Bill C-41 (Historical)

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea that was done at Ottawa on September 22, 2014.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 15 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Free Trade Agreement and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment. Part 1 also provides protection for certain geographical indications.
Part 2 amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

moved that Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea, be read the third time and passed.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today in the House to commence third reading of Bill C-41, the historic Canada-Korea free trade agreement, which, as I have said in the House before, represents Canada's first free trade agreement in Asia. It is a free trade agreement with a partner country in Asia that represents the third-largest economy in Asia, and it is a country Canada has had a strong, and in fact, historic and deep relationship with for almost 70 years.

The Republic of South Korea represents a population of 50 million people and an economy of $1.3 trillion. It is the 15th largest economy in the world by GDP, and it is already Canada's seventh-largest trade partner in terms of two-way merchandise trade. It is a very exciting opportunity for us.

In my remarks I will also touch upon some of our strong ties. They make our agreement with Korea an important one, as our first in Asia, with an appropriate partner, given our shared history.

It is also strategically important, because in recent years, some of our friends and competitors in global commerce have reached agreements with South Korea. In 2011, the European Union reached a free trade agreement with South Korea. We have seen tariff rates drop for exporters in the EU countries. More critically, in 2012, the U.S. entered into a free trade agreement with South Korea. Months before we reached our final agreement, Australia reached an agreement in principle and a final agreement with South Korea for free trade.

That is critical, because these are some of our strongest friends and allies, but they are also our competitors. For some of our world-class exporters in industrial goods, agriculture, seafood, and forestry, which are some of the sectors that will have tremendous opportunities in Korea, their main competitors are in that market. It is critical for our country to take advantage of a free trade agreement that will get our exporting sectors, particularly some of our lead sectors, back on a level playing field with their international global competitors.

The review of this agreement and the opportunity it presents to Canadian exporters is tremendous. It is expected to increase trade by 32%, for a net impact of almost $2 billion on the Canadian GDP. It is historic.

As I have said in the House many times before, particularly to some of my friends in the opposition who forget this key statistic, one out of every five jobs in Canada is directly attributable to trade. Canada is a country of 33 or so million people. It is one of the best, brightest, and wealthiest countries in the world, with tremendous resources and tremendous people. It is a strong, diverse country, with an economy that reflects that.

However, in a global economy, we cannot survive by just selling to ourselves. I am proud to be part of a government that has put trade at the forefront of its economic strategy.

Another point I have raised in the House before is that it is actually Conservative governments that have secured almost all of our market access for exporters. Those one in five jobs are, in many ways, attributable to both the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, with the historic U.S. free trade agreement and NAFTA, and, critically, this government and our Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade. I work with them closely as the parliamentary secretary. They have secured 98% of market access for our exporters. That is truly an incredible statistic. It is virtually all their market access. In fact, many of the very few small free trade agreements the Liberal government of Prime Minister Chrétien was able to secure we are actually going back and enhancing and augmenting to make them better.

I am glad we are here at third reading, and I am glad the NDP has made a strong decision, for once, on trade and will actually support this agreement and our swift passage of this bill, Bill C-41, because January 1 is a critical deadline for our exporters.

I said earlier in my remarks that our competitors in the EU and U.S. already had free-trade agreements. New tariff reductions will kick in on January 1 and if we do not have our agreement in place by January 1, yet another little delta, another little change between Canada and its competitors will come into place. That is something we just cannot afford to happen.

I would like to thank John Masswohl from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on this very point, saying that as of January 1, tariff rates would change for beef, a key sector for us in South Korea, and our American competitors in that space will leap ahead as that tariff rate ticks down. I think he said that there would be a point spread of 10.7% between our world-class beef and some of the American beef. This shows us that time is of the essence, and that is why I am glad we are here at third reading. It looks like we are on track to have this in law and able to take advantage by January 1 and not fall behind some of our key competitors.

In my speech at second reading, I took time to talk in-depth about the relationship between our countries and about the visit I had to South Korea several months ago to help secure passage of this deal through its national assembly. I spoke about how touched I was by the person-to-person ties that had been developed between our countries.

Indeed, South Korea represents one of our best friends as a nation and a key ally in Asia. It is an almost a 70-year relationship, starting with missionaries, many of whom were still remembered in Seoul when we were there. They were bringing faith and education, and enhancing education on the ground, ensuring it was accessible for more people.

We can see the tremendous progress that has taken place since then. A country that 60 years ago was one of the largest net recipients of food aid from around the world is now one of the largest contributors of money to the United Nations' food programs. It is a remarkable statistic accomplished in just two generations. Education, openness and an increasingly strong democracy in South Korea has been key to that achievement.

There are approximately 200,000 or so Korean Canadians who have also been key in building these bridges between our countries, and I spoke about several of them. I still speak with Mr. Ron Suh, who was on the ground in Seoul. He advises the government of South Korea as part of the National Unification Advisory Council. People around the globe with Korean lineage work with the country on the ultimate goal of having North Korea emerge from its decades of darkness and reunify the peninsula again. Mr. Ron Suh remains a strong component. He is an example of one of these 200,000 Canadians who have brought our countries closer together and who are very supportive of this deal.

For me, as someone who served in uniform for 12 formative years of my life, the highlight of my trip to South Korea was spending time with Minister Park, the minister for Patriots and Veterans Affairs in South Korea. I found that title unique and I asked him about it. When the people were under attack from the north and from Chinese forces, it was not just the military or nations like Canada that stood firm with them to try to preserve their country, but also members of their public. Everyday citizens were called into action, and they are referred to as the “patriots”. It was not just uniformed members of their military; indeed, it was everyone, men, women and children in some cases. They are the patriots in the department of patriots and veterans affairs.

Our delegation joined Minister Park at its national war memorial and war museum. We laid wreaths at the Hall of Honour, where the 516 Canadian names appear on the tablets, the ones from the almost 26,000 Canadians who responded 60 years ago to the United Nations call to respond to the conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

Staring at those names as a modern day veteran was moving, names from across the country, French and English. These were young people in their prime, many of whom had served just years earlier in World War II and served again. Without hesitation, the Korean people deeply respect that sacrifice and remember it to this day.

In my last speech in the House, I said that from school children to ministers of the government, everyone thanked our delegation for Canada's historic efforts to secure their democracy and the country that is South Korea today. That is moving when we see remembrance as a cornerstone of their civic duty and culture.

For me, I am also fortunate. A good friend from my riding who lives not far from me in Durham, Mr. Doug Finney, is the president of the Korea Veterans Association of Canada, working with veterans on remembrance, both here in Canada and in Korea.

Ted Zuber is a war artist. He is from the Royal Canadian Regiment. One of his stunning paintings fundraised by the Korea Veterans Association has a place of honour in their national war museum. It depicts some of the battles related to the Battle of Kapyong, in which the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry demonstrated heroics, saving Korean, American and Australian lives with that tremendous battle, even calling in fire on Hill 677, their own position to hold that line.

To this day, the PPCLI remains one of the few world regiments that has the U.S. presidential citation that members wear on their uniforms. That is for the heroic deeds at Kapyong.

It was very important for me to write in the Book of Remembrance that I was visiting its museum in the centennial year for that regiment, a regiment that was founded in Ottawa 100 years ago last month.

We were fortunate just last month, September 20 and 21, to have a state visit from President Park from South Korea as part of our historic engagement on this free trade agreement. I was fortunate to join the Prime Minister, other members of the House and my friend Doug Finney on behalf of the Korea Veterans Association at a state dinner hosted by the Governor General.

It was clear, the affection between the countries, from all the remarks that evening. The Governor General himself reflected on his recent visit to South Korea, describing it as both a beautiful and flourishing country. What struck me in particular about his remarks was he said that he greatly admired its tenacity and creative spirit. I hope Canadians can see that we are indeed part of helping them establish the modern country they have today.

This agreement, in many ways, represents the next stage in our relationship as two countries. This will reduce tariff rates between our countries to allow us to trade under most favoured nation status. Most favoured nation should be the status between countries as close as ours.

I recited dozens of tariff lines in my speech at second reading. I certainly do not want to bore the House too much with the same tariff lines. Therefore, I will try, for a few moments, to talk about how these tariff lines, 4.7, 10.8 that seem like regulatory numbers lead to jobs. One in five Canadian jobs is attributable to trade, as I said at the outset. I will talk about a few strategic markets for that.

Seafood is a huge winner. Having lived in Atlantic Canada for many years, and having married into the Atlantic Canadian Grant family in Fall River, Nova Scotia, I know how proud Atlantic Canadians are of their seafood industry. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia have tremendous wins. Canada is recognized for seafood, and there are tariff rates of up to 47%.

At 47%, if they have to add that to their price, our exporters, our fisher processors and our fishermen will not have access to that market, lobster in particular. Atlantic lobster is the best in the world, bar none. It is already selling in to the market in South Korea. I said in my last speech how at Chuseok, the South Korean thanksgiving, lobster is considered a treat that South Koreans bring to their family to celebrate thanksgiving and their origins. It has a 20% tariff rate for live and processed lobster. Eliminating that at a time when we already have access to that market, even with the higher price because our lobster is better, just means huge opportunities for Atlantic Canada.

While in Halifax on a visit, I had the pleasure to meet with officials from Korean Airlines, which has already started direct cargo flights from Halifax of Atlantic lobster, primarily from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to take advantage of the market. As of January 1, once we get this through the House, the 20% tariff rate will come down, meaning huge opportunities for Atlantic Canada.

Regarding industrial goods, I am from Ontario and we are very proud of our manufacturing industrial sector. Ninety-five per cent of tariff lines will be eliminated when this agreement comes into force. Why is that so important? Increasingly, in our global economy there are global supply chains. Even if there is a manufacturing plant in a country in Asia, it may source supplies for its assembly from around the world. We are seeing that already. Great Canadian companies like Magna and others have already taken advantage of this in auto and elsewhere. This is an opportunity, with these tariff reductions, to have more of our companies compete for work in the supply chain. The South Korean conglomerates are well-known in trade around the world, and that is an opportunity for our employers.

In agriculture and agri-food, 85% of agricultural tariff lines come down as part of this agreement. There are huge wins for pork. I toured the facility in Brandon, Manitoba along with the MP for Brandon—Souris. There is huge opportunity in that industry.

For beef, grain and oil seeds, there are huge wins.

For fruits, such as blueberries from Atlantic Canada, there are tariff reductions on all of them. It means great opportunities as the people of the rising middle class in South Korea demand high-quality food from a safe, strong, healthy regulatory regime like Canada's. They will pay more already but with tariff lines coming down, it will be even more competitive.

David Lindsay from the Forest Products Association of Canada appeared before our committee. In regard to forestry products, there are tariff reductions in the range of 2.9% to 10% for wood and finished wood products. I toured with an employer who has assembly plants for value-added wood products in Ontario and in British Columbia. He predicted doubling his workforce based only on the South Korea market. He is certainly equally as optimistic about the European Union trade agreement and some of our other negotiations, but that is for this one country alone because of the burgeoning middle class in that country.

We are very proud of our auto industry in Ontario. As I said in my last speech on this issue, my dad is a GM retiree. I am proud of our roots in the Oshawa area for auto manufacturing. We have secured a deal that is equal to or even better than some of the outcomes the U.S. achieved for autos. What is critical here is entering into the supply chain and jobs in the auto supply and parts sector is as critical to the Ontario economy as it is to the big manufacturers. As I said in my remarks the first time, what many Canadians seem to forget is we are very proud of Ford, Chrysler and GM, and it came up in question period today. They are all subsidiaries. The senior management teams in each of those cities do not make the decision on what rolls off the production line. That decision is made in the United States, which already has a free trade agreement with South Korea.

Why, as responsible legislators, would we allow our auto sector in Ontario to have one less country it can access on the same terms as the U.S. plants? We know that in this global auto age, they compete against one another for jobs.

This is a huge win for Canada. It is up to a $2-billion hit to our GDP. I really hope that all members in the House vote in favour and that we have quick passage.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. We work together on the international trade committee, where we have been studying this important deal.

As Canadians know, the New Democrats are supporting the Canada-South Korea trade agreement because we believe, on balance, it is of net benefit to Canada. I am happy to work together with my colleague to expedite the bill through the House.

He is right about the need to put this agreement in place quickly. We heard testimony in committee from a number of witnesses that it is important for the Canadian business sector to have the agreement in place, if at all possible, by January 1. That is when the next tranche of tariff reductions come down in the Korea-U.S. deal, and we need to keep our businesses competitive.

I want to focus on one aspect of the deal and get my hon. colleague's comment on it. South Korea is a world leader in green technology, renewable energy, and conservation technology, and unlike the Conservative government, it is dedicating a substantial amount of money, 2% of its GDP, to that sector. With a trillion-dollar economy, that is $20 billion a year that South Korea is investing to develop green technology. That is one thing New Democrats believe is a positive about the deal: Canada can join with South Korea and improve our trade in that very important green technology sector, which we believe will be an important sector for Canada's economy in the future.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on the opportunities that this deal may present for Canada in terms of green technology, renewable energy, and energy conservation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and his remarks. Our committee, by and large, functions very well, and I want to thank him for his collaboration on the urgency of getting Bill C-41 through the committee stage. As he said, the January 1 deadline is critical, because we could fall further behind.

In my remarks I touched very quickly on some of the industrial components on which tariffs would be reduced. Ninety-five per cent of tariff lines in the industrial side would be reduced. For example, manufacturing of solar panels or wind turbine parts would be caught by those provisions, and those tariffs would instantly come down.

My friend likely knows there is already quite a large investment in Ontario by one of the large South Korean conglomerates in this area. That has led to some employment. Certainly implementation was not done very well by the Ontario government, because there have been some trade challenges in that area of renewable energy, but we see this area as a potential win.

The evolution of our relationship to a point where we are a most favoured nation on the trade side would also lead to regulatory environmental coordination and compliance efforts. Whenever countries like ours collaborate, two of the top 15 economies, it is only going to improve environmental standards over time and increase the opportunity for jobs in that sector.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to speak to the bill when it was in the House earlier. I know my colleague had an opportunity to discuss some of the people-to-people ties we have with South Korea. In my riding of Newmarket—Aurora I have a rather substantial Korean-Canadian community. They are hard-working, industrious people, but they are also the bridge for many of us into the South Korean market. I wonder if my colleague has any comments on that people-to-people tie that Canada has established.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hard-working member for Newmarket—Aurora for joining us again. The last time she intervened in my speech at second reading, she shared a very personal story about her family's service and her relative, whose name is one of the 516 names on the monument where I laid a wreath. Moments like that bring all members of the House together, particularly after last week.

Sharing our own perspectives and those of 200,000 Korean Canadians is critical. Several from the Vancouver area appeared before the trade committee. Their perspectives have been critical in getting us to this stage. I have mentioned a few people individually over my two speeches on this bill, but that has been the evolution of the relationship between our countries. It was our commitment to the Korean War, and then it was increasingly the people-to-people connections.

As well, it is the educational component. Many people from South Korea come to our fantastic universities and colleges across the country, and increasingly our young university graduates going to teach English in Seoul and other regions of South Korea.

We cannot create these types of bonds at a government level. It is a real enhancer and it will only increase once this agreement is in place.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity to speak to this tomorrow morning. It is a pleasure to hear today's debate and participate in it.

I would like to reiterate that the NDP supports free trade agreements with democratic countries such as South Korea. It could be excellent news for various sectors, including the aerospace industry, which is very important to my riding.

The NDP uses a number of criteria to assess free trade agreements. The agreement has to be beneficial to Canada, and it must be concluded with a democratic country that has very rigorous regulations governing the environment and human rights.

I would like to ask the government why it chose to negotiate a free trade agreement with a country like Honduras, whose economy is approximately equal to that of the Ottawa-Gatineau region? The current government there is not doing anything to address the fact that journalists are being murdered. Leaders and workers are also being murdered there. Why did the government choose to negotiate a free trade agreement with a country like Honduras?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is a nice addition to our trade committee. It is clear that she does not want to talk about this great agreement, so she is talking about something else. She has learned the art of politics already, I see. However, I am glad she raised this point.

It is critical to note that trade is a way to engage countries. Countless witnesses at the trade committee and even some of the people from Honduras who are working on missing people said, as my NDP friends would have to admit, that these countries cannot be excluded from the global community. Engagement leads to more democracy, more institution-building, and a better life. When we were working on the Honduras agreement, we heard the choices people had: either narcotrafficking, or potentially working with global exporters in countries trying to invest in that country.

We can just ignore these problems, or we can engage. We are also investing to help strengthen that country's judicial and investigative systems to make sure that crimes are punished.

We on this side of the House choose engagement. We choose to give people stricken by poverty in these countries an opportunity to provide for their families. That will lead to better choices. When we also target our aid through the strategic economic diplomacy that I am proud to be a part of, we are helping them to improve their institutions as we give people on the ground more economic opportunities. I am proud of all of our deals, large and small.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can get some sense of the government's current approach to investor state agreements.

The hon. member will know that the Green Party opposes them in any context, but there is a vast difference between the draft text on the proposed CETA and this Canada-Korea agreement. CETA is obviously an attempt to appease European parliamentarians who do not want it in any way, shape, or form. It is much more open. It allows the public to attend.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any comments on the differences.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to debate with my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I was hoping for a moment that we might hear briefly from the Liberal trade critic. Perhaps we will next time.

ISDS, or investor state dispute settlement programs, are critical within these agreements, and there is a reason for the difference between the two. Countries of the European Union have fairly long histories and well-developed legal systems, whether common law or civil law, both of which Canada has, and they have certain expectations with respect to having all parties agree as to where a dispute will be settled and under what sorts of laws or what regime. That is very common in commercial dealings.

It is different in emerging countries, particularly in Asia. Our friends in South Korea talked about their development and about how their judicial system has a different path and less of a timeline. These countries should come to a slightly different agreement with respect to their dispute settlement.

Pointing out differences just recognizes that there are different expectations among countries, but both parties agree, as in any agreement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the official opposition New Democratic Party on Bill C-41, which is an act to implement the Canada-South Korea trade agreement. Once again, on behalf of the New Democrats, it is also a privilege to stand and support this agreement. There is no question that the overwhelming evidence is that this agreement is not just of net comprehensive benefit to Canada, but, in my opinion, it is of significant benefit to the Canadian economy, and that includes Canadian workers.

The Canada-Korea trade agreement is also a critical opportunity for the Canadian economy, which we simply cannot afford to miss. As has been pointed out in the House before at second reading, we do not negotiate in a vacuum. The Canada-South Korea negotiations for a trade agreement took place in the context of other trade agreements being negotiated, notably the United States and the European Union, both of which concluded trade agreements with South Korea before Canada did, in 2011 and 2012 respectively.

That means that businesses in the United States and the European Union both had access to reduced tariffs that Canadian businesses have not had. Since those agreements have been in place over the last two and three years respectively, Canadian businesses, sector after sector, have told our committee that they are losing market share in South Korea as a result.

It is our opinion that even if we wanted to oppose the agreement, the context is such that we could not, because Canadian businesses simply cannot compete in a world where their competitors are getting tariff reductions that they are not. I might also point out that Australia, which is a very direct competitor to Canadian producers in a number of areas, has also just concluded an agreement with South Korea.

I will be talking about this at the end, but I also want to point out that New Democrats have a coherent and well-thought-out lens through which we evaluate trade agreements. This is unlike the Conservative government, which seems to support trade agreements with anybody at any time, regardless of what is in them, or the Liberal Party, which opportunistically will support an agreement and then not talk about it.

We asked ourselves a number of important questions. New Democrats asked first of all what characterizes our proposed trade partner: Who is our proposed trade partner? Can it be said that they are a modern democracy with respect to the rule of law, democracy, and human rights? Or, if there are challenges in that regard, can it be said that they are on a positive trajectory?

Second, is the economy of strategic or significant value to Canada? The Conservative government has been a broken record in terms of bragging about the agreements it has signed over the last six years. However, most, if not all, of those agreements have been, with the greatest of respect, economies that have very little trade with Canada and do not have significant or strategic value to our economy. These are countries like Honduras, Panama, and Jordan. As important as these countries are, and as important as it is to have good relations with these countries, I do not think anyone is going to delude themselves into thinking that trade agreements with those countries are going to have a significant impact on the Canadian economy.

South Korea is different in that regard. South Korea is a member of the G20. It is the fifteenth-largest economy in the G20. It is a multi-party democracy with robust rule of law. It has the highest post-secondary participation rate of any country in the OECD. Canada and South Korea are complementary economies. That is an important point. In most respects our sectors are not in direct competition with each other, and our economies are mutually beneficial.

South Korea is also a world leader in green technology, in renewable energy and energy conservation.

I will repeat what I asked in my question for the hon. parliamentary secretary. South Korea has dedicated 2% of its GDP per year to the green technology sector. South Korea is a trillion-dollar economy annually. That translates into $20 billion a year that South Korea is investing in what is clearly an economic direction for the future.

One of the many reasons that New Democrats believe this agreement has the capacity to be very positive for our economy is because New Democrats believe that, wherever we can, the Canadian economy should be steered in a direction where we are replacing outmoded forms of energy, polluting forms of energy, with sustainable ones.

Canadians often see a lot of rancour, discussion, debate, and argument back and forth in this House. They often do not see when Parliament works in a positive way. This is one example where it has, with all parties on the trade committee participating in the deliberations of this important agreement.

Canadians may know that after second reading in this House, and after a vote, then legislation goes to a committee. In this case, this agreement went to the international trade committee where we debated the legislation. We importantly called and heard from witnesses about their points of view on this legislation. We also had an opportunity to propose amendments.

The New Democrats were the only party that proposed amendments at second reading. Neither the Liberals nor any other party proposed any amendments. I will be talking about that in a moment. I think those amendments would have strengthened this agreement.

MPs heard testimony during the committee that was very favourable to the agreement. In fairness, we heard some testimony that was not favourable. We also heard testimony prescribing next steps for the Canadian government and exporters, as we seek to realize the full potential created by this deal both for Canadian enterprises and workers.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to thank the witnesses for their efforts in raising awareness about different components of the deal and its impact on their sectors. It added some very important information for us as parliamentarians, and I want to highlight some of that evidence.

The testimony that we heard essentially amounted to a strong exhortation that the federal government have this agreement in place before January 1. As I stated, the context in which we evaluated this deal is one where we have competitive agreements and competitors around the world who are beating us to the market because of the tariff reductions they are enjoying and that Canadian producers are not. We also heard from sectors that believe this agreement may present challenges for them.

In an effort to strengthen the deal for Canada, and consistent with some of those suggestions from witnesses, New Democrats moved a number of common sense amendments to address those concerns. We are somewhat disappointed that the Conservative government was unwilling to work with the opposition to strengthen the deal. They rejected all six of our amendments. Nevertheless, the NDP will continue to offer concrete proposals to ensure that the full potential of this deal is reached and that Canadian businesses and workers benefit.

Committee members were privileged to hear the testimony of the chief negotiator for Canada in these talks, Mr. Ian Burney, who very clearly and succinctly unpacked the many components of the trade deal and articulated their significance for the Canadian economy. Here are some highlights of his testimony.

The outcomes are particularly advantageous for Canada when you consider that Korean tariffs are on average three times higher than ours, 13.3% versus 4.3%. [...]For example, in the sensitive fish and seafood sector, where Korean tariffs run as high as nearly 50%, we've obtained faster tariff elimination.... In agriculture, Korea's most heavily protected sector, with tariffs approaching 900%, we've achieved better outcomes than our competitors.... There will also be major benefits across industrial and manufacturing sectors in Canada, including aerospace, rail, information technology goods, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals to name a few, where Korean tariffs can run up to 13%.

Mr. Burney, primarily in answer to questions raised by the New Democrats, addressed concerns about the impact of the deal on Canada's auto sector. Here is some of his perspective on the matter. He pointed out the following:

...most Canadian production, in fact, almost 90% last year, is exported and so will be unaffected by the increased competition in the Canadian market. Moreover, Korean-branded cars sold in Canada are, as you know, increasingly coming in from plants in the U.S. duty-free under NAFTA. That volume is already close to 50%, so the protection afforded by the tariff is declining in any event.

I would point out that we also have information that Hyundai is opening two auto plants in Mexico in the next two years, an assembly plant and a parts plant, which would be capable of producing several hundred thousand units a year. Therefore, that 50% vehicle entry into Canada from Korean manufacturers is no doubt going to go up.

Mr. Burney continued:

With respect to the Korean market, [where] it remains challenging, there is no doubt it is opening up. Imported auto sales in Korea have been growing at about 30% annually over the last four years. The import penetration rate has increased from about 3% when our negotiations started to over 12% today, meaning that nowadays one in eight cars sold in Korea is an imported vehicle.

New Democrats believe that trajectory has to be watched carefully so we can ensure that Canadian auto products do indeed have access to the Korean market, which up to now has been identified as one of the more closed markets in the world.

The NDP is also proud to join the United Food and Commercial Workers, Canada's largest private sector union, in supporting the Korea trade agreement and its positive potential for tens of thousands of unionized workers in Canada.

Here are some of the words of UFCW legislative director Bob Linton:

UFCW Canada believes that the Canada-Korea free trade agreement overall will be a good deal for Canadian workers.... Korea is heavily dependent on food imports with a demand exceeding $28 billion annually. Korea is Canada's fifth largest agricultural food export market. It has a population of 50 million relatively high-income citizens....

He continues:

Furthermore, increasing trade with Korea and other similar countries is a crucial step [in] diversifying our export industries, reducing risks and dependence on the...U.S. economy.

He also said:

This agreement means that not only members at our locals in Quebec, such as Local 1991, and Ontario, Local 175, will benefit from this free trade agreement but locals in Alberta, such as Local 1118 and 401, and Saskatchewan, Local 1400, will also have the potential to benefit. This deal will not only help to protect the jobs of our members in these provinces but has the potential to increase employment with good union paying jobs that benefit the communities.

Committee members also heard testimony from business and community leaders in Canada's vibrant Korean-Canadian community. Two witnesses I was privileged to put on the list were from British Columbia, Mr. Mike Suk and Mr. David Lee, who described to committee the potential benefits that this deal could bring to the Korean-Canadian community.

Here is a highlight of the testimony by Mike Suk, president of the Korean Cultural Heritage Society:

In less than 60 years South Korea has made its mark on the world stage. Cutting-edge industries have developed in Korea. Korea has also emerged as an influential tastemaker in Asia. I believe companies in Canada, through joint ventures with South Korea, [businesses] will gain favourable access to other high-growth emerging markets in Asia.

I would point out that this is Canada's very first trade agreement with an Asian country. This is another salient factor that went into the New Democrats' decision to support the agreement. Not only does this represent the so-called Asian pivot, where it is important for Canada's economy to establish strong and deep and broad economic relations with Asian economies, but Korea also represents an important gateway opportunity. We will penetrate the Korean market that provides opportunities for us to access the broader Asian market as well.

I want to talk very briefly about the amendments that the New Democrats proposed, which we felt would strengthen the agreement.

Our first amendment would amend the bill to add a clear preservation of the right of Canadian governments to legislate and regulate in the public interest. By way of brief explanation, the New Democrats do not believe that investor state provisions ought to be put into free trade agreements.

In this case, if an investor state agreement is put into an agreement, then we would like a crystal clear and explicit statement in that agreement that nothing in that trade agreement, but nothing, would trump the sovereignty of the states involved to legislate or regulate in the public interest. That is not clearly set out in the bill, and we thought it ought to be.

The second amendment would amend the bill to explicitly prohibit the weakening of environmental standards in order to attract foreign investment.

In fairness to the agreement, it does have a significant amount of language on the environment. However, in our view, when it comes to the environment, we cannot be clear enough. No trade should be facilitated, ever, by a diminution or reduction in environmental standards, and Canada should say so directly in each and every trade agreement that it signs.

The third amendment amends the bill to repeal the investor state dispute settlement chapter from the agreement. As my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary stated, Korea and Canada both have robust, mature judicial systems. There is absolutely no rational basis for including an investor state provision in an agreement when investors have full protection and recourse to the judiciaries of both countries to protect their investments and business interests.

Our fourth amendment would amend the bill to require annual Canadian trade missions to Korea to monitor the elimination of discriminatory non-tariff barriers and the implementation of the agreement and report back to Parliament annually. Every single auto company has told us that South Korea has historically utilized a series of non-tariff measures. We could fail to experience any benefits of a trade agreement if a country does two things: if it implements non-tariff barriers and if it manipulates its currency. It could wipe out any potential benefits that a trade agreement would give us by tariff elimination.

The New Democrats, quite thoughtfully and reasonably, suggested that we go every year, at least upon implementation of this agreement, perhaps the first five years, and take representatives of all industries and labour with us and monitor the non-tariff barriers of South Korea to ensure that companies in our country do get the benefit of this agreement. Unfortunately, the Conservatives chose to vote against that thoughtful amendment.

Our fifth amendment would amend the bill to require the inclusion of a snap-back provision for Canadian auto and steel tariffs in the event of a surge in vehicle imports or steel imports from the Republic of Korea. We have heard different testimony on this. I remain of the opinion that we should get what the U.S. got in its agreement with South Korea, which was a snap-back provision. What that means is that if it was found over a period time South Korea market access was not being realized, or it was found there was a dumping of South Korean imports into, in that case, the United States, the tariffs would snap back to protect the domestic industry. We thought the Canadian steel and auto sector ought to have the same protection that their colleagues in the U.S. have.

The sixth amendment is the one that is specifically on steel. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted down each one of those amendments. I am disappointed that they did.

At the same time, I want to mention that South Korea has been identified in the past as one of those jurisdictions that has been accused of intervening in its currency to artificially suppress its currency level as a means of boosting its exports. I make no such accusations in this regard, but that has been identified.

New Democrats, before committee, announced to Canada that we would be proposing the following motion at committee to address this major trade barrier, which is currency manipulation. It reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study of the use of currency intervention by states throughout the world to create advantages in international trade, policy options available to address unfair currency interventions, and report its findings back to the House. The focus of this study should include:a) Investigating the challenges and opportunities in using trade and investment agreements to address currency intervention;b) examining the status of progress at multilateral bodies in developing fair international rules on currency intervention; andc) balancing respect for sovereign nations in the management of their monetary policy with the development of fair international rules to level the playing field for exporters in all countries.

People as diverse as the U.S. manufacturers association, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Ford Canada and any number of people involved in import and export understand the importance of currency in expanded trade opportunities. Regrettably, our motion will not be studied, at least now, before our committee. That is disappointing as well because we think that having a stable and fair currency trading system is key to establishing a smart trade policy for Canada.

Canada is a trading nation. We have always been a trading nation. We continue to be a trading nation. New Democrats will continue to suggest intelligent, thoughtful and prudent measures that will not only boost exports for Canadian champions around the world but also make sure that we can create those value-added, good-paying jobs here at home that are the hallmark of every modern industrial economy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the trade critic for the official opposition. I am pleased to hear him say that he prefers not to see investor state agreements in trade agreements, but they are now becoming all too common.

The ratification of the Canada-China investment treaty, which is certainly the most egregious of all of them, will lock Canada in for the next 31 years. In that instance, we have an investor state agreement where the entire process is secret. The first six months involve private diplomatic wrangling. It significantly undermines Canada's sovereignty to have an agreement like that ratified.

We have had different gradations of investor state agreements ever since the first one with NAFTA and chapter 11. Therefore, how can the official opposition vote for this trade treaty even though it does ensnare us in yet another investor state agreement?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question that I think deserves a thoughtful answer.

The New Democrats believe that each trade agreement has to be evaluated on its own merits. We have to identify the partner involved and we have to look at the agreement itself. There are some profound and significant differences between the investor state provision in the South Korea agreement and the one my hon. colleague talked about with respect to the Canada-China FIPA.

For one thing, the Canada-China FIPA investor state provision would bind Canada for 31 years. The Korean agreement is six months.

Second, the Canada-China FIPA permits either sued party, whether China or Canada, to have the tribunal hearings held in camera, in secret, thereby avoiding one of the hallmarks of the rule of law, which is open public court proceedings. The South Korean agreement explicitly requires that investor state proceedings are to be made in public, using the word “shall”.

Finally, China is, of course, a very different country than South Korea. China is a command economy and a major capital exporter, whereas South Korea is an open market economy that has been on a trade liberalization regime for quite some time. The concerns about state enterprises or South Korea using the power of its state interests to further its interests in Canada's sensitive sectors are not quite the same.

However, the member is quite right that a New Democratic government, and it is our party policy, would not negotiate agreements with investor state provisions. We do not think they are necessary. That is why the New Democrats believe that the South Korea agreement must be monitored very closely. If it turns out that the investor state provisions are being abused in the South Korea agreement, New Democrats would not hesitate to invoke the cancellation provisions of South Korea, which would end the agreement on six-months notice, and it would not have any further binding effect after that time.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleasant it is to be in the House and hear that the NDP are supporting a free trade agreement. It is very refreshing.

My colleague spoke quite eloquently about some of the opportunities that he sees across Canada. He also spoke about some of the witnesses before committee. I was not there, so I have not had the benefit of their testimony. I wonder if the member could inform the House of the things that he sees as possibilities for job creation and opportunities for businesses in his own riding.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the kind words. As she said it was refreshing to see New Democrats vote for a trade agreement, I would like to see the government support a child care program. Perhaps we can mutually improve this country by working together on some important policy areas.

I come from Vancouver and my riding is Vancouver Kingsway. Of course, British Columbia is Canada's Pacific province and we have a very strong orientation towards the Asia-Pacific. This is something that I think is sometimes not recognized quite as much as it ought to be in Ontario and Quebec, who tend to be South America, European or American focused. However, the opportunities for British Columbia, and Canada through British Columbia, to build strong economic relations as well as cultural, social and political bonds with South Korea and other important countries in the Asia-Pacific region are explosive.

We know that China is posed to be the largest economy in the world in just a number of years. It is Canada's second-largest trading partner. Therefore, any opportunity we have to strengthen our economic relations with an important Asian economy such as South Korea will pay dividends for Canada down the road.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member from the official opposition that the Liberals support not only free trade but also child care, so we are with him there. I think that this is a week when it is terrific that we are talking about a bill that has almost all-party support.

The hon. member from the official opposition has spoken very eloquently about the importance of this deal in terms of opening up Asia to Canada. I would like to hear his assessment of how the really big deal opening up Asia, the TPP, is going.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that while the New Democrats have announced a child care plan, it was based on the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party refused to commit to a Liberal government in 2015 bringing in a child care plan. The difference between the child care plans is that a New Democrat government will actually bring it in, whereas the Liberals will only talk about it.

In terms of the TPP, which is a whole different issue, it raises a lot of profoundly important considerations, many of which do not really apply to the South Korea agreement. It is a very important thing. This summer Canada hosted TPP negotiations in Ottawa. The TPP negotiations have been conducted with a completely unacceptable and unnecessary amount of secrecy.

Of course, the United States is the major anchor in the TPP negotiations, which is a regional pact with 12 different countries in it. There are many different concerns about that, including whether the United States will be pushing a very aggressive intellectual property regime that would damage Canadians' access to a free and open Internet. There are concerns about Australia and New Zealand and the United States wanting Canada to open up our supply-managed sectors, which the New Democrats are very strongly against. We believe that we should be keeping a strong supply-managed sector, as I believe the Conservatives agree with as well. For my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party, I am not quite sure what the Liberals feel about the supply-managed sector because some of their MPs and former MPs spend their time attacking the supply-managed sector. I am not quite clear on what their position is on that.

However, the TPP is a very important set of negotiations that I would like to see opened up so that Canadians and parliamentarians can see what is being negotiated and we can keep close tabs on the progress of that important pact.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since everyone has such refreshing ideas, I wonder whether my colleague thinks it would have been refreshing a year or so ago to have received a little more information about the agreement with Korea. We would have been able to support it much sooner if we had received the information we had been asking for for some time.

We now find ourselves in an emergency situation that could end up costing our exporters millions of dollars. The reason we are in this position is that everything happened in secret and no information was available. Everything could have happened a lot faster.

What is my colleague's opinion on that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who does excellent work on the international trade committee and provides many thoughtful interventions there and in the House.

These negotiations commenced in 2004, so it has taken about a decade to conclude this agreement. On the one hand, it is regrettable that Canada was unable to close a trade agreement quicker because, as we heard, Canadian businesses lost what those businesspeople told us is about 30% of their market share in South Korea because the Americans and the Europeans got first market access two or three years before we did. On the other hand, I am a big believer that Canada should be getting good agreements not quick agreements.

I do believe that this agreement that has been placed before the House is a thoughtfully negotiated one. I believe overall it is quite strong and all parties are going to work together to ensure this agreement is in place to support Canadian businesses before the January 1 important deadline.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Health; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Rail Transportation; and the hon. member for Québec, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reiterating that the Liberal Party supports free trade, and we are pleased to support this deal.

This is just the third day the House has been sitting since the terrible events of last Wednesday. It is very appropriate and fitting that on this day we are debating a measure that has the support of the three main parties in the House and that in the discussion we have heard about the tremendously powerful impact Canada's diverse population brings to the country.

We have heard a lot of members speaking eloquently about Korean Canadians and how the connections they have with Korea have been so important in building this deal and in building connections with that country. This is a week when all members of the House should be talking in the most forceful possible terms about Canada's strength in our diversity and Canada's strength in our pluralism. I am pleased that this Korean free trade deal has given us an opportunity to do that.

Coming to the deal itself, I am going to speak about our position on free trade and why we believe that free trade is so important, particularly for Canada. I am going to talk about why we support this specific deal with Korea. I am also going to talk about our concerns and about what we feel has gone wrong and could have been done better. Then I am going to speak about what our trade agenda going forward should be.

I would like to start by talking about free trade and why it is so important for Canada and is such a centrepiece of the Liberal economic program.

We are living in a time when the middle class is hollowed out, when the middle-class is getting hammered. That is something the Liberals have recognized and have been talking about. There is a lot of resonance among Canadians when we raise those issues. One of the ironies of an age like our own, when the middle class is suffering, is that national support for free trade can weaken and we can have the rise of protectionist sentiment. I am therefore absolutely delighted to represent a party that is strongly in favour of free trade.

I am also really delighted to be standing in the House and talking about a free trade deal that has such cross-party support. To have national unity around free trade will be an essential strength of Canada going forward. If we can maintain that, it will provide a competitive advantage for the Canadian economy.

Why is trade so important? Why is it central to Canada's economic success in the 21st century?

Canada is geographically vast. It goes from coast to coast to coast. The reality is that by GDP, Canada has only the 11th largest economy in the world. We are just not big enough to exist, grow, and prosper without being maximally open to the world economy.

Exports to date account for 30% of our GDP, and one in five jobs are linked to exports. The only way the Canadian middle class can grow is for the Canadian economy to become ever more global, for more Canadian businesses to be more competitive and doing more business in the world economy.

That is particularly true when it comes to the emerging markets of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These are places where the middle class is rising up out of poverty, where there is growing consumer demand, and where there are attractive demographics. As a country, Canada has to be poised to sell into those markets. If we fail to do that, our own middle class will be squeezed and will falter. For Canada, there can really be no economic policy more important than a strong, aggressive, forward-moving, forward-looking trade policy. I am sad to report that the reality is that when it comes to trade in the world economy, if we look past the government's rhetoric, Canada is falling behind.

I would like to draw the House's attention to an important and thorough report produced this year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a business group to which we pay a lot of attention.

This is a group that has a network of over 450 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, and it represents 200,000 business of all sizes and sectors in the economy, in all regions of the country. These people are important. We need to listen to what they are saying about what is happening to the Canadian economy.

I am afraid that when it comes to trade, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is very worried. The title of its report says it all. It is called “Turning it Around: How to Restore Canada's Trade Success”. Here is what the Chamber of Commerce has to say about how we are doing. It agrees with the Liberals. It says:

International trade is one of the fastest and most effective ways for Canadian businesses to grow.... However, the increase in exports and outward investment has been slow in recent years, and diversification to emerging economies has been limited.

As we have just been discussing, emerging economies are the essential places for us to be going.

Looking deeper into the report, the chamber did a very important calculation in talking about what is actually happening to Canadian trade. I would like to quote it. It said:

Despite more firms looking abroad, Canada is lagging its peers according to several measures.

Yes. That is right. We are, as the report says, falling behind when it comes to our international trading position. The report goes on to say:

Over the past decade, the value of exports has increased at only a modest pace.

What is really interesting about this report is that the authors backed out increased commodity prices when they took a look at Canada's trading position. When we do that calculation, we see a picture of how we are doing on trade that is not at all pretty. Here is what the chamber said about backing out the price premiums we had been experiencing in energy, mineral, and agricultural commodities:

If these price increases are excluded, the volume of merchandise exports shipped in 2012 was actually five per cent lower than in 2000 despite a 57 per cent increase in trade worldwide.

What has actually been happening is that the world gets that trade is important. Globalization is not just a trendy word; it is the world's economic reality, and the reality is that Canada is falling behind. This trend is reflected in the trade numbers. In August, economists were predicting a $1.6-billion trade surplus. Instead, Canada recorded a $610-million trade deficit. These are worrying numbers, and there needs to be a lot more urgency on this file.

I would also point to an issue we heard addressed in question period today, which is falling commodity prices. Warren Buffett, the renowned investor, likes to say that when the tide goes out, we see who is swimming without their trunks on. I am worried that high commodity prices for the Canadian economy have been like a high tide that has obscured a lot of problems, nowhere more so than in trade. As those commodity prices fall, we need to be really worried about what they are going to show is happening in trade.

Turning now to Korea, we agree with our colleagues from the government and the official opposition that this is an important deal, and we share their urgency about getting this finalized by or before January 1. It is important to Canadian businesses, it is important to Canadian exporters, it is important to the people who work in those industries, and it is therefore very important to the Liberal Party.

Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trade partner. In 2013, we did $10.8 billion of trade between us.

Korea is an attractive partner to us, because it is a democracy. This is a country that is a real technology leader, including, as we have heard, in green energy. It is a country that is very culturally innovative. I think we can learn a lot of lessons from Korea about being a global cultural leader, even if we are not one of the big powers. It is an economy that is very attractive to Canada's agri-food industry, to our aerospace industry, and to our spirits industry, so we are very much in favour of this deal.

Having said that, I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not point out some of the problems we have with it. The biggest concern we have with this Korea free trade deal is that it is late.

The United States economy, with which we are most closely connected, ratified its trade agreement with Korea in 2011, and the agreement went into effect in 2012. Korea's trade deal with the EU has been provisionally in force since July 2011.

This delay is not just about some kind of theoretical competition over whose date is first. The delay in getting the Korea deal done has had direct and meaningful impacts on Canadian exporters. The global economy is extremely competitive. Businesses know it. Canadian businesses are suffering, and they have been let down, when it comes to Korea trade, by the government. We have lost 30% market share in Korea, more than $1 billion, because we have been slower to come to a deal.

We heard the parliamentary secretary to the minister waxing lyrical about the Korean affection for Canadian lobster, and Koreans should indeed be enthusiastic about eating Canadian lobster. I know that everyone in the House is. However, the government should be apologizing to Canada's lobster industry for putting it at a disadvantage.

I want to read a quote, from The Globe and Mail, from Stewart Lamont, managing director of Nova Scotia's Tangier Lobster Co. Ltd. He said, “The Americans are two and a half years ahead of us, but better late than never.”

That is really the story of this agreement. We are supporting the deal. We are glad it is happening, but this is a story not of triumph but of better late than never.

I would like to point out that our negotiations with Korea began in 2005. The Americans started talking to the Koreans in 2006 and to the EU in 2007. Despite starting negotiations sooner, we have concluded the deal later, and that is something that has had a measurable impact on the bottom line of Canadian exporters.

We need to get this deal done by January 1, but everyone in the House should be aware that the slowness of getting a deal done means that Canadian companies have to run extra fast. They have to claw back that lost export position in the Korean market, and that is going to be very hard work for them.

What we hear when it comes to the reasons for Canada falling behind and this deal having been done behind the U.S. and behind the EU, despite the fact that negotiations began sooner, is that it had a lot to do with the top-down, hyper-controlled approach to issues we see from the government when it comes to the domestic agenda. The Korean deal is more evidence that this approach, which is rejected by so many Canadians now at home, also slows down our relationship with our international partners.

There is support from us. There is support from the official opposition for this deal. I am very pleased that there is that support. It is urgent that we lose no more time getting this deal finalized by or before January 1.

We would be derelict in our duty if we were not aware that this deal has come late. It is better late than never, but it would have been much better had it not been late to begin with.

This deal is particularly significant, because it is our first deal in Asia. It is really important, going forward, that we not allow the mistake of falling behind to happen in our future deals. I am going to talk in a moment about those other deals and the approach Canada needs to take.

However, before doing that, I would like to also urge the government to release a study the department did on the economic impact of the Canada-Korea free trade deal. This study has been requested by many stakeholders, and their access to information requests for this study were very keen, particularly given the fact that the deal is due, we hope, to be finally confirmed by the end of the year.

We call on the government to release this study of its economic impact. Now is the time for us to have that information and to talk about it. It should be made public. Given that the agreement is being supported by both the Liberals and the official opposition, I can really see no reason why the government is not coming out publicly with that more detailed information.

When it comes to the trade agenda going forward, the really big issue on the agenda and what we really need to focus on is TPP. This is an agreement which will touch on 40% of the world economy. In current economic conditions, when a lot of economists are concerned that we are suffering from secular stagnation, that the whole world economy has moved into a new low-growth paradigm, TPP could not be more essential. This could be one of the few levers that we have to get the global economy going. It is essential for Canada and it is essential for the world.

These comprehensive TPP talks started in 2008. Canada, I am sad to say, did not join until 2012. I am afraid we see the pattern with Korea being repeated here. We are slow to come to the table. We really have to focus. We are seeing something wonderful, a tremendous competitive advantage in our country, which is real support across the political spectrum for the Korea deal, for trade with Asia, for trade with the world. It is absolutely incumbent on the government to use that strong political support for free trade, to be an active and energetic partner in the TPP talks to get them going.

Negotiations actually are going on right now. They happened over the weekend in Australia on TPP. I urge the government to be a more active participant in those talks. I am sad to say that when we speak to our trading partners, our international partners, they say that something which we have seen in Canada's relationship in multilateral institutions around the world is, I am afraid, being repeated in TPP.

Canada used to have a reputation as one of the world's most effective multilateralists, as a country that was good at working in a group, at working with others, at getting deals done, at leading deals. However, when it comes to TPP, I am afraid that the reports we are hearing is that Canada is missing in action, Canada is not playing a leadership role and in fact that Canada is frustrating our trading partners.

That really cannot continue. This is an essential deal and we need Canada to be a leading voice. We cannot have a repeat of what we have seen with Korea, which is a policy that is widely supported across the House by so many people, yet actual delivery for the Canadian economy, for Canadian business has been delayed at a cost.

Again, I want to return to this number because it is not just about rhetoric. It has been at a cost of more than $1 billion. Let us think of how valuable those billion dollars could be if they were in the Canadian economy right now.

TPP is the big one. Even as we support the Korea deal and opening up of the Asian markets in this way, I want us to focus on that. I want us to be absolutely energetic, be leaders in those negotiations.

More general, it is absolutely essential that Canada be energetic, that Canada be in the lead when it comes to opening up those emerging markets about which the chamber of commerce spoke. I would like to pay particular attention to Africa.

Finally, yesterday was parliamentary elections in the Ukraine. The results look very promising for Ukrainian democracy and for Ukraine's move toward a pro-reform, pro-European attitude. We heard recently Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko address the House and call for a free trade deal. Let us not be behind on that. Europe has already opened up its markets to Ukrainian goods. Let us do that, too.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions that I think Canadians would want me to put to the hon. member.

She is the international trade critic for the Liberal Party, but she does not sit on the international trade committee and does not attend international trade committee meetings. When this agreement was put before committee to be studied and we heard from witnesses, she was not present to listen to any of the testimony that was put before the committee. The Liberal Party advanced and proposed no amendments to this agreement.

Could the member explain to Canadians why, as Liberal trade critic, she does not think it is important enough to come to the international trade committee and actually study the legislation, listen to the witnesses who come before our committee and give us the benefit of their perspective, and to help formulate policy in the House?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a day when we should be supporting and cheering the cross-party support for this free trade agreement, that was the kind of rather mean-spirited question I would expect more to hear from the government side of the House.

I will say what I would have said had the question been from the government side of the House, which is that it is neither the responsibility of the government nor of the official opposition to decide how the Liberal Party deploys the resources of its members. For now, we are a small party, but we will not be for long. There are a lot of duties for all of us to cover. It has been our collective decision to have one of my very talented colleagues serve on the committee. We work very closely together.

If the hon. member from the official opposition would like to speak about positions that are difficult to understand, perhaps he would like to let this House know why the NDP, which has been so opposed to free trade deals historically, has decided to turn tail when it comes to Korea. That is the right decision, but I wish it had come sooner.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for pointing out that this is so important for Canada's middle class, the opportunity, through this free trade agreement, to grow our exports, our businesses and even to create jobs. We in the Liberal Party have always supported that part of it. We are a pro free trade group.

However, there is an interesting point here to look at. Unfortunately the member had to point out the fact that we started this nine years ago under a Liberal government, and that it actually took nine years, and hopefully we will pass it very soon, for this free trade agreement to occur, our first free trade agreement in Asia.

When other countries like the United States and others start after us, why do they manage to come up with a free trade deal sooner than we do? What is it? Is it that they hustle more than we do? Is it that they want it more than we do? Why has it taken us nine years?

I share the member's concern that when we negotiate for the trans-Pacific partnership, we will behind the eight ball again, unless we change the way we approach free trade deals.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has indeed focused on what is our chief criticism of this deal, which is that it has come late at a great cost to Canadian businesses, Canadian exporters and Canadian jobs. As to what the reasons are, I can only speculate, but I would suggest two reasons.

One is something that we see all too often with the government, which is a mismatch between rhetoric and action. There is a lot of rhetoric on trade, but we have not actually seen that when it comes to this Korean deal and we certainly are not seeing it when it comes to TPP.

The second reason, which is something that we have been learning when we talk to stakeholders and particularly when we talk to our other partners in multilateral institutions, is that the top-down rigidly authoritarian approach to government, which we see first-hand domestically, carries through when it comes to how Canada behaves in its international dealings, and that slows things down.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, talking about rhetoric, I find it so interesting and amusing to listen to the Liberal member talk about the Liberals' trade policies and their history on trade.

In fact, I agree with my colleague from the NDP that we had a lot of witnesses who provided a lot of great information. When we talk about rhetoric, she could never really quote anyone individually because she was not there to listen to them.

If we look at the Liberal trade policy and the trade deals, how many trade deals did the Liberal Party, when it was in government, actually sign? How many did the Liberals actually close and seal?

The reality is that when we look back to the history of trade in Canada, it has been the Conservative Party that has done the majority of the deals and it is this Conservative Party that is getting the job done today.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been in the House longer than I, but I would like to point out to him that when it comes to parliamentary procedure, it is not our tradition to directly address other members.

I have heard this before and was I expecting to hear it again from the government benches. For the record, I really want to protest strenuously. A majority government has a lot of prerogatives in a Westminster system like our own, but it cannot decide what members of the Liberal Party do and which committees they serve on. It is absolutely unfair and slanderous quite frankly for the government to have suggested, as it has, that somehow I am derelict in my duty by not serving on trade committee. I want to say that for the record.

We are talking specifically about Korea. Canada is behind the U.S. and the EU, both of which began negotiating after we did, and this has cost Canadians more than $1 billion. We have lost 30% of our position. These facts speak for themselves.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on the record as saying that maybe we have not signed any free trade agreements and we are not for free trade, but we surely are in favour of fair trade. We have always believed in fair trade.

When the government signs trade agreements, it needs to ensure that the working people of our country and the working people in the countries with which it signs trade agreements are protected. The government needs to ensure that the working people in those countries have the same advantages as the working people in our country. Neither the Liberal government nor the Conservative government have signed any agreements which protect the men and women who build these countries. That is one of the reasons why we do not support free trade.

Do the Liberals still believe that the government should sign agreements without having an article in them which would protect the working people in those countries?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party strongly believes in protecting the working people of Canada. That is why we are such strong supporters of free trade. In the 21st century, Canada's economy is only the 11th in the world when it comes to GDP and cannot survive or grow without free trade.

The hon. member's question gives me an opportunity to return to the non-partisan spirit with which I began my remarks and which is really important today. We have undergone a big trauma recently and it is a wonderful thing that we have cross-party support for free trade.

I hope the hon. member will agree with me that while all of us advocate for different policies, I am sure everyone in the House supports the working people of Canada.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join today in strong support of the Canada-Korea economic growth and prosperity act.

As we have said regularly, our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. We understand that Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership.

Since coming to office in 2006, we have reached free trade agreements with 38 countries. These countries make up more than half of the global economy and represent nearly one-quarter of the world's countries. When they were in power, the Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of failing and falling behind in this era of global markets. In fact, the last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade, they campaigned to rip up the North American free trade agreement.

Before I continue any further, I will mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Huron—Bruce.

Our government cares deeply about trade and our country's economic growth. Last fall the Prime Minister announced a historic agreement in principle with the 28-nation European Union that will give Canadian businesses preferred access to half a billion affluent customers.

I always go back to what my cattlemen said. They did not talk about the affluent customers but about the hungry customers, because they saw a tremendous opportunity for the cattle export business. Right in my own riding, people are seeing the enormous opportunities that this agreement would provide.

Our Conservative government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness, which in turn adversely impacts Canadian families. That brings me to the issue at hand today, which is the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

Implementing this free trade agreement is critical to maintaining Canada's competitive position in the global marketplace. It would restore a level playing field for Canadian companies in the South Korean market. Right now our competitors, including the U.S. and the EU, are already enjoying preferential access because of their respective FTAs with South Korea.

For Canada, the Canada-Korea free trade deal is a landmark agreement. It represents our first bilateral trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region.

I heard the critic for the NDP talk earlier in terms of central Canada and eastern Canada, which tend to look to South America and Europe, but to our western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, the whole Asian-Pacific gateway is incredibly important. It really is a key to increasing our global competitiveness.

Of course, trade and investment represent the twin engines of growth for the global economy, and again I have to reflect on the anti-trade ideology of the NDP. Although the NDP may support the bill a little bit, it is a fact that it did try to sabotage this bill at the trade committee. Rather than thinking about what is best for all Canadians, the NDP tabled amendments to remove the investor protection provisions, cornerstones of a modern trade and investment agreement, in order to please a small group of its supporters and perhaps some supporters of the Green Party.

On this side of the House, we know that there is no better job creator or economic growth generator than freer and more open trade. Canadians are proud of our long history as a trading nation, and for good reason: one out of every five Canadian jobs is dependent on exports. In fact, trade drives 64% of all of Canada's economic activity every year. That is why we have embarked on a very ambitious pro-trade plan. I believe it is the most ambitious in Canadian history.

A diverse range of sectors would have increased trade opportunities because of this free trade agreement, including industrial goods, agri-food products, fish and seafood, and forestry products. Earlier I mentioned beef; another area that is relevant to my riding in British Columbia, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is forestry. It is incredibly important to open that up, as it has gone through a little bit of a difficult time with the economic recession. There are huge opportunities.

Canada's world-class service sectors would also benefit from improved market access, including professional services and research and development services.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would create thousands of jobs for Canadians by increasing our exports to South Korea by 32% and boosting our economy by $1.7 billion. Over 88% of Canada's exports would be duty free upon entry into force, and over 99% would be once the deal was fully implemented. The huge amount of Canadian exports becoming duty free upon the coming into force of the agreement is important, given the urgency of restoring our competitive position in the South Korean market.

It is important to note that when embarking on trade deals with other countries, we do so bearing our responsibilities in mind. I am happy to say that while we are working hard to advance our trade agenda, our government is also ensuring that labour rights and obligations are respected. That is why the free trade agreement with Korea has a labour chapter that includes robust labour provisions.

Canada and Korea have committed to ensuring that their laws embody and provide protection for internationally recognized labour principles and rights, notably those included in the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. For those who may not be aware, the declaration covers the right to the freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Through these provisions, we demonstrate our shared commitment to improving labour standards and protecting the rights of workers.

Both countries have also committed to ensuring acceptable protections concerning occupational health and safety, including compensation in cases of injuries or illness; employment standards, including minimum wage and overtime pay; and non-discrimination in respect of working conditions for migrant workers.

The labour provisions in this agreement stand out from the pack. For the first time, all obligations are now subject to a dispute settlement mechanism, which may apply financial penalties in the case of non-compliance. The labour provisions are comprehensive and enforceable. That speaks to the level of commitment from both countries to maintain high labour standards in this trading relationship.

Our relationship with South Korea is not new. Canada has long enjoyed positive relations with South Korea. In 2013, we marked our 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations. While the agreement would provide a modern and stable foundation to grow our bilateral relationship, it builds on a long history of political and economic co-operation. During the Korean War between 1950 and 1953, Canada contributed the third-largest contingent of troops to the United Nations Command. There were some 26,791 Canadian soldiers who served in Korea, of which 516 lost their lives. After the Korean War armistice, 7,000 Canadian soldiers served as peacekeepers between 1953 and 1957.

Significant trade and investment ties have further solidified our relationship. South Korea represents an important market for Canadian commodities and has proven to be a valued source of investment. Without question, the agreement will level the playing field for Canadian companies and enhance their ability to tap into global value chains, boosting their global competitiveness, profitability, and long-term sustainability.

The benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement for our country are far too significant to overlook. Canadian stakeholders from across the country have repeatedly called for the agreement to enter into force immediately to secure Canada's competitive position in the South Korean market. Our government is equally keen to tap into the Asian market and create more jobs for hard-working Canadians. For these reasons, I call for the urgent passage of Bill C-41 and the rapid implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned in her speech that we on this side tried to introduce some amendments at committee. I am not sure if I heard correctly, but I think she used the word “sabotage”, which did not quite make sense to me.

One of the amendments we tried to introduce was to repeal the investor state dispute settlement from this agreement. I wonder if the member is aware that under NAFTA, there have been over 30 investor state claims against Canada at all levels of government, targeting public policy measures from bans on fracking to court rulings on drug patents, and that Canada has already paid out over $160 million to investors, either as a payout or for legal fees in trying to defend various legislation.

I am wondering if she thinks it is right for our tax dollars to go toward paying corporations when they dispute various laws that are put into place for our benefit.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the investor state dispute settlement has been a core element of Canada's policy, and it has been so for more than a generation. This agreement, like all other major trade agreements since NAFTA, includes these protections.

This is a two-way street. As a result of these provisions, Canadian businesses are provided with protection from arbitrary and discriminatory actions from the host government.

As I said, this is a two-way street. The investor state dispute settlement has been there for a generation, and it is a critical element that we believe should absolutely be there.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about our free trade agreements is that we have the opportunity to influence the way that people do things in other countries.

In particular, we have agreements on labour issues. I have worked in this area with my husband, on issues related to occupational hazards and physical problems that people have from workplace injuries. Therefore, I know that we have the opportunity to have influence.

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour could comment on some of the things we are discussing in these free trade agreements so that we can find some compatibility between our two countries and have influence on the way they do things.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, this particular agreement stands out from the pack in that regard. I think everyone in this House is very concerned about occupational health and safety issues, which also includes compensation in the case of injuries and illness. We see the results in Canada when we have proper legislation and regulations in place, and we are having a significant impact. There is nothing more horrific than losing a husband, wife, son, or daughter to a workplace injury.

Again, I am very pleased to see strong robust measures in this particular agreement and Canada's ability within free trade agreements to have those discussions.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am offended at the use of the word “sabotage”. As a party, we proposed amendments to a controversial provision and debated them in the Standing Committee on International Trade.

One could say that this is a cornerstone of international trade, but that is not recognized internationally. If the member refuses to withdraw the word “sabotage”, I would like to know whether she considers the new president of the European Commission, not to mention Germany and Austria—which are trading partners and also question the validity and usefulness of the investor state dispute settlement programs—to be saboteurs for raising these questions with respect to the agreement with the European Union?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP struggles to support any free trade agreement, and I think that is the first thing that is important. However, we are talking about dispute resolutions for international arbitration, which does not restrict any level of government from legitimately legislating in the public interest.

I think it is important to understand what these things do and do not do.

Canadian and foreign investors alike are subject to all of Canada's laws and regulations pertaining to environment, labour, health care, and safety standards.

The NDP knows very well that we have an agreement that has been agreed upon between two countries. However, to make such a massive change in an agreement would mean going back to the bargaining table and renegotiating, and, to me, that is sabotage.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. When I think what this free trade agreement would mean to our riding of Huron—Bruce, it is very significant. There is no doubt about it. In Huron and in Bruce counties, agriculture, light manufacturing and tourism are really the key pillars. Energy as well is another huge contributor to our local economy.

When we think of agriculture, we produce everything that Korea wants and everything it needs. That is why it was so significant when the Prime Minister made his announcement in September that we were going to be able to move forward on the deal.

The Korean economy is the 15th largest in the world. It is the fourth largest in Asia. It has 50 million people who know and understand the quality products that are made right here in our country. Agricultural exports, just in Ontario alone at this juncture, are $68 million. Definitely, in no time at all we would see that grow and grow and quite likely double, triple and quadruple.

There are products grown right in the riding of Huron—Bruce that have tariffs on them today. Let us just pick off the easy ones. Pork and beef are pretty obvious ones. There are identity-preserved soybeans, white beans, adzuki beans, navy beans, kidney beans, and the list goes on and on. All together, the average tariff rate is 52.5%. Put in context in terms of what the Canadian dollar looked like two years ago, a year ago and what it is today, currency has very little impact. It does have some, but when we factor in some of the tariff rates on some of these products, it makes it terribly uncompetitive when dealing against the United States and the European Union. This is a great deal for producers from one coast to the other, but certainly in Huron—Bruce.

The market for pork in Korea is $1.1 billion annually. The market for beef in Korea is $1.3 billion annually. In the last number of years our market share has continued to decrease. We have a very small share of the market relative to the U.S. and the European Union. By putting this deal together, ratifying it and getting it moving, we would have the ability to change the momentum and start growing into that market, taking away some of the market share from both the EU and the American deal.

From 2010 to 2013, our pork market share went from 14% to a little under 9%, at 8.9%. That represented a $22 million decrease. In the same period of time, the U.S. and the EU market share increased 10% to over three-quarters of the market. The duties on pork, averaged out, on fresh, chilled and frozen, is 25%. Those would decrease over the next 13 years. As of January 1, that would allow our producers to trend with both the U.S. and EU. It is very important.

In Huron—Bruce and in Perth county, which is right beside Huron and into Wellington, there are a huge number of pork producers. They have experienced many difficult times. They are starting to recover and this year will be one of the better years they have had in a decade. A deal such as this helps to increase that momentum and helps to allow the economy to grow and expand in a riding such as mine.

Beef has seen the same trajectory as pork in the last number of years, going from $9.6 million to $6.7 million. Their duties are actually higher than pork. They are 40% to 72%. They would decrease over the next 15 years, which is important as well.

Beef producers in Huron, in Bruce, and in our neighbouring counties in both Wellington and Perth, have struggled, certainly with the price of land and other issues that contribute to the profitability of the beef market. They have had their struggles, but again, like pork, the last couple of years in the red meat sector they have had better years. The price of their fat cattle is if not at, then near all-time highs.

Deals such as this allow the red meat sector to continue to grow. If we look at the hundreds and thousands of acres of corn grown in Huron, Bruce, Perth, Middlesex and Wellington counties, the corn input has certainly provided a huge input into the beef and pork. It is vitally important and helps the agriculture economy grow.

Another one that people may not think about but where it certainly does have an impact is in the spirits industry. Spirits Canada President Jan Westcott has probably been quoted by many people in the House. There are smaller distilleries. There are certainly the large ones that Jan represents, but there are the smaller ones as well. Barry Stein and Barry Bernstein of Still Waters Distillery, one that I have toured in Concord, Ontario, have a 100% rye whiskey. The tariffs on that product are 20% if they want to sell it in the Korean market. That will be eliminated. The tariff will be at zero.

The beautiful thing about that is that small distilleries such as theirs, or even the large ones, can continue to work with Canadian rye growers. Whether it is in Alberta or southwestern Ontario, companies such as Still Waters Distillery, when they have those tariffs eliminated, can become competitive in a market such as Korea.

Since 2008, when the ratification of both the EU and the American deal came into place, the Canadian market share for spirits was cut in half. This is a chance for them to once again gain momentum. Like I said, when those distilleries can work with growers, it helps to diversify their economy. It helps to diversify their crop rotation. That is very exciting for farmers, as well.

Especially in Huron County and now getting into Bruce County as well, the specialization around identity-preserved beans is really becoming a science. It is really becoming perfected. Companies like Thompsons, P and H, Huron Commodities, and Snobelen, out of Lucknow, have really worked with growers to perfect this identity-preserved bean.

Koreans want this bean more than they want American beans. They know it is a higher quality. It is our climate and our soil. The premiums that farmers get, just the premium for growing it, forget the price, can be over $2 and in some cases as high as $3.50 a bushel. Some fields are 50 bushels to the acre, times 100 acres, that is a lot of premium. That is a lot of dollars in the pockets of farmers. That is a positive thing.

The tariff on those IP beans is almost 500%. Let us think of the impact when that tariff is reduced to zero. It is going to allow companies such as Huron Commodities to compete and succeed in this market. These are big deals.

Some of the beneficiaries of these deals are farmers, obviously. There will be higher prices for everything they grow and everything they sell. Farm machinery dealerships will benefit as farmers will have more dollars in their pockets to reinvest in their equipment and operations. Processors, such as Huron Commodities, will have a chance to grow, expand and develop, as well as all the companies that supply them.

Farmers will also have the profits to reinvest in R and D. Just one example is GPS systems in the tractors that work with planters and combines. These are all things that five or six years ago growers in my area did not have the ability to use, the technology or the profit.

In addition to that, here is something that over the last five years I did not think we would see. Pork producers are actually starting to build new barns again. This is good for cement companies, people who own gravel pits, builders, steel and so on. They are starting to have a rebirth of building pork barns, so that is important. Nuhn Industries in Sebringville in the member for Perth—Wellington's riding has grown and doubled in size. Trucking companies, rail lines, ports and harbours will all benefit from this deal. It is very exciting.

I would be happy to take any questions.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Huron—Bruce has been very active on this. It is something that definitely benefits his riding, much the way that these benefits will come to my riding of Leeds—Grenville, which has very large agricultural industries.

The member said that he had more to talk about in terms of the benefits to his riding. I would like him to expand upon that.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member on his charity hockey game last week where he raised over $100,000 for charity. I would also like to point out that it is the first time in 25 years that I have scored two goals in a game, so that was certainly a milestone for me.

The benefits to producers in Huron and Bruce counties are very significant. If we look at what it allows just with perfecting and growing those soybeans, they are able to produce over $3 a bushel for premiums. This is what allows farmers to fix or build new drying sheds. This allows them to buy a new tractor or at least have the confidence to buy one. It allows them to work with the University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus and the seed companies to look at other generations, new iterations of the seed for higher yield and better protection against pests, to look at how they are able to dry and mature their crop. We had a partnership with Guelph Hensall co-op on a white bean project a number of years ago.

These are the kinds of investments we see when there is profit in a market. Trade deals like this keep profit in the market.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Huron—Bruce.

Of course, this is a new agreement designed to foster good trade relations with South Korea.

Given that this is very important and that there were some problems, particularly in terms of non-tariff barriers, would the member support a decision by the House or the Standing Committee on International Trade to create a regular mission to monitor progress on the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and South Korea to ensure that the implementation is proceeding properly?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about tariffs. I am glad the member brought this up. It does not deal directly with his question, but sanitary and phytosanitary measures are some of the impediments that have caused trade problems in the past, where we have had an agreement, yet the other country can use some sort of condition to either slow, stop or never allow. Pork International has done a great job. That is something we have set up to educate processors or consumers over there. We have veterinarians over in these countries that work with government officials so they better understand how if there is a problem in this country, we can contain it so it does not get to their country.

Those phytosanitary measures are very important. I know the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has travelled around the world making sure that our departments are doing this so that officials around the world are educated and know that Canada has the absolute world-leading, world-class sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to go to the member's riding. It is a beautiful riding. In fact, I caught myself thinking would it not be nice if this might one day become a Liberal riding. I have to admit that went through my head.

However, I want to commend him on his homework. This is a man who obviously has looked at how the agricultural economy of his riding will benefit from this. I congratulate him for being very much aware and he provided many examples of different products that stand a good chance of making it into South Korea, so that is a great thing. He is obviously doing his homework.

Has he had a chance to look at the trans-Pacific partnership and does he see good opportunities coming forward with respect to that potential future trade agreement?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have also been to his riding, and I can understand why he would be optimistic about the prospects in Huron—Bruce. Unfortunately, he may not know that they only got 9% on election day in 2011. They certainly have a lot of work to do there, but we never know what can happen.

In any event, the important thing with the TPP is that we continue to negotiate. We are working on behalf of Canadians. We are working on behalf of Canadian industry to grow our markets without the barriers of tariffs. That is the most important thing.

We have to be in negotiations with a big agreement like the TPP. I hope we continue to move forward. However, if we can do deals like the Canada-Korea agreement while we are working on the TPP, let us do it.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-41, which will implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. I am very pleased because, honestly, our position makes me smile and laugh. As deputy international trade critic, I am pleased to confirm what our senior international trade critic said, and that is that we are going to support this bill to implement the trade agreement at third reading.

This makes me smile because, unlike what our opponents, the government members, like to say, we are not a party that is against international trade. We are not anti-trade, quite the contrary. If members want to ask me questions about that, they should also speak to the member with whom I have been communicating over the past two, three or four years on economic issues. They will see that as an economist, I am in favour of the principles of trade agreements and that the value of each trade agreement that we sign or negotiate must be assessed based on the content and details of that agreement.

Furthermore, I think that we cannot repeat often enough the basis on which the NDP, the official opposition, assesses these trade agreements. We have three criteria. The first pertains to the notions of democracy, respect for human rights, and respect for environmental rights and working conditions. When we signed NAFTA, or even the initial agreement between Canada and the United States, there was an entire section regarding environmental issues and respecting environmental rights and working conditions. However, only side agreements were signed, and they were not as restrictive. We then saw that very few complaints were lodged about NAFTA. Complaints were made regarding working and environmental conditions, but they did not end in a court decision. The process clearly has no teeth.

What we on this side of the House want is for the negotiation of trade agreements to be used as leverage with the country we are negotiating with in order to raise that country's environmental and democratic standards, as well as its standards related to human rights and working conditions.

We think this first condition is essential, which is why we repeatedly said that we opposed the agreement with Honduras, because the agreement did nothing to raise these standards.

The second condition is the economic and strategic value of the agreement in question. There is no denying that South Korea is a significant trade partner. South Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trade partner and its third-largest in Asia. The standard of living, or more specifically, the per capita income in Korea, if we evaluate it based on purchasing power, is about 75% of that of Canada, and that is rather significant. From a strategic standpoint, therefore, no one can deny the importance of South Korea.

More specifically in terms of agri-food, and because the region I am honoured to represent relies on agri-food for 12% of its economy, it is important to point out that South Korea is our fifth-largest partner in this area. In terms of current global exports, South Korea is as important as Germany or France as a trading partner. Exports are currently worth over $3 billion.

In fact, this brings several questions to mind. As I said at second reading, an internal memo from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade raised the problem that the government was squandering too many resources on issues that had less strategic value and that the resources were not available to negotiate and eventually conclude as agreement as important as the one with South Korea.

I think the government needs to seriously address this issue at some point, because putting these resources into an agreement with Honduras when our trade with that country is worth a little over $40 million and neglecting the negotiations for an agreement with a trade partner worth over $3 billion in exports is highly problematic in terms of the government's ability to effectively negotiate trade agreements. Thus, there can be no question about the economic and strategic value of the agreement.

This brings us to the third criterion we used to analyze the agreement: the actual terms. Obviously, the Standing Committee on International Trade did its job. I know that a number of members of the House also assessed the consequences of the agreement for our ridings and the economies of our regions. As with any trade agreement, certain sectors will benefit in the short and medium terms, while others will face economic challenges once this agreement is implemented.

I am going to talk about the advantages and disadvantages. As far as advantages are concerned, the beef industry will benefit rather quickly from the phasing out of the 40% tariffs imposed on that sector. Some members of the House have already mentioned that. The United States also opted to have this tariff phased out when it signed the agreement in 2012.

Our share of the beef market in South Korea has decreased tremendously because of our diminished competitiveness compared to the United States. Tariffs on the U.S. are currently 32% and are decreasing by 2.7% a year, while tariffs on our products are 40%. This is a real red flag. These market shares we are losing for our beef sector have to be recovered quickly.

In 2002, our beef exports to South Korea totalled $50 million. After the South Korean embargo was lifted in 2012 and the South Korean market was finally reopened, beef exports totalled $10 million. The following year, in 2013, these exports dropped to $7.5 million. The difference in tariffs has had a huge impact, and that is why we must use the agreement with South Korea to minimize and eventually compensate for and eliminate the competitive difference between Canadian and American exports.

The European Union and the United States signed agreements with South Korea in 2012 while our own negotiations lagged, mainly for lack of resources. This resulted in a 70% drop in our share of the agri-food market. However, it is an important sector of our trade with South Korea. It was quite irresponsible not to put enough resources into concluding an agreement with South Korea more quickly. It took 10 years to negotiate.

I was talking about the elimination of 40% tariffs on the beef industry. Tariffs of 18% on beef offal will eventually be eliminated. For pork, these tariffs can reach 25%, depending on the product. These tariffs will gradually decrease to allow our farmers to open up a market. This decrease will be welcomed in the pork industry in particular, since there is currently uncertainty in that sector as a result of our trade with Russia, which was a big consumer and importer of Canadian pork.

A number of areas stand to win, as pointed out by most of the people who came to the Standing Committee on International Trade. The aerospace sector the forestry sector, which is an important industry to my region and riding, stand to gain a lot. Furthermore, tariffs for various forestry products, which vary from 8% to 13%, will eventually be eliminated. Tariffs for other sectors, such as mining, transportation, fish and seafood, which could go as high as 50%, will also gradually be eliminated. Some sectors stand to benefit a lot. Furthermore, nearly 87% of all the tariff lines that imposed tariffs on our exports to South Korea will eventually be eliminated.

One of the reasons why we are supporting this agreement is that it is 100% reciprocal. Once again—and earlier I heard a speech that mentioned this—we need to consider South Korea's tariffs on Canadian products. They were much higher than Canada's tariffs on South Korean products. This will give our exporters access to a market that did not use to be as open to Canadians as the Canadian market was to South Koreans.

Obviously, if at some point we are unhappy with something in the agreement, if there are disputes about the effects of the agreement, there is always a way to renegotiate or revoke it. This, however, would take six months. Everything can be renegotiated.

We also raised concerns about the investor state dispute settlement mechanism, and I will come back to that. It is very important to have that six-month time period. It cannot be so long that it ties the hands of future governments—that is a fundamental principle of democracy—as is the case, for example, with the Canada-China foreign investment protection agreement, which is binding for 31 years.

In all of the trade agreements that we have signed in the past, that fundamental principle allowed us to renegotiate or open up the agreement to include or withdraw certain clauses, obviously with our partner's consent, over a six-month period or with six months' notice.

This new investor state dispute settlement mechanism contains more progressive transparency measures than previous incarnations. These measures are welcome. When it comes to the lack of transparency in the process, this is one element that really worries those who want to ensure that the recourse measures to ensure compliance with trade agreements are democratic and open.

The disadvantages have been talked about in committee and by the media. There are a number of risks related to the challenges facing the automobile and steel industries. A representative of Unifor, the main union representing auto workers, expressed his concerns about these agreements. This might come as a surprise, but the Canadian Council of Chief Executives had the same concerns. I should point out that we import around $3 billion worth of South Korean cars but export just $15 million worth of Canadian or Canadian-American cars.

This is a major concern for the union and the automobile industry. We had a 6.1% tariff on South Korean cars, but there was an 8% tariff on cars we exported to South Korea. The tariff was higher. That is not the only reason for the big difference, and people have pointed that out, but we still have to pay close attention to the auto sector and the impact of this agreement on it. As I said, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives has recognized this particular challenge. In committee, it suggested that we should develop a special strategy for the auto sector vis-à-vis the Korean market for automakers. Here is what it said:

...that Canadian auto and auto parts manufacturers are positioned for success. Such a strategy could examine exports, two-way foreign direct investment, and non-tariff barriers as well as cooperation with other major auto and auto parts exporting nations that have free trade agreements with Korea, to ensure an open market for foreign products.

This specific problem for the auto industry was raised by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, among others, and must be taken seriously. In fact, this was included in one of the amendments that we tried to propose. We proposed it at the Standing Committee on International Trade and it was rejected by the government members on the committee. We proposed five amendments and they were all rejected.

There is a lot of talk about the investor state dispute settlement mechanism, but that is not the only thing we proposed. The government could have accepted entirely reasonable aspects, such as sending a Canadian mission to South Korea to oversee the implementation of the agreement and report on the progress of that implementation. In fact, I asked the member for Huron—Bruce about that. This mission should report regularly, every year, until it is no longer necessary to do so.

The government members rejected this idea. Again, to reassure those who might be concerned about this, we proposed an amendment whereby no environmental law could be repealed or amended in order to increase investment. These are laws for the common good. These are the environmental protections the public called for and we recommended, not to put up an obstruction or a non-tariff barrier, but truly for the common good. The government refused.

The measures we proposed sought to respond to the concerns we on this side of the House are hearing. The last amendment we proposed responded precisely to the request by Unifor and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; it was aimed at developing a strategy to help the auto industry and the steel industry meet the challenges that the implementation of this trade agreement will present.

In closing, I would like to speak to this issue of the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that this was the cornerstone of every trade agreement that has been and will be negotiated by Canada.

There is no international consensus. Many countries are asking questions about the validity, usefulness and relevance of this mechanism. The first time it was proposed in the context of trade negotiations was for NAFTA, in response to concerns that Canadian and American investors had regarding the strength and soundness of the Mexican legal system, in particular. That is where the idea of an external mechanism came from. No one said that this had to be done behind closed doors, but that is what happened. No one was supposed to say that the Canadian or American legal system had not been used. However, this agreement goes beyond Canadian and American legal powers. The fact remains that it was originally in response to the perceived lack of soundness of one of our trade partners, namely, Mexico in this case.

This issue can also come up in the negotiation of trade agreements that we, as a party, if we formed the government, might negotiate less aggressively than this government is doing. I am thinking of countries like Honduras and Panama and other countries we do business with that not only have serious problems when it comes to human rights, environmental rights and working conditions, but also have legal systems of dubious soundness and impartiality.

Is that the case with South Korea? I do not think so. Is that the case with the European Union? I do not think so. Should we automatically include an investor state dispute resolution mechanism in situations where our trading partners have respected, impartial systems that can serve as tribunals in the event of any investor complaints regarding what is perceived as an impediment to investments or profitability, which would ultimately be a non-tariff barrier?

This mechanism remains controversial and will continue to be debated. I categorically reject the government's contention that this is the cornerstone of the agreement. On the contrary, in the months and years to come, we will see more and more countries raising concerns and asking questions about the relevance of automatically having such mechanisms in every agreement. As I mentioned, the new president of the European Commission and countries such as Austria and Germany are beginning to publicly air their concerns.

Nevertheless, we support Bill C-41 at third reading stage. We support the principle of the agreement with South Korea, which may not be the agreement we would have negotiated but, for the time being, satisfies the three criteria we use to assess the relevance and desirability of a trade agreement. We will gladly vote for this bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his work on this file.

I had the opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. I know that his arguments and proposals are well thought out because of his training as an economist.

In his speech, he talked about the criteria the NDP uses before taking a position on this kind of free trade agreement. Contrary to what the Conservatives and the Liberals like to say, we are not opposed to everything. We have a specific vision and we do not give our support lightly.

Could my colleague talk about these criteria?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this relevant question cannot be repeated enough to counter the misinformation that many government members want to spread about us.

The first criterion pertains to the level of democracy and respect for human rights, environmental rights and working conditions. These provisions are essential.

I found it interesting that a parliamentary secretary indicated that this criterion was part of the free trade negotiations with South Korea. However, why was it not included in the negotiations with Honduras, where human rights are clearly not respected? The situation in that country is far more urgent than that in South Korea, which is an excellent global citizen.

The first criterion should be essential when considering a free trade agreement, and it should even be a principle under which we include provisions that would allow the partner country to raise its standards in order to meet the conditions established by the future agreement. Right now, we are not using that tool even though we should be able to do so.

As for the two other conditions, it goes without saying that we should prioritize negotiating an agreement if the country is a strategically and economically important partner to Canada. At the end of the day, if these first two criteria are met, we look at the effect the agreement will have on the Canadian economy. Then we can decide whether we support this trade agreement.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He clearly pointed out in practical terms that New Democrats support Canada's trade development and prosperity. It goes without saying that it is crucial to diversify our economy with multiple players.

That said, I would like to hear more from my colleague about the weakening of our environmental standards, which he talked about in his speech. We proposed an amendment that the government unfortunately rejected.

What does he think that means?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these amendments would help reassure Canadians who are concerned about compliance with the investor state dispute settlement process.

With respect to NAFTA, some American investors filed lawsuits against Canada as a result of environmental regulations or legislation. Canada lost some of the lawsuits, but more importantly, ended up withdrawing the regulations or legislation to avoid the whole process.

As a result, the Canadian government and the provincial, territorial and municipal governments hesitate to enact legislation or make regulations for the common good, since they are afraid that they will be the target of a lawsuit because of the investor state dispute settlement process.

One of the two proposed amendments to reassure the Canadian public had to do with environmental regulations or legislation, but the Conservative government is clearly not interested in trying to alleviate the public's legitimate and serious concerns.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my brilliant colleague for his speech.

I would like to draw on his extensive knowledge and ask him if he could talk a bit about the threat that currency manipulation represents for exporters.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only a threat to exporters. Currency manipulation can have a tremendous impact on the global economy. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there were large waves of currency market speculation, which seriously affected many economies, particularly in Southeast Asia. Those repercussions were also global.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a massive devaluation of the Mexican peso, in part because of currency market manipulation. It had a serious impact on Mexico itself as well as the United States, which was Mexico's largest partner.

We need to be very careful. Canada needs to be vigilant as a country but also as a partner with many other major economies. I am thinking about the G20. We need to try to minimize the impact that speculation could have on the currency market and prevent this type of economic upheaval, which greatly affects the general public, but only benefits the speculators, who generally do not have the same concerns as the general public.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify something that bothers me a bit.

We know that our neighbours, the United States, managed to get benefits and protections for their industries that we, in Canada and with our government, are not managing to get. I wonder why the United States is able to protect its industries, while here we either do not want or cannot do so. What is the reason?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It goes to the heart of one of the concerns I raised in my speech, namely the minimal resources the government allocated to such an important agreement. It doled out all kinds of resources to negotiate strategic agreements that are much less crucial than this one. At the end of the day, since the government eventually had to act swiftly to conclude this agreement that the United States and the European Union had concluded two years earlier, the government probably had to make a few concessions to sign the agreement quickly.

The question is important because it also allows me to respond to an argument I heard an hon. member and parliamentary secretary use, specifically that an investor state dispute settlement mechanism is the cornerstone of any trade agreement. Currently, the United States and the European Union are on the verge of entering into negotiations for which such a mechanism would not be included. We insist on having such an agreement, despite the fact that it could derail the trade agreement with the European Union. Germany and Austria do not support this agreement. The United States is entering into negotiations with this issue off the table and not negotiated.

The government will eventually have to get serious and carefully reflect on the criteria and the approach currently being used for negotiating trade agreements.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I talk about the landmark Canada-South Korea free trade agreement.

I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The fact that even the NDP can see the benefits and support this deal is a testament to its importance to Canada and to my home province of British Columbia.

I would also like to take a brief moment to recognize the great work of the member for Abbotsford, who is to be commended for his ongoing efforts in this important area.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I find the Canada-Korea free trade deal an easy one to support. That is because South Korea is an important market for British Columbia. In fact, 50% of all Canadian exports to South Korea are from British Columbia. South Korea is British Columbia's fourth-largest trading partner, with exports worth an annual average of $2.2 billion from 2011 to 2013.

Today I would like to take a few moments to explain why this particular deal is good for my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

One of the many things that I love about Okanagan—Coquihalla is the vast diversity of this beautiful part of British Columbia. We are well known as an incredible wine region and as a popular tourist destination, but we are also so much more. Mining, forestry, ranching, farming, manufacturing, IT and technology services, retail, education, and even retirement are all industries that support jobs in my region.

I suspect it will not surprise any member of the House that many of these industries have customers that extend outside Canada. In fact, a growing number of these industries now have an increasing number of customers outside North America. That is very exciting. However, it is also a reality of today's global business environment.

Let us not forget also that mining, forestry, farming, manufacturing, IT and technology, and many other industries are not unique just to Okanagan—Coquihalla; many members of this place will also be familiar with these activities in their own ridings.

Let us also not forget that across the border is the United States. These activities not only exist there, but also compete against our Canadian interests. Let us not forget that the United States of America has enjoyed the opportunities of free trade access to the South Korean market since 2012. That provides a competitive edge for U.S. employers against whom our Canadian employers must then compete, because U.S. employers are not subject to the punitive tariffs and duties that increase the cost of Canadian-produced exports entering Korea.

I would like to take a moment to provide some local examples of how this trade deal would affect Okanagan—Coquihalla. Farming, as an example, remains a vibrant and important activity in Okanagan—Coquihalla. In particular, soft fruits such as apples, peaches, pears, grapes, and apricots are all things for which our region is well renowned.

One thing every farmer has in common is a tractor. In a discussion with one of our region's largest tractor dealers, it so happens that I discovered this dealer sells a tractor that is built in South Korea. As Canada has no free trade agreement with South Korea, that means two things for that dealer: he pays more to land a shipment of these tractors into Canada than do his competitors in the United States, and this in turn means that the farmers he sells to have to pay more for that very same tractor than their competitors do in Washington State. It also means that both are at a competitive disadvantage compared to the farmers just across the border in Washington State. This Canada-South Korea trade deal would help level the playing field to address that inequity.

I should also point out the benefits to British Columbia in other sectors, such as forestry and value-added wood products. Some of those products hail from the riding of the member of Parliament for British Columbia Southern Interior.

Despite the pine beetle devastation of B.C. forests, our forest export lumber and value-added wood producers are still very important to our British Columbia economy. In 2012, this sector employed over 56,000 people. British Columbia exports of forestry and value-added wood products to South Korea averaged close to $330 million annually between 2011 and 2013. We can just imagine what will happen when 58% of tariffs on forestry and value-added wood products become duty free upon this agreement's implementation.

I am particularly excited about this point, because in the community of Okanagan Falls is Structurlam Products, which produces an extremely innovative, environmentally value-added wood product that utilizes cross-laminate construction. This is an innovative and emerging value-added wood technology with an exciting future in Okanagan—Coquihalla.

However, I would be remiss if I did not mention mining. In my region, we have mining in Logan Lake and Merritt. Princeton, in the riding of the member of Parliament for British Columbia Southern Interior, has a mine as well that is adding to the local economy and helping people put food on the table. We also have an extensive mine service industry and equipment services in communities like Penticton and Okanagan Falls. These employers, as part of the B.C. mining industry, collectively employ 33,000 British Columbians and pay some of the highest wages, and these go to our local economies.

Let us not overlook the hard work of these 33,000 British Columbians in the mineral exploration and mining industry, which represents 5.8% of B.C.'s total gross domestic product. We can imagine what will happen when tariffs on 99% of the minerals Canada sells to South Korea are eliminated once this agreement comes into force.

Let us also not forget that trade is a two-way street. The Canada–Korea free trade agreement's investment chapter also means that Canadian investors in the metal and mineral sector would have non-discriminatory access to the South Korea mining sector. That is, of course, why this agreement is strongly endorsed by the Mining Association of Canada.

I, of course, have to mention another sector that would greatly benefit from a Canada–South Korea free trade deal, and that is Canada's outstanding wine production. This summer, during my listening tour, people at one winery mentioned that the domestic demand for icewine is on the decline. This deal would eliminate a 15% tariff on icewine in the large and lucrative market of South Korea, which would greatly benefit Okanagan icewine producers. People at another winery recently shared with me the outstanding success they had in achieving and signing a $1 million export deal. For a small family winery, these deals are huge. That is why opening more markets and eliminating trade barriers is critically important to them.

I must take a moment here and again lament, for the wine producers in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia, that it will soon be easier to sell wine directly to Korea than to Ontario. On that note, I want to thank the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam for his work in promoting interprovincial trade.

I did not mention that there are a number of tariffs that would help many industries in British Columbia: cherries, blueberries, and agri-foods. This agreement would help provide jobs. It would help provide markets that would help keep farmers farming, help keep people working, and help put food on the table. This agreement means that all British Columbian Canadians could finally compete on a level playing field with other countries that have implemented free trade agreements with South Korea, including our friends and competitors, the United States and the European Union.

We have learned that when Canadians get out and compete internationally, we can succeed, because we have great products and we have great people. There is so much potential this country has. I am happy to support this bill moving forward. I would ask other members to consider supporting this and other vehicles as well.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned mining, and I would like to reiterate what he said. We have some real success stories in the area that we serve. Certainly the mine in Princeton, the copper mine, is a success story. I have had a chance to visit it. It is a good corporate citizen. It would benefit, as would others, from the agreement. There are obviously good things in this agreement, and we are supporting it.

I still cannot fathom this whole investor state mechanism that we and I keep referring to because of things that have happened in the past or are happening now. I would like my colleague to give us his thoughts on the following. This is a quotation from the CCPA Monitor:

Lone Pine Resources, a Canadian firm registered in Delaware, is suing Canada for $250 million under NAFTA because Quebec's fracking moratorium is apparently an illegal barrier to its investment opportunities. Again, the decision will be made by paid arbitrators, not the courts.

This is the kind of model that will be part of this agreement.

I have asked my constituents and others whether they think a company should be able to sue the federal government because a province or a municipality or the federal government wants to enact laws in the interest of its citizens. They said no, it does not make any sense.

I would like to get my hon. colleague's comments on that aspect of this agreement.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it ironic when the NDP or, in this case, this particular member praises a local industry. Yes, absolutely, this copper mine has helped Princeton, and actually the whole Okanagan-Similkameen has seen economic activity. However, on the same aspect, the member has written in the Penticton Herald that free trade will destroy Canada.

He cannot have both. He cannot say that this mine, with its products that go all across the world, is a good corporate citizen but then not support it in these kinds of things.

As to the investor state provisions, there has to be a way to ensure that when Canadian companies are working abroad, or vice versa, the companies are not singled out and treated arbitrarily in an unfair way that would basically amount to expropriation without compensation.

Every government has a right to regulate, and that would not change under this particular provision. What it would ensure is that our business investors would not be singled out and treated unfairly in Korea or in any other country where we have these agreements.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite concluded his remarks by saying that he hopes we will be supporting the Korean free trade deal. As I hope he has heard from our previous remarks, we certainly will be. The Korean deal is important and I think is widely supported in this House, partly because it is an important opening for Canada into Asia.

I would love to hear the member's view on the TPP talks, which are the very essential next step, and whether he has a view on when we might expect those talks to be concluded.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member reiterating her support, as well as the Liberal Party of Canada's support, for this important free trade agreement. I do think that when we have good deals and bring them here and debate them, we can also see some support for things. It makes sense, not just for my home province of British Columbia but for Canada.

The trans-Pacific partnership is one of many deals that the government is working on. Obviously that is a wider effort because there are so many different countries involved. In fact, other countries are looking to perhaps join in. However, I would not want to give an impression other than to say that efforts are ongoing. I am concerned that we have seen slowdowns at the WTO, where there has not been agreement.

In the lack of progress on these large regional or multilateral agreements, I do think that the government has taken a prudent approach, and we are able to open up significant markets such as Korea, which is a gateway to the Asia-Pacific region, as the member said. Those bilateral agreements are important, because Canadian businesses and farmers, as I said in my speech, are at a competitive disadvantage compared with others such as the European Union or the United States.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on creating jobs and opportunities for hard-working Canadians in every corner of this country. That is why we have launched the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments.

In our volatile global economy, one of the greatest opportunities for our country to expand trade and create prosperity is in the fast-growing markets of the Asia-Pacific. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is our first bilateral free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region. This landmark agreement would bring enormous benefits to both our countries. It would create thousands of good jobs for Canadians, boosting Canada's economy by an estimated $1.7 billion, and increasing Canadian exports to South Korea by an estimated 32%. It would lead to greater investment in both of our countries and would mean more choices and better prices for Canadian consumers.

South Korea is already Canada's seventh-largest merchandise trading partner. The movement of goods between our countries was nearly $11 billion in 2013. That number would only grow with this new agreement.

This agreement will cover all aspects of the Canada-South Korea trade relationship. It will eliminate many tariffs and other measures that hinder trade between our two countries, providing greater transparency and confidence for investors. Right now, some of the areas with the greatest potential for growth are Canada's minerals and metals, which includes oil and gas, forestry, and value-added wood product sectors.

With the entry into force of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, the potential for even greater growth in trade of these commodities is huge. For example, South Korea imported an average of $2.8 billion of Canadian metal and mineral products per year between 2011 and 2013. South Korean tariffs on these goods can reach up to 8%. Once this agreement is in force, South Korea will immediately remove tariffs on iron, steel, nickel, and non-ferrous metals, and immediately eliminate tariffs on almost 100% of exports of aluminum, with all remaining duties eliminated within five years. South Korea will also immediately eliminate tariffs on nearly 100% of mineral product exports, again with all remaining tariffs being eliminated within five years.

South Korea relies chiefly on imports to meet most of its energy needs. Over the next five years, South Korea's demands for energy are expected to rise dramatically due to its growing industrial sector. Canada is in a good position to help meet that growing demand. Canada is a global leader when it comes to energy. We are the sixth-largest producer of oil, with the world's third-largest proven oil reserves. We are the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, and the second-largest producer of uranium, which is a critical resource for South Korea, one of the world's top generators of nuclear energy. Once this agreement is in force, South Korea will immediately remove tariffs on more than 88% of Canadian exports of petroleum products. The tariffs on the remaining petroleum products will be phased out within five years. Import duties on petroleum coke will be immediately eliminated. With respect to natural gas, South Korea's current duty of 3% will be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement.

South Korean investors also have a keen interest in Canada's growing liquefied natural gas market and the potential for export of LNG. As you know, Canada has enormous natural gas reserves and the potential to become a major player in the global LNG market. The challenge has always been a lack of infrastructure in Canada to meet global demands. However, all of that is about to change. If the seven major LNG projects proposed for B.C. go ahead, they could generate more than $1 trillion in economic activity over the next 30 years. Over the next decade, hundreds of major resource projects, worth more than $675 billion, are planned or currently under way, so there is enormous economic potential. This agreement opens up the possibility for Canada to become the North American platform for LNG exports to Asia.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement also builds on the positive relationship we have built with the Republic of Korea in the field of clean energy technology. Canada and South Korea have a long and fruitful research partnership in clean energy technology dating back decades. The South Korean market offers many opportunities for Canada in niche areas, such as smart grids, biomass energy and waste energy, all areas where Canada has strong expertise and proven technologies. We are working together with the goal of translating research into demonstration projects and commercial ventures in the field of renewable energy, including smart grids, and carbon capture and storage.

Beyond energy, the trade agreement also opens the door to strengthening trade ties with South Korea when it comes to forestry. South Korea is currently the fourth largest market for Canadian forest products, with exports averaging more than $597 million per year between 2011 and 2013, of which an average of $92 million per year is subject to tariffs up to 10%. Within 5 to 10 years of implementation of this agreement, South Korea will eliminate all tariffs on Canadian forest products.

Building on this agreement, the Prime Minister and President Park of the Republic of Korea recently witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding for co-operation in the field of forestry. It represents an important milestone for sustainable forest management in both our countries.

We stand with Canadians incredibly disappointed that the NDP members tried to completely gut the bill at the trade committee, where they tabled amendments to remove the investor protection provisions, which are cornerstones of modern trade and investment agreements. This is just as harmful as the neglect of international trade under the Liberals who took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

In less than seven years, our government has reached free trade agreements with 38 countries, bringing Canada's total to 43 agreements. Thanks to these actions, under our government's free trade leadership, Canadian workers, businesses and exporters now have preferred access and a real competitive edge in more markets around the world than at any other time in our history.

In our global economy, free trade paves the way to prosperity. South Korea is not only a major economic player in its own right and a key market for Canada, it also serves as an important gateway for Canadian businesses to the dynamic Asia-Pacific market.

With this ground-breaking agreement with South Korea and the trade agreement our country recently negotiated with the European Union, Canada has now concluded free trade agreements with nearly one-quarter of the countries in the world. It means that Canada will now enjoy access to more than half of the global economy.

We know that as trade increases so does our nation's prosperity, which creates jobs and puts more money into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. By continuing to actively pursue broader market access and new investment opportunities, we are providing Canadian businesses and exporters with access on preferred terms to the largest, most dynamic and fastest-growing economies and regions around the world. To put it simply, this agreement is a game changer for our country.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with great pride when I hear people talk about new markets, because I represent the riding of Newmarket—Aurora. I am always happy to hear about opportunities for people in my riding to find new places to sell the things they manufacture and to purchase new products.

I know my colleague comes from a riding where there are natural resources, and they will be looking for new markets. Would she like to speak about some of those opportunities for her constituents?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House last week, trade is very important to my home province of Saskatchewan. Not only are we resource rich with resources like potash, uranium, oil, coal and forest products, but Saskatchewan's agricultural exports to South Korea were worth an average of $149.5 million from 2010 to 2012. This was led by wheat, canola, oil, unroasted barley malt, animal feed, rye and pork.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on 86% of agricultural tariff lines and continue to open up new markets for Saskatchewan.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the House for the entirety of my hon. colleague's speech, but I was advised by some who were that she and some others on the Conservative side of the House were making some sort of accusation that somehow the NDP was holding up the bill in committee, or seeking to kill it entirely. That is 100% false.

During the clause-by-clause study of the bill, the New Democrats did our job as opposition and of course studied the clauses. We proposed six amendments that were debated very briefly and voted down by the government. We actually passed the bill at committee after second reading in one meeting. That is because the New Democrats have, from the beginning, listened to the testimony of the business community that it would like to see this agreement in place by January 1, if at all possible. The official opposition has been co-operative in doing so.

Would my hon. colleague correct any remarks she may have made that would erroneously suggest to Canadians that the New Democrats were somehow working to kill or slow down the bill?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that when it comes to free trade and free trade agreements, there is almost always very little support from the member and his party. We are very thankful to hear today that they will support the passing of this free trade agreement.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is our first bilateral free trade agreement in the Asia Pacific region and represents one of the greatest opportunities for our country in the fast growing markets of the Asia Pacific. Our prosperity depends on our expansion into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment.

I am very grateful to hear that the NDP and the members of the committee will support the passage of the agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate.

I must inform the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles that she will only have about seven minutes before the debate ends.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-41.

I would like to reiterate my support for this bill and for the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement. I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade with the NDP's international trade critic. He is always very diligent and thorough when it comes to international trade issues. It was also a pleasure to work with my other colleagues on this committee.

When I sat on this committee, we also studied other bills such as the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Although I am proud to rise in the House today to support the free trade agreement with South Korea, I would also like to condemn the Conservative government's approach to free trade, an approach that is not critical of countries that do not respect democratic institutions. The government wants to negotiate free trade agreements with all countries, no matter how they govern their affairs, for example in terms of the environment or lack of respect for human rights.

The NDP has a balanced approach. We believe that a free trade agreement with South Korea would benefit Canada, and in particular certain sectors, such as aerospace, which is very important for the Montreal area.

The NDP also believes that we need to assess every free trade agreement on the basis of its merits. The free trade agreement must therefore benefit Canada and generate significant economic spinoffs for our economy and for Canadian industries. Free trade agreements must also be negotiated with countries that respect human rights, have fairly strict regulations regarding the environment and workers' rights, and have fairly high standards.

That is not the case in Honduras. In that country, journalists continue to be murdered. In committee, witnesses such as Bertha Oliva, an advocate for human rights in Honduras, spoke about the human rights situation there. She campaigned for justice for missing and murdered persons in Honduras. We also heard from witnesses, such as PEN International, who spoke about human rights. All of these witnesses agreed that the free trade agreement with Honduras would not improve the human rights situation there. In fact, it could even make an already horrendous situation worse. Witnesses from PEN International spoke about journalists in particular. Journalists are often in danger because of their profession. Those who write or speak about free trade agreements or the economy are often in even greater jeopardy.

These witnesses also said that the agreement would not benefit most Hondurans, a large percentage of whom live in poverty. Economists also told us that the Honduran economy was similar to that of the Ottawa-Gatineau region. Its economy is not huge. Few consumers will buy Canadian products because they simply do not have the means. These people live on very little money per month. This agreement will not have a huge benefit for Canadian industries.

I would also like to talk about the agreement with the European Union, which was also debated in the House. I will speak on behalf of the cheese producers in my riding and my region, since I have the pleasure and honour to represent a riding that is both urban and rural. Our community has a lot of farmers and cheese producers. They are wondering when they will hear from the Conservative government about the compensation they are supposed to receive as a result of the implementation of the free trade agreement with the European Union.

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé moved a motion in the House that was debated and voted upon. Fortunately, the Conservatives voted in favour of this NDP motion to ensure that cheese producers will not be overly penalized by this free trade agreement with the European Union. The Conservative government just needs to put its words into action and give us some more specific information about how cheese producers will receive this compensation.

I look forward to continuing my speech the next time I have the opportunity to do so in this House.

The House resumed from October 27 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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has 13 minutes left for her speech.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to continue speaking to Bill C-41, the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement.

It is my great pleasure and honour to support this bill and this free trade agreement, the crux of which is tariff lines between Canada and South Korea. The NDP believes that this free trade agreement will benefit Canadian industries and that it can produce plenty of positive economic spinoffs for Canadian industries, such as aerospace.

First, I want to point out that Korea is one of Canada's biggest trading partners. It is Canada's seventh-largest trading partner, the third-largest in Asia after China and Japan. In 2003, Canadian exports to South Korea totalled $33.4 billion while Korean exports to Canada totalled $7.3 billion.

The NDP supports a balanced and sensible approach to free trade agreements. We believe it is critical to review each individual agreement to determine its benefits. The NDP believes that Canada must negotiate free trade agreements with trading partners that respect democracy and human rights and have adequate environmental and labour rights standards. That is the case in South Korea.

In addition, the trading partner's economy must be of significant or strategic value to Canada. As I explained in my speech, this free trade agreement with Korea passes that test. We also have to ensure that the terms of the proposed agreement are satisfactory. I know that a number of stakeholders, including most Canadian industrial sectors, have said this is an excellent agreement. That cannot be said of all of the free trade agreements negotiated by the Conservative government over the past few months and years.

The NDP understands the importance of implementing this free trade agreement as of January 1. In fact, Korea already has free trade agreements with the European Union and the United States. Since those countries implemented their free trade agreements with Korea, Canadian exporters have been losing significant market share. What is more, each year, Korean tariffs come down for EU and U.S. exporters as a result of those agreements. This is estimated to cost Canadian producers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. We therefore understand how urgent it is to implement this free trade agreement as soon as possible. The losses have been particularly heavy in the agri-foods, seafood and aerospace sectors. I would like to emphasize the aerospace sector in particular since it is essential to the economic well-being of the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

It is also important to note that there are high rates of unionization in these sectors. We therefore strongly believe that this free trade agreement with Korea will encourage the creation of stable, unionized jobs, which will help Canadians make ends meet.

Canada’s largest private-sector union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, has publicly supported the Korean free trade agreement. This union represents tens of thousands of workers in the food processing, seafood, milling, agricultural and distilling sectors.

I am very proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I have been able to work with our critic for international trade. We worked extremely hard to improve Bill C-41. Although we support the bill and although it will be beneficial to Canada, we believe that it is not perfect and that it can be improved.

The NDP proposed three amendments to the Standing Committee on International Trade, which were defeated not only by the Conservatives, who hold a majority on the committee, but also by the Liberal member who sits on that committee.

One of the amendments that the NDP critic proposed to improve the bill sought to eliminate the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. The NDP believes that this is a rather controversial aspect of the bill because we are talking about a free trade agreement between two democratic countries with solid and stable legal systems.

The Conservative government has a history of negotiating free trade agreements that contain these investor state dispute settlement mechanisms. These free trade agreements are even a cornerstone of this government. However, we do not believe that such a measure is necessary in a free trade agreement with South Korea.

As we have seen in the news in recent weeks, many countries did not agree with this investor state dispute settlement mechanism. Germany, for one, has spoken out against these mechanisms in free trade agreements.

The main opposition party in South Korea also opposes this mechanism, and an NDP government would negotiate with South Korea in order to get rid of it. This mechanism definitely does not have unanimous support in the international community.

The good thing about this free trade agreement is that it is not binding on the governments for 31 years, like the Canada-China investment agreement, or FIPA. Unlike that investment protection agreement, the free trade agreement with South Korea has guaranteed transparency rules for investor state dispute settlement tribunals, and the hearings must be held in public. That is at least one good thing about this bill.

I would like to digress for a moment and talk about intellectual property. I would like to quote an expert in this area who is often quoted in this House, Michael Geist. He also often appears as a witness before parliamentary committees.

I encourage any Canadians who might be interested, including my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, to look for and read what he has written on the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to read the text in full, but this illustrates at least that the section on intellectual property has some positive aspects that we can support.

I will quote from what Michael Geist wrote.

He said:

The IP chapter is significant for what it does not include. Unlike many other trade deals--particularly those involving the U.S., European Union, and Australia--the Canada-South Korea deal is content to leave domestic intellectual property rules largely untouched. The approach is to reaffirm the importance of intellectual property and ensure that both countries meet their international obligations, but not to use trade agreements as a backdoor mechanism to increase IP protections.

Later in his article he says:

...the Canada--South Korea agreement may provide a model for many other countries that wish to include intellectual property provisions in their trade agreements but are content to require each party to meet international standards rather than the domestic rules of one of the parties. The U.S. and E.U. approach has been to export their rules to other countries, but Canada and South Korea have demonstrated that respect for domestic choices and compliance [to] international obligations is a better alternative.

The free trade agreement between Canada and Korea is interesting in its approach to intellectual property.

Since I have just a minute left, I would like to reiterate that the NDP has a balanced approach to free trade agreements. We will look at the text of the free trade agreement with the European Union and consult Canadians before deciding whether or not we will support it. Nonetheless, the free trade agreement between Canada and Korea is a positive, model agreement. I am proud to support it.

Our approach is not like that of the Conservative government at all. The government wants to negotiate free trade agreements with every country, regardless of their record on respecting human rights and without any concern for the benefits to Canada. We must choose our trade partners carefully, and that is what an NDP government will do.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments, and thank her and her party for their intended support of this bill, because it is very important.

There was one point in her comments where there may have been a translation issue. I am not sure. However, she referred to the Canada-China free trade agreement. I would just like to inform the House and Canadians that we do not have a free trade agreement with China. We have a foreign investment protection agreement, which is very crucial for potential investors in a foreign economy.

For that reason, I wonder if my colleague could explain why she would not have stood up for those foreign investors who intend to invest in South Korea, by having her committee try to remove that section from this bill. It is a very crucial section for those who intend to invest in South Korea.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understood the question. I think he was talking about the fact that I mentioned the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. The NDP is opposed to this agreement between Canada and China.

He is right. That is not a free trade agreement, but rather an agreement that protects Chinese investments in Canada and allows Chinese companies to take over and control Canada's natural resources. That is why the NDP is against this investment protection agreement with China.

He also raised the matter of the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. This should be debated. International stakeholders demonstrated that this mechanism was not necessary between two countries that have sound justice systems like Canada and Korea.

As far as free trade agreements between these two countries are concerned, we can rely on our solid and transparent justice systems. This mechanism is therefore not necessary in this free trade agreement. In future, the NDP will exclude this mechanism when it negotiates free trade agreements.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we catch this particular point: in 2003 South Korea made the determination that it wanted to enter into free trade agreements throughout the world.

Canada has been somewhat slack in not giving this file the attention it deserved. In fact, it was former prime minister Paul Martin who really initiated the discussions with South Korea back in 2004, just a year after South Korea had expressed its interest. It has taken the current Conservative government almost a decade to take that interest South Korea had and put it into a free trade agreement.

Now, do not get me wrong. The Liberal Party has consistently, from Korea's initial interest back in 2003, wanted to see a free trade agreement. We have supported the bill in second reading.

To that extent, I think it is noteworthy to recognize that the NDP has taken a different road, a road to support free trade agreements. This is something that is very new here in Ottawa. It is a new policy shift for the New Democrats.

I wonder if my NDP colleague could provide some comment as to why there has been that shift in NDP policy in favour of free trade agreements. Can we now anticipate, for example, that NDP members will support the economic trade agreement with the European Union?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to disagree with the Liberal Party's approach to free trade because a few months ago that party supported a free trade agreement with Honduras.

It is shameful that the Liberal Party is prepared to negotiate a free trade agreement with an undemocratic country where journalists are murdered and workers are not safe. That economy is of very little strategic importance to Canada.

However, the Liberals followed the Conservatives and supported that free trade agreement, which, in fact, will not improve the human rights situation in that country. Quite frankly, I do not believe that that position is in any way good for the Canadian economy or for our international reputation.

If the NDP is voted in as the government next year, we will strengthen trade ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region. We recognize that this will be vital to Canada's prosperity in the 21st century.

I hope that the NDP will form the government and that the Liberal Party will support us.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to take any lessons from the Liberal Party. Its Liberal leader actually got up in this House and applauded the deal with the European Union when he had not even seen the text of it or did not know what the deal was. This is the position the Liberal Party takes, that it does not even see the details of the deal before supporting it. We are much better than that. We are a principled party that looks at the details and whether they would benefit all Canadians, all sectors of our economy, and create local jobs.

The Conservative record on trade has been very poor. When the Conservatives came to power back in 2006, we had a trade surplus of, I believe, about $16 billion. However, we now have a trade deficit of over $60 billion, which has accumulated over that period of time.

Could the member talk about how we can improve on creating local jobs and help expand, not only sending oil and raw materials to other countries but creating local manufacturing jobs, with these trade agreements?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right about the numbers. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a terrible track record when it comes to international trade.

He also mentioned the Liberal Party's position on the free trade agreement with the European Union. I would like to quote the Liberal trade critic concerning that agreement:

We have been supportive of the deal from the start. It’s important to say this is a great step, but also we really need to start seeing some details. At some point though we need to see what it is we’re actually supporting.

The Liberals were prepared to support an agreement without having all the details, without doing their homework and without doing what had to be done to ensure that it really was a good agreement.

The NDP is ready to do the work and to study the agreements. We even travelled across the country to consult Canadians about this free trade agreement. It is critical that we do this work.

I would like to get back to the question my colleague asked about how we can support the manufacturing sector and increase exports. According to the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, free trade agreements are an excellent step, and we must negotiate them. However, we need to do more and we need to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to export, because it is often more difficult for them to export products to other countries or economies.

We need to ensure that there are services to help these businesses get information on the other countries they may be exporting to. In addition, and to mark Small Business Week, we need to put an emphasis on small business and on helping them export.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be sharing my time with the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

It is my pleasure to reiterate the importance of Canada's free trade agreement with Korea. No government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers, and their families. Deepening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to these efforts. Our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. It represents one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for more than 60% of our country's annual income.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is an ambitious state-of-the-art agreement covering virtually all sectors and aspects of trade between Canada and Korea. It would also be Canada's first free trade agreement with an Asian market.

When President Park of the Republic of Korea visited Canada in September, she and the Prime Minister also announced their intention to develop an agreement on science, technology, and innovation co-operation between our two countries. I would like to focus my remarks on this important development in the Canada-Korea relationship.

Canada is globally renowned for its strength in innovation, its R and D capacity, and its highly trained workforce. Research and development is crucial for Canada's success as a trading nation. It plays a key role in shaping the economy and creating the jobs of the future. It creates new goods and services that improve the standard of living for Canadians and for communities around the world.

The Canadian science, technology, and innovation landscape is rich and diverse. Our Conservative government understands the importance of science, technology, and innovation in addressing key societal challenges. Indeed, all Canadians know our future growth and place in the world will increasingly be driven by our ability to innovate.

Let me provide some insights into how innovation is linked to economic development. The Science, Technology and Innovation Council of Canada describes science and technology, and specifically research and development, as involving the “creation of new knowledge”. Innovation requires that knowledge or technology introduced into the marketplace or into an organization creates value. Being able to translate ideas from the lab to the marketplace is extremely important for Canada.

To remain successful in the highly competitive global economy, Canada must continue to improve its approach for developing high-quality, talented people performing world-leading research and generating new breakthrough ideas. Our government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness, which in turn adversely affects middle-class Canadian families. International collaboration in science, technology, and innovation is increasingly important to our ability to stay at the leading edge.

Canada generates about 4.1% of global knowledge, despite accounting for just 0.5% of the world's population. That is courtesy of the Council of Canadian Academies, The State of Science and Technology in Canada, 2012. Clearly, we are punching above our weight, and our linkages with international innovation leaders are crucial to maintaining our advantage.

Korea is an ideal partner for Canada in science, technology, and innovation co-operation. Strengthening relations with Korea through a formal agreement would allow Canada to build a lasting strategic framework with one of the world's most innovative economies. Korea is not only a top funder of research and development projects, but an expert in introducing new technologies into the marketplace. These are the types of partners Canada needs to advance our expertise in innovation.

In addition to supporting the relationship between the two countries, a science, technology, and innovation agreement would complement the Canada-Korea free trade agreement by enhancing opportunities for Canadian industry to gain access to cutting-edge research networks and technology in Korea.

A preliminary analysis suggests that the most promising sectors for co-operation align with those that would be supported by Canada's free trade agreement with Korea, namely aerospace; automotive; energy, including sustainable technologies; advanced manufacturing; health and life sciences, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices; and information communication technology, or ICTs.

If the House will permit me, I would like to discuss the benefits that would accrue to Canadians from strengthening the Canada-Korea science, technology, and innovation relationship.

A science, technology, and innovation or STI agreement would be supported by robust CKFTA outcomes in the areas of services, investment, temporary entry, and intellectual property.

The services and investment provisions would provide Canadian suppliers of professional services such as R and D with greater and more predictable access to the Korean market and would encourage additional investment in the science, technology, and innovation sectors.

Temporary entry provisions would provide new preferential access to the Korean market, facilitating movement between Canada and South Korea for business visitors.

The free trade agreement's commitment to strong intellectual property rights and rules for their enforcement would provide Canadians who develop and market innovative and creative products with access to the Korean market. An STI agreement would be an effective tool to assist Canadian companies to increase exports of value-added industrial and advanced manufacturing products, making Korea an attractive market not only for our traditional energy and agricultural exports but also for science, technology, and innovation exports. An STI agreement would also benefit Canada by facilitating increased access for Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, as well as research institutes and universities to Korea's innovative ecosystem and global value chains. Canada's R and D largely depends on our universities. Korea relies much more on industry. The Korean R and D approach can help Canada commercialize research and scale products.

Finally, an STI agreement with Korea would strengthen people-to-people ties by providing a forum for government, researchers, industry, and key Canadian stakeholders to develop opportunities to collaborate and leverage the latest R and D and technological advancements in strategic sectors. It would increase knowledge of innovation systems by providing a forum for both countries to learn about respective STI policies, programs, and government funding structures, providing further insights into innovation, growth, and export strategies.

We stand with Canadians, incredibly disappointed that New Democrats tried to completely gut the bill at the trade committee, where they tabled amendments to remove the investor protection provisions, which are the cornerstones of modern trade and investment agreements. This is just as harmful as the neglect of international trade under the Liberals, who took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations and put Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

Fortunately, our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Thanks to the actions under our government's free trade leadership, Canadian workers, businesses, and exporters now have preferred access and a real competitive edge in more markets around the world than at any other time in our history.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is yet another example of how we are getting the job done. This agreement would strengthen our trade and investment ties across the Pacific, increase the prosperity of both our countries, and create jobs and enhanced opportunities for Canadian businesses.

With that, I call for the prompt implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement for the benefit of Canada and all Canadians.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell me exactly what Canada stands to gain from this investor state dispute settlement mechanism?

After signing the investor state dispute settlement section, chapter of 11 of NAFTA, the Canadian government had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to American companies and lost the capacity and the possibility to legislate environmental policies or investment policies.

I would like the member to tell us what exactly we are going to get from this kind of mechanism in another trade agreement. Are we going to have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Korean companies, as we did for American companies? I would like the member to tell us what we are going to get from these kinds of mechanisms.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to creating free trade opportunities for Canadian businesses around the world. In fact, in the past seven years, some 43 new trade agreements have been signed globally by the government. That is something that I think all Canadians should not only be proud of but should also see as opportunities for growth.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is going to create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians by increasing Canada's exports to South Korea by 32% and boosting Canada's economy by $1.7 billion. This is opportunity.

In much the same way as we recently discussed in relation to the Canada-European trade agreement, this agreement would open up job opportunities to Canadians in Korea, it will bring Korean companies to Canada, and it will give access to Canadian manufacturers and service companies to some 70 million Koreans. As we discussed in relation to the European free trade agreement, there will be some 500 million new customers for Canadian businesses.

This is an opportunity that opens up business opportunities for Canadian business on a level playing field between Canada and Korea, and it is something that I think is good for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have witnessed is a great deal of Conservative spin coming right from the Prime Minister's Office.

Nothing could be further from the truth than to say the Conservative government is a leader when it comes to trade. In reality, when it comes to trade, the government has lost more trade opportunities than any other political entity in the history of Canada.

The member made references to 43 trade agreements, but 28 of those countries are all part of one, the European Union. When the member says 43, he has to watch the way he twists the words around.

When it comes to the Canada-Korea deal, this is a deal Korea expressed an interest in back in 2003. One year later, Paul Martin said that we should act on this opportunity. It took this government years and years of being pulled by the South Korean government, and now we finally have an agreement before us.

How many opportunities and jobs does the member feel Canadians have lost because of the government's inability to negotiate a freer trade agreement with South Korea years ago?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk spin, clearly my friend opposite has strayed far from the topic at hand today.

Let us just talk about this. In the tenure of the Liberal Party as government for this country, it signed three free trade agreements. We have signed 43. If we lump in 28 from the European Union, that is fine. Canadian businesses now have access to 500 million consumers.

We are not losing opportunities. We are gaining them every day through an international trade component led by this government that is getting the job done for Canadians and for Canadian growth and Canadian prosperity.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important free trade agreement and to share my time with the hard-working member for Don Valley West.

I will start off by reconfirming that there is no government in Canada's history that has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers, and their families. The Minister of International Trade has been spending many days away from home trying to secure new markets and to deepen Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world. I think it is key to these efforts.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first FTA with an Asia-Pacific nation, is an ambitious, state-of-the-art agreement covering virtually all sectors and aspects of free trade.

Today I will speak specifically to the foundation of the agreement, which is the extensive and profound people-to-people ties that bind Canada and South Korea. I think that is a very important aspect that has not really been talked about.

It is an increasingly interconnected world. People-to-people ties are crucial to ensuring long-term success in the competitive global economy. It is all about relationships, and this free trade agreement is a classic example. It is a landmark achievement that would result in mutual benefits and prosperity for both of our countries and that would lay the foundation to unlock the full potential of our political, economic, and secure relations.

Canada can leverage its rich history and flourishing people-to-people ties with South Korea to build on this free trade agreement and pave the pathway to jobs and prosperity for generations to come.

Canada and South Korea have had formal diplomatic relations for over 50 years, yet the connections between our two peoples extend back more than a century. Prior to the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1963, Canada came to South Korea's aid in the Korean War, contributing the third-largest contingent of troops to UN forces. More than 26,000 Canadian soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder with their Korean brothers and sisters against the spread of tyranny. Unfortunately, more than 500 individuals ultimately gave their lives. George Barr, from the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 26 in my riding, and others across Canada, have been incredible ambassadors for the Canada-Korea relationship. The memories of helping folks in Korea and Canada continue to strengthen that bond.

Korean President Park was here last month for her official state visit, and she laid a wreath in memory at the National War Memorial. It was one of the highlights of her visit and was a testament to the importance of the shared history of our two nations.

When I had the honour of travelling with the Prime Minister and the delegation in March for the initial signing of the agreement in Seoul, the Prime Minister and the delegation laid a wreath at the Seoul National Cemetery, as well.

I would like to take a moment to think about Corporal Cirillo. His funeral procession is taking place in Hamilton right now. I am thinking about soldiers, the men and women who sacrifice their lives, and our thoughts and prayers go out to their families as well.

After the Korean War, almost 7,000 additional Canadian soldiers served as peacekeepers in South Korea between 1953 and 1957. Canada also participated in supervising South Korea's first elections in 1948 as part of the United Nations temporary commission on Korea. Aside from the United States, Canada is the only other state that has permanent military representation, with the United Nations Command, otherwise known as the UNC, in Korea.

Canada continues to participate in the UNC Military Armistice Commission that supervises the armistice. Last year, a delegation of Canadian veterans, led by the current Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, travelled to South Korea to mark the 60th anniversary of the Korean War armistice on July 27, 2013.

Building on our proud and shared history, our bilateral relationship is further championed and advanced by our strong, growing, people-to-people ties. Canada is home to some 200,000 people who identify themselves as being of Korean origin. It is the fourth-largest Korean diaspora in the world. Over 23,000 Canadians are currently residing in South Korea, including around 3,200 language teachers.

Last year, our government designated the year 2013 the Year of Korea in Canada. It marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Korea and celebrated the contributions of the Korean diaspora to Canadian society.

The Year of Korea in Canada featured a number of cultural and artistic events. I am sure many members had the opportunity to take them in. There were great festivities across the country that gave Canadians the opportunity to learn more about Korean culture, tradition, and diversity.

The Canada-Korea Interparliamentary Friendship Group is co-chaired by Senator Yonah Martin, Canada's first and only Korean senator, an incredible, hard-working individual. She shares that responsibility with our acting Speaker, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, who has held three successful Canada-Korea dialogue series on the Hill, the last of which was held in June this year. It was attended by more than 100 participants.

Senator Martin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, and the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock also travelled to Seoul, Korea, in September to meet with senior government officials, Korean national assembly members, and business officials to discuss the wide-ranging benefits of the trade agreement to continue to move this agreement forward.

Some Canadians were a bit disappointed with the NDP at committee recently when members tried to remove what I believe is one of the cornerstones of a modern trade agreement, the investor protection provisions. The Liberals talked about this trade agreement in 2003, but it was our Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade who were actually able to get this over the goal line.

The opposition had taken us virtually out of the game of international trade. It was not a priority for them, and I understand their reasons. However, our government wants to create jobs and open doors and opportunities to put Canadian workers and businesses first. The opposition put us at severe risk of falling behind in the era of global markets, but that has changed in a positive manner. Fortunately for Canadians, our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians.

Last month, during President Park's visit to Canada, our government announced its intent to develop a science, technology, and innovation agreement with South Korea, providing Canada with the opportunity to further strengthen the people-to-people ties and to build a lasting strategic framework with one of the world's most innovative economies and top funders of research and development.

The agreement would provide Canadian stakeholders with opportunities to create new partnerships and enhance business-to-business linkages through a mechanism that would directly support bilateral, industry-led research and development funding projects in strategic areas.

As well, I am proud to say that our education ties are extensive and growing. I am sure members from all parties have constituents who have gone to South Korea. It is Canada's third-largest source of international students. We have had constituents going there to teach, and we have had more than 19,000 young and talented students choose Canada as the destination of choice to pursue their education. Based on the average estimated expenditure by international students in Canada per year, that would translate to Korean students contributing over $500 million to the Canadian economy. Many high-calibre international students choose to stay in Canada post-graduation, leading to the enrichment of human capital in Canada. Those who go back to Korea are some of Canada's best ambassadors.

There are over 100 active agreements among institutions in Canada and South Korea facilitating the exchange of students, faculty, staff, and curricula and providing joint research and degree programs. That is very important. The Government of Canada has a number of memoranda of understanding with South Korea, including in the areas of industrial science, engineering and technology, research, co-operation, clean technologies, energy, and Arctic research and development.

On tourism, over 140,000 Korean tourists visited Canada in 2013. It is the eighth-largest source of tourists to Canada, which is very important to my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. They spent almost $250 million in the Canadian economy. South Korea is one of the Canadian Tourism Commission's top-ten priority leisure markets. In 2013, the annual growth in the number of Korean tourists to Canada stood at 3.3%. An estimated four million Korean travellers are actively considering a Canadian holiday in the next two years.

On September 22, the Prime Minister and Korean President Park witnessed the signing of an open-skies air transport agreement between Canada and Korea, another significant milestone moving forward.

Ultimately our goal is to create jobs and growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and their families. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. As members probably know, his riding borders mine, and we work together on a number of issues.

I would just like to get a straight answer, if I can. We have brought up investor state rights, and I am hearing from the other side that wanting to have an amendment to this agreement to take out investor state rights is somehow contrary to trade or means wanting to block the agreement.

I have been following the whole idea of investor state rights ever since NAFTA. It seems ludicrous to me that any government would allow a foreign company to sue the government because it might feel that it was not treated fairly by certain environmental legislation or laws that were put in place by people at the municipal, provincial, or federal level.

I would like clarification. Why is it so important to have these investor state rights, when we have a legal system in both of our countries that can do the job, that will give our tax dollars to foreign companies, should they choose to sue us, either to defend the federal government or to make a payout? To me it does not make any sense. Why do we need to have this provision in an agreement between two civilized countries that would take our tax dollars to pay their corporations? Something is not quite right here, and I would like a definite explanation.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank my hon. colleague from the British Columbia Southern Interior. I know that he is not going to be running next year, so I wish him all the best in his retirement. We have had many opportunities to spend hours in the air together and chat as we have crossed back and forth to our ridings.

Philosophically, the aspect the New Democrats need to understand is investor protection. Our government believes that it is important that Canadians investing in another country are protected through a neutral third party, just as another country's investors who are investing in Canada would expect to be protected by the rule of law. What we would have is an independent third party that would protect the investments and look at them from an objective, neutral perspective. That is the challenge. Anyone doing business would expect to be treated fairly. I do not think it is unreasonable to have the expectation, whether it is Canadian investors investing in another country or people from another country investing in Canada, that they will be treated with respect and objectively and with fairness.

That is what we would have with the investor state provision. It has been around. It has been a cornerstone of trade agreements since NAFTA. It is an important cornerstone of modern trade agreements that we recognize around the world.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his comment, and I would like to ask a question. We in the Liberal Party support free trade. There is sometimes a focus on declaring victory as soon there is the free trade deal, as though that in itself is the end point. It is more complicated than that. In the end, does it turn out to be a good deal for Canada?

Things like trade balances sometimes give us a bit of a clue as to whether it has been successful for Canada. On the issue of the trade balance, sometimes the figures are a bit discouraging. I am not saying that they are all-important. In the end, if we increase our trade, even though we may still have a trade imbalance with the country we are dealing with, that is still a positive thing.

The government talks about all the free trade deals it has negotiated. Has it analyzed whether, in the end, they are turning out to be a good deal for Canada, in terms of the deals that have been negotiated? I certainly hope they are.

Have we negotiated hard enough that this would actually profit Canada as much as we would like it to?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank my hon. colleague for his contributions prior to being in the House and in the House, as well as taking the opportunity to visit my riding and sample some of the fruits of the labour.

We enjoy the fact that aspects of this agreement are going to benefit my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country as the export of ice wine is one of the great opportunities for Canadian vintners across the country. I was told that Korea has the highest price point for red wine in the world. The agricultural community has been screaming that we need to get this bill through as fast as possible. It would absolutely be a big win for agriculture. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is also speaking out strongly in favour of it.

The largest private sector employer in my riding is the aviation industry, Kelowna Flightcraft. Here is a quick quote from Jim Quick, who is the president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada:

Our industry depends on exports and access to international markets to remain competitive and continue creating jobs and revenues here at home.... This agreement is imperative to restoring a level playing field for Canadian firms in the [southern] Korean market.

This is especially important given the considerable growth in the aerospace industry we will see in the Asia-Pacific region in coming years. He continued:

We congratulate the government on this achievement, and thank [its representatives] for their ongoing commitment to boosting Canadian competitiveness in international markets.

That is 50 million-plus people to feed, opportunities galore, and a great win for Canada and Korea. We look forward to implementing this agreement as soon as possible.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise once again in the House to speak to Bill C-41 on the free trade agreement with South Korea. I will share my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I have been a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade for over a year, so I can say that I understand the issues raised by my Conservative colleagues, since the NDP has been trying for years to convince the government to adopt a fair and balanced approach to international trade negotiations.

Since the Conservatives came to power, they have adopted a rather simplistic approach to international trade. First, they completely discarded the notion of multilateralism, which is extremely important in a globalized economy like ours. They decided to adopt a bilateral approach and to sign free trade agreements with as many countries as possible. It almost seems as though we are in a time-limited relay race, as though the government has to sign as many free trade agreements with every country in the world before a certain date.

However, free trade in and of itself is not harmful. It is an extremely important aspect of our global economy. Nevertheless, it is just as important to take a fair and balanced approach and to gauge the interests of our own industries versus Canada's competitiveness on the international scene.

The Conservatives must understand that their simplistic approach to international trade is harming our businesses, not making them more competitive. When so many bilateral free trade agreements are being signed with other countries, there has to be a complementary approach at the national level. We need to give our businesses the support they need to remain competitive and ensure that there is reciprocity between the two states.

To summarize my opening comments, the free trade agreement with South Korea will be good for our economy and for all Canadians. However, as is the case with any approach, if we do not provide the necessary support to our own industries, unfortunately, they will lose out in the long term. We saw that happen when thousands of jobs were lost in our auto sector and manufacturing industry.

In my riding, the manufacturing industry has suffered a great deal because of lack of support from successive governments. Several hundreds, if not thousands, of manufacturing jobs have been lost in Quebec. It is wrong to think that signing dozens of free trade agreements can erase all that. The government's role is to negotiate free trade agreements, of course, but it must also provide Canadian industries with the support and tools they need to remain competitive on the international scene.

The NDP will be supporting the free trade agreement. It is really unfortunate that the government decided to vote against our amendments. We proposed three, as the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, and they were all rejected by the Conservative majority on the Standing Committee on International Trade. That situation is all too familiar for me. This is not the first time we have tried to work with the Conservatives and had them leave us in the dark and reject all of our attempts to improve legislation that has been introduced in the House of Commons.

Yes, on the whole, the free trade agreement will be good for Canada.

Since 1987, South Korea has become a democratic, multi-party democracy. It respects the fundamental values of democracy and human rights, and its labour rights standards are adequate. In terms of environmental protection, I would say that the Conservative government could learn a thing or two from South Korea. A few years ago, that country adopted a renewable energy and environmental protection policy that has made it a world leader in green energy. It seems to me that the Conservatives could learn a few things from our friends in South Korea, who have made the environment a priority.

South Korea's economy is extremely active and is very important to Canada. I believe that our exports to and imports from South Korea are comparable to our trade with European nations. It is therefore of strategic value to Canadians.

Having studied all of these criteria, the NDP decided to support this bill. As my colleagues have mentioned a few times, our agriculture, automotive and aerospace industries will benefit significantly from this free trade agreement. However, there is always a “but”: a free trade agreement will stimulate the economy, but only up to a point because our industries will now compete with other industries. If the government does not give them the tools and support they need, our industries could suffer in the long term, unfortunately.

A free trade agreement can be part of a strategy, but unfortunately, if we look at the big picture, the government has failed in its duty toward our Canadian industries, particularly the automobile and manufacturing industries, because it has not provided them with the support they need, nor has it implemented adequate industrial and economic stimulation policies for our industries, which are now suffering as a result.

My riding in eastern Montreal, La Pointe-de-l'Île, is home to many manufacturing industries that would benefit greatly from some help from the federal government. Unfortunately, they have been forgotten. Perhaps the government has won the race to see how many free trade agreements it could sign, but it has failed in its duty to protect Canadian jobs, including jobs in Quebec and in my riding in particular, La Pointe-de-l'Île.

This brings me to my final point. The Conservatives like to point fingers at us. They are saying that it does not make sense that the NDP wants to get rid of the part on investor state dispute settlement. I would like to remind all Canadians who are listening that their tax dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact—have been given to American companies because they challenged our regulations on the environment and on public health. These kinds of provisions do not need to be included in any free trade agreement, because unfortunately, our capacity and our sovereignty as a nation and as a House of Commons to make regulations to protect the environment and public health have been up for negotiation. Chapter 11 of NAFTA has given us ample evidence of this. Indeed, Canada has had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money to American companies because they did not agree with our environmental protection measures.

It is all well and good to point fingers at the NDP, but unfortunately, the facts and figures show that these kinds of provisions are not good for Canadians.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the NDP will be supporting this trade agreement, because it is very important for the seafood sector. Of course, her home province of Quebec is a significant seafood producer.

On a recent trip to South Korea, I learned that price point factors very significantly with consumers in Korea when purchasing goods. Obviously, as a seafood producer without a trade agreement with Korea, we find our competitors enjoy much more sales in that marketplace than Canada does. Of course, one of those countries is the United States. What I did hear as well, loud and clear, is that Canadian seafood has a reputation for having the highest quality available anywhere in the world.

Expanding our market is crucial to providing a better return to Canadian fishers. Some would have heard me say in the House earlier this year that Canadian lobster landings have increased by 93% in the last six or seven years. The supply is growing faster than demand, which is contributing to depressed prices. Therefore, we know how important it is to expand these markets, because every new consumer we reach creates more demand for our delicious fish and seafood.

I would like to ask the hon. member several questions. What is the size of the potential new market for Canadian fish and seafood? What are the current tariffs in the fish and seafood sector? Could she comment on what this deal means for Quebec fishermen?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. This free trade agreement will benefit our seafood producers. We are on the same wavelength. I think that the tariffs are roughly 47% on Canadian seafood, which is a rather significant barrier. Obviously, eliminating these tariff barriers will help open the market to our seafood producers.

I know that a number of associations, including the Lobster Council of Canada—my colleague mentioned this—and also the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia supported this bill. The same goes for the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

This bill must move forward in order to support our industries. Nonetheless, I would remind my colleague, who is a minister, that she has to understand that the government has a responsibility to support our industries at the local level. It is good to open barriers and create new markets, but if our industries cannot remain competitive and do not get help from the federal government, then the free trade agreement serves no purpose.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative speaker after speaker has gotten up in the House and talked about investment in research and technology and how Korea has invested over the years in science and technology. That is one of the reasons it has emerged as a tiger in Asia. They talk about investment in science and technology. Could the member tell me what the Conservative record is in regard to investing in science and technology?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague put his finger on the problem, which is the principle.

The Conservatives think that signing free trade agreements will solve all the problems in our industries. As I said, this applies to any industry: agriculture, science and technology, the auto industry, and especially the aerospace industry. Montreal lost hundreds of jobs, even though Canada was a leader in the field.

A free trade agreement is not an investment. The Canadian government must invest in its national industries and then sign free trade agreements. Then it must ensure that the health of our industries is reflected in all the other states.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, the NDP will be supporting the bill at third reading. I am glad to see that my friend from Kitchener—Conestoga is happy about that.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Hear, hear!

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the NDP looks at trade deals, we use four very important criteria to assess these deals.

Is the proposed partner one who respects democracy and human rights, and does it have adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values?

If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner moving towards these goals?

Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? On this point, I might just comment on the minister's question for the previous speaker.

Currently, seafood from both our coasts is subject, in some cases, to 47% tariffs. Under this deal, not all but most of those tariffs would disappear, which would certainly be good for fishers on both of our coasts. Therefore, on the question of this deal being of strategic value, in many areas it is, and a little later I will talk about the wood and forest industry.

Also, are the terms of the agreement satisfactory, and are they of net benefit to Canada?

There are some issues, which I will talk about in a moment, but on balance, this trade agreement is with a democratic country that has high standards. It is a good deal, and so Canada can support it.

Furthermore, South Korea is an established democracy that has high standards for labour rights, human rights, and environmental protections. It is a large market that offers significant opportunities for Canadian business to gain a foothold in the important Asian market area. Of course, it is also an opportunity for Canada to diversify its trade.

As the forestry critic for the official opposition, I will say a few words about forestry and wood products in this particular deal.

Canada's forestry and wood products industry includes newsprint, wood pulp, wood panels, and other value-added products. Even with the downsizing and the loss of 48,000 jobs in the last few years, the forest industry still contributes over $20 billion to Canada's GDP, and it still employs 230,000 Canadians in primary and secondary manufacturing. Many of these jobs are for high-skilled trades.

Canadian exporters to Korea are really at a disadvantage by tariff lines on Canadian wood products, which are, in some cases, up to 10%. Now, 10% might not sound nearly as bad as up to 47% for some seafood products from Canada, but 10% in a very competitive business means a lot of money on the bottom line for Canadian forest companies.

It is important to note that this free trade agreement would provide growth opportunities for value-added wood products, which would help develop good family-sustaining jobs in the value-added economy. As we move forward, this would be good for the forest and wood products in my critic area.

The Korean free trade agreement is different from the European and China agreements. I will highlight some of the differences, which might help to further explain why we are supporting this trade deal with Korea.

Unlike the China deal, the terms in the South Korea free trade agreement are reciprocal. I think that is a very important element to keep in mind as we move forward in this debate.

The Korea free trade agreement would not apply to provincial, territorial, or municipal procurement or crown corporations, where most Canadian procurement is located. That is good for businesses like Bombardier in my riding, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, so that if the City of Toronto, for example, decides it needs new streetcars, Bombardier can bid competitively and keep its 800 to 1,200 high-paying, family-sustaining jobs in Thunder Bay. That is a good part of this deal that is missing from other trade deals.

The Korea free trade agreement would not apply to or negatively affect supply-managed agriculture products, something the NDP has always protected with the belief—and I know this belief is probably right through this place—that we cannot forget that farmers feed cities in this country and it is important that they be able to keep and work their farms and, hopefully, be able to retire with that income.

The Korea free trade agreement does not contain any negative intellectual property provisions. When I say that, I am thinking of pharmaceutical and copyright, for example. Michael Geist has pronounced positively on the intellectual property terms of the Korea free trade agreement, calling it a “model” agreement.

While the Korea free trade agreement does have investor state provision, it contains transparency guarantees, and we are fully able to cancel that on six months notice. More importantly, particularly for the east coast of Canada, shipbuilding is exempt from federal procurement rules. Therefore, there are some differences, and those differences highlight why New Democrats can support this deal and have perhaps not supported other deals that the government has sought to make.

A question came up earlier in the debate, so I will say a few words about investor state dispute settlements. Quite frankly, an NDP government would not have included investor state dispute settlements in the Korea free trade agreement. Just as a side note, the investor state dispute settlement mechanism in this free trade agreement is also opposed by Korea's main opposition party. An NDP government would negotiate with South Korea to have it dropped. I heard the government say earlier that this is a mechanism that is in all modern free trade agreements. I am not entirely sure that it needs to be; so it needs to be looked at a little more closely.

One would think, as I am speaking, that everything is rosy between the government and the official opposition on this particular bill, but the fact of the matter is that New Democrats proposed six amendments at committee and the government, true to form, dismissed them wholesale. It decided to dismiss these amendments out of hand without a proper discussion or looking at whether these amendments might improve the bill. That is true to form, along with just about everything else that has happened for the last three and a half years in committees. It is unfortunate that the government has always been so heavy handed in terms of amendments.

There are some things New Democrats would like the government to do after this bill passes. We want the government to make sure it supports our automotive industry. We support breaking down trade barriers, but we believe government should provide the support that Canadian industry needs to remain competitive in a more open world economy.

New Democrats also agree with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others that the government needs to do more than sign trade agreements. It must do more to promote Canadian exports, attract investment, and help Canadian companies penetrate the South Korean and other Asian markets.

The New Democrats want a strategic trade policy where we restart multilateral negotiations and sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and with developing countries that are on progressive trajectories. These are countries like Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa.

The bottom line is that this is not the precise agreement that we would have negotiated. There are some problems, as I have outlined, but we will support this free trade agreement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that South Korea has now put in place a carbon trading practice. It is very progressive in dealing with climate change. Now we have a situation where a Canadian government that is so lax on its international agreements on climate change has been put in almost last place among developed countries dealing with climate change. The Prime Minister is vilified as a climate change villain by organizations around the world.

Does the member think that circumstances will arise in the next few years where South Korea may take action against Canadian laws and companies that may want to invest in the country because they do not follow the same level of environmental standards that South Korea has?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. One never knows what could possibly happen as an offshoot of an agreement like this. It is entirely possible.

I will give one possible scenario of a Korean company that finds itself exporting into Canada. Finding that it has extra costs associated with the environmental rules and regulations that it may have in South Korea but that do not exist here and may not be as stringent, it could become a sticking point and something that would need to be negotiated. Alternatively, with the investor state mechanism, perhaps the Canadian government could even be sued over that kind of situation.

It is a problem. Some might say that it is a good thing. Maybe a trade deal with South Korea would improve Canada's action on climate change. That remains to be seen.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

A certain document prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development shows that Canada dragged its feet on signing trade agreements with important markets that are of strategic interest to Canada.

In fact, the government allegedly wasted many resources and a great deal of time negotiating agreements with far-right governments, small Latin American countries and other countries that are of no strategic interest to Canada but are friends of the Conservative government. Unfortunately this has not helped our economic development or our trade.

Could my colleague comment on this document from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this free trade agreement has been almost nine years in the making. In that time, other players, like the European Union and the United States, made their own free trade agreements with South Korea. It has put us at a great disadvantage. In fact, if we look at the other free trade agreements that the European Union and the United States have made, one might think they actually got better deals than we did in a number of areas.

We have been playing catch-up. Nine years is a long time, while other countries or groups of countries get in to make their own deals.

I do not want to speak for the government, but I suppose that it made deals with some of the other smaller countries and, in some cases, less developed countries because they felt they were easy and would move ahead, and that Korea would be difficult, just as the European Union deal appears to be quite difficult and still ongoing.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that our hearts and prayers are with the family and friends of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in the final ceremonies honouring his life today.

I am very thankful to the RCMP, our security staff on the Hill and especially Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers for their great work last Wednesday. I am certain that in those first few moments last Wednesday, there were many thousands of prayers offered by Canadians. I want to thank God for his protection that the tragedy of last Wednesday was not much worse than it was.

I am pleased to rise today to speak about the historic Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Willowdale.

It is only our Conservative government that is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. By pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, our Conservative government has provided Canadian businesses with access to new opportunities in dynamic markets around the globe.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a landmark achievement that will restore a level playing field for Canadian companies competing in the South Korean market. It is also Canada's first agreement with an Asian country. This is an important point to keep in mind.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I would like to focus some of my remarks on the environmental provisions contained in the agreement. I am proud of our government's action to protect our environment.

Both Canada and South Korea have committed to ensuring that trade does not come at the expense of the environment by negotiating robust and ambitious environmental obligations into the environment chapter in this free trade agreement.

While Canada has traditionally included strong, legally binding commitments to protect our environment in parallel environment agreements, we have in these negotiations moved those provisions within the free trade agreement itself. This is the same approach we pursued in the Canada-European Union trade agreement negotiations and reflects the importance that Canada places on ensuring that free and open trade and environmental protection are prominent and mutually supportive in our agreements.

Canada and South Korea have committed to promote sustainable development and to undertake their commitments in a manner that is consistent with environmental protection and conservation.

This environment chapter obliges both countries to maintain high levels of environmental protection, as we intensify our trade relationship. It commits us to effectively enforce our environmental laws and to ensure that we do not weaken them in order to encourage trade or investment.

In addition, we have agreed to obligations that address accountability and transparency, public awareness and engagement, all fundamental Canadian values.

This builds on a tradition of transparency and public engagement enshrined in all of our trade agreements beginning with our first environmental agreement, the North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation.

We have a strong record of achievement in implementing our first and most comprehensive environment agreement with our North American partners. In fact, this year we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation. The Minister of the Environment had the privilege of hosting her American and Mexican counterparts in Canada's north this past July.

In Yellowknife, our three countries agreed to focus on three priority areas for the organization's next strategic plan: climate change, green growth and sustainable communities and ecosystems.

The environmental chapter also requires that each party provide appropriate and effective sanctions or remedies in the case of domestic law violations. Ensuring that our citizens have access to strong and robust legal systems is a priority for this government. In this regard, our government has enhanced enforcement of federal environmental legislation through the Environmental Enforcement Act.

Once fully implemented, existing environmental laws will be further strengthened through the establishment of minimum fines and increasing maximum fines which will more accurately reflect the severity of environmental offences.

Recognizing the value of international co-operation in addressing environmental challenges, we are affirming our commitment to implement the multi-lateral environmental agreements that we have already ratified. This includes such agreements as the convention on biological diversity.

We also look forward to sharing Canada's achievements under the national conservation plan. Through this plan, Canada will invest $252 million over five years, with a focus on conserving our lands and waters, restoring our ecosystems, and connecting Canadians to nature.

The environment chapter of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will also provide for potential future co-operation to support the objectives of the agreement. Both Canada and Korea recognize the value of sharing expertise and best practices to help advance our shared commitment to sustainable development and environmental responsibility.

Distinct dispute resolution mechanisms are also included in this chapter to ensure that the obligations are respected. If a matter comes up, we would seek to resolve it through consultations and co-operation, including at the ministerial level. If the issue remains unresolved, we would seek advice from a panel of experts and work together to implement the panel's recommendations.

Beyond the environmental chapter, the free trade agreement itself includes important trade-related environment provisions. These include provisions stipulating that nothing in this agreement shall prevent Canada and South Korea from taking measures necessary to protect the environment.

The agreement also includes commitments for both governments to encourage their respective enterprises operating abroad to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct, including respect to environment.

We stand with Canadians incredibly disappointed that the NDP tried to completely gut the bill at the trade committee. It tabled amendments to remove the investor protection provisions that are cornerstones of modern trade and investment agreements.

This is just as harmful as the neglect of international trade under the Liberals. For 13 long years, they took Canada out of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

Canada and South Korea have demonstrated through this agreement our commitment to protecting the environment. From Canada's perspective, it is a commitment that we see reflected across our agenda. For example, Canada is taking action on climate change both domestically and internationally. On the international stage, we continue to work with our international partners to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address climate change globally.

Canada continues to play an active role in the United Nations framework convention on climate change and is fully committed to establishing a fair and effective climate change agreement that includes all major emitters.

We are also a founding partner and a major financial contributor, as well as an active participant, in the climate change and clean air coalition to marshal global efforts to tackle short-lived climate pollutants. This is in addition to action we are taking domestically through a strategic and pragmatic sector-by-sector regulatory approach.

We have already taken action on some of the largest sources of emissions in our country, the transportation and electricity generation sectors. As we announced last week at the United Nations climate change summit, we will build on our record by taking pre-emptive action to reduce and limit harmful hydrofluorocarbon, or HFC, emissions before they actually increase.

We are proud that Canada's economy has grown substantially, while our greenhouse gas emissions have decreased, with per capita emissions now at their lowest level since we started recording in 1990. We have demonstrated that we can protect the environment, while supporting a strong and robust economy.

Our government values high-quality economic growth and is committed to sustainable development as we continue to cultivate new opportunities for Canadian businesses abroad. We believe that trade and environment can go hand-in-hand, and this agreement proves it.

No government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families.

The farmers, food processors and manufacturers of Waterloo region are supportive of this agreement and are excited that they will reap the fruits of our labours.

On this side of the House, we recognize that Canadian business can compete and excel around the world, given a level playing field. I do not understand why the opposition seems to be against our attempts to put Canadians on equal footing with our international competitors.

I call for the speedy implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have immense respect for my colleague here on the other side and my other colleagues. However, they have been telling the House that we were trying to kill the bill at committee and that we are not respecting the will of Canadians. This is a legislative process and the opposition has proposed valuable amendments that the Conservatives voted against. They keep telling us that we are trying to kill the bill. I spoke three times on the bill. We are not trying to kill the bill, we are trying to discuss it.

I have immense respect for my colleague. I am sure he has immense respect for the legislative process. How is proposing amendments to make a bill better trying to kill the bill?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I did say kill the bill, I misspoke. I certainly did not intend to say that. I do not believe I said that. I may have said to gut the bill because I believe very strongly in the important provision of investor protection. If we are to encourage Canadians to invest in Korea, it is important that we have these mechanisms in place to protect the equity Canadians would like to invest.

To acknowledge my colleague and her concern, I want to thank the New Democrats for their intention of supporting the bill. It is a great move forward. To finally see some support for responsible initiatives that would be good for Canadian families and businesses is a change that we welcome on this side.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said something in his presentation that is kind of a half truth, which is that our per capita emissions are the lowest they have ever been. That is not how the world measures and has agreed to measure emissions of CO₂. Rather, it is by the actual amount of CO₂ emissions. My colleague would have to agree that since 1990 those have gone up and to try to change the statistics by using different formulas to present a case is disingenuous.

We put forward a motion to prohibit the weakening of environmental standards to encourage investment. If my colleague is so concerned about the environment, why would his government and the Conservative Party vote against this amendment, which was designed to ensure that nothing would change our ability and our desire to improve environmental standards in both countries?

Why would the Conservatives reject this amendment? Was it rejected because they foresee that there may be times in the future when investment will ask for lower environmental standards?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me a great opportunity to set the record straight, because my colleague may remember that he is quoting statistics from 1990. Between that time and the time that our government took office, there were 13 years of Liberal inaction on climate change. The Liberals signed agreements but under those agreements the greenhouse gas emissions rose by 30%.

Since we took office, greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by over 5% during a time when the economy grew by over 10%. Therefore, I think members see that there is definite improvement on the environmental front under this government.

I could go on about many of the other environmental initiatives that our government is working on, and my colleague often serves on the environment committee so he would be aware of them. In our national conservation plan we are partnering with partners on the ground who are already actively doing work to protect our environment, and this would have the synergistic effect of doubling or tripling the effect to be had from investments we make.

I am proud of our government's record on the environmental protection standards that we have implemented.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to speak on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

At the onset, I should indicate that prior to entering politics, I had an opportunity to do a significant amount of business in South Korea. As a matter of fact, one of the subway systems that is used in a suburb of Seoul is a system that I introduced to them back in the mid-1980s.

However, what I would like to address today is the broader implications of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement being the first of our many agreements, hopefully, in the Asia-Pacific region.

Our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. The creation of jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and their families continues to be our focus. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership.

I would like to highlight the Canada-Korea free trade agreement in the broader context of Canada's foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region.

This dynamic region accounts for half of the world's population and is expected to contain two-thirds of the world's middle class by 2030. By that point, it is further estimated that the region would account for one-half of global GDP. Canada and our competitors recognize the significant potential Asia-Pacific has to offer, in terms of productivity, investment and innovation.

In the last Speech from the Throne, we committed to expanding trade in the Asia-Pacific region to benefit hard-working Canadians and businesses, especially, our crucial small and medium-size enterprises and industries across the country.

In addition to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement that we are discussing today, Canada continues to pursue agreements with other Asia-Pacific nations. Earlier this month, we ratified a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China. We are also participating in the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations with 11 other countries in the region, and are negotiating an economic partnership agreement with Japan.

The tremendous economic momentum and potential of the Asia-Pacific has been accompanied by political and demographic shifts across the region. Amid this transformation, Canada has made our relations with Asia-Pacific a top foreign policy priority in order to contribute to regional and global security and prosperity.

In August, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced additional Canadian funding in the amount of $14 million to help address security issues of shared concern in Southeast Asia. The projects include those to mitigate biological and nuclear threats; disrupt illicit flows, while protecting legitimate trade; combat human smuggling activities; improve regional cybersecurity tools; and work with our Association of Southeast Asian Nations partners to prevent and respond to terrorism.

For example, we are helping states by providing training and equipment, and technical and legal assistance to address the foreign fighter phenomenon and radicalization. Canada committed $2.3 million to support efforts by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to identify and detect foreign fighters, individuals who are returning to their countries from abroad having been further radicalized and with the training and experience to undertake terrorist activities at home.

Canada also provides bilateral development assistance to countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and the Philippines, as well as other countries across Southeast Asia.

Furthermore, Canada provides development assistance through multilateral and global programs in Asia, as well as through partnerships between Canadian organizations and counterparts in Asia. In the fiscal year 2012-13, Canada provided approximately $1 billion in official development assistance to countries in Asia.

As an example, in September, our government announced funding for World Vision Canada and the Canadian Red Cross to support projects that are improving the health and well-being of vulnerable people in Afghanistan, as well as strengthening community resilience to natural disasters in Southeast Asia. Stability and security are vital to the prosperity of the region and that of Canada. We have a stake in attaining these objectives and we have made important contributions to supporting them in the Asia-Pacific region.

South Korea has witnessed rapid development, democratic evolution, and growing regional and international interests. It joined the United Nations in 1991 and in 2010 it was accepted into the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

These milestones have facilitated and enhanced co-operation between Canada and Korea in a number of political and security dimensions such as arms control, disarmament, peacekeeping and development assistance. Canada and Korea are both active in multilateral fora and partners in promoting global peace and security. Both countries also co-operate on security issues in other fora, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

Additionally, we share important alliances with the United States and the Asia-Pacific and beyond. Canada supports efforts to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in that region, and takes seriously the threat posed by North Korea to regional and indeed global security. We stand with South Korea in its efforts to ensure peace on the peninsula. North and South Korea technically remain at war as hostilities were concluded with an armistice, not a peace treaty.

Canada remains gravely concerned about North Korea's provocative and destabilizing actions such as nuclear and missile tests and related proliferation, as well as its egregious human rights abuses. Canada strongly supports the six-party talks as a framework for credible negotiation on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Some of the great success stories of democratization in the last generation can be found in the Republic of Korea as well as Taiwan, Indonesia and Mongolia.

Canada now has more diplomatic staff in Asia than anywhere else in the world. Canada places great value on our relationships with the Asia-Pacific region and with Asian countries. We increased our presence on the ground with over 10 new offices in China and India since 2006. We will be establishing Canadian diplomatic presences in both Cambodia and Laos, and Canada is establishing a mission to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations headed by a new ambassador.

While in Burma in September, the Minister of Foreign Affairs opened Canada's newest diplomatic mission. Establishing a trade commissioner service in Burma is an integral component of the embassy as Canadian companies will have an important role to play in fostering sustainable economic growth while providing opportunities for Canada's private sector. No government in Canadian history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. Deepening Canada's trading relations in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to these efforts.

Canada's network of missions across Asia will help us to promote Canadian values: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. People in the region seek a bright future, including freedom and opportunity. Canada is ready to help them and to invite Canada's private sector to expand our engagement. Economic opportunity, in Canada and elsewhere, rests on free, transparent and open markets, the rule of law and democratic governance. As like-minded partners, Canada and Korea share a strong commitment to these values. Canadian foreign policy, including our trade policy, will not only promote peace and prosperity, but will contribute to the development of the wider Asia-Pacific region. In this context, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is an important achievement that would advance our bilateral relations with Korea as well as Canada's broader objectives in this region.

We stand with Canadians incredibly disappointed that the New Democrats tried to completely gut the bill at the trade committee, where they made amendments to remove the investor protection provisions, cornerstones of modern trade and investment agreements. This is as harmful as the neglect of international trade under the Liberals who took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

Thanks to the leadership of our government, in less than seven years our government has reached free trade agreements with 38 countries, bringing Canada's total to 43 countries. By continuing to actively pursue broader market access to new investment opportunities, we are providing Canada's businesses and exporters with access on preferential terms to the largest, most dynamic and fastest-growing economies and regions around the world.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech very carefully. I have been listening to speeches by the Conservatives since this morning and one of the things they keep bringing up is the investment that South Korea makes in science and technology. Korea became one of the tigers in Asia because of its investment in science and technology, yet the record of the current government is that it has made cuts to scientists. It has eliminated thousands of positions, and that is not a direction that we should be heading toward, having learned from what Korea has done over the years. Not only did the Conservatives cut scientists, they actually muzzled them to ensure that it is the Conservative spin that carries on.

My question is very simple. What can the Conservatives learn from Korea in regard to investment in science and technology?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Korean scientific model was built very much on Korea's acceptance of trade. When I went there in the 1980s and the 1990s, the first request was for us to help with scientific development. Scientific development in railroad technology and subway technology was a Canadian investment in the Korean marketplace. Understanding how that technology worked helped Korea to develop its railroad technology to where it is today.

Canada's investment record in developing all these technologies, such as in urban transit, is second to none. We have advances in software development, agriculture, and in all of our technology. We are ready to go from innovation to commercialization. The Canadian innovation record is excellent.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I particularly endorse his point that opening up Canadian trade to Asia and opening up Asia to the Canadian economy is absolutely essential.

As the House knows, the really big deal, which would cover 40% of the world's economy, is the TPP. I would be very interested in the member's views on how those talks are going. If, as some observers fear, it looks as though they are getting bogged down, does the hon. member believe that Canada should be pursuing its bilateral talks with Japan more energetically?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership is like other agreements in which Canada participates through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and with APEC. The coastline spans the Pacific, covering more than half the world's population. It is possibly one of the greatest consumer markets as well, and one of the higher-income markets as we approach the next generation.

Canadian TPP negotiations are well under way. Unlike some countries, we are not the first to jump in. We are looking to see how the trade negotiations transpire. As a matter of fact, as we speak, the Minister of International Trade will be returning from his discussions on this matter.

I have also participated in a number of briefing sessions on the TPP, especially in the greater Toronto area. I think we are advancing quite well in this area.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise and speak today on the free trade agreement between Canada and South Korea.

This trade agreement has been a very long journey. It started under a Liberal government, but the Liberals had a record of not doing much about trade. During the Liberals' tenure, they just talked about it. After 10 years, they had only three free trade agreements.

There has been persistence by this government. The Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade have been consistent in trying to reach an agreement with South Korea.

As a matter of fact, at this stage I would like to acknowledge others who have also been working extremely hard to come to a fruitful conclusion for this free trade agreement. They include my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, Senator Yonah Martin, and colleagues who have been going to South Korea as part of the South Korea-Canada association. Here I include myself: I have made four visits to Korea, the last one being a state visit with the Governor General. During this visit we again raised this issue.

All of these officials consistently put pressure that both sides should continue to negotiate, because this free trade agreement is of immense benefit to both countries. When the Prime Minister met with the President of South Korea at Bali at a conference, both of them agreed that the agreement should be concluded very quickly. When the President of South Korea visited Canada, we were able to say that the free trade negotiations begun in 2005 had finally reached a conclusion. That is what we are debating in Parliament today. It will be ratified as well by the South Korean parliament.

When we look at the history of North and South Korea, we see that there has been tremendous advancement made by the people of South Korea in building their economy, which is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world today. It is a tribute to the people of South Korea. We are very grateful that Canada has over 200,000 people from South Korea living in this country and contributing to our prosperity.

In Canada, everyone knows about the Kia cars and the televisions being built in Korea. Korea's high technology is a tribute to that great country. It is natural for Canada, a country with a small population and vast natural resources, to look for markets overseas to continue to build on our prosperity by building free trade agreements bilaterally with other countries. I am pleased to say that since 2006, when this government came into power, as has been mentioned many times, we have signed 36 agreements. Before that, the Conservative government signed two more, bringing the total under the Conservative government to 38 free trade agreements around the world.

Let us just imagine the business that free trade agreements open up in the market for Canadian goods around the world. We have full confidence in Canadian businesses. We are one of the best in mining, engineering, and agriculture. We have a vast variety of businesses and products and we need markets where we can grow.

The NAFTA agreement we reached with the U.S.A. and Mexico is a clear example of why a free trade agreement is very beneficial. It has benefited all three countries. To say that a free trade agreement benefits one country over another is wrong. New Democrats have said at times that we are giving ground to other countries; we are not. What we are doing is opening markets for us as well as for them. It is mutually beneficial. That is why South Korea is now one of the strongest economies in Asia, and that is why Canada is also a strong economy. Let us not kid about it: Canada is one of the strongest economies in the world and is able to share with others.

Businesses need this market, and the market is growing. The Liberal critic talked about TPP. Indeed, we have TPP negotiations going on, and they are very extensive. These negotiations are going on. We see that the WTO talks have collapsed, but the problem is that we cannot wait for a global situation on a free trade agreement. Therefore, this government took upon itself a very robust agenda of free trade and went out, as I mentioned, to 36 countries. Imagine the market we have opened up for our Canadian businesses to take advantage of.

Of course, because we have the experience that comes with signing so many agreements, we know exactly how an agreement will impact the economy. We have taken into account every sector of the economy. We have talked to the provinces. We have talked to businesses. We have their input, and we have come up with a game plan or template on how free trade agreements should be done.

We are currently in negotiations with India on this same template, but we have also successfully done negotiations with the European Union. If we think about the markets of the European Union and NAFTA, we see that Canadian businesses are poised to take advantage.

From the other perspective, opportunities are opened up for Canadians to go overseas to work and gain experience and become first class in their businesses. That is happening around the world. Canada is welcomed anywhere in the world. We have a very robust corporate social responsibility. We hold Canadian companies to a high standard, and that is why we are welcomed wherever we go. They want Canadian expertise. In this situation, it works best to have a free trade agreement.

This agreement would be beneficial both for Korea and for Canada. There is no downsizing to this thing, contrary to what New Democrats will say, because experience has shown to us, as in NAFTA, that this is not a downsizing but an important and beneficial thing for Canada.

Koreans have already signed free trade agreements with the U.S. and with the European Union, so these countries are far ahead of us. Because of that, we started losing ground in South Korea. Our exports have fallen, and if we do not sign this agreement, how will we catch up? It had become an unlevel playing field, and the Europeans and Americans were far ahead of us. Now we are catching up, and we should be there.

That is why it is important for the other side to understand that we live in a global world. Other people are signing free trade agreements, as I just mentioned. The European Union, the U.S., and other countries are in TPP negotiations. We are in negotiations with Japan, with India, and with other countries, but at the end of the day, other countries are doing the same thing. If we are not up in the forefront in doing those things, we will lose ground, and we, with the smaller population, will suffer the financial consequences if we lose ground.

Let me expand on how provinces will benefit from this agreement. We have a vast country, from British Columbia all the way to P.E.I., and every region has its own strength in natural resources, which it can leverage on the world market. There is agriculture and potash; in the north there are diamonds, forestry, oil; and potatoes in P.E.I. We need this vast country, as I have stated, to move out and do it.

The Canadian trade delegation, led by the Minister of International Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, is robust. I just came back from my visit to India, where the premier of British Columbia brought in a strong trade delegation to build up markets with India. I accompanied the Governor General to Brazil, which is an emerging market. It is a market where we can sell and expand our trade with Latin America. I was with the Governor General in Southeast Asia looking for markets to expand in.

All countries are doing the same thing. There is a global competition. It is not as if Canada is doing something different from others. There is a global competition to enter into other markets. Our good friends in Australia have successfully concluded a free trade agreement with Korea. They are good friends, but they are now our competition. They are there ahead of us. If we do not do these things, then we will lose ground. That is why I find it quite strange that New Democrats use any kind of excuse to say they do not want a free trade agreement and they feel we must live within our boundaries. They have never approved any free trade agreement. I have been here for a long time.

New Democrats need to understand that Canada is a trading nation. We market goods; we sell goods to markets. Think of the market in the U.S. that has over 300 million people, the market in the European Union that has 600 million people, the market in India that has 1.2 billion people, or the market in China that has 1 billion people. Canadian companies are robustly present in all of these areas. We have a global presence.

Canada is recognized around the world. As I travel, I see that we have a global presence. We have a global presence because, as I have stated, we have a great reputation, but we are also traders. When we trade around the world, we do it fairly and we have a good corporate socially responsible system here, contrary to what the NDP says. I will not mention the Liberals because with them there is only talk on trade and no action.

I am delighted to say that I have been to Korea and it is a country that I thoroughly admire, as well as the people. This free trade agreement would be of benefit not only to the world but Canada and everyone else, and I ask my colleagues on the other side to support this great agreement.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too was part of the Governor General's delegation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Korea. As he would recall, I actually encouraged the government to speed up the agreement that we were going to sign with South Korea.

Here is a memo from the parliamentary secretary's own department. It says that the foreign affairs department shows that Canada has been slow to conclude trade deals with strategic partners and markets because resources and time were wasted securing agreements with extreme right-wing governments in tiny Latin American countries.

We have been encouraging the government to negotiate good, fair trade agreements with our strategic partners, in markets where we sell a lot. South Asia is one of those markets where we sell a lot of goods, and we should be negotiating good trade agreements there that will be beneficial to Canadians.

My question is this. Why has the Conservative trade policy been so unfocused and erratic? Why do the Conservatives not have a focused policy where we negotiate with governments and markets into which we can expand our businesses?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that I hear support from the NDP for our trade negotiations. I have been here for a long time, and I have never heard the NDP come and say that it is for trade. Rather, it puts all kinds of obstacles in the way to say that it does not want to sign this trade deal. The NDP should see its record, but I am glad that the member is on the record to say that he supports this thing. I hope that when we work, he will work for this free trade agreement.

In answering his question, I am a little puzzled. We have negotiated, almost, with the European Union. We are in negotiations with India. We are in negotiations with Korea, which we are talking about today. We are in negotiations with Japan. We are in negotiations for a trans-Pacific partnership. If these are the countries that he thinks are small countries, then he really needs to double-check his facts out there.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for another opportunity to ask a question for the parliamentary secretary.

Honduras, a country that we negotiated with, has a terrible record, and it is a tiny country. We need to negotiate with countries that have strategic value for Canada and where there is a lot of value for us to be able to negotiate with them. What I have seen from the Conservative government is that it has been wasting its time negotiating these tiny agreements just to get its numbers up, so it can say it has negotiated with 20 or 50 countries.

What we should be focusing on is countries like Korea. It started negotiations back in 2003. There is the European Union. This is what the parliamentary secretary was saying about how we have been losing ground. We have been losing ground to the European Union and the United States. The European Union and the United States started negotiating trade agreements with Korea after we did, yet they concluded their negotiations before we concluded ours.

We have been losing ground. We have been losing ground because of the Conservative government.

South Korea has been investing in science and technology for many years, and this investment is one of the reasons it has emerged as a tiger in Asia. What can the Conservatives learn from Korea?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, signing a free trade agreement with a country like Honduras and what the member is talking about is a good thing. Colombia and all these countries here widen the market, even if they are smaller. There are Canadian companies that are doing business in those parts of the world. For them, this is a great advantage.

On the larger scale of things, I have already pointed out where we are going with our trade agreements. It is quite interesting now that the member opposite is talking about the slow pace of negotiations with this deal here. I would remind him that there are two parties to a free trade agreement, not one party. We walk in with our template when we go to negotiate, which is what the Prime Minister and the President of South Korea did when they finally said, “Let us move on.” We did move on. It is this government that has moved on.

To my colleague over here, I am pretty delighted to know that the NDP is now going to be a pro-trade party. We are delighted and looking forward to their supporting other trade agreements that will come forward over here. I will keep note of what he just said.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as with any free trade agreement, we must ensure that Canadian markets benefit and, to a certain extent, that our businesses can compete internationally.

This requires that we conduct studies and gather information. We have to consider these studies when we move forward with a free trade agreement. Otherwise, there can be very serious repercussions for some sectors of the Canadian economy.

I would just like to ask my dear colleague if basic market research was done before this free trade agreement was negotiated.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, we have 36 signed free trade agreements around the world, or 38. We have a template, which comes after extensive negotiations and talks with our own people, provinces, businesses, and so forth in this country. We take that into account.

It is not as if we are just signing one agreement that is different from another agreement. No, we use the examples we have had and the success rate we have had. This is why we say this is a successful template, which is why it takes a little longer for us to negotiate with other countries. Other countries have their own interests as well. However, ultimately, things are moving forward.

When Korea signed the deal with the U.S. and the European Union, they had a template as well, which they completed. We also came to a successful conclusion. However, extensive consultation takes place in Canada before we sign these agreements

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague for his answer. It is not reassuring. He spoke about consultation and a template for free trade agreements used in the past.

I asked this question because there are people in my riding who could benefit from this free trade agreement, but who could also be adversely affected. I am thinking of pork producers, for example.

What can he say to reassure my constituents who make a living in the agriculture industry and hog production?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member looks at the agreement, he will note that it does ensure that the farmers' interests are well taken care of. As a matter of fact, I would like to advise the member that, because we had not signed a free trade agreement with the Koreans, some agriculture sectors had lost the Korean market. However, I can assure him that the pork producers' interests are taken care of under this agreement. If he reads the agreement in depth, he will know that his farmers would have a lot of advantages through this agreement.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

I know that many of my constituents are very happy about this particular trade agreement. I have talked to a number of small businesses that already do some business in South Korea, and they will be delighted to finally see, after many years of negotiation, and to some degree neglect by the government, the conclusion of this agreement.

It is not perfect, but this is something that will definitely benefit not only the people in my constituency but people across this country, because we are a trading nation.

Before I get to that, I had the opportunity, along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights to visit South Korea with the Governor General. At that point, the talks were sort of stalled because of a lack of resources provided by the Conservative government to negotiate this particular trade agreement. The government's priorities were somewhere else, as I spoke about earlier. The government's priorities were countries that have shady records and should be a low priority, for a number of a reasons.

The delegation encouraged speeding up those negotiations. I am very proud that I was part of that delegation encouraging the Korean government to come to the table to negotiate a trade agreement that is going to benefit both countries, Canada and Korea. Both countries will benefit from trade.

Canada is a trading nation. We on this side of the House know that. We have been encouraging the government to negotiate trade agreements that are fair to Canadians. We are not going to get it 100% right, but overall, the majority of the trade agreement will be beneficial to Canadians and Koreans.

The NDP has always encouraged governments to negotiate trade agreements that are fair and that will benefit Canadians. I sat on the international trade committee. I have talked about what criteria we need to use to look at which countries we should be negotiating with and what sorts of things we should be negotiating to expand the markets our exporters need.

In this House we have heard that there are jobs related to our exports. It is critical that we negotiate trade agreements to benefit people across this country.

The Conservative government talks about having a template. I doubt that it has a template. The only template it has is to make sure that it negotiates trade agreements with 50 countries or 40 countries. It just looks at numbers. The government's priorities are not consistent.

I am going to talk about the criteria the NDP government in 2015 would look at in negotiating trade agreements. We will ensure that markets open up for all Canadians right across the country.

Here is some of the framework we should be looking at. There are three important criteria I will talk about in detail.

First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges with these, is the partner on a positive trajectory towards these goals?

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada?

The third criteria makes common sense. The Conservatives do not always talk common sense, but New Democrats do. Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory and of benefit to Canadians? Would it create good-paying local jobs here in Canada. Would it create secondary industry jobs and value-added jobs?

Value-added jobs pay higher wages. Shipping our raw materials overseas does not create a lot of jobs. Creating value-added jobs in this country is what we on this side of the House, in the official opposition, have always advocated.

We should be adding secondary jobs. The Conservative government's record with regard to trade and the creation of secondary jobs is horrible. I would like to talk about that before I get into the details of the three criteria.

Canada had a trade surplus when the Conservatives took office in 2006. That trade surplus has now turned into a huge trade deficit. That is not a good record for the government. The Conservatives say they are stewards of the economy and have negotiated many trade agreements. However, they have failed to look at these agreements to see if they have been positive or to make adjustments for future trade agreements. The government continually fails to do its research with regard to trade agreements.

I talked about negotiating trade agreements that will add value to the goods we produce in Canada and ship overseas.

The government has gutted manufacturing here in Canada over the last few years. Hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared under the Conservative government. When I talk about the government's erratic policies when it comes to negotiating trade agreements, we can relate that to what has happened in our manufacturing industry.

Conservatives' do not have a coordinated policy plan when it comes to negotiating agreements with our strategic partners.

I will talk to the House in detail about the criteria I just mentioned.

First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environment and labour standards, and Canadian values? I had a chance to go with the Governor General to South Korea. After the dictatorship in 1987, South Korea transitioned into a vibrant, multi-party democracy with an active trade union movement and relatively high wages. South Koreans have a high standard of living and freedom of expression.

South Korea has emerged as a tiger in South Asia. It is the fourth-largest economy in South Asia and the 15th-largest economy in the emerging developed countries. South Korea has one of the highest post-secondary education rates of all OECD countries.

In recent years, South Korea has invested billions of dollars in an ambitious green growth strategy aimed at improving energy efficiency and boosting renewable and green technology. This is something my friends across the aisle could learn from South Korea. It has invested in green energy and green projects. It is looking at 20 years from now. In the last decade, this Conservative government has been looking back.

The parliamentary secretary was right. The members of the third party talk about negotiating trade agreements, but they actually just talk. They do not negotiate any trade agreements. Over the years, we have seen them dragging their feet with respect to making good agreements that make sense for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

On the first criterion, it is clear that South Korea is a country that respects environmental and labour law standards. It shares Canadian values on human rights and democracy.

On the environmental front, Korea has emerged as a leader in renewable energy and green technology. Canada can increase its trade in these important sectors.

The second criterion is that the proposed partners be of strategic value to Canada.

Coming from Surrey, British Columbia, and living on the west coast, I know how important the South Asia economies are to British Columbia, because all of our goods flow out of the ports in Vancouver or Prince Rupert. We have been doing quite a bit of trade with Korea. Not only that, some of the ports on the west coast are located strategically. Goods shipped from Korea may be going to Ontario or the midwestern United States. The ports are actually able to cut down the time it takes the goods from Korea to get to Ontario or the central United States. We are strategically located, and we have been encouraging the government to negotiate good, fair trade agreements based on that criterion.

Japan is another country we have been negotiating with for many years. However, we have not yet seen a successful conclusion. There has not been that concrete push from the Canadian government to ensure that a fair trade agreement can be concluded with Japan. Japan is another strategic trading partner for Canada.

There is already a large amount of trade between Korea and Canada. We started these negotiations with Korea back in 2003. It has taken up to now, close to 11 years, to successfully negotiate a trade agreement. Although sometimes it may take a long time, I agree that we should ensure that the trade deals we are negotiating are fair to our country.

This is where I wonder what the government's priorities are. The European Union started negotiating with Korea after we started negotiating. The United States started negotiating with Korea after we started negotiating the trade agreement. The current government has been busy negotiating with some countries that have very shady records, and I have spoken about that in the House. The European Union and the U.S. not only started negotiations after we did but concluded their free trade agreement before we did. That tells me that their governments are putting more effort into ensuring that they lock in their strategic markets. We are negotiating trade agreements with strategic partners, yet the government has failed to see how important South Korea is.

I have talked with farmers from Alberta and Saskatchewan. I have sat on the trade committee. The cattle and hog farmers have told the trade committee that we are losing the market for their goods in South Korea due to the negligence of the government. That has eroded some of the markets our competitors have access to and we do not.

We will catch up. However, jobs have been lost because of the government's inability to negotiate these trade agreements with these strategic partners in a timely fashion before our competitors, such as the European Union, the United States, and Australia, have.

Australia is another country that is heavily invested into Asia. It is negotiating trade agreements and finding markets in Asia. A lot of the goods it sells to these markets are similar to what we have to offer to those very nations. I would advise the government to put its resources where strategically Canada can benefit from these fair trade agreements that will lead to local jobs and prosperity right across the country.

Another one of the factors of the second criterion I talked about is that Korea is also part of the Asian global supply chain and a gateway market to the economies of other countries in Asia. Korean and Canadian economies are largely complementary, meaning most Canadian industries do not compete directly with Korean industries. I am talking about most in generalities.

There is a number of manufacturing industries that would benefit from this agreement, and there is a cross-section of those. There are the aerospace industry, the chemical industry, the Canadian Apparel Federation and Bombardier. The heavy industry, such as Aluminum Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada, would benefit. Another area that would benefit would be the wood products. Agricultural goods, food processing, seafood and high-tech information technologies are some of the industries that would benefit as well.

There is a concern from the auto industry in regard to being unable to benefit from this agreement. We have asked the Conservatives how they will respond to the concerns of the auto industry, yet we have no response from them. We have seen the agreements the United States negotiated. It had won some concessions from the Korean government to protect parts of its auto industry. Again, the Conservative government has not provided any answers as to how it will mitigate the very real concern from auto workers in Ontario.

The third criterion is this. Are the terms of the proposed deal satisfactory? Most Canadians and virtually all industry associations support the deal, and these include, as I pointed out, many of the industries. The agreement would create a level playing field for Canadian companies and Canadian auto workers exporting to South Korea.

I have a lot to talk about, but I will try to sum this up.

One of the other areas of concern to us, as always, is the investor state dispute resolution. We have a very good judicial system in our country and South Korea has a fairly good one. The rule of law governs and the rules are applied the same to all companies. However, the investor dispute resolution settlement would provide an alternative kind of settlement. Sometimes that is not very open and sometimes it ties the hands of governments to protect local industry, or ties the hands of local city governments as to whether they can create local jobs or hire local people or buy local products. That is of concern to us.

The good thing about the investor state dispute settlement is that it could be cancelled with a notice of six years, whereas the FIPA the Conservative government has signed with China ties the hands of future governments for 31 years. That is the sort of irresponsible action the government has taken in regard to that agreement.

As we pointed out earlier, the Korean opposition parties did not want the investor state provisions in the agreement. The NDP is on record saying that we will look at opening it up and renegotiating this part of the agreement.

Overall, it is a good deal, one that we have always advocated. We are a trading nation. We will continue to negotiate free trade agreements that support Canadian jobs, local economies and local industry to provide prosperity across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite encouraging to see that our friends in the New Democratic Party seem to have turned a new leaf. It is now supporting trade agreements. I never would have thought, given individuals like Jack Layton and Ed Broadbent, that we would ever see the NDP support free trade agreements. I applaud the New Democrats in recognizing that there is value to trade.

We in the Liberal Party have been very consistent through the years. In regard to this specific agreement, there was a will from South Korea to have an agreement put in place between Canada and South Korea back in 2003. The then prime minister, Paul Martin, took action within the year to ultimately get the negotiations under way. Unfortunately, it has taken many years for the Conservatives to capitalize on that interest of South Korea had, and at great cost. It has cost us a great deal of jobs and opportunities because of the slowness of the Conservative government.

Does my colleague from the New Democratic Party agree that even though there are concerns from the automobile industry in particular with this agreement there is great benefit? Does he agree that a considerable amount of benefit was lost because of the amount of time it took the Conservative government to achieve something that could have been achieved years ago, as many other countries did?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Winnipeg Centre talks about consistency and Liberals in the same sentence I get goosebumps because that is not something on which they have been consistent. When we look at NAFTA, Prime Minister Chrétien came in and said that he would rip the deal apart. There was another member from Southern Ontario who said that she would resign and she actually did.

Consistency is not something Liberals are very good at. We have seen this on the issue of the war in Iraq. One day they were sitting on the fence. The next day they were jumping on the other side, then back up on the fence again. If we look at the agreement that was signed in principle with the European Union, the leader of the third party stood up in the House, clapped and congratulated the government on negotiating CETA, which he had not even seen. How can they approve something and say that it is a good deal without even seeing the text? That is their consistency.

On this side of the House, the official opposition NDP has been consistent throughout our history. We have been calling for good, fair trade agreements. This is one agreement we like. We think it is a good trade agreement that will benefit Canadians right across the country.

The only people who have been consistent and principled in the House is the official opposition, not only today but for many years.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey North for that very eloquent presentation of the NDP support for the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

In the speech given by the member for Vancouver Kingsway, he noted that in recent years South Korea had emerged as a global leader in environmental economics, investing billions in an ambitious green growth strategy aimed at improving energy efficiency, while boosting renewables and green technology. Then, sadly, he turned to Canada's track record.

In the report, “The Maple Leaf in the OECD”, comparing progress toward sustainability, it indicated that according to recent tracking polls, 90% of Canadians believed it was very important for national identity that Canada be a leader on the environmental issues. However, Canada's environmental performance was one of the weakest of all countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data shows Canada's overall environmental performance is far behind other OECD countries, with a rank of 28 out of 30, virtually at the bottom.

In Korea there is a green growth in action and it has become only the third country to issue a report using the proposed OECD green growth indicators. It is looking at CO₂ emissions, environmental and resource productivity, energy productivity, domestic materials consumption and so on. On many measures, Korea is in the forefront of a new green economy.

Could the member comment about the fact that Korea could show leadership to Canada, which is such a laggard when it comes to environmental measures?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the environmental record of the Conservative government has been horrendous. Southeast Asian countries and Korea have taken leadership in looking at developing new industries. They are looking ahead 20 years. What is the Conservative government concerned about? It is concerned about fossil fuel, and we have seen the price of oil going down. Conservatives have been dependent on one industry for the last number of years. We need to diversify our industry. We need to invest in research, science and new technologies. The government has failed to do that.

Here is another lesson the Conservative government can take from South Korea. It has invested in science and technology to have it emerge as a leader in Southeast Asia. It has emerged as one of the tigers in South Asia. The reason it has been able to do that is because it has made a heavy investment in research and science. What does the Canadian government do? Not only does it muzzle the scientists, but it has also cut thousands of research positions throughout universities and the federal government. That is its record.

If we are looking into the next 20 years of creating good jobs, we need to make investments in the very sectors that will generate those jobs. The green energy sector is one of those sectors that the government has failed. In 2015, when the NDP forms government, we will be making those investments. The leader of the official opposition is committed to ensuring Canada has a leading world economy.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the investor state resolutions youth settlement mechanism for a moment. There was a report issued by the International Investment Arbitration on Public Policy and it highlighted some of the concerns raised with regard to the lack of openness and transparency. In fact, it said:

Unfortunately, a recent review by the International Chamber of Commerce of its arbitration rules maintained a very high level of confidentiality in ICC arbitrations involving states, such that the existence of a claim against a state, the identity of the arbitrators, the text of orders or awards, and any amounts awarded against a state will continue to be kept confidential. While this level of confidentiality may be appropriate in commercial arbitrations, it precludes public scrutiny of ICC arbitrations involving states and makes it difficult to evaluate the policy implications of a state's decision to authorize investment arbitration under the ICC Rules.

In the House we often call on the government to engage in activities around openness and transparency. With the investor state resolution dispute settlement mechanisms, that openness and transparency is absent.

Could the member comment on the secretive dealings of those mechanisms?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the investor state dispute resolution component of this particular agreement is of concern to us. It should be of concern to all Canadians. Just as we cannot put consistency and the Liberals together, we cannot put transparency and openness together with the Conservative government. We have seen this with the CETA agreement and the Korean agreement. They have been negotiated in backrooms. Canadians did not have all the information to make those decisions along the line. Now that we see it, we do support that. Not only that, the current government likes doing things in secret and in backrooms.

This investor state dispute resolution fits right in with the Conservatives, where the public will not know why some of the decisions were made and whether their interests were protected.

There are robust judicial systems in both countries and those systems should have been able to take care of some of the disputes arising from trade. However, the current government has signed on to an agreement that would hear the disagreements in secret and the decisions would be made in secret. That fits right into the back alley of how Conservatives like to function.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert.

I am pleased to rise today to speak about the historic Canada-Korea free trade agreement and how this agreement supports the government's broader pro-trade plan. It is only our Conservative government that is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

By pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, our Conservative government has provided Canadian businesses with access to new opportunities in dynamic markets around the globe. As an export-driven economy, Canada needs free trade agreements. Trade accounts for one out of every five jobs in Canada and is equivalent, in dollar terms, to over 60% of our country's annual income. Despite all the evidence that modern trade agreements create jobs, economic growth and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the NDP tried to completely sabotage the Canada-Korea free trade agreement at committee. They would have forced our government to completely renegotiate the agreement and set Canadians back even further.

This anti-trade behaviour is just as bad for Canadians who depend on trade for their jobs as the Liberals' record on trade. During 13 long years in the government, the Liberals completely neglected trade, completing only three free trade agreements. The Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets. Their trade critic does not even sit on the committee.

Our government recognizes that Canadian companies are at risk of being at a competitive disadvantage in key markets, as their major foreign competitors, such as the U.S. and the EU, are benefiting from preferential access under existing FTAs. That is why Canada is pursuing its most ambitious trade negotiations agenda in Canadian history.

Eight years ago, Canada had just five trade agreements, but since 2006, Canada has successfully reached free trade agreements with 38 countries, namely, Colombia, the European Free Trade Association, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru, all 28 members of the European Union, and now South Korea. In addition, Canada has 28 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements in force, 13 additional concluded FIPAs. These bilateral agreements establish a strong rules-based framework for increased investment by protecting and promoting foreign investment through legally binding rights and obligations.

Focusing on sectors and markets that offer the greatest opportunities for growth is a priority under Canada's new global markets action plan, called GMAP.

Let me now turn to the historic Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

South Korea is identified as a priority market in the GMAP and the CKFTA represents an important step in increasing access to this fast-growing economy. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a landmark achievement that would restore a level playing field for Canadian companies competing in South Korean markets. Stronger economic ties with South Korea would create new jobs and opportunities and contribute to Canada's long-term economic growth and prosperity.

Critically, with this agreement, Canadian companies will become increasingly competitive in the region. With half of the world's population living a five-hour flight away from Seoul, South Korea offers strategic access to regional and global value chains. As a result of improved market access for goods, services and investments under the agreement, Canadian companies can use South Korea as a strategic base for growing their businesses throughout the Asia-Pacific region. The positive momentum of an agreement with South Korea is and will continue to carry Canada forward in this vibrant region, but creating new opportunities for Canadians in the Asia-Pacific region does not stop there.

Just a few weeks ago, the Minister of International Trade led his third trade mission to India, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Revenue. India is a country where we continue to see many opportunities for Canadian businesses.

We have also seen a great deal of interest in India from a number of my colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Treasury Board in September, as well as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in July.

Canada and India have long-standing bilateral relations, close people-to-people ties and shared goals of free trade, open markets, democracy and good governance for more growth and prosperity. In fact, India is a priority market under Canada's global markets action plan. Bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and India totalled $5.8 billion in 2013, a 10.7% increase from 2012, and has more than doubled over the last 10 years.

Strengthening the Canada-India partnership is one of our Conservative Government's top trade priorities. We believe that an exciting future awaits both our countries, a future based on deeper trade and investment ties. Opportunities are particularly strong in the fields of energy, agriculture and agri-food, infrastructure, and education.

Through our ambitious pro-trade and pro-export global markets action plan, Canadian businesses have the tools to grow, export and build on their success at home and abroad. These tools include trade missions such as the one the Minister of International Trade recently led to India, free trade agreements, foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, together with the support of the on-the-ground Canadian trade commissioners service, Export Development Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Business Development Bank of Canada.

Canada has eight Canadian trade commissioner offices and five EDC representatives in India, reflecting the importance both countries place on increasing bilateral trade and investment. Canada's trade network in India is now our third largest globally, after China and the United States, and is also the second-largest foreign network in India, after the U.S.

Export Development Canada is a strong investor in Canadian companies seeking opportunities in India. Five EDC officers are on the ground in the country. To date, EDC has supported 299 Canadian companies with contract volumes of $1.86 billion.

While the Liberals led trade missions purely for photo-ops for politicians, our approach is to lead trade missions to actually help our businesses. The Minister of International Trade led his most recent trade mission to India to interact with Indian businesses and government representatives and to see first-hand the opportunities that exist to boost Canadian exports.

Participants in these trade missions have told us that high-level trade missions are valuable in opening doors and identifying opportunities. By helping Canadian businesses expand and succeed abroad, we are also helping to create jobs, growth and prosperity at home. Canada's competitive edge and combined access to these markets will lead directly to jobs and opportunities in every region of Canada.

Whether we are exporting meat, grain, fish, wood products or industrial goods, the more markets we have access to, the more jobs are created for hard-working Canadians and their families. Canada's long-term economic prosperity is directly linked to market access and other economic opportunities beyond Canadian borders.

Our government understands the importance of trade and exports to our economy. Exports are responsible for one out of every five Canadian jobs. The prosperity of Canadians depends on the continued expansion beyond our borders into new markets that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments. The CKFTA represents one of these key economic opportunities and is a watershed moment in our historical relationship with South Korea.

For this and other reasons, stakeholders from across the country have called for the agreement's entry into force as soon as possible. That is why our government is moving to pass the bill quickly and will not be stopped by opposition stonewalling.

I look forward to the support of the opposition on the bill.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the member is simple.

The facts are clear regarding chapter 11 of NAFTA, which contains the first investor state dispute settlement mechanism that Canada included in a free trade agreement. The Government of Canada had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds, taxpayers' money, to a number of American companies. Canadians had to pay American companies because they challenged Canada's right to make environmental and public health regulations.

What do Canadians stand to gain from the inclusion of such mechanisms in the free trade agreement with South Korea? Will it mean that, in addition to having to pay millions of dollars to American companies, Canadians will now have to pay Korean companies and assume those costs too? We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

I would like my colleague to tell us what Canadians stand to gain from this type of provision.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has a long proud history of working against trade. I understand it is finding it very difficult to support this good agreement.

As a matter of fact, the NDP tried its best to gut this legislation in committee. It would have sent us back to the renegotiation table, which would basically put us off trade with South Korea. The U.S. has some deadlines, which come into action on January 1.

This agreement would benefit virtually every province and territory. I am from Alberta. Whether it is on agriculture or industrial goods or forestry, this agreement would help every province and territory, including Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about India. I am a great fan of India. It is wonderful in terms of the way in which we can look at expanding our relationships.

The member talked about his government's actions in regard to trade with India. The first thing that came to my mind was that former prime minister Jean Chrétien said we were going to go to China. He brought in this whole team Canada approach. He took premiers, stakeholders, industry reps, and so forth to China. There was hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of activity created because of that particular initiative.

Our Prime Minister goes to India, and he took a limousine. It cost $1 million. I am not too sure how he enhanced the trade negotiations by incorporating the different premiers of the provinces and so forth.

It is the same thing on this particular trade agreement. South Korea has wanted this agreement since 2003. Could the member explain why it has taken the government so long to sign the agreement? Could the member comment as well on the lost opportunities due to the government's slow response to South Korea's request?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member from the Liberal Party that its prime minister took a huge group of people overseas for photo ops. That I understand.

Let me say that I have been to India with our Prime Minister and with our Minister of International Trade, and when we sit at those tables we talk about what is in the best interest of Canadian people and business. That is why it takes some time.

We do not sign junk agreements for the sake of signing agreements. We definitely work hard to make sure the agreements are signed with the intention and results that would be in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Northeast and acknowledge the hard work he has done in committee and the respect he has shown for the committee, attending the meetings, being there, asking the great questions, and making sure we have the best piece of legislation we could possibly have for our Canadian businesses and families.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is an ambitious, state of the art agreement, covering virtually all sectors and aspects of Canadian-Korean trade. South Korea is an important export destination for Canada and the Prairies, with exports from the Prairies to South Korea worth an average of $934 million annually from 2011 to 2013.

I would like to highlight some of the key benefits in the agreement, starting with Alberta. South Korea is a very important market for Alberta. It is the province's fifth-largest export destination, with exports from 2011 to 2013 worth an annual average of approximately $635 million. From 2011 to 2013, Alberta's agricultural exports to South Korea were worth an annual average of $195 million, with wheat, pork, canola, unroasted malt barley, and tallow as the main exports.

South Korean tariffs would be eliminated on all of these items. For wheat, the current rate is 3%. On pork, the current rate is 30%. Unroasted malt barley is at a current rate as high as 269%.

Alberta would also benefit from the elimination of tariffs on beef, which is one of the biggest export interests for Alberta in the South Korean markets. Exports to South Korea of fresh chilled and frozen beef, which totalled over $43 million in 2002 prior to the BSE outbreak, are in a rebuilding phase following the restoration of the access to the South Korean market in 2012. Canada's exports of beef to South Korea reached an average of $5.5 million from 2011 to 2013. Separately, exports of bovine genetics, offal, and tallow averaged over $15 million.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate its high beef tariffs and allow Canadian exports to compete head to head with their U.S. competition. Specifically, the 40% tariff on fresh and chilled frozen beef cuts, as well as the 72% tariff on some of the processed and prepared beef, would be eliminated within 15 years. Tariffs of 18% on most beef offal would be eliminated within 11 years, while tariffs on beef fats and tallow would be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement. Importantly, the 18% tariff on bovine embryos would also be eliminated upon entry into force.

The services sector is another key economic driver in Alberta, and it is expected to benefit greatly from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. In 2012, the services sector accounted for 53% of Alberta's total GDP and employed more than 1.5 million Albertans. Canada's service exports to South Korea are worth more than $750 million a year. Many areas of export interest in Alberta in the services sector would benefit from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, including architecture, construction, financial, and telecommunications services, to name just a few.

The agreement would also increase the transparency and predictability of South Korea's markets by ensuring that the regulators act impartially, objectively, and in a transparent manner.

Now, I would like to turn to Saskatchewan, my home province. It is the home of the Roughriders, and it is the emerging powerhouse in Canada. Its exports to South Korea in 2011 to 2013 were worth an average of $175 million. This agreement would bring significant benefits to Saskatchewan across sectors including agriculture, agri-food products, the industrial goods sector, and the services sector.

Canola and malt are Saskatchewan's key exports to South Korea. From 2011 to 2013, Saskatchewan exports of barley malt, canola, and canola oil to South Korea averaged $23 million a year. Once the Canada-Korea free trade agreement comes into force, canola and malt producers would benefit greatly from the elimination of duties on these products, which currently face duties of up to 10% and 269%, respectively.

Listen to what the president of the Canola Council of Canada said about the agreement's expected benefits to Saskatchewan's canola industry:

South Korea is an important market for canola, with annual sales ranging from $60 million to $90 million in recent years. Under the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement, we could significantly increase—even double—our exports to this market.

Saskatchewan would also benefit from the tariff elimination on industrial goods. From 2011 to 2013, Saskatchewan exports of industrial goods to South Korea were worth an average of $42 million. Exporters of industrial goods such as weighing machinery, scales, electrical transformers, and sporting equipment, which currently face an 8% tariff, would now enjoy preferential access to the diverse Korean market.

I look forward to Saskatchewan's increased prosperity through the benefits of this agreement.

Finally, I turn to Manitoba, located at the heart of Canada. South Korea is also an important trade destination for Manitoba, with exports from 2011 to 2013 worth an average of $124 million.

At the centre of Canada's grain trade is Manitoba's innovative agriculture and agri-food sector. From 2011 to 2013, Manitoba's agriculture exports to South Korea were worth an average of $92 million, with wheat and pork at the lead. This free trade agreement would eliminate many agriculture tariffs immediately upon implementation of the agreement, and would eliminate all tariffs, in whole or in part, on 97% of current agricultural exports when the agreement is fully implemented.

Tariffs would be eliminated on agriculture exports such as wheat, from the current rate of 3%, and pork and most processed pork products, from a current rate of up to 30%. This is important to allow Manitoba producers of wheat, pork, and other products to compete with the other agricultural and agri-food exporters in South Korea, including the United States and the European Union.

In 2010, before the implementation of the South Korea free trade agreement with the U.S. and the EU, Canada's share of Korea's fresh chilled and frozen pork imports was 14.2%. However, in 2013, after the implementation of these agreements, it dropped to below 9%. This represents a loss in export value of $22 million. We must act now to level the playing field for our pork industry.

Regarding Manitoba's services sector, it accounted for 71% of the province's GDP in 2012. It is by far the largest sector of Manitoba's economy and generates more than 75% of the province's total employment. Key export interests in this sector are business and professional services, construction, engineering and architectural services, and marketing and distribution services.

Some of the benefits of the agreement for the services sector include enhanced access to the South Korean market for service providers, which go beyond South Korea's current obligations. Notably, nothing in the agreement would prevent our government from regulating in the public interest. For example, public services such as health, public education, and other social services would be excluded from the obligations of the agreement, and our government remains free to enact the policies and programs it chooses.

We stand with Canadians, incredibly disappointed that the NDP tried to completely gut the bill at the trade committee, where it tabled amendments to remove the investor protection provisions, cornerstones of modern trade and investment agreements. This is just as harmful as the neglect of international trade under the Liberals, who took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets. Only our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians.

I call for the urgent ratification of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, so that we can begin to reap the benefits of this landmark agreement as soon as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member made, particularly about my home province of Manitoba.

I understand and appreciate just how important the pork industry, in particular, is to Manitoba. It has created literally thousands of jobs over the years. All one has to do is look at the Maple Leaf company as a whole and how much it has assisted communities such as Brandon and Winnipeg.

There is, no doubt, concern with regard to this particular agreement, particularly with the automobile industry, but from the pork industry a great number of accolades have been directed toward the agreement.

Because this is such an important industry, I am wondering if the member might want to provide some further comment as to how he expects the pork industry in Manitoba to grow with this. He might also want to provide some comment in terms of the need for workers within the pork industry because of the growth that has taken place in that industry in Manitoba.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it will be really interesting to watch the growth in the pork sector, and there will be some challenges in that industry, no question about it, but they are great challenges. They are challenges of growth, challenges of expansion, rather than the opposite challenge of shutting things down, of seeing things collapse.

It is not just in Manitoba where we would see growth. We would see hog producers right across the Prairies ship their pork into Brandon and Winnipeg where the pork is processed and shipped on to Korea.

This whole area would expand and grow. It went down to 9% and should be up higher to 15% to 20%. The growth potential in Korea for Canadian pork is huge. As we start exporting into that market, the cash would flow back into western Canada, back into communities such as Brandon, back into little communities that have hog barns and hog facilities, and that money is spent throughout the economy, throughout rural Saskatchewan, rural Manitoba, and rural Alberta.

This is such a positive agreement, and it trickles right back to every individual in a direct or indirect way. That is why it should be ratified rather quickly.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Although it seems almost as difficult to agree with the government as to disagree with it, I am still pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

As I mentioned in my speech at second reading, I am proud to support the implementation of this agreement because it is very important for our agricultural producers and our exporters.

The discussions regarding a free trade agreement between Canada and South Korea began in 2004, and negotiations officially began in 2009. It took nine years to conclude the treaty.

During that time, Korea signed agreements with the United States and Australia. Canada's delay cost our producers and exporters dearly. Canada has been losing significant market share. We need to step up our efforts in order to recover those losses. Canada's delay in signing an agreement with Korea shows just how important it is to have an international trade strategy. Signing agreements right and left without a coherent plan is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians.

What is more, in its haste to pass this agreement as quickly as possible, the Standing Committee on International Trade conducted a rapid study. We had a limited number of study sessions, and we were only able to hear from a limited number of witnesses.

The NDP meticulously studies free trade agreements that are presented to us. We know that once they are ratified, it is difficult, if not impossible, to turn back the clock and fix any errors. We apply three criteria in our assessment. First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are any issues, is the partner on the path to meeting those objectives? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed deal satisfactory?

The agreement with Korea meets those three basic criteria. Korea is an established democracy that enforces high labour, human rights and environmental protection standards. It is a developed country that is ranked 15th on the human development index, the highest ranking of all East Asian countries. In addition to introducing social programs and the rule of law, South Korea has low levels of corruption and provides high access to quality education. With respect to the environment, Korea has emerged as a world leader in renewable energy and green technology.

Furthermore, the agreement with Korea represents a significant and strategic value to Canada. This agreement is viewed positively by a plurality of Canadians and is supported by virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy. South Korea is Canada's seventh most important trading partner.

Even more importantly, this agreement would be Canada's first trade agreement with an Asian country, so it provides a significant opportunity to capitalize on the Pacific region economies and to diversify our export markets.

The agreement with South Korea also passes the test if we look at the terms of the agreement. A very broad coalition of Canadian economic stakeholders believe that this agreement will have a positive impact. I must note, however, that certain terms of the agreement are not what an NDP government would have negotiated.

The manipulation of Korean currency as a form of protectionism as well as the investor state dispute settlement mechanism are two aspects that keep coming up in the discussions. Despite the NDP's demands, no real study has been conducted to examine how these aspects will affect Canadians.

We proposed amendments to improve the agreement at the Standing Committee on International Trade. In total, the NDP proposed six amendments. These amendments aimed to protect the right of Canadian governments to legislate in the public interest and to prohibit the weakening of environmental standards.

Furthermore, two of these amendments directly addressed the auto and steel industries. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals proposed any amendments to improve this agreement. Obviously, as usual, the Conservatives voted against all of our attempts to improve this agreement. It is sad that members choose to do this.

Nevertheless, we believe that, overall, the benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement outweigh the risks. For these reasons, I am pleased to support Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. However, I believe that our work does not end here.

South Korea is a new market for our exporters. It would be magical thinking to believe that simply signing the agreement will automatically enable our exporters to take advantage of the Korean market. Many of our Canadian exporters, especially SMEs, need a little help to benefit from this opportunity. Co-operation among businesses, the Canadian embassy in South Korea, the Trade Commissioner Service, Export Development Canada and other services is essential to implementing the agreement and improving trade.

In my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, the Oviva group, which produces maple water, contacted me for more information about opportunities available to them to get into that market. They do not know where to go for help from the government. Maple water is a niche product. The quality of their product is exceptional. I will personally make sure that these exporters from my region get all the help they need to access the Korean market.

In closing, I believe that this free trade agreement with Korea will create new opportunities for Canadian producers and exporters. I think it is a real shame that all of the amendments my party put forward to improve this agreement were rejected out of hand. I think that this agreement will be good for Canadians, so I support Bill C-41.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks.

I would like to know why the Conservatives did nothing when they received the document from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development showing that Canada took too long to sign trade agreements with strategic markets because it wasted resources and energy negotiating agreements with governments of smaller countries just because they were friends and allies, instead of signing agreements with countries like this one that would really have benefited Canada and its people.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, one that is nearly impossible to answer.

I think common sense dictates that when we want to achieve a certain outcome or goal, we need to focus on one task. When we spread our resources too thin and try to do too many things at once, we invariably fail or miss out on projects that are more serious or more important.

This probably happens simply because there is no plan and no industrial strategy or international trade strategy.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit puzzled by both the question and response from my colleague opposite. He made it seem like trade with other countries was an either/or proposition, and that is not the case. Canada has diverse industries. We should be looking at the diverse markets to ensure we have market sustainability for our products.

I am curious as to how the NDP can arrive at the school of thought that we should only have one trade agreement. I do not understand the logic of that.

This agreement would allow us access to the Asian supply chain and put us on par with the U.K. and the U.S., and that is a good thing. I certainly hope my colleague will comment on his support for that.

I cannot understand the NDP's logic in opposing trade just out of fundamental opposition to it, then asking false questions about it and coming up with a false dichotomy in terms of either/or for entering into free trade agreements with one country or not. Could the member comment on that?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is spending most of its time explaining to us that resources are limited and that we have to tighten our belts and do more with less. In these circumstances, I imagine that the resources dedicated to international trade are not really a matter of choice. We need to have priorities. I think that the agreement with South Korea is considerably more important than other agreements signed with countries like Nicaragua, for example. It is simply a question of priorities.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for talking about the importance of farming in his community. It is important in mine as well.

I want to refer to the investor state dispute resolution mechanism. Earlier I pointed out the fact that it was a very secretive process. It is also costly for governments to have to defend themselves on these dispute resolution mechanisms.

Could the member comment on the fact that this really needs to be a more open and transparent process and safeguards need to be put in place for countries so they do not get involved in these costly battles?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I do not believe that these agreements are an obligation. It is a bad habit that some governments have developed. If we sign agreements with countries that do not have robust legal systems, where corruption is a problem and where the impartiality of the courts is in question, it is wise to include these kinds of provisions in agreements.

However, when we are doing business with reputable countries with legal systems similar to ours and where corruption is not a problem, there is no need to worry. It is not like in the case of Mexico in the 1980s, when NAFTA was being signed. There was good reason to question Mexico's legal system at the time. In fact, that might still be a concern today. However, when we are doing business with large, modern, democratic countries like South Korea, there is no need to worry about that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to reiterate the NDP's support for the bill that is presented before the House today. We add our voices to those of a broad coalition of Canadian stakeholders, such as the agriculture and agri-food industry associations; the UFCW, which is Canada's largest private sector union; manufacturing industry associations; and Bombardier, just to name a few.

As we have declared before the House, the NDP keeps in mind three fundamental criteria to ensure that the interests of Canadians are protected when it comes to a trade agreement.

The first has to do with the proposed partner's attitude toward Canadian values. We will make sure that countries respect democracy and human rights and that they have high policies toward labour and environmental standards. In the case of South Korea, we are very satisfied by the work this country has achieved since it broke free from dictatorship a quarter of a century ago. It has transitioned into an energetic, multi-party democracy with an active trade union movement. The wages are beyond decent, and freedom of expression is encouraged. South Korea is a developed country and is ranked 15th on the human development index, which is the highest rank in east Asia. We also have to point out the success of South Korea in becoming a world leader in renewable energy and green technology.

Our second criterion is with respect to the economic benefits Canada can receive from the agreement. Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Again we are satisfied, considering that South Korea is Canada's seventh most important trading partner. In 2013, Canadian exports to South Korea totalled $7.3 billion. Also, this first agreement with an Asian country would allow Canada to enter the Pacific region and diversify its export markets. Canadian exporters lost 30% of their market share in South Korea after the European Union and the U.S.A. concluded similar trade agreements. This agreement would allow Canada to restore its competitiveness in global markets and compensate for the losses.

Bob Linton, from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, stated:

This deal will not only help to protect the jobs of our members in these provinces but has the potential to increase employment with good union paying jobs that benefit the communities.

The third criterion is with respect to the terms of the agreement. The NDP wants to make sure that such terms are satisfactory for the Canadian economy. In this present case, we are satisfied by the benefits provided in many sectors.

One example is the agricultural sector. The agreement would enhance trade in the agriculture and agri-food sector, which represents 8% of the country's economy and sustains one out of eight jobs. South Korea imports a colossal amount of these products and is therefore a complementary economical partner for Canada.

We can also point out the benefits provided by this agreement in the aerospace sector. I am really pleased with this agreement, considering the proximity of South Korea to other major economies, such as Japan and China. In the next 20 years, half of the world's air traffic will be driven by Asia. The demand for aircraft in Asia will account for 37% of worldwide sales and be valued at $1.9 trillion.

The NDP recognizes the virtue of free trade and is aware that deepening our trade linkages with the Asia-Pacific region is essential to maintaining Canadian prosperity in the 21st century. However, this is not exactly the agreement that we would have negotiated. Let us face it: some aspects of it need to be criticized.

Let us start with concerns regarding the automobile sector, which needs to be protected. The NDP is calling on the government to take action to support the Canadian automobile industry, which provides 100,000 good jobs. Even if we go outside the frame of this agreement, the Canadian automobile sector has to face ferocious world competition. In 2013, Canada could not attract any of the $1.7 billion in auto assembly investments that were made around the world. These are shocking facts. That is why the NDP is urging the government to provide financial help to this very important sector of our industry.

An NDP government would create policies that would fortify the sector, and we have many ideas on how to do so. We would encourage Korean automakers to set up production facilities in Canada. We would also assist our industry in penetrating Korean and other Asian markets, and we would definitely keep an eye on non-tariff barriers and hurry to resolve disputes in an efficient and adequate manner.

At committee stage, the NDP definitely took the lead by inviting several witnesses from different sectors, including those against the agreement. We were also the only party to propose amendments to protect Canada's automobile sector, which goes back to what I was mentioning a moment ago. One amendment proposed a snap-back in the event of a surge in Korean vehicle imports in the Canadian market. We also suggested implementing yearly trade missions to Korea to observe and control the removal of harmful non-tariff barriers on Canadian exports. However, the government refused both these amendments that would have protected our industry.

Obviously the Liberal Party is no help in addressing that issue, since it does not have a plan or even the beginning of a proposition to protect our industry. There is no surprise there, since the Liberals are willing to support an agreement without even knowing its details, as they did when the Liberal critic approved a trade agreement with the European Union without seeing it.

Still on the topic of what happened at committee stage, the NDP was the only party to step up to introduce Canadians' concerns. We made three motions regarding investor protections. The first one was to protect the right of the Canadian government to legislate in the public interest. The second motion was to prohibit the fading of environmental standards in order to encourage investments. Last but not least, we wanted to repeal the investor state dispute settlement chapter from the agreement. In that matter, the main opposition party in South Korea joined its voice to ours.

Despite the relevance of these interventions, both the Liberal and the Conservative parties rejected these amendments.

In conclusion, the NDP supports open trade, especially when it comes to breaking down harmful trade barriers and decreasing tariffs and protectionism. Nevertheless, past experience has shown that a completely hands-off approach to the economy just does not work. Therefore, I concur with the Chamber of Commerce of Canada that there is a common sense role for government to play in promoting our exports and helping Canadian companies get into the Asian market.

I want to reiterate to my community and to all Koreans in my riding and in the greater Montreal area, whom I often deal with, that I am very proud we can conclude this free trade agreement and that I will help them. Some production companies have already approached me for help in developing markets with Korea. I will do everything in my power to help them.

According to the criteria I listed, this is a good agreement. I would have liked us to study it a bit more in committee, but this is a step in the right direction for our country, and I am pleased to say so again today and support this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that there remain deep concerns. I am sure my hon. colleague from the official opposition is aware of the concerns from the auto workers and the unions that work with the Canadian Auto Workers. The trade situation with South Korea is likely to remain one in which we primarily import finished products from Korea with lots of value added and export raw resources to it. The experience with other countries in trade deals with Korea has not redressed this balance of trade to the advantage of those countries.

We will obviously be going forward with this treaty, since every major party in the House supports the Canada-Korea treaty and the Green Party is the only party that does not. I wonder if the official opposition has any proposals for steps we can take to make sure that we do not just export raw resources and import high-value exports from Korea.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, Canada exports a lot of raw materials, since it is a country of natural resources. I would prefer it if we processed those materials here and boosted our industry, because that would create good jobs. Nonetheless, as the hon. member said, will sending South Korea a lot of raw materials that come back to us as processed goods increase or decrease this trade? I do not have an obvious answer.

We said we want to encourage the auto industry. I support any suggestions for making it easier to process our own raw materials in Canada, because that would create good jobs. A country like ours that has a lot of natural resources would certainly benefit from exporting value-added processed materials. I encourage that. For now, we have not proposed any amendments to that effect. We wanted first to protect our industries. However, we should look into this shortly because we must correct this import deficit.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague, who gave an excellent speech and demonstrated that she is very knowledgeable about this issue.

A Department of Foreign Affairs document indicates that Canada dragged its feet on signing trade agreements with countries of strategic interest. While the Conservative government was wasting time negotiating less important agreements, it neglected agreements that are of great value to the Canadian economy and create jobs in Canada. This incompetence on the part of the Conservatives is deplorable.

I am wondering what my colleague thinks of this document, which shows the Conservative government's shortcomings when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent and very pertinent question. When we want to engage in trade with other countries, the NDP asks itself three questions. Does the country respect human rights and workers' rights? Is there added value for Canada? Are the trade terms satisfactory?

Clearly, human rights and workers' rights are not an important consideration for the Conservatives. Canada, which is the free trade partner of choice for most countries in the world, should use this as leverage to improve workers' rights and living conditions abroad.

Regarding the document my colleague mentioned, we have to consider the countries that provide the greatest benefit to Canada based on what we want to import and export. The free trade agreement with South Korea should have been signed long ago. Other countries that have less to offer Canada from an economic perspective were given priority.

This is about priorities. The government should not be helping countries that are friends; it should be signing agreements that will benefit Canadians and our workers. I hope that other countries were mentioned in the document and that Canada will put more effort into signing free trade agreements that are good for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to advise the House that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion since this first round of speeches. Consequently, the speeches will now be 10 minutes and the period for questions and comments will be 5 minutes.

Before handing the floor over to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Official Languages, I should inform him that I will have to interrupt him around 2 p.m. for statements by members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to talk about the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, a landmark agreement that will strengthen our trade and investment ties across the Pacific, increase the prosperity of both countries and result in job creation and enhanced opportunities for Canadian and Korean businesses, investors, workers and consumers

I would like to focus my remarks today on the benefits the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will bring to my home province of Quebec.

With Canadian agricultural exports to South Korea facing an average tariff rate of close to 53% over the 2011-13 period, Quebec businesses stand to gain considerably from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. When fully implemented, the agreement will eliminate tariffs on over 99% of agricultural tariff lines. This duty-free access will not only give Quebec exporters preferential access to the South Korean market, but will also create a level playing field on which to compete and win.

Upon entry into force, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will eliminate tariffs on almost all of Quebec’s key exports and provide access to new opportunities in the South Korean market. Quebec exporters will also benefit from non-tariff provisions that will improve conditions for exports in the diverse South Korean market. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will, for example, ease regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights and ensure more transparent rules for market access.

I would now like to highlight some of the broad benefits for Quebec. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will provide enhanced market access for key sectors of interest to Quebec, including industrial goods, agricultural and agri-food products, forestry products and professional services.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will also provide predictable, non-discriminatory rules for our investors and ensures that their investments will be protected in the South Korean market. Access to South Korea’s government procurement market will also be improved. Suppliers from Quebec will benefit from expanded opportunities at the central government level, putting them on an equal footing with suppliers from the United States and in a better position vis-à-vis others such as Japan and the European Union.

The strong provision on non-tariff measures, backed up by a fast and effective dispute settlement provision, will also contribute to facilitate trade between Quebec and South Korea.

Now, I would like to turn to some of the specific benefits the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will bring to Quebec in different sectors, including industrial goods and agricultural and agri-food products. The area of industrial goods is a significant component of Quebec’s economy. There are over 295,000 hard-working Quebeckers and their families that depend on the industrial goods sector for their livelihood, with the sector accounting for approximately 11% of Quebec’s GDP.

From 2011 to 2013, Quebec’s exports of industrial goods to South Korea were worth an annual average of $280 million. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will significantly improve market access opportunities for Quebec’s industrial goods sector by eliminating all tariffs. Upon entry into force of the agreement, over 96% of South Korean tariff lines for industrial goods will be subject to immediate duty-free access, with the remaining 5% eliminated within 10 years.

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 third time and passed.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, upon entry into force of the agreement, over 96% of South Korean tariff lines for industrial goods will be subject to immediate duty-free access, with the remaining 5% eliminated within 10 years. For example, South Korean tariffs on flight simulators, cosmetics, ferro-alloys, gas turbines and scientific instruments, which run as high as 8%, will be eliminated.

This duty-free access will give Canadian products preferential access to the South Korean market and will create a level playing field with South Korea’s current free trade agreement partners.

Another key driver of economic activity in Quebec is the agricultural and agri-food products sector, which employed over 138,000 people in 2012.

From 2011 to 2013, Quebec’s agricultural exports to South Korea were worth an annual average of $93 million, led by pork, malt extract, food preparations and maple syrup.

Quebec will benefit from expanding exports of these and a wide variety of other products, including animal fats, soybeans, animal feed and fruits such as cranberries and blueberries.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will eliminate many agricultural tariffs immediately upon implementation of the agreement and will eliminate tariffs, in whole or in part, on 97% of current agricultural exports when the agreement is fully implemented. For example, South Korean tariffs on pork and most processed pork products, which face a current rate of up to 30%, will be eliminated. Tariffs on most food preparations, which run as high as 30%, will also be eliminated. For their part, exporters of blueberries and other berries will see current tariffs ranging from 30% to 45% eliminated. That is not all.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement also contains robust provisions, which will ensure that Quebec agricultural and agri-food products are not undermined by unjustified trade barriers.

The chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary measures negotiated in the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a good example. In this chapter, Canada and Korea have agreed to build on their shared commitments under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.

The chapter fully recognizes the rights of WTO members to take the sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, as long as they are based on science and are not used as disguised measures to unnecessarily restrict trade.

Under the agreement, Canada and Korea will establish a new bilateral sanitary and phytosanitary measures committee through which experts can collaborate and consult on sanitary and phytosanitary measures to enhance bilateral co-operation and facilitate trade by discussing issues before they become problems.

Since South Korea is a large net importer of agricultural and agri-food products, importing nearly $20 billion in 2013, Quebec stands to benefit considerably from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

Beyond tariffs, Canada and Korea recognize the importance of fostering co-operation and transparency in standards-related measures and have committed to encourage the use of internationally recognized standards and membership in multilateral arrangements to minimize duplicative certification and testing of products, including those related to medical devices.

The agreement also includes provisions aimed at minimizing the impact of technical barriers, which will in turn help maximize market access for Quebec’s exports.

To conclude, Canadian companies that do business abroad rely on fair, transparent, predictable and non-discriminatory trade rules. With the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, we are looking to provide the rules they need so they can compete and win abroad and build a stronger economy here at home.

No government in Canada’s history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. Deepening Canada’s trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to these efforts.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP certainly supports Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

We use three criteria to determine whether or not we will support trade agreements. First, we must ensure that the proposed partner respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, as well as Canadian values. If there are problems in that regard, is the partner making progress towards achieving these objectives? Next, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Finally, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? These are the criteria we use when studying agreements such as this one.

Since 2012, when the United States implemented trade agreements with South Korea and obtained preferential access for its businesses, Canadians exporters have lost 30% of their market share.

Why was this government so slow to act, and why has it negotiated an agreement that is not as good?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think that the government took as much time as was necessary to negotiate an agreement that is in Canadians' best interest. It will create jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers in all regions of the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this particular agreement was not an initiative by this particular government. In fact, it was South Korea, which back in 2003 put itself on track to go out to the world and sign free trade agreements. Within a year of that, Prime Minister Paul Martin put Canada in a position to begin the negotiations.

My question is in regard to the amount of time that it has taken for this current government to reach an actual agreement. We often hear about the United States, but other countries, such as Chile, India, and Peru, have been successful in getting an agreement in place earlier.

Why does the minister think it took Canada so long to actually achieve an agreement?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very hard to compare the Liberals' record on agreements with foreign governments to our own record.

Since 2006, and even before then, the Conservative government has signed agreements with partner countries that account for over 52% of the international GDP. That is a huge success, the kind of success that the other side of the House will never know.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a lopsided deal.

In 2013, there was an almost $4 billion deficit in trade with Korea. It is going to get worse.

It is great for Korea. It is great for Hyundai. It is bad for Canadian automakers and auto workers, and I am surprised that the NDP is not standing up for auto workers.

My question for the Conservatives is this: why they are making Canada a resource-exporting colony of South Korea?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every free trade agreement with another country, including the one with Korea, helps develop the economies of both partner countries.

On this side of the House, we are very proud of what we have accomplished through our free trade agreements with countries around the world.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-41, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. There are a number of things I would like to highlight in my few minutes here.

I would like to say why I support the bill.

First of all, I follow the party criteria that we should only be engaging in trade negotiations and signing deals with partners that respect democracy and human rights, have adequate environmental and labour standards, and share values similar to ours.

Second, we should only be doing deals that provide an economic advantage to us.

Third, we should only sign deals if the terms are satisfactory.

Our trade critic, the very hard-working member for Vancouver Kingsway, has put his mind to this bill, as have all of us on this side of the House, and we think this agreement is worth supporting. I am proud to say that. We will keep an eye on this measure as it moves forward.

When I reviewed the deal and looked at the history of the two countries, I was struck first by how different they are and then, perhaps thinking about the lessons that I have learned from having a very large Korean community in Burnaby, by what we can hope to gain from this deal beyond merely trade. I am hoping that we can take some inspiration from how the Koreans have built their economy.

We have a tale of two countries that have come together to do a trade agreement. In the 20th century, Korea was at war from 1950 to 1953 and had 375,000 civilian deaths. That is a massive loss of life. In talking to Koreans, we hear that the country was more or less bombed flat. Koreans had a very difficult rebuilding process, both economically and politically. I have talked to the scientific adviser to the President of Korea, who said that with essentially no energy resources, they had to be quite creative when it came to rebuilding their economy.

South Korea became a full democracy in the 1980s, when the constitution was changed to allow direct election of the president. South Korea then held its first free parliamentary elections in that decade, the same decade that it hosted the Olympics.

South Korea also has a very troubled relationship with North Korea, as everybody in the world does. It is a very difficult neighbour to have. In 1980, South Korea's GDP per capita was just over $1,700. Twentieth century Korea was very different from 20th century Canada.

Canada participated in the Korean War. We sent 26,000 troops and we had 512 casualties, which is a high number, but it was well worth the effort. As we move toward Remembrance Day, we want to remember all those who fought in the Korean conflict.

Where Korea had a massive loss of civilian life, there was no real domestic destruction here in Canada in that conflict. Where South Korea moved to becoming a full democracy in the 1980s, we are one of the oldest democracies in the world. As for problems with our neighbours, we have none. The U.S.-Canadian relationship is one of the strongest in the world. In 1980, the South Korean GDP per capita was $1,700, while in Canada it was $11,000, ten times higher than in Korea. It really paints two different pictures of 20th century Canada and South Korea: one is a picture of a country getting on its feet after a tremendous struggle and the other is a picture of a very strong and enduring democracy.

It is also worth thinking about where our countries are now, in the 21st century. In Canada, our GDP per capita is $52,000. That is five times higher than in 1980, so we have had significant economic growth. Our population is 35 million, and we are 15th in the world in terms of GDP, at $1.5 trillion.

However, what is remarkable is what has happened in South Korea. The GDP per capita in 2014 is almost $26,000, which is 25 times what it was in the 1980s. That is the fastest-growing economy in the world over that period. The current population is 50 million. South Korea has passed us in terms of GDP, with a $1.7 trillion economy. It is 13th in the world; we are 15th in the world.

The question is, how did South Korea do this? How did it pull off what we might consider an economic miracle?

Korea invested in science. It invested in research and development. It is worth looking at how this investment has rolled out and compare it with what we are doing here in Canada with the hope that we will take lessons from this.

In 1991, Korea, both the public and private sector considered, spent 1.8% of its total GDP on research and development. That is very close to what Canada spent on research and development in 1991, which was 1.55% of total GDP. That is about a 0.25 percentage point gap in 1991.

However, in 2006, when we elected the Conservatives who unfortunately were not investing in science, the Koreans certainly did. In 2006, where Canada was spending 1.96% of our GDP on research and development, the Koreans were investing over 3%, so it is a big jump. The gap between the two countries became very sizable at a 1.05 percentage point gap. When we think about that in GDP terms, that is a massive amount of money.

The Korean government committed to investing in research and development and that is what they have done. Look where they are now. In 2012, Korea is the top investor in research and development, and 4.36% of their GDP goes into research and development. We have fallen. We have actually lost significant ground, not just to Korea but to many other countries in the world. Canada only invests 1.69% of our GDP. That is a 2.67 percentage point gap. That is a huge gap.

The Koreans are almost tripling our investment in research and development, which is why we have very different economies. What is scary is that the Koreans have just recently committed to investing 5% of their entire economy back into research and development. Again, that is public and private sector spending. That is the way the Koreans pulled themselves out of the horrors of war and it is the way they are going to continue to develop economically.

We just have to look at the companies that Korea has built from scratch. Look at Samsung Electronics. It is a $165 billion company when we look at the market capitalization of outstanding shares. The Hyundai Motor Company is $50 billion; POSCO, the steel company, is $33 billion; Kia Motors, $29 billion; Hyundai Mobis, which is an auto parts business, $26 billion; LG Chemical, $20 billion. The list goes on and on.

If we compare that with what is going on in Canada, the Royal Bank of Canada is the biggest company in Canada by market cap at $88 billion, which is half the size of Samsung. Toronto Dominion Bank, Bank of Nova Scotia, Bank of Montreal, all within are our top ten companies, are financial services, not necessarily innovators.

That is really what we see when we look at what companies dominate the Korean economy: Samsung, Hyundai, Kia, LG, Hynix semiconductor. These are all big companies that have been really driven through a sustained and very focused effort on understanding economic drivers and making sure that the proper monies are put in to encourage research and development. In Canada, we have been relying on finances and natural resources. Besides the banks, our big companies are Suncor, Enbridge and TransCanada.

I hope we can learn from the Koreans. Innovation never goes away, unlike natural resources, which do disappear. If we look at our fish stocks, our trees, even oil and gas, these things all go away. What the Koreans have learned is that innovation is essential to the future.

I am pleased that we have decided to sign this trade deal in the hope that we will take lessons from the Koreans and build our knowledge economy here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to talk about free trade agreements, and it is great to see that the New Democrats are now supporting free trade.

One of the important issues that needs to be recognized is that it is not only about trade agreements, but overall trade. Over the last number of years we have witnessed a substantial decrease in trade in terms of having a trade surplus prior to the Conservatives coming into government and ultimately turning that into a major trade deficit. That means literally hundreds, thousands of jobs have been lost because the government has not done well on trade, on the bigger picture.

Could the member provide some comment? As important as it is that Canada look for and sign trade agreements, it is equally important, if not even more important, that we watch that bottom line. This is where the government has been negligent. It has failed to meet the potential of our Canadian exporters by ensuring that countries around the world are participating and consuming our products.

That is, in essence, the real reason why we now have a trade deficit as opposed to a surplus, which equates to jobs.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of how badly the Conservatives are managing the economy, it is hard to know where to start. We can work with trade deficits, and that is kind of where we are in this debate.

It is clear that the Conservatives have put all their eggs in one basket. They just want to triple the output of the oil sands, ram pipelines through British Columbia, ram pipelines through the rest of Canada and hope that provides the jobs they think it will. However, with predictions now of $70 a barrel oil, that may be a big fault. It would be a mistake not to diversify, not to invest in the knowledge economy, not to look for other means of exporting.

For example, we do not just have to export oil. We could export education or culture. There are all kinds of different industries that could be grown, but the government has cut all of those industries. It has put all its eggs in one basket and I think it is a huge mistake.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He identified many important aspects of free trade agreements, particularly one with Korea, a society that has decided to focus on high tech.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. I am not sure we are in the same league as Korea when it comes to that. I would like my colleague to comment further on that.

Are we in a position to act fast so that we too can trade value-adds rather than just raw resources for high tech? What are his thoughts on that?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question. We are talking about an economic vision here. The government has had almost four years to tell us what its vision is, in a majority, and it is simply putting all its eggs in one basket.

We need to learn from other countries such as Korea that have national plans. Every country in the world would have a national energy plan. We do not have one here. All countries have housing plans and economic development plans. The government seems to be unable to put these together and it is causing all kinds of chaos in different sectors of the economy.

What we can learn from other countries is to get our house in order, have a clear vision and present it to the public, and we will have battling visions next year.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy getting involved in debates concerning trade and concerning the budget, because one of the things about these debates is that it enables us as parliamentarians to speak to our constituents about broader principles. I do not currently sit on the international trade committee. I have in the past and really enjoyed it. I do not quite have the detailed knowledge of this particular agreement that the members of the committee have, but trade is an important subject for Canada.

We can talk about the broader economic impacts, the principles, the understandings, because our debate in this place is not just to convince each other of the merits of this particular legislation but also to explain and educate Canadians on why the principles of free trade work and why we support this in a broader sense. Interestingly enough, it appears all three major parties will be backing the bill. One of my degrees being in economics, I very much enjoy talking about these broad principles in trade.

One of the things people instinctively understand in their individual lives is that trade is good. When I go to a grocery store, I trade. I may trade for a bag of chips. I may trade for a carton of milk. However, I always trade something. At every store I shop at, whether it is where I come from in Saskatoon or in Ottawa, I end up with a trade deficit with them, so to some of the hon. members who are implying that all trade deficits are bad, they need to think about that. For most people, when they buy something, a trade deficit is actually a good thing.

My salary is the one place where I have the equivalent of a trade surplus. My wife of course has the same thing. We instinctively understand that trade between individuals and each other, and individuals and businesses is good, but sometimes we do not always understand that the exact same principle goes from country to country, from nation to nation. Let us face it, what is a country? It is a collection of peoples that for some reason have been drawn together. Perhaps they have a common history, a civic identity, such as we have here in Canada. Perhaps they have a common ethnic identity, as do some countries in the world. However, whatever it is, a group of individuals have gotten together. It is not just trade among those individuals, but individuals across boundaries from one nation to another. Therefore, the principles fundamentally apply. It is just that with the complexity, the distance and everything, we begin to argue different principles, but it is really the same.

Free trade from an economic perspective is always in everyone's economic interest. There may be political interests. There may be other reasons why one may not want to trade with a particular country. We have trade sanctions against various regimes not because we think that benefits us economically. In fact we even acknowledge it hurts us economically. We do it because we want to make a broader political point and we are prepared to take whatever pain to advance a broader cause.

That is why it gives me pleasure today to talk about the agreement we have with the Republic of Korea, commonly known as South Korea.

Having read a little, not too much, of Asian history, I find it fascinating how the people of the Republic of Korea, South Korea, have been able to advance and build their country over the last decades in particular, starting after World War II where it had essentially been run as a Japanese colony and then of course came the absolutely disastrous, brutal Korean War that affects them to this day. They were at that point, according to one reading I had, the poorest or next-to-poorest nation in the entire world. Today, by some estimates they are the 30th wealthiest country in the world and the 13th largest economy. It is a country approaching 50 million people.

For those of you who have not had the pleasure of travelling there, go there. It is a vibrant, wonderful country. I have been there a couple of times. My wife Gerelt worked there in the Korean parliament, prior to her immigration to Canada. She just loves it and adores the people there and has actually come to really love the food. I am a Saskatchewan farm boy. It was a little different, but it is there.

Korea has become an absolutely dynamic leader in the world economy. That is one reason why we as Canadians need to get involved and trade with it more. As has been noted, in 2011 we had $5.1 billion per year in exports to Korea and our growth and exports over the previous five years had grown by a compounded rate of about 9.2% per year. Now, looking through our numbers here we are down to $3.7 billion in the final year that we have statistics for. That is a drop in trade.

The economy is growing, et cetera. Why did we have a drop in trade? One of the particular and major reasons we had a drop in trade with South Korea, which we all know, is that some of our competitors got involved with major trade agreements, in particular the United States of America. The Europeans are also finishing their trade agreement with South Korea.

That brings me to one of the absolutely major reasons we need to get involved in this trade agreement. It would protect markets we have built up and are now losing because of competitors that have come after us.

For the various reasons that have been discussed, we were not able to quite get the agreement as soon as we wanted. We do not have quite the same leverage. We do not have the geopolitical strength in that area the United States does. However, we need to catch up. We need to get involved with South Korea and follow up on that trade agreement.

This trade agreement is also important for diversification. One of the ongoing trade issues we have with the United States is country of origin labelling. Through the back door, the United States is stopping the export of cattle and various other products into its market.

It is a great benefit for us to be involved with the United States of America. However, dealing with and making trade agreements, as we are with Europe, and as we are now debating, with Korea helps us to diversify our markets for all of our goods. When there is a country that acts with a backward policy, as the United States government has done with its country of origin labelling, we will have other options, other places to go to sell our products, in this case, agriculture. That is why it is absolutely important and vital that we continue to engage in treaties, not just this one but all others.

I would be remiss if I did not bring up this point, because I often see in the House that we debate and gladly and quite accurately talk about all the trade benefits that trade agreements have for our exporters. However, let us be blunt. There are great benefits for our consumers. If I may, I will throw in a quote, again, from one of my favourite economists, Mr. Milton Friedman. He said:

The great danger to the consumer is monopoly—whether private or governmental. His most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world.

This is a benefit that is often overlooked. When we reduce tariffs on South Korean imports to Canada, that allows our consumers to buy the exact same goods at a lower price and have more money to spend. Our importers that use Korean products then have lower costs for their imports. It makes them more competitive. One of the things we need to always remember and celebrate, actually, is the benefit to consumers from this agreement.

Finally, coming from Saskatchewan, Canada's agriculture heartland, I have to note some of the benefits for the agriculture industry.

In Saskatchewan, it does not matter where one is, Saskatoon or Regina, big towns or small, everyone benefits from a growing agriculture economy. My riding in particular, with one-third being a rural area and with the College of Agriculture at the University of Saskatchewan, benefits fairly directly.

Let me, for the record, put in a few of the cuts to tariffs South Korea would make that would help us sell more and challenge our rivals in the United States and Australia

The current rate for rye is 108.7%. That would be reduced.

Flaxseed may be only 3%. The current rate for pulses is up to 607.5%. Coming from a riding where pulses are very important and have helped us diversify from wheat, that is very important.

Animal feed, pork, flaxseed, golden roasted flaxseed, mustard seed, and of course, wheat are all products Saskatchewan grows and exports. This agreement would add to the $149.5 million, from 2010 to 2012, in agriculture products we exported to South Korea.

I look forward to questions on this important trade deal for all Canadians.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his speech.

I gave a bit of a summary of what happened with Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. In the latest reports I have read, I noted that the committee has had only one meeting on this free trade agreement.

Although the NDP supports this bill and the government on this free trade agreement, we still proposed six amendments. These relatively simple amendments were meant to improve the free trade agreement and, more importantly, to protect Canadian jobs, especially in the manufacturing and automotive sectors. Unfortunately, those six amendments were rejected.

Did my colleague across the way have a chance to study those amendments? Did he not think they were good?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted in my speech, I no longer sit on the trade committee. I did before, prior to the last election.

One of the things we often talk about when it comes to trade deals, which the hon. member talked about, is protection. Protections for industry in trade deals are often damaging to the consumer. What we protect with one hand, we take away from other Canadians with the other. I am not sure if that is what the amendments the hon. member is referring to would have done, but it is something we should be cautious about.

We often talk about protecting industries, but what we often mean is that we are putting hidden taxes on consumers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's opening comments. When he was talking about a trade balance, he implied that there are certain situations where a deficit is a good thing.

Thinking of the trade deficit that was created, in fairness by the Conservative government, I am interested in how the trade deficit was a good thing for the Canadian economy.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes an interesting point. While most people instinctively understand that running fiscal deficits is a bad thing over the long term, notwithstanding the often Keynesian approaches all parties take, ours less than any of the others, deficits, when it comes to trade policy, are not necessarily a bad thing. We have to understand that the numbers that are often given are not totally encompassing. Canada has long run a trade surplus with the United States, but it does not include things like Canadian tourist trips to Florida, so these numbers are often incomplete.

The only way we can run trade surpluses with one part of the world is if we end up with trade deficits with the others. Of course, there are ways around it if we borrow, do not pay our bills, and so on. However, let us assume that all bills are paid. If we run trade deficits in some parts of the world, we bring in cheaper or more goods. These goods can then be used to manufacture, produce things, and ultimately, provide goods. Again, this is assuming that everyone pays and that there is no borrowing or theft.

Just as with human beings, countries have to pay their bills. One man's surplus is another man's deficit. In the end, the books should balance themselves.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member say that all free trade is good and that balanced trade deficits are not bad. Now I am hearing the other two main parties in the House drifting over. I guess that it is out of fear that if they do not appear to be pro-business and pro-development, they will lose votes in the next election.

I would like the member to explain how a balance-in-trade deficit, when we get Hyundai cars and kill our auto industry and auto worker jobs here in Canada, is a good thing for Canada. How does that promote the growth of innovation and trade in our country?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the hon. member needs to understand that if we run a deficit in one place, we will end up running a surplus in the other.

I run a deficit with every car dealership I have ever bought a car from. I run a surplus with the federal government, because I am employed by the federal government. That is where the balance ultimately comes out.

We have winners and we have losers. That is true, but in the end, everyone is a winner with free trade, in an economic sense. As I qualified before, we do not always do things for the best of the economy, as there are other priorities.

In an economic sense, everyone wins, because it is ultimately about the specialization of labour. It is about the most efficient way we can exchange goods and services and produce them for the benefit of all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I plan to address the benefits versus the lack of benefits if we have a trade deficit.

First, I would like to provide some context. When we talk about trade with Korea, what are the types of items we are talking about? When we think of Korea and the exports it has, we are looking at motor vehicles; trailers; bicycles; motorcycles; electrical machinery and equipment; boilers; mechanical appliances; iron and steel articles; plastic and plastic articles; rubber and rubber articles; optical, medical, and scientific technical instrumentation; mineral fuels; oils; and copper and copper articles. These are the top Korean exports to Canada.

To my mind, and to the minds of many Canadians, a particular concern is the automobile industry. There is a great deal of interest in what will happen to our automobile industry. Obviously, the automobile industry as a whole in Canada provides tens of thousands of good-quality jobs for Canadians.

When we think of what Canada exports to Korea, top on the list are minerals, fuels, oils, and so forth. Next to that, we are looking at ores, slag, and ash; wood pulp; boilers and mechanical appliances; wood and wood articles; charcoal; aluminum and aluminum articles; electrical machinery and equipment; optical, medical, and scientific technical instrumentation; cereals; and, a very important one for me and something I have had an opportunity to talk a great deal about in the House, meat, particularly Manitoba's wonderful pork.

That gives us a sense of what is coming into and leaving Canada. We are talking about literally hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis.

South Korea plays a very important role when it comes to trade with Canada today. The expectations are that with the trade agreement, we will be able to enhance trade between the two countries. There are some industries, the pork industry and aerospace industry being two very important industries for my own province and across Canada, that would benefit from this trade agreement. Having said that, we need to recognize that there are areas we need to be concerned about.

As I have pointed out, this has not been an agreement driven by the Conservative government. It goes back to 2003, when the South Koreans took it upon themselves to move toward world trade agreements.

Canada has actually been very slow in pursuing an agreement. That was back in 2003. At that time, Paul Martin was the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Party was in government. Within a year of South Korea stating its intentions, the government of the day expressed its willingness to begin negotiations.

It is frustrating that the Canadian government made this country such a low priority. It signed some other agreements that involve a fraction of the trade that was being done between Canada and Korea.

Therefore, the Conservative government should not try to give the impression that it is the Prime Minister who has been out courting to get this agreement. That is not the case. Yes, the Conservatives has signed the agreement, but it has a lot more to do with South Korea than it does with the government.

The Liberal Party has consistently recognized the value of trade, and I can go through a litany of Liberal prime ministers. I often refer to the 1960s when we had the Auto Pact agreement and how Canada benefited economically and ultimately socially as a result of that. Through the years, we have continued to support the principle of free trade agreements where possible and where it makes sense.

In the last 15 or so years there has been a lot more interest around the world to develop and promote free trade agreements. That is why we have seen a lot more activity. In the late 1980s, it was not the thing of the day, and I made reference to this before.

I recall first-hand when I was sitting on the Manitoba legislature and Prime Minister Chrétien at the time talked about how important trade was to Canada. He wanted to go Asia, particularly China, and other countries, and he wanted this team Canada approach. He invited other provinces, stakeholders and so forth to participate in trying to capture new and growing markets to benefit from world trade.

If we look at the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, we will see that we had consistent trade surpluses, and that is important.

I have studied basic economic courses and I had the opportunity to talk economics throughout the last 20 years in many different capacities, as well when playing the role of critic in the Manitoba provincial legislature. The bottom line is that a trade deficit is not a positive thing.

If we look at trade in a holistic fashion, what better way than to look at the bottom line? The trade balance is important. If we are on the right side of the balance on the ledger, we will find that we are in a better position to generate good quality-paying jobs. That is what Canadians want.

This is a fight for the middle class. We need the emphasis of our policy, and in setting policy, to benefit our middle class, because the middle class has been hit hard over the last number of years. One of the ways in which we can deal with that is to be more progressive on the trade file.

We cannot be dismissive or passive about a trade deficit and not worry about it. If the Conservatives gave the attention that was warranted in dealing with the trade deficit, we would have had more employment in Canada. The manufacturing industry would not have been hit as hard as it has been in Ontario, where we have lost tens of thousands of good quality manufacturing jobs. No one can convince me that has nothing to do with the trade deficit because it does. There are many things in which the government could be doing that would make a difference, and it is a small point.

We ask questions about infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure allows our companies in Canada to get their product to market that much faster. It allows them to be that much more competitive. Investing in infrastructure is a good, sound economic policy.

We should all be concerned with the overall trade balance. I understand that the only party opposing this trade agreement is the Green Party. It is encouraging to see the flip that the New Democrats have made on trade policy.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

One thing always surprises me. Yes, it is good to diversify markets. However, a question came to mind while I was listening to my colleague speak.

Before he even knew what agreement he was dealing with, he said he supported it. He did not really look at the content of the agreement. Furthermore, he is completely surprised that the NDP is supporting a free trade agreement. As we in the NDP are always reminding this House, we have a very structured approach for determining whether or not an agreement is good for Canada.

Given that we have such a structured approach and that one aspect of it involves ensuring that the partner's economy has significant or strategic value to Canada's economy, would he agree that thinking in these terms could help us to improve our trade?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a time in which there was more difference between the New Democrats and the Liberals, but the New Democrats are trying to become Liberals on the trade issue.

We need to recognize that when the member said whether it was the European Union, that in principle they supported the concept of free trade. This is much like when Jack Layton was the leader of the New Democrats. He would say very candidly, “We oppose free trade agreements”, even if the free trade agreement was not on the table or if there was no context to the agreement at all. At one time, the New Democrats knew that the content did not matter. It was totally, absolutely irrelevant. They just opposed trade agreements. It is only under this new leader that they have made this flip. That is a good thing.

They do not need to try to come up with this justification. That is all they are really talking about is justification. The Liberal Party believes in the importance of environmental and labour laws. We want to ensure that there is a respect for democracy and human rights. The New Democrats are coming up with a justification for their flip-flop. That is all it is.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Winnipeg North as he talked about what Jack Layton said and what the NDP stood for. Maybe he should stick to what his own party stands for.

The problem we have on this side is that with respect to what the Conservative government has done in its trade policy, the Liberal policy tends to be “me too”. The Liberals go along with it. They do not think about it. They do not question it. They do not analyze it. They just want to agree.

What we have talked about here with respect to the Canada-Korea trade agreement, like we have with every other agreement that has been brought into the House, is the merits of it, the provisions, what is contained within the agreement and how it benefits Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.

Why does the member for Winnipeg North get so offended when the NDP looks at a deal from a logical and principled point of view before we decide yea or nay?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no offence to the member, but I do not believe the New Democrats are being fully transparent on this issue. The reality is quite different in terms of what they have done in the past versus what they say today.

If we use the same logic that the member just talked about in terms of how they thoroughly investigate and base their decisions strictly on the merits of a trade agreement, did that same principle apply when Jack Layton or Ed Broadbent was the leader of their party? Are they saying that the Jordan agreement and this agreement are the only two agreements that Canada has ever signed that are worth supporting? They need to look in the mirror and reflect on what they say if they want to be consistent and honest with Canadians.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-41.

Our government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments.

That is why our government is currently pursuing the most ambitious trade expansion plan in our country's history. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a state-of-the-art agreement which covers virtually all sectors and aspects of Canada-South Korea commercial relations, including trading goods and services, investment, government procurement and intellectual property, as well as labour and environment.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would result in job creation and enhanced opportunities for Canadian and Korean businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as investors, workers and consumers.

Today, I would like to speak about how the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would help the Atlantic provinces to expand their businesses and increase their competitiveness in the South Korean market, which presents many opportunities for my fellow Atlantic Canadians.

From 2011 to 2013, Atlantic Canada exported, on average, $64 million worth of goods to South Korea. Through the elimination of tariffs in major sectors of interest to Atlantic Canada, including fish and seafood products, agriculture and agri-food products, rail products, information and communication technologies, industrial machinery and medical devices, Atlantic Canadian goods would become more competitive in South Korea.

The agreement's outcomes in non-goods trade would also help service providers by facilitating business mobility and investors through increased protection and clearer rules. New Brunswick is one of the Atlantic provinces that stands to benefit significantly from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

The agreement would bring numerous benefits to New Brunswick, including the province's industrial goods sector. Our industrial goods sector is an important driver of the economy for New Brunswick and it employs about 6,700 hard-working New Brunswickers each year.

From 2011 to 2013, New Brunswick exports of industrial goods to South Korea were worth an average of $7.8 million. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on all of New Brunswick's exports of industrial goods to South Korea, including tariffs on information technology products which currently face tariffs of up to 13%. It would also eliminate tariff rates on industrial machinery and power-generating machinery, with the current tariff rate of up to 8%.

Tariff elimination would level the playing field for New Brunswickers relative to key competitors from the Untied States and the European Union, and bring substantial export gains to the province.

Nova Scotia is another Atlantic province that would gain considerably from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I would like to touch upon the agreement's benefits for the fish and seafood products sector, which provides jobs to more than 9,200 Nova Scotians.

Between 2011 and 2013, Nova Scotia's fish and seafood exports to South Korea were worth an annual average of $23 million. Nova Scotia would benefit from tariff elimination on products such as live and frozen eel from a current rate of up to 27%. Tariffs would also be eliminated on live and frozen lobster, frozen crab and scallops, which have a current rate of up to 20%.

On a point of interest, shipments of lobster from Halifax Stanfield International Airport to Seoul have already begun, with loads this past summer of nearly 40,000 kilograms.

Throughout the negotiations on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, our government has actively engaged stakeholders to ensure that the agreement best reflects their needs. Stakeholders have provided strong support for the agreement, including the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association, which is congratulating our government on the agreement with the following statement, “The free trade agreements to eliminate tariffs will seriously open up the markets. I very much applaud the efforts of government to reduce trade barriers.”

I am very excited for the many benefits that the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will bring to the Nova Scotians. That is a pretty strong statement in and of itself.

Prince Edward Island also has a lot to gain from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, including P.E.I.'s agriculture and agri-food products sector. In 2012, this sector employed about 5,600 people in the province. From 2011 to 2013, P.E.I.'s agricultural exports to South Korea were worth an annual average of $2.6 million. Frozen french fries and pork products were the top export items.

P.E.I. would benefit from the agreement's elimination of tariffs on frozen potato products, which includes frozen french fries, from a current rate of 18%. The agreement would also eliminate tariffs on all pork and pork products of export interest, which range anywhere from 3% to 30%.

I would like to share a quote from the vice-president of Cavendish Farms, a producer of frozen potato products. He said:

...a free trade agreement between Canada and South Korea presents a golden opportunity for us to grow our presence in the South Korean market, and in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. Free trade helps to support our industry, the workers we employ and the sale of the high-quality products that we’ve been producing for more than 30 years.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would bring numerous benefits that would help to boost the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. The province's services sector, for example, would benefit significantly from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. This is an important sector for Newfoundland and Labrador, employing some 180,400 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in 2012 alone and accounting for more than half of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. The province's key export interests in the services sector include retail and wholesale trade, environment, travel and tourism, construction, and real estate services.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would provide services suppliers from Newfoundland and Labrador with greater and more predictable access to the diverse South Korean market. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement contains temporary entry commitments that are the most ambitious South Korea has agreed to in any of its free trade agreements and would go a long way to boosting services exports for the province.

We are standing with Canadians on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement by ensuring that investor protection provisions remain as the cornerstones, as has been the case in all modern trade and investment agreements. We take tremendous pride in our record on free trade agreements, which has put Canada back in the game of trade negotiations. Canadian workers and businesses were at risk of falling behind in this era of global markets, but thanks to the aggressive agenda of our government, we are giving our citizens a competitive advantage.

By continuing to actively pursue broader markets and access to new investment opportunities, our government is providing Canadian businesses and exporters with access on preferred terms to the largest, most dynamic, and fastest-growing economies and regions around the world. No government in Canadian history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers, and their families. Deepening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to these efforts.

Without a doubt, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement promises many benefits for Atlantic Canada. It would level the playing field for Atlantic Canadian businesses relative to their competitors in the U.S. and the EU. It represents a concrete next step in bolstering Atlantic Canada's presence in the fastest-growing and dynamic Asia-Pacific region.

Today I am asking that all members of the House ensure the speedy ratification of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, so that hard-working Canadians can start reaping the benefits of this agreement and solidify their presence in the Asia-Pacific region as soon as possible.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way. We served together for a while on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, always in a spirit of collegiality, a very pleasant attitude which has prevailed here for nearly a week. I am very glad to see that in the House.

We have already stated that the NDP will vote in favour of Bill C-41 at third reading. However, there are a few little things I have noticed. For instance, I am still worried about manufacturing jobs in this country.

Can the hon. member give me some more details? Does he know what kind of protection will be provided for jobs in the automotive sector? As he knows, trade with South Korea is quite substantial, especially in the automotive sector.

Will the federal government be introducing protective measures to ensure that the automotive sector in Canada remains competitive?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I enjoyed my time in committee with the hon. member. It is a committee that is very collegial and certainly continues to be to this day.

To the member's question, I spoke today about what I saw as the benefits to Atlantic Canada in this agreement. I saw a lot of opportunities. I spoke about a lot of opportunities that are there for Atlantic Canadians, and in every agreement there have to be some areas where one sector will do better than the other. We see great opportunity in Atlantic Canada, whether it comes from the seafood and fish products that are produced, the agriculture and agri-food products that are produced, or some of the services that we market around the world, such as industrial machinery. There are different opportunities that present themselves in this market. This is a rich and growing market, and we see huge potential for Atlantic Canada; and for my province alone, the potential is so great. We see a growing market.

As I said earlier, I would ask all members to ratify this agreement so we can get on with it and start taking advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead for us.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question that my colleague from the NDP raised for the member for . I too want to express my concern, given that I come from Ontario and given the potential impact that this Canada-South Korea free trade agreement may have also on the auto sector, notwithstanding the fact that our party will be supporting this particular deal.

I would like to get my friend's comments with respect to the ultimate accessibility that Canadian manufacturers would have to South Korea, particularly as it relates to the auto sector.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is Saint John. I just want to clarify that, because people in my area are very particular about that. I just want to make sure that members understand very clearly.

We see a lot of potential with this trade agreement, from my area in particular, from Atlantic Canada's perspective, and from New Brunswick's perspective. New Brunswick is the largest, most export-oriented province for percentage of GDP per capita in the entire country. We are very dependent on trade, and we see a huge potential here. We have opportunities that go far beyond what most could imagine. We see a growing marketplace with great demands, and we look forward to meeting those demands.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, National Defence.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in this House to speak in support of Bill C-41, an act to implement a free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

Whenever we are looking at free trade agreements, no matter which country they are with, it behoves the parliamentarians and those who are negotiating those agreements to ensure that due diligence is done and that the agreements we end up with are good for Canada. However, we want them to be good for the other country as well, because that is how strong relationships are built in the long run.

On balance, this trade agreement with a democratic, high-standards country is a good deal for Canada and one that the NDP can support. South Korea is an established democracy with high standards for labour rights, human rights, and environmental protections. Its large market offers significant opportunities for Canadian businesses to gain a foothold in important Asian markets and diversify our trade. Just so members know, we believe not everything is perfect and we will say that this agreement is not perfect. There are things we would have liked to see changed in it, but on balance we believe this is a good deal and it would benefit Canadians and would benefit Korea as well.

Unlike another party that sits on this side of the House—a party that, when a free trade agreement was announced, without seeing the details, said, “We approve; we like it; us too”—we actually believe in doing the work of parliamentarians and waiting to see what the deal is, reading it, studying it, and then trying to make it better before we go out and make grand pronouncements. That is what the people who elect and send us here expect of us. They expect us to do the kind of hard work that the NDP is prepared to do.

At this point, let me acknowledge the stoic work done by an amazing member of Parliament from Vancouver Kingsway. He has taken on this file and has been very thorough, balanced, and measured as he has looked at the policies and the agreements that have been presented to this House. He has put forward thoughtful amendments at committee and, now that it is here, has recommended to the caucus that after his thorough investigation, this is a good deal. That is the kind of work parliamentarians expect from all parties; not the “me too” attitude of the party at the other end of this House.

As members know, we do not always agree with the government on the other side or with our colleagues at the other end, so when we are looking at free trade agreements, we actually have some criteria and we examine free trade agreements against the criteria we have established.

The first criterion is this. Is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If it does not have those rights yet, is it on a trajectory that is moving it toward human rights, labour rights, and environmental rights?

The second criterion is this, and my colleagues at the end of this side could actually learn from doing this kind of homework. Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? These are all very important.

The third one is this. Are the terms of the proposed deal satisfactory?

We have a measured approach, and I am proud of the way we do it.

It is important to note that we did have some concerns with this agreement, and I want it to be noted that once again at committee it was NDP members who did their homework and the hard pulling. It was NDP members who moved amendments based on our concerns over the provisions for investor state dispute settlement. We were very concerned.

However, we were pleased that in this case, unlike the case of the Canada-China FIPA, the agreement would not keep the hands of government tied for 31 years. This agreement can be renegotiated or cancelled after six months. Unlike the other FIPA, the Korean free trade agreement has guaranteed transparency rules for ISDS tribunals. Hearings must be in public. We still expressed our concerns about that, but the other party said it was quite willing to live with that provision.

We also have some major concerns around the auto industry. Once again, it was the NDP and only the NDP doing the hard work that we do as parliamentarians. We brought amendments at the committee stage in order to strengthen protection for the auto industry.

I would like to welcome my colleague across the way, who is new to Parliament. He raised the question as if to say that we had abandoned the auto industry. In fact, it was NDP members who brought forward amendments that would provide further protection for the auto industry.

We have serious concerns about other free trade agreements, but on balance we are prepared to live with this one because it does have a six-month opt-out rule. However, both CETA and the China FIPA have provoked widespread public concern in Canada. I do not know about other members when they go home to their constituencies, but this is a topic I get asked about over and over again.

People feel that parliamentarians, especially members from the government across the way, are giving away too many Canadian jobs and are not doing their due diligence. I want to reassure them that a New Democratic government would pursue policies to strengthen the Canadian auto sector, including policies that would encourage Korean automakers to locate production facilities right here in Canada. Decent paying jobs would assist the Canadian auto sector to better access the Korean and other Asian markets.

We would closely monitor non-tariff barriers and act quickly and effectively to resolve disputes. Of course the relationship, as with any relationship, has to be nurtured, and we would utilize frequent trade missions to Korea to cement that relationship.

We realize that this agreement with Korea is a major agreement for us, and it does give us an entry into the Pacific gateway, but we also agree with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others that the government needs to do more than just sign trade agreements: we have to do our due diligence and make sure that these agreements will benefit Canadians and not put some of our sectors at risk.

We must do more to promote Canadian exports as well. It is a major job to attract investments and help Canadian companies penetrate the South Korean and other Asian markets.

As members know, the UFCW, one of our major public sector unions, has spoken in favour of this trade agreement. The UFCW can see the benefits of it for our fisheries industry, whether that be lobster, tuna, or salmon. We will make financial gains.

When the NDP forms government, we will work to strengthen this free trade agreement so that it benefits everyone.

[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?

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister 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 for 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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we ask that the vote be deferred to Wednesday, October 29, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow at the conclusion of government orders.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 28 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 third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-41.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #259

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.