House of Commons Hansard #133 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreements.

Topics

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member was going through her three criteria that New Democrats have for whether or not they support trade deals, one of the criteria was whether the partner would be a significant strategic partner for Canada. Judging from the way the hon. member describes what a strategic and significant partner would be, Canada would not engage with any low-income nations or smaller nations around the world.

Free trade helps countries. We engage in trade to boost our relationships with them and to boost other countries' standards of living. Why is the hon. member opposed to a significant Canadian foreign policy tool that can help countries in places like Africa or Latin America, countries that are not large, wealthy, or strategic in the sense that New Democrats are using those terms?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his very thoughtful question, and I want to say this to you: I will read the second criterion, and then you will see you do not need to have that concern.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order. Will the hon. member direct her comments to the Chair, please?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, how could I have forgotten that I have to share my intimate thoughts with you?

The second criterion I read out is this: is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? That does not just mean economic. That covers other parameters.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in what New Democrats would have to say in regard to the amendments they said they brought forward in committee. I am sure the member realizes that had these amendments passed, there would have to have been more negotiations with Korea to make sure they were in compliance with the amendments that were being passed by the New Democrats.

Would the NDP then make changes to the free trade agreement? Are we to assume that if the NDP were in a position of power, it would renegotiate? That is an awfully big “if” that scares a lot of people.

If it were to occur, would it then be the policy of the New Democratic Party to give South Korea the six months' notice so that New Democrats could make the changes they wanted to make at committee stage?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was missing for a couple of days, and the House had a totally different feel. I want to let him know that we were wondering whether we should sit when he was not in the House.

In all seriousness, legislation goes through its rinse cycle, and when the bill was at the committee stage, our committee members did the hard work and brought forward amendments to improve the legislation and to strengthen it. When those amendments were not accepted, we analyzed the free trade agreement that is before us and on balance decided to support it.

It would be foolish for anyone to say we would open it up immediately, because we have to see how this new relationship would work out. On the other hand, it would be even more foolish to say that we will never look at it, because is that not what we are supposed to do? Once we enter a new relationship, are we not supposed to do an ongoing evaluation and assessment and make amendments as necessary?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeMinister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, I have to say the one great thing about this agreement is that the increase in exports would be upward of 32%. That is about a $1.7 billion investment in Canada annually.

The other important part is the removal of duties. Essentially 98% of them would be removed on the different services that will be moving back and forth. That means a lot of investment and opportunities for Canadian businesses.

I recognize the NDP is supporting this new FTA, but my question to the NDP member is this: why was there such rigorous debate by the NDP for the removal of investors' protections and essentially such support for an anti-trade activist movement?

We want Canadians to be investing overseas and we want Koreans to be investing in Canada so we can grow our Canadian economy and create jobs, so at committee why did we see this attitude of removing investor protection?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am very proud of the NDP members, who did their due diligence. They have some concerns, as do I, around investor state dispute settlement and the lack of transparency in so many of our agreements. We never know exactly what is happening behind closed doors, but in this case the six-month window does give us some comfort.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

José Nunez-Melo NDP Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

Like my colleagues, I am very pleased to say that our caucus is prepared to support this bill at third reading. At the same time, I would like to clarify certain points related to the amendments we suggested and proposed in committee meetings. Unfortunately, they were rejected by our Liberal and Conservative colleagues.

I particularly want to emphasize the criteria that the NDP caucus has always insisted on regarding the negotiation of free trade agreements. They can be summed up in three little points—small but also very important points—that have far-reaching significance. We know that a partner proposing a free trade treaty must respect democracy, human rights and proper environmental and labour standards. Naturally, these are Canadian values, and both countries must agree on these ideas.

The second point is that we should ask ourselves this question: is the potential partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? That is obvious. We know that South Korea is a developing country, but one that is quite advanced. It is one of Canada's primary trading partners in Asia. Canada's clear need to diversify its international trade is a step in the right direction.

When I was studying economics and international marketing, I became aware that our country, Canada, was really very dependent on the economy of our neighbour to the south, the United States, to such an extent that some 80% to 85% of our exports were going south of the border.

Still, that need has always been great, since Canada has always emphasized the development of new markets for its technology and natural resources. That is why our international trade strategies came to focus on free trade agreements of all sorts. It all started with NAFTA in the 1980s. Later, there were more treaties with a number of developing countries. We supported some of these agreements and disagreed with others.

The third criterion concerns the terms of the agreement. This is an important point. One of the main problems we raised in committee relates to the resolution of trade disputes. We submitted amendments, corrections and modifications concerning certain aspects of this free trade treaty. From the perspective of the ethics of a democratic country, there is no problem. However, resolution of trade disputes should absolutely not be part of this agreement. This should not be dealt with by the government. We firmly believe that any trade dispute must be resolved through the appropriate legal processes.

The free trade agreement with Korea offers Canada a significant opportunity to diversify its economy. This is another step in the right direction, because we rely a great deal here on natural resources, and if I recall correctly, this was the main sticking point regarding one of the specific items in other free trade treaties. In those treaties, much criticism was levelled at the approach taken by Canada, which wanted only to export raw materials, without even putting them through some sort of processing that would have given them uniquely Canadian added value, highlighting our expertise and our technologies.

This free trade treaty with Korea is a step in the right direction, because that country enjoys support from a broad coalition of economic stakeholders in Canada. This partner shows that it has a firmly established democracy where human rights are respected. It also has adequate environmental and labour standards. The unions are firmly established and all have an affinity with Canadian values.

In all secondary or manufacturing sectors—to put it precisely, as we should—such as heavy industry, wood products, agriculture, food processing, seafood and high tech, we can genuinely share the expertise of each country and find a win-win formula somewhere, as should be the case for any trade with other countries.

We should note certain other important facts relating to these treaties. Korea is a member of the G20. It ranks fifteenth among those 20 countries, which puts it relatively high on the ladder. Korea is Canada’s seventh-largest trading partner. Obviously, this is something that must not be forgotten. In fact, Canadian imports have already lost about 30% of the ground. We have been backsliding and we need to catch up.

I would remind members that this free trade treaty has been in negotiation since 2005, or for nearly a decade; it has been at least nine years. We do not understand why the government did not move forward with this sooner. I suppose that, as usual, it was because of the Conservatives' laissez-faire attitude and mismanagement of our country's economy. It is all very well to announce that there will be job creation, but at the end of the day, we see that it never amounts to anything concrete.

Korea is a democracy and the fourth-largest economy in the entire Asian region.

To conclude briefly, we have certain affinities with some countries and South Korean opposition parties. They, like us, in our caucus, think that the investor state dispute settlement mechanism, as proposed in this agreement, must be eliminated.

I hope that at third reading stage, someone will think it would be worth reconsidering this situation, to make it acceptable to everyone.

We New Democrats know that international trade is essential to Canada's prosperity, and we have sought for a long time to diversify our trade with our trading partners in all regions of the world, including Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

October 28th, 2014 / 4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity, given the importance of the trade agreement, to highlight the fact that there are certain industries that will be able to benefit in terms of the potential expansion of their exportation. I have talked a lot about Manitoba's pork industry. Allow me to focus on my province but also on the aerospace industry.

We have amazing technology and products here in Canada, particularly in my home city, where there are opportunities to expand in terms of the export of product and knowledge. Something that is really important when we talk about free trade agreements is that it is more than just a widget we are talking about. We need to recognize that Canada has a great deal of knowledge that can be exported to other countries. The aerospace industry is one of those areas where I think there is great potential, not only for product but also for knowledge.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on the issue of trade with Korea and others in terms of the benefits of going beyond just widgets.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

José Nunez-Melo NDP Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his very interesting question.

Yes, Canada is very technologically advanced, especially in the aerospace industry. I can attest to that, because the aerospace industry is very present in Laval. From what I hear, some companies have done business with South Korean partners in the past. Our main partners are usually in Brazil, but there have been some productive meetings with businesses from South Korea.

As my colleague just said when he was talking about his province, this trade can benefit Canada by helping us get into Asian markets, especially when it comes to the aerospace industry and aircraft construction. If our aerospace corporations and conglomerates set up shop there, the market will be closer and those companies will be able to do very well in that sector.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

It is really interesting that we are talking about this free trade agreement with South Korea here today, because less than a month ago, I met the Korean Consul General, Donghwan Choi, at a Korean War medal presentation ceremony. I would like to ask my colleague a question.

The NDP has three criteria for determining the merits of an agreement. Specifically, the potential partner must respect democracy and human rights, it must have adequate environmental and labour standards, and it must respect Canadian values.

I expect the response to be positive, since the NDP and I will support this bill. I wonder if my colleague could talk about South Korea's record when it comes to those criteria.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

José Nunez-Melo NDP Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question.

Those are the criteria that our caucus strongly believes will help us protect Canada's best interests when negotiating a free trade agreement. My colleague mentioned his meeting with the hon. South Korean consul.

Furthermore, The Biotech City is in my riding. Most companies and laboratories in The Biotech City have rather close ties to Korean pharmaceutical companies. However, what is most important is the interaction between unions and the quality of life of Korean workers. That is a good thing and we should do the same here.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. This is a great opportunity because it allows me to acknowledge the work done by our critic for international trade and free trade agreements, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Over the past two days, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from our opponents in the House about the NDP's position. In fact, our position is very clear and comprehensive. There is no contradiction between our support for the bill before us and the free trade agreement to which it pertains and our opposition to other agreements.

Allow me to explain. There are a number of criteria to consider. In the recent past, some of the agreements negotiated by this government simply did not meet our expectations or the public's with regard to what we want from a free trade agreement.

Yes, free trade is important. Yes, there are benefits for our communities. That is why we support this agreement. However, a government should not have carte blanche when it comes to these negotiations. There are a number of criteria that must be taken into account.

I remember taking part in the debates on the free trade agreement with Panama. At the time, we were debating an information sharing agreement on tax evasion. I remember the government saying at the time that we should not interfere in the affairs of other governments. However, we saw our American neighbours signing similar agreements with Panama so that they could go ahead with their free trade agreement. Canada did not do that. I am using that example here today because it illustrates why we feel comfortable supporting the agreement before us and not others. There were some shortcomings in the past, but they are not that serious in this case. Overall, this agreement is positive for Canada.

We will now look at the three pillars, so to speak, that make up the NDP's strong position when it comes to international trade. We ask ourselves whether the potential partner respects workers' rights and environmental protections and whether it has a robust democracy. These are important questions.

It is interesting because I heard a Conservative colleague talking just now about the fact that free trade agreements are good for countries that have a democratic deficit and shortcomings with respect to environmental protection, because they are compelled to take positive action. That is true, but only if the Canadian government requires the country to do so in the course of negotiations. That has not always been the case.

It is all very well to negotiate with countries where there may be shortcomings with respect to workers’ rights, but if Canada fails to stand up and say that it will engage in trade transactions with them only if they correct those shortcomings in their human rights practices, nothing else in such transactions will compel them to do so.

The fact that they are benefiting from transactions with the Canadian market, without trying to take corrective action, shows us that this will merely push them to continue those practices. It indicates that free trade will be important only if Canada plays its part in a positive way on the international scene.

That said, the same applies to environmental protection issues. In committee, the six amendments we proposed were all rejected. I will digress here because yesterday, our critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, was accused of trying to delay the bill or prevent its passage in committee. In committee, the fact is that we merely proposed amendments. One of them involved ensuring that environmental protection would not be reduced in the future, now that this agreement is in place to facilitate certain investments.

Yes, we are going to support the agreement before us. That does not mean that a few years from now, we will not see shortcomings appearing that were not there when it was negotiated. That is the kind of thoroughness—and that is the right word—that the NDP expects of a government; it is the kind of thoroughness a New Democratic government would apply if it was in power, which would make it possible to engage in free trade with other countries for the good of our economy, and do so in a responsible way.

The next pillar involves asking ourselves the following question: does this partner’s economy hold significant or strategic value for Canada? Obviously, the importance is there. In my view, the most striking example in the agreement before us today is the aerospace industry. It is very important in my constituency and on the south shore across from Montreal. Many investments and jobs are at stake.

Other countries have signed agreements with Korea, including the United States and the European Union. That has created a disadvantage we are going to correct. This is where we can see the economic significance and also the strategic aspect. That is an important element. I heard one of our Conservative colleagues ask a question of a member. He asked her whether, if the economy was not important for Canada, we would ignore developing countries for whom Canada could do a lot of good. That is where the strategic element comes in.

Some considerations involve the work we do internationally to play a positive role in developing countries, where there is great poverty. We must make a positive contribution. That is part of what we mean by strategic importance. However, it does include many other aspects, and one of them is our competitive position. The Asia-Pacific region is physically close to provinces like British Columbia. Several things are involved. It may seem a bit of a grab bag, but the government must be very thorough and look at the big picture. The government has responsibilities during negotiations and must take certain things into consideration.

Finally, the third pillar consists in ensuring that the terms of the agreement are satisfactory. Since we are supporting this agreement, they should be satisfactory, but it is a little more complicated than that. As an example, take the agreement with Europe, which is still somewhat uncertain. In our region, we have a lot of cheese producers. We moved a motion, which was adopted unanimously, that they should receive financial compensation. It was promised by the government, but nothing has been heard of it since. The kind of announcement the government makes can help us better understand the terms of an agreement.

It may seem strange, but I do agree with my Conservative colleague. It is certain that losses in some sectors will bring gains in others. We must be prepared to weigh and balance these gains and losses. That is where we look into the terms.

More specifically, there is a mechanism for resolving disputes between investors and the state. A New Democratic government would not have included that in an agreement. However, it is in this agreement. It would not have been our first choice, but it is not enough to cause us to vote against the agreement. That is why we want to look at the terms, not only individually, but also as a whole.

I hope that my remarks have demonstrated that our position is solid, contrary to the accusations we hear that we are flip-flopping in our support for different free trade agreements. We base our support on a thorough assessment. We did our homework, as a number of my colleagues have said. We will not give the government carte blanche but we will keep an open mind for the sake of our economy and our communities.

I shall stop there. I eagerly await questions from the House.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, one of things I have noticed as more and more New Democrats stand up is that they have shiny new speaking notes that include three items, which is great. It makes sure that everyone is consistent and singing from the same book in terms of the three principles that they believe are important if the New Democrats are to support a free trade agreement.

I applaud the fact that they have changed their views on it. Now today inside the House of Commons there is only one party, the Green Party, that opposes free trade agreements, at least on the surface.

If the member were to take the principles he has referred to and apply them to previous trade agreements that have been signed over the last decade, does he feel that New Democrats might have voted incorrectly in the past? That would be okay. I am wondering if the member might want to provide some comment on that.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to quickly correct all the errors in the comments made by my colleague.

First, the shiny speaking notes he refers to are absolutely not notes shoved down our throats by our leader’s office. Rather, this is a policy that we developed as a team, one that is somewhat more exacting than the blank cheque the Liberals always seem to want to give the government when it comes to free trade, without reading the agreements.

Second, he talks about agreements in the last 10 years and asks whether we would like to change certain votes. I will talk about my votes as a member of Parliament. Each time I have voted in the House on motions relating to free trade, obviously I have done so with the points I raised in my speech in mind. I am therefore very comfortable with what is in the records of the House.

Third, he said that only one party opposed free trade. I do not want to get into a debate about who is against and who is for free trade. Everyone is for measures that will be good for the economy. In the NDP, we want to apply a little scrutiny to assess the various agreements, as we would assess any budget measure proposed by a government. That is what is central to this debate.

Rather than trying to see everything in black and white, let us see the grey a little, do our job and do what is good for the economy.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who explained the NDP position on free trade agreements very well.

I would like to ask a brief question. Something in this bill suggests to us that it may prompt some to fear for jobs in the manufacturing and auto industries in Canada.

Does my colleague wish to comment on that? Do we have in front of us a free trade agreement of the kind we would like to see? In addition, is he worried about jobs in the auto industry in Canada?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, it does indeed prompt some concerns about the auto industry, and I thank my colleague for her question.

It is these concerns that we tried to resolve with the amendments we proposed in committee, which were unfortunately rejected. However, in spite of those concerns, we support the agreement, but there is still work to be done apart from this specific agreement.

In question period today, we heard questions from my colleague from Parkdale—High Park and my colleague from Windsor West about a strategy to genuinely support the auto industry. These issues are bigger than simply an agreement. This does concern us.

We will nonetheless support the agreement, but as I said in my speech, we will continue to ask that the government do more to support the industries affected, as is being done with the Canada-European Union agreement with respect to our dairy producers. This goes beyond a mere agreement. It concerns us, but we will continue to do the work that is needed so that these shortcomings do not have a negative impact in various communities.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

Before I begin, in light of last week's events, I want to thank all of the Parliament Hill staff, including the constables, the RCMP officers, the pages, the kitchen staff and all those who are always here on the Hill to support us in our work as parliamentarians. I thank them very much.

I also want to thank them for coming back the next day to support us when we decided to come back to the House, and for protecting Parliament and our lives last Wednesday. It is greatly appreciated.

My remarks on Bill C-41 will be brief because I think there have been very fine speeches and very good questions in the House today. Most of the positive and negative aspects of this bill have been raised by my colleagues.

I am extremely proud to be a New Democrat because our position on how to deal with a free trade agreement implementation bill has always been very clear, just like the way we vote. As my colleague from Chambly—Borduas said, we establish our position on a free trade agreement on certain pillars.

In this case, even though the terms of the agreement and the standards with regard to democracy, human rights, the environment and labour rights seem relatively satisfactory, we have some reservations.

I am very proud to say that we support this bill and that we use these pillars to determine our position every time. However, as my colleagues and I have already said today and at other times during the debate on this bill, we have some reservations.

South Korea is very present in the automotive industry market and competes with us. It is a healthy competition and that is good. However, given how the government treats jobs in the manufacturing sector in Canada, I am concerned about the manufacturing jobs in the automotive industry.

My colleague from Parkdale—High Park said it very well today in question period: under this Conservative government we have lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in recent years. My concern with respect to this bill is understandable, and I believe it is justified.

Other free trade agreements are in the works, and I am saddened to realize that we are unable to obtain the same terms that we negotiated for the Canada-European Union free trade agreement. Unfortunately, we were not provided with the full text of that agreement. The Conservative government shut us down, which is very sad.

We are the only party that proposed amendments to this bill. Unfortunately, they were all rejected in committee. We take our work very seriously when it comes to debating free trade agreements. Even though the amendments were rejected, overall the agreement seems quite satisfactory.

I would like to reiterate that I am very proud to be a member of the NDP, especially when we discuss free trade agreements. We are not like the third party in the House. We have a very solid position on free trade agreements.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their good comments, especially my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway, who does an incredible job when we have to analyze the free trade agreements that the Conservative government presents to us.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member very happily emphasized that the NDP was the only party that provided amendments at the committee stage. The only question I have for her is this. Does she realize that if those amendments had passed, we would not be on the path to a free trade agreement with Korea? Would she acknowledge that would in fact be the case?

Had the NDP amendments passed, what do New Democrats believe would have followed from that point? Would there have been new negotiations with Korea, or did they just believe that their amendments would not pass and that is the reason they brought them forward?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for his question, which he has raised a number of times in the House today.

I am proud to be a member of the NDP, which has a solid position, as opposed to the Liberals, who have practically no position on free trade agreements, blindly accept just about anything and give the Conservatives a blank cheque.

That is not our approach on this side of the House. We have principles. In 2015, when we replace the Conservatives, we will ensure that our free trade partners respect the environment, labour law and democracy.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have been asked a number of questions by the Liberal Party during this debate. I find its position a little hard to understand, because its trade critic has already said it would sign absolutely any trade deal. Liberals are now asking questions about what they might have supported, given that they gave blind support. I also noticed that they have been willing to sign trade deals with countries with very bad human rights records, like Honduras, where civil liberties have been undermined and people have been killed.

I would like the member to reiterate the basis on which the New Democrats looked at this particular agreement and made a decision to support it, in contrast to the open-ended, frankly incomprehensible trade position of the Liberal Party.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for her excellent question. She is quite right.

Whenever a free trade agreement is proposed, the Liberals shut their eyes and accept it blindly, without even considering very important criteria. It is really disappointing that the third party has no position on free trade agreements.

We in the NDP have a very clear position. We have extremely strict evaluation criteria for free trade agreements. To obtain our support, free trade agreements must meet these criteria, which we decided to impose on ourselves.

After all, one must have a clear conscience. When we sign a free trade agreement, the country in question must respect human rights and have adequate environmental and labour standards for workers in the industries in question.

Is the agreement in line with our Canadian values? That is a very important question. The signing of free trade agreements is a reflection of our government and of Parliament. It is what we decide to show the international community. Who are we?

I am therefore very proud that we have such a clear, definite position, unlike the Liberals, and that we are sticking to our evaluation criteria.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.