House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was korea.

Topics

Forestry IndustryOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Kenora Ontario

Conservative

Greg Rickford ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for two decades of leadership in forest policy for our caucus and in this place.

We will focus on supporting innovation and pursuing new export opportunities for Canadian wood products. That is why last week I signed a memorandum of understanding in Korea to enhance our forestry co-operation on technology and innovation and in keeping with our free trade agreement with Korea, creating more opportunity for export of our forest products.

We will continue to showcase, celebrate and give Canada's forest sector the support it rightly deserves.

Marine TransportationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government's inaction with regard to the Kathryn Spirit is completely unacceptable. This ship has been rusting in Beauharnois for over three years, while the Conservatives twiddle their thumbs. What makes the situation even more complex is that Transport Canada refuses to tell us whether this leaky old boat still contains chemicals that could pollute the banks of Lac Saint-Louis and contaminate the drinking water reservoir of the entire greater Montreal area.

Will the Minister of Transport wake up and do something so that this ship does not spend a fourth winter rusting in Beauharnois?

Marine TransportationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is a top priority for this government.

The member should know that vessel owners must comply with stringent safety and environmental obligations before proceeding with towing operations. The Kathryn Spirit is under a departure prohibition from Transport Canada and will remain in place until a final inspection confirms that the regulations in fact are complied with.

Rail TransportationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Independent

Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, in May 2013, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities published a document that recommended a minimum distance between main railway lines and new construction. However, regulations are still not standardized across the country.

When will the government establish a minimum distance between the construction of any new building and railway lines in Canada?

Rail TransportationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities offers this type of guidance to municipalities when it comes to the issue of setbacks. That is valuable information municipalities should consider.

Democratic ReformOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government House Leader complained about question period being too full of questions to the government.

The government House Leader seems to misunderstand the basics of our parliamentary system. The Conservatives' job is to govern and then be accountable for their decisions to the House.

There are already rules in place allowing the Speaker to intervene in a question if it is irrelevant. We want that same rule applied to answers.

Will the Conservatives drop the excuses and allow a free vote on our motion?

Democratic ReformOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at any other jurisdiction in the world, there is no question period as accountable as Canada's.

If we look at Britain, for example, which is held up by many as a paragon of virtue, on any given day, one can ask a question of only a handful of ministers and those questions must be done with advance notice. Here we answer questions any day, on any subject, fully accountable, and we do not need a one-sided motion from the opposition to tilt the balance heavily and force the government into a straitjacket that simply does not apply to the opposition.

Let us have a fair and balanced debate that is fair to all sides.

Democratic ReformOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that Canadians want answers in question period. What do the Conservatives not understand about that?

Far from being a straitjacket, it is the public business that is being conducted here and the Conservatives have a responsibility to answer. All we need to do is give the Speaker the power to enforce relevance rules. We know we have the support of some Conservative members, and hopefully that is growing.

I will repeat the question because we did not get an answer. Will the government allow a free vote on our motion to have relevant answers in question period?

Democratic ReformOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if the subject of the question, which was sometimes hard to discern, is free votes, I would suggest that perhaps the NDP members could show some leadership for once and start holding free votes in the amount they see them happen on the government side.

It is clear that when it comes to free votes, no party has as many free votes in the House of Commons as this party does.

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

September 30th, 2014 / 3 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development boasted that the new Social Security Tribunal has reduced EI appeals by 90%. However, he has not told unemployed Canadians that their actual chance of winning an appeal has been greatly reduced.

Before in the tribunal, Canadians appealing had the decision overturned over 50% of the time. The success rate has now dropped to 38% under the new system.

Could the minister explain to affected Canadians why such a drastic drop in the success of appeals?

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

3 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism

Mr. Speaker, when the Social Security Tribunal was created, my department, to its great credit, started a new internal process of reconsideration of refused EI applications allowing for those reconsiderations to happen in a matter of weeks rather than the months it took for the previous Board of Referees to render a judgment.

I have been informed by my senior officials that about 50% of the reconsiderations end up overturning the initial refusal after more information is obtained. Therefore, I do not think the member's information is correct.

Committees of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee. My understanding is that today at committee the NDP denied consent for the report concerning the committee. Can the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee explain his understanding as to why consent was denied?

Committees of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am afraid that question would be out of order. Questions for committee chairs are very limited to certain parameters and I do not know that this question falls within them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to talk about Bill C-41, a bill that is important to all Canadians. People everywhere, including in the riding of Laurentides—Labelle, have concerns every time there is a new free trade agreement. They automatically worry about it because they have seen the government sign agreements with dictatorships and drug lords, and they have seen all kinds of agreements that do not work. Of course they are wondering why, this time around, we are supporting a trade agreement. However, it should not be that surprising because we always use objective criteria to assess the treaties Canada will be signing.

I know that members across the way see our support of a free trade agreement as a historic event. That is not the historic event, though; what is historic is the fact that they have come up with something that we can support, something that makes at least some sense.

To take a hard look at the situation, we use an analytical grid and ask whether the country with which we are signing an agreement respects democracy. Is it a modern country with appropriate labour standards? Are its environmental standards acceptable? Then, we look at the country's strategic importance. In Korea's case, obviously, the economy is very advanced, much more than our own, because Korea has an industrial strategy and an international trade strategy, unlike us. It does not make things up as it goes along.

Then, we look at the terms of the agreement. We have reservations, of course. We would not have done things the same way, but the terms are reasonable overall and provide sufficient assurance that we know there will be no big surprises.

One of the reasons we support this agreement is because it has been in the works for so long already. It is clear that Korea's agreements with the United States and the European Union hurt markets for our pork and beef producers and our aerospace industry. These sectors suffered considerable losses, and signing the agreement may allow them to catch up somewhat and give them some compensation.

The Conservatives seem to look at international trade with rose-coloured glasses. There is a reason Korea is in the situation it is in today, with modern infrastructure and a very competitive industry. They adopted a consistent industrial strategy decades ago, while we winged it every step of the way. Korea had an economy based on subcontracting. It manufactured low-end automobile models for the American and Japanese industries. The Koreans decided to develop these niches.

They made investments in research and development, and produced high-quality products, which makes them probably one of most competitive in the world. If we had done the same, our manufacturing sector might not be floundering.

A number of my colleagues alluded to the threat this agreement could pose to the manufacturing sector, in particular the automotive sector. However, this is only a threat because of the government's inconsistency, lack of industrial strategy, lack of investment in research and development, and improvisation, with respect to the free entry of Korean vehicles into our market through the United States and Mexico.

I have to wonder why it has taken so long to sign this agreement. What caused this disaster for our exporters and caused them to lose a considerable share of the market? Do we simply have the government's diplomatic skills to thank for that?

The government shut down consular services in our embassies in Tokyo and Osaka, Japan, without even warning the Japanese government. That is not how you deal with parties who are serious and who care a great deal about details. These people run their country responsibly. If we surprise them and mess up, negotiations will drag on forever, and our manufacturing companies and farmers will be left to pick up the pieces.

The NDP is not supporting the agreement because of magic formulas, mantras or messages from the Prime Minister's Office. We take the time to analyze things. Rhetoric and magic formulas do not work. We need to carefully negotiate each detail and know what we are getting into. Once this process is complete, we can support an agreement without worrying about surprises. We need to show respect for serious players and be serious ourselves.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I always enjoy listening to him.

The NDP wants to strengthen trade ties between Canada and the Asia-Pacific region. We recognize that this is vital to Canada's prosperity in the 21st century.

Could the member elaborate on our position?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: Korea is becoming one of the most modern economies in the world and is a niche market for renewable energy. It is in our interest to learn from Korea. I am sure that Koreans are not creationists and global warming deniers, for instance.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

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

Why is it important to have a coherent position based on facts and principles, unlike other parties that support any free trade agreement, without even looking at its terms? They are ready to fully support any proposed free trade agreement. That is why it is important to have a coherent position and see all the details of an agreement before we support it. Some agreements are bad for Canada and some, such as this one, are good. Sometimes we support free trade agreements, and sometimes we do not; we always have good reasons.

Why is it important to take such positions instead of just agreeing with any random proposal without even seeing the details?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to take a serious and coherent approach and examine the facts.

I am a bit more familiar with Japanese culture. Although the two countries have not always been the best of friends, many parallels can be drawn. They have conducted trade for hundreds of years. They are obsessed with detail and ensuring that nothing is left to chance. Human contact is paramount for these countries. It often comes before other considerations.

We cannot go there unprepared and recite political slogans or read talking points from the House. They will not take us seriously.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy hearing about the economy and free trade.

The NDP would not necessarily have signed off on or negotiated an agreement like this one. It includes an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which is something that the NDP would not have included in this type of trade agreement. Could the member elaborate on that?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, all sorts of protection measures are necessary when we are dealing with dictatorships, narco-states or countries with questionable practices and flawed legal systems.

It is completely unnecessary with Korea. Its justice system is every bit as good as ours. There is no reason to think that this is a corrupt country with a justice system that is biased or manipulated by the government.

Clearly, we would not have taken the same approach to negotiating this agreement, out of respect for our economic partners.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeMinister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying among economists that “a rising tide lifts all boats”. Canada is certainly on the rising tide, and we believe that everyone in our country will see their fortunes rise.

Hundreds of major resource projects are scheduled to begin over the next decade.

New jobs are being created all the time. Middle-class after-tax incomes are outpacing those in the U.S. We have one of the strongest fiscal positions in the industrialized world.

We will balance the budget by 2015. No wonder Bloomberg and the World Bank consider Canada to be one of the best places in the world to do business. Our economic future is bright.

However, Canada's long-term prosperity also depends on increasing our trade. When we increase trade, prices for goods and services fall, making goods all that more affordable for families. These are goods like those sold by Baxter in Alliston, in my riding, or by Munro in Essa Township. Canadian families have a greater choice of goods and services, businesses can hire more workers, and wages go up. In other words, our standard of living improves in every way. There is no better job creator or economic growth generator than free trade.

This is why our government made a commitment to the most ambitious trade plan in Canadian history. We are vigorously pursuing our free trade agenda and giving Canadian investors and exporters the tools they need to compete—and win—in the global marketplace.

Since 2006, we have increased the number of countries that Canada has free trade with from 5 to 43.

These nations together make up more than half of the global economy and represent nearly one-quarter of the world's countries. Last fall, the Prime Minister announced a historic agreement in principle with the 28-nation European Union that will give Canadian businesses access to half a billion affluent new customers.

Now we are discussing the free trade agreement with the Republic of South Korea, which has a large and growing market and a GDP of $1.3 trillion. This agreement is historic because it is our first bilateral agreement in Asia, a key market in Canada's expanding international trade role. The agreement will generate increased exports and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating a stable trade and investment relationship. This will bring significant benefits across many sectors in the Canadian economy. We estimate that it will increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32% and boost Canada's economy by $1.7 billion. It will also give a better foothold into the vast Asian market.

At the same time, the labour provisions in the free trade agreement will ensure that these economic advantages are not made at the expense of workers' rights. Our government's first priority is economic growth. When Canada enters into trade agreements, we believe it is important that fundamental labour rights are respected. This is why international labour co-operation agreements and labour chapters are key components of our trade agreements. The Canada–Korea trade agreement has a labour chapter that includes several labour provisions. More precisely, under the terms of this FTA, Canada and Korea have committed to ensuring that our labour laws embody and provide protection for internationally recognized labour principles and rights.

These include, in the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the right to the freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the effective abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Both countries have also committed to ensuring acceptable protections with regard to occupational health and safety, employment standards, and non-discrimination with respect to working conditions for migrant workers.

Clearly, Canada sees the pursuit of liberalized trade and the promotion and protection of labour rights as mutually reinforcing and equally important. They go hand in hand.

We believe it is important to defend Canada's competitive position by ensuring that our trading partners do not gain an unfair advantage by not respecting fundamental labour rights or by not enforcing their labour laws. The inclusion of strong labour provisions in our free trade agreement creates a level playing field for Canadian businesses and workers when they compete internationally. This is good for businesses all across the country, including Georgian Hills Vineyard in my riding and others.

As Minister of Status of Women, one thing I am also proud to note is that Korea is just as committed to advancing women in the economy as we are here in Canada. We know that when women succeed, our economy benefits. This agreement will undoubtedly translate into more jobs for women in both our countries.

It is clear that Korea is just as committed as we are to the success of this accord. However, as members can appreciate, the commitments that we make in these agreements are only credible if we have a means of enforcing them. To this end, the Canada–Korea FTA includes an enforceable dispute mechanism that may lead to financial penalties in the case of non-compliance with the obligations of the labour chapter by either signatory country. Members of the public can submit complaints if parties involved fail to meet their obligations.

I am confident that this agreement will help create well-paying jobs for Canadian workers, without requiring us to compromise our values.

I am confident that this agreement will help create well-paid jobs for Canadian workers without requiring us to compromise our values. Let us bring this agreement into force as soon as possible so that Canadian workers and businesses can access all of these benefits.

I therefore ask my fellow parliamentarians to support Bill C-41 so that we can implement the Canada-Korea free trade agreement tout de suite.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that I and my colleagues are encouraged that the government, in its negotiations with Korea, has decided to incorporate the environmental provisions in chapter seventeen, which we have been arguing for in the last dozen or so trade agreements.

However, I have a couple of questions for the minister.

I notice in article 17.6 that Canada has committed to now take into account scientific and technical information in setting standards, guidelines, and recommendations. This is encouraging. New Democrats are looking forward to how policies change in this area, and it is interesting that it is happening through trade negotiations.

The Government of Canada has also committed to taking a number of other measures, including not to inappropriately encourage trade by downgrading environmental laws.

My question is this: is the Government of Canada now reconsidering the changes that it made to federal environmental laws that have in fact downgraded the federal oversight of environmental management and review of major energy projects?

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. We have been very focused as a government on being responsible with regard to resource development.

I can speak as someone who comes from one of those northern communities where significant mining takes place: Fort McMurray, Alberta. What those companies have done to reclaim land, make sure that it is reforested, and make sure that the wood buffalo are thriving throughout Alberta is commendable. We are very focused on responsible resource development.

We are also very focused on making sure that Canadians have jobs. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is central to that, providing huge opportunities for Canadians to have jobs in the future as we grow and expand our trade opportunities, just as we have focused on creating jobs here in Canada.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, for the first time, I would like to indicate my appreciation to the Minister of Labour for speaking French in this debate.

The NDP has indicated that it supports this agreement. However, I must remind the House of the importance of having well-defined criteria. When deciding whether or not to support a bill, we in the NDP do not make such decisions willy-nilly or under the influence of lobbyists.

Does the minister understand that when the NDP supports a bill, it does so based on objective criteria, and that the government should do the same so that, in the future, it always introduces bills that meet well-defined criteria and that are always in the best interest of Canada?