by updating how that Agreement is defined or referred to in certain Acts and by amending other Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under that Agreement and Protocol. Available on the House of Commons website at the following address: www.ourcommons.ca 3 - 4 Charles III CHAPTER 7 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 [ Assented to 6th May, 2026 ] His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: R.‍S.‍, c. F-11 Financial Administration Act 2018, c. 23, s. 16 1 Schedule VII to the Financial Administration Act is amended by replacing “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018. ‍” with the following: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018, and any accession protocol that is listed in the schedule to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act . R.‍S.‍, c. 17 (2nd Supp.‍) Commercial Arbitration Act 2018, c. 23, s. 31 2 Schedule 2 to the Commercial Arbitration Act is amended by replacing “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018 ” in column 2 with the following: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, done at Santiago on March 8, 2018, and any accession protocol that is listed in the schedule to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act 1991, c. 45 Trust and Loan Companies Act 2020, c. 1, s. 153 3 The definition regulated foreign entity in section 2 of the Trust and Loan Companies Act is replaced by the following: regulated foreign entity has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Bank Act ; ( entité étrangère réglementée ) 1991, c. 46 Bank Act 2020, c. 1, s. 158 4 Paragraph (a) of the definition regulated foreign entity in section 2 of the Bank Act is replaced by the following: (a) incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV, and 2020, c. 1, s. 159 5 Section 14.‍11 of the Act is replaced by the following: Schedule IV 14.‍11 For the purpose of implementing Canada’s international trade obligations, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule IV by adding, deleting or amending any item. 2020, c. 1, s. 160 6 Subsection 239 ( 3.‍1 ) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception ( 3.‍1 ) Subject to subsection 245 ( 1.‍1 ), subsection ( 1 ) does not apply to a bank that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. 2020, c. 1, s. 163 7 Subsection 251 ( 3 ) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception ( 3 ) Subject to subsection 245 ( 1.‍1 ), subsection ( 1 ) does not apply to a bank that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. 2020, c. 1, s. 164 8 Paragraphs 597 ( 2.‍1 )‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following: (a) incorporated in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV; or (b) a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. 2020, c. 1, s. 166 9 Subsection 816 ( 1.‍1 ) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception ( 1.‍1 ) Subject to subsection 822 ( 1.‍1 ), subsection ( 1 ) does not apply to a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed otherwise in a country or territory, other than Canada, that is referred to in Schedule IV or of a regulated foreign entity. 2020, c. 1, s. 169 10 Subsection 828 ( 3 ) of the Act is replaced by the following: Exception ( 3 ) Subject to subsection 822 ( 1.‍1 ), subsection ( 1 ) does not apply to a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign bank incorporated or formed...

AI-assisted analysis
What MPs debatedCONTESTED337 speeches · 66 MPs · 90,683 words
Points of contention
  • Disagreement on the effectiveness of trade negotiations with the U.K.
  • Contention regarding the benefits for Canadian beef and pork producers
  • Concerns over the treatment of U.K. pensioners in Canada
  • Debate over transparency and the parliamentary process in trade agreements

Parties are divided on the government's handling of trade negotiations and their implications for farmers and pensioners.

Where MPs stood58 MPs · grouped by party · ranked by speaking volume
AI-assisted analysis
CPC31 spoke · 3 support · 19 oppose
Randy Hoback
Randy HobackSUPPORTS8 speeches · 4,445 words
Argued that Bill C-13 is a common sense measure that should pass routinely.I think everybody agrees that Bill C-13 should go through. It is common sense.
Cheryl Gallant
Cheryl GallantOPPOSES12 speeches · 3,486 words
Criticized the Liberal government for failing to secure fair trade deals, particularly regarding Canadian beef exports to the U.K.The bill is a testament to Liberal mismanagement. It is a cautionary tale for Canadians, a warning that the Liberals may not be the crack trade negotiating team they claim to be.
Adam Chambers
Adam ChambersOPPOSES7 speeches · 3,333 words
Criticized the government's failure to negotiate favorable terms for Canada in allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP.Why would we give a trade ally something by allowing them to join the CPTPP without resolving those issues now in the moment while we have this opportunity?
JM
Jacob MantleOPPOSES12 speeches · 2,996 words
Criticized the government for failing to secure a better trade deal with the U.K. than the previous CETA agreement.It was no surprise that the U.K. was going to need trade agreements with countries around the world... Why did it take five years to get an agreement that is worse than the one we had previously?
GM
Greg McLeanOPPOSES4 speeches · 2,280 words
Criticized the government's handling of trade agreements, suggesting it has failed to adequately support Canadian exports and investment.The regulatory system here is more burdensome and more expensive now than the actual cost of the capital projects to invest in Canada.
Brad Vis
Brad VisOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,843 words
Criticized the government for prioritizing international agreements over domestic economic challenges.Canada's economic challenges will not be solved through symbolism abroad or even by Bill C-13, but through practical action here at home.
Arnold Viersen
Arnold ViersenMIXED5 speeches · 1,824 words
Argued that the government is failing to address the barriers preventing Canadian beef and pork from entering the U.K.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.
Melissa Lantsman
Melissa LantsmanOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,823 words
Criticized the government for failing Canadian farmers and producers by not addressing unfair non-tariff barriers imposed by the U.K.I will say this: Conservatives support free trade because we are a trading nation... We also support, though, fair trade.
DM
David McKenzieOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,809 words
Argued that the bill does not provide benefits for Canadian farmers and businesses.We do not have at this point in time, as the Liberal government seeks to have the House support Bill C-13, is fairness for farmers.
John Barlow
John BarlowMIXED5 speeches · 1,799 words
Argued that while Conservatives support the UK's accession to the CPTPP, the Liberal government has failed to address trade barriers affecting Canadian agriculture.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.
Tamara Kronis
Tamara KronisMIXED5 speeches · 1,755 words
Argued that the UK's accession to the CPTPP is beneficial for trade and partnerships.If the U.K. wants to benefit from the CPTPP, then it should also act like a partner, by honouring fairness, reciprocity and human dignity.
Helena Konanz
Helena KonanzOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,621 words
Criticized the government's failure to secure fair trade terms for Canadian producers during negotiations.What the government did not have was the political will to fight for all Canadian interests.
DB
David BexteOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,594 words
Criticized the lack of progress on trade issues affecting Canadian farmers and the one-sided nature of current trade.This is not just about tariffs or paperwork; it is about the livelihoods of hard-working farmers and ranchers who feed this country and feed the world.
Jason Groleau
Jason GroleauOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,579 words
Criticized the lack of reciprocity in trade agreements, particularly with the U.K., arguing that Canada gives without receiving anything in return.If the U.K. wants to reap the benefits of Bill C‑13, then Canada must demand fair access based on science for products such as our beef and pork.
Ziad Aboultaif
Ziad AboultaifMIXED7 speeches · 1,524 words
Argued for increased trade opportunities with the U.K. through the CPTPP, highlighting benefits for Canadian businesses.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.
FT
Fraser TolmieOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,516 words
Criticized the government's delays in trade negotiations with the U.K., which undermine Canadian exporters.The Liberals' delays have cost jobs, hurt our reputation with a key ally and weakened our position in the fastest-growing region in the world.
Michael Chong
Michael ChongSUPPORTS4 speeches · 1,478 words
Argued that increasing trade with the U.K. is beneficial for Canada, as it is an important trading partner.It is inexplicable that the government did not use the leverage it had in this situation to advocate for and get a deal for the some 120,000 Canadians who are receiving an unindexed U.K. pension.
Jagsharan Singh Mahal
Jagsharan Singh MahalMIXED5 speeches · 1,273 words
Supported the bill while expressing concerns about the Liberal government's negotiation strategy.We are supporting the bill, as I said in my speech, with great displeasure.
Eric Melillo
Eric MelilloOPPOSES4 speeches · 583 words
Criticized the federal government's inaction on critical infrastructure projects, such as the road to the Ring of Fire.There is certainly a difference in the rhetoric coming from the Liberal government and the reality that Canadians are facing.
Ben Lobb
Ben LobbOPPOSES4 speeches · 410 words
Criticized the perception that the deal is new, highlighting its longstanding nature and past agreements.This may be a worse deal, but the member for Cumberland—Colchester talked about how it is the greatest thing.
Dan Mazier
Dan MazierMIXED4 speeches · 392 words
Criticized the lack of resolution regarding non-tariff barriers in the 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.
Ted Falk
Ted FalkOPPOSES4 speeches · 357 words
Criticized the trade deal for potentially lacking concessions for Canadian beef and pork industries.Well, talk is cheap, and deals are made before the ink is on the paper; that did not happen.
Tako Van Popta
Tako Van PoptaMIXED4 speeches · 341 words
Argued that the U.K. is unfairly treating Commonwealth pensioners by freezing their pensions in Canada.It seems deeply unfair, particularly since the U.K. does not do that for other countries like the United States.
Branden Leslie
Branden LeslieOPPOSES2 speeches · 261 words
Criticized the government's handling of trade policies, arguing that Canada has become an unreliable trading partner.Canada does indeed have what the world wants, but through a suite of Liberal policies over the last 10 years, we have become an unreliable trading partner and had our port infrastructure... fall apart.
Kelly McCauley
Kelly McCauleyOPPOSES2 speeches · 213 words
Criticized the government's approach to reducing red tape, arguing it has created more bureaucracy instead of alleviating it.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...
Dan Muys
Dan MuysOPPOSES2 speeches · 211 words
Criticized the government for not addressing the financial implications for British pensioners.It was surprising to hear that is a $470-million cost to Canada.
Todd Doherty
Todd DohertyOPPOSES1 speech · 131 words
Criticized the Liberal Party's approach to the RCMP and its leadership.It seems that the only opportunity that our hon. colleague across the way is looking for is to gaslight this side of the House and gaslight Conservatives.
SB
Steven BonkSUPPORTS1 speech · 111 words
Argued that trade is critical for the Canadian beef industry.Trade is very, very important to the Canadian beef industry.
Costas Menegakis
Costas MenegakisNEUTRAL1 speech · 109 words
Referred to previous Conservative government's record on free trade agreements.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...
Mel Arnold
Mel ArnoldOPPOSES1 speech · 100 words
Criticized the enforcement of existing trade agreements.We have trade agreements in place, but they are not being enforced.
Frank Caputo
Frank CaputoNEUTRAL1 speech · 94 words
Recognized an individual's contributions to the community.I wonder if he would like to elaborate on what he has heard directly, on the ground, in that regard.
LPC18 spoke · 17 support · 0 oppose
Kevin Lamoureux
Kevin LamoureuxSUPPORTS51 speeches · 9,658 words
Argued that the bill reflects Canada's commitment to expanding trade opportunities beyond the United States.I believe that this is a good, sound agreement in principle. I am anticipating that, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, they will likely still vote for it.
Kody Blois
Kody BloisSUPPORTS12 speeches · 4,118 words
Argued that the accession of the UK to the CPTPP is beneficial for Canada, enhancing trade relations.This bill is fairly straightforward, and I believe that it has cross-partisan support in the House of Commons.
Steeve Lavoie
Steeve LavoieSUPPORTS11 speeches · 3,667 words
Argued that the CPTPP expansion includes the U.K. to enhance Canada's trade diversification strategy.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.
Peter Fonseca
Peter FonsecaSUPPORTS9 speeches · 3,407 words
Argued that Bill C-13 is crucial for maintaining Canada's global trade leadership.Welcoming the United Kingdom into the CPTPP would be a powerful step forward for the partnership and for Canada's trade diversification strategy.
Linda Lapointe
Linda LapointeSUPPORTS9 speeches · 3,038 words
Argued that the UK's accession to the CPTPP is strategic for diversifying Canada's international trade partners.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.
Maninder Sidhu
Maninder SidhuSUPPORTS4 speeches · 2,018 words
Argued that Bill C-13 is essential for confirming Canada's ratification of the UK's accession to the CPTPP, highlighting Canada's commitment to global trade.I rise today in support of Bill C-13, legislation that confirms Canada's ratification of the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP.
AH
Alana HirtleSUPPORTS5 speeches · 1,593 words
Argued that the CPTPP will create significant economic opportunities for Canadian workers and industries.We are debating the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP.
KM
Kent MacDonaldSUPPORTS1 speech · 1,436 words
Argued the importance of international trade for the economy of Prince Edward Island.The CPTPP opens doors to fast-growing markets across the Asia-Pacific region in countries such as New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and now, with this legislation, the United Kingdom.
Tom Osborne
Tom OsborneSUPPORTS5 speeches · 1,419 words
Expressed strong support for the CPTPP's expansion to include the U.K., emphasizing its importance for Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood sector.I rise today to express my strong support for the accession of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, to include the United Kingdom.
Yasir Naqvi
Yasir NaqviSUPPORTS7 speeches · 841 words
Argued that the bill will facilitate the accession of the U.K. to the CPTPP, providing better opportunities for Canadian businesses.This bill is a very good step toward making sure the U.K. accedes to CPTPP, because it is going to create tremendous benefits for Canadian business.
Jean-Yves Duclos
Jean-Yves DuclosSUPPORTS3 speeches · 313 words
Argued that the free trade agreement is excellent for jobs across Canada, including Quebec.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.
Marilyn Gladu
Marilyn GladuMIXED4 speeches · 209 words
Argued that there are issues with harmonizing specifications that affect trade between Canada and the UK.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.
DO
Dominique O'RourkeSUPPORTS3 speeches · 198 words
Argued that boosting trade and investing in infrastructure are essential.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.
JM
James MaloneySUPPORTS1 speech · 190 words
Argued that the issue of British pensioners in Canada is important and non-partisan.I know that the British pensioners are coming to Ottawa next week, because I am part of a group of people who are hosting.
Will Greaves
Will GreavesSUPPORTS1 speech · 160 words
Argued that the government and Conservatives share common ground on major issues such as free trade.Will the Conservatives just acknowledge that they support the government's agenda to grow the economy strong?
LV
Louis VilleneuveSUPPORTS2 speeches · 129 words
Highlighted the importance of the CPTPP for industry and farmers.Today, we welcome the United Kingdom as our first new member. This is good news.
TW
Tim WatchornSUPPORTS1 speech · 119 words
Argued that the bill is part of a hands-on approach to economic diversification.The more we diversify our economy, the better it is for Canadians and Quebeckers.
GD
Guillaume Deschênes-ThériaultSUPPORTS1 speech · 85 words
Argued for the importance of strengthening and diversifying Canadian trade.Mr. Speaker, since day one, our new government has been laser-focused on defending and diversifying Canadian trade.
BQ7 spoke · 1 support · 5 oppose
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay
Simon-Pierre Savard-TremblayMIXED22 speeches · 9,183 words
Supported the principle of the bill to allow the U.K. to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.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.
MS
Mario SimardOPPOSES9 speeches · 1,045 words
Criticized the lack of democratic consultation in trade agreements and the Parliament's limited role.Canada probably has one of the least democratic legislative assemblies when it comes to trade agreements and international treaties.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe
Alexis Brunelle-DuceppeSUPPORTS8 speeches · 790 words
Argued that Bill C-13 is a step forward in implementing international trade agreements, but called for modernization of Canada's practices.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?
Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Xavier Barsalou-DuvalOPPOSES4 speeches · 456 words
Criticized the government's failure to comply with the 21-day waiting period for treaty ratification.We know that, most of the time, we end up debating texts that we do not even have yet.
PB
Patrick BoninOPPOSES2 speeches · 229 words
Argued against the investor-state dispute settlement, stating it gives excessive power to multinational corporations over government actions.I would like to explain why he agrees with giving more power to multinational corporations and limiting government action...
Andréanne Larouche
Andréanne LaroucheOPPOSES1 speech · 119 words
Highlighted concerns about the potential impact of international agreements on supply-managed sectors.Is it not essential for Parliament to be able to monitor the progress of these international agreements, while fully respecting the democratic process?
Alexis Deschênes
Alexis DeschênesOPPOSES1 speech · 97 words
Highlighted concerns about investor-state dispute settlement impacting national sovereignty.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?
Legislative stages
  1. First reading (House of Commons)
    Oct 21, 2025
  2. Second reading (House of Commons)
    Dec 11, 2025
  3. First reading (Senate)
    Mar 12, 2026
  4. Third reading (House of Commons)
    Mar 12, 2026
  5. Second reading (Senate)
    Mar 26, 2026
  6. Third reading (Senate)
    Apr 28, 2026
  7. Royal Assent
    May 6, 2026