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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the landmark Canada-Korea free trade agreement and to outline clearly why it should be implemented without delay.

Both the 2013 budget and Speech from the Throne are clear that this government's top priority remains the creation of jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.

As an export-driven economy, Canada requires an aggressive international trade strategy that continues to open up new markets for Canadian businesses.

One in every five Canadian jobs is dependent on exports, and over 40,000 Canadian companies are active exporters around the globe. They include global leaders in a diverse range of sectors, from aerospace to ice wine and everything in-between.

In a competitive globalized economy, hard-working Canadians depend on freer and more open markets for their economic security. That is a reality that this government understands. We know that our Canadian companies can compete with the very best in the world and win anywhere in the world, and our Conservative government is committed to supporting them as they grow and succeed.

The global economy is rapidly evolving, and emerging markets in Asia and elsewhere represent significant untapped trade and investment opportunities. It is imperative that we keep up with the times.

That is why this Conservative government has embarked upon the most ambitious pro-trade plan in our nation's history. Increased trade means greater employment prospects, more prosperity, and more food on the table for Canadians and their families. It also means more choice and better value for consumers. It means better priced and higher quality input, which would allow our Canadian manufacturers to remain competitive in a fiercely competitive global marketplace.

Let me provide some historical context. Members may recall that a previous Conservative government had the vision to negotiate the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, followed by the North American Free Trade Agreement, which, of course, included Mexico. Members may also remember that it was both the NDP and the Liberals who loudly opposed both of those agreements, claiming that they would cause Canada to lose its culture, its health care system, its sovereignty over water resources, and that we would see our economy hollowed out and lose millions of Canadian jobs. In fact, the Liberal Party of the day even threatened to tear up NAFTA.

Of course, none of those dire predictions came true. Over the last 25 years, Canada's economy has added millions of jobs and attracted hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign investment. Our trade with the U.S. has tripled, and our bilateral trade with Mexico has increased more than sevenfold. The last time I looked, our health care system was intact, we still had full control over our water resources, and Canadian culture is alive and well.

My point today is that many of those same naysayers and anti-trade activists are trotting out the same old tired arguments against every new trade agreement that Canada negotiates. I want to assure the members that their dire predictions were wrong 25 years ago, and they are just as wrong today.

Prior to 2006, the previous Liberal government largely neglected trade as an engine of economic growth. In fact, during 13 long, dark years in power, the Liberals were only able to sign three small trade agreements, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in the global marketplace.

However, there is good news. We have delivered on our commitment to dramatically expand economic opportunities for Canadians through trade and investment. Over the eight short years since our Conservative government was elected, we have successfully concluded free trade agreements with no less than 38 different countries. That number includes the most comprehensive and ambitious trade initiative in Canada's history, the Canada-European Union free trade agreement. This past summer, we announced that we had completed the text of that treaty, and later this week we will be celebrating that achievement.

However, make no mistake about it, our efforts on the trade file are far from over. The cornerstone of our pro-trade plan going forward is the global markets action plan, which we call GMAP. We released it last fall. The GMAP guides our government's activities on trade and investment. It is our blueprint for increasing exports and supporting Canadian companies in markets all around the world. The GMAP outlines a broad array of trade initiatives, from negotiations of trade and investment agreements, to extensive stakeholder consultations and revamped market access plans. Crucially, we have identified priority foreign markets and priority sectors of our economy that are most important to Canadian exporters, and we are focusing our energies and resources on those priorities.

Not surprisingly, countries in the Asia-Pacific region figure prominently in GMAP because of the growing importance of that region of the world. That brings me to the legislation before us today. This past Monday, I was pleased to sign Canada's first free trade agreement with an Asian country, namely the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. South Korea is a modern economic miracle. That country's economic growth over the last 30 years has been remarkable. Since 1980, South Korea's GDP has grown more than six-fold and its economy has experienced an average annual growth rate of 6.5%. Korea has become a technological powerhouse and its global conglomerates, many now household names within our own country, anchor key regional and global value chains.

Given the size and dynamism of South Korea and our long history as friends and allies, implementing this historic agreement should be a no-brainer. As I noted, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement marks Canada's first bilateral trade agreement in Asia and will strengthen our economic ties with an increasingly important country that is both a priority market and a natural and complementary partner for us.

This agreement truly represents Canada's gateway to Asia. Commercial engagement between Canada and South Korea is already significant. Last year, two-way bilateral merchandise trade between our countries was roughly $11 billion and two-way investment is approaching $6 billion. But there remains great potential to expand this important partnership and this agreement will help unlock that potential. Indeed, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will, in a very positive way, forever transform the way we do business with each other.

All told, this agreement is projected to boost Canada's economy by nearly $2 billion a year and increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32%, creating thousands of new jobs in every region of our country and across every sector of our economy. As significant as those numbers are, there is another equally compelling reason to get this agreement implemented as quickly as possible. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will restore a level playing field for Canadian companies in the South Korean market, where our fiercest competitors, including the United States and the European Union, are already benefiting from their own preferential access due to their own free trade agreements with South Korea.

Canada cannot continue to idly stand by as our competitors' goods maintain an advantage over Canadian ones. Implementing this trade agreement without delay is the best way to support Canadian businesses and the hardworking Canadians they employ. But one does not have to take my word for it. Stakeholders representing every sector and every region of the country have been calling on our government to move with dispatch to get this agreement in place.

On March 11 of this year, in Seoul, Korea, I was delighted to witness our Prime Minister and South Korean President Park announce the conclusion of negotiations. In the days that followed, many different companies and business associations publicly congratulated our government on that achievement. During the latest milestone in the implementation process, the tabling of the text of the treaty in the House this past June, we again heard from Canadians. Their message to us was loud and clear, that this agreement needed to be brought into force as quickly as possible.

Canadians overwhelmingly support this deal and when we look at the agreement, that should be no surprise. Our Conservative government is firmly committed to only signing trade agreements that are in the best interest of Canadians.

Let us look at some of the details of this agreement.

This is a 21st century, state-of-the-art free trade agreement that is ambitious in reach and comprehensive in its scope. It covers virtually every facet of modern commerce, including trade in goods and services, business mobility, investment, government procurement, intellectual property, technical barriers to trade, the environment and labour rights.

The centrepiece of the agreement is, of course, the elimination of tariffs on virtually all trade between Canada and South Korea. In numerical terms, nearly 90% of Canada's exports will be duty free upon entry into force of the agreement, and over 99% will be duty free once the agreement is fully implemented. These numbers translate into concrete benefits and opportunities for Canadian exporters, importers, investors, manufacturers and consumers all across our country and across all sectors of our economy.

Canada is a nation endowed with a wealth of both natural resources and human resources. We have people with the creativity and skill to turn the natural resources into a wide range of industrial goods, including in the aerospace, rail, information technology, chemical and pharmaceutical sectors, to name just a few.

I am pleased to say that over 95% of Canadian industrial exports to South Korea will be duty free immediately with the remainder being phased out over a number of years. This agreement will also result in the immediate elimination of South Korea's tariffs on liquefied natural gas, which is a commodity that has great potential to become a key driver of Canadian exports to South Korea in the future, especially from the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Then there is Canada's forestry sector. This sector is another key contributor to the Canadian economy. In 2012, the sector contributed over $20 billion to Canada's GDP and employed close to 250,000 Canadians, many in well-paying, high-skilled jobs. This agreement will benefit Canadian forestry workers by eliminating tariffs on forestry and value-added wood products, while further diversifying our exports into Asian markets and reducing the sector's dependence on the United States.

I will speak for a moment about Canada's high-quality, premium fish and seafood products.

Canada's proximity to the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Great Lakes and other resources has allowed Canadians to develop one of the world's most valuable commercial fishing industries. This sector contributes more than $2 billion to Canada's GDP and provides over 40,000 jobs for Canadians in everything from fishing to aquaculture to fish processing. It is the economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada. We know the quality of Canada's fish and seafood products is second to none, and South Koreans are already showing a great appetite for our products.

In fact, shortly after the announcement of the conclusion of negotiations for this trade agreement, Korean Air Cargo launched weekly service to South Korea from Halifax and expected to transport a minimum of 40,000 kilograms of live lobster over the course of the last summer. Not only have these shipments helped to develop the South Korean market for fresh Canadian lobster, they have positioned South Korea as Canada's gateway for fish and seafood exports to other Asian markets, most notably Japan and China.

It goes without saying that in this free trade agreement, we have obtained a very favourable outcome for fish and seafood, one which eliminates 100% of South Korean tariffs, many immediately.

I do not have to remind my colleagues on the other side of the House, especially those from Atlantic Canada and the Pacific coast, that a vote against the speedy implementation of this trade agreement is a vote against Canadian jobs.

I want to also mention how this trade agreement will benefit our hard-working Canadian farmers and the more than two million people employed in the agriculture and agri-food industry.

In addition to Canadian beef and pork, Canadian icewine is becoming a hit with South Korea and throughout Asia. We want to promote those products. This trade agreement supports Canadian vintners and Canadian beef and pork producers to further expand their market share.

The tariff elimination package contained in this trade agreement represents a tremendous outcome for Canada, particularly given that South Korea's current tariffs are, on average, three times higher than ours. Beyond tariffs, the agreement also contains a wide range of commitments pertaining to non-tariff measures, which is an area that has been identified as a priority for our stakeholders.

The agreement includes ambitious outcomes on services and investment. This trade agreement includes a framework of reasonable protections that would result in a more secure and stable environment for investors in both countries. This will contribute to increased bilateral investment flows between our countries, creating more jobs, spurring creativity and technology, and linking Canada to global value chains.

Canadian investors are already recognizing the significant investment opportunities in South Korea, as well as its ability to be a potential test market for the larger Asian region. Just this past May, Canadian clothing brand Joe Fresh announced that it would open its first store outside of North America in Seoul, Korea. The flagship store in Seoul is only the start of its investment in South Korea, as the company plans to open nine more retail outlets in the capital by the end of the year.

The sooner this agreement is implemented, the sooner Canadians will start benefiting from the outcomes I have just mentioned, and the sooner Canadian companies can leverage the new-found market access into economic success. Our Conservative government will be there to support them every step of the way.

In addition to securing unprecedented market access for our companies, we are also supporting Canadian companies through our suite of trade promotion tools, tools such as Canada's trade commissioner service and the export financing and insurance products delivered by Export Development Canada. They are tools such as the government to government contracting support provided by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. There are many other tools that we are providing, including trade missions, which our government and ministers lead all around the world.

In short, we will be there to support our small and medium-sized businesses as they explore new opportunities in South Korea.

This trade agreement is comprehensive. It is high quality. It will create new opportunities for Canadian companies and contribute to our long-term prosperity.

I would remind my hon. colleagues of the robust outcomes across the board that this agreement would deliver. We owe it to our companies and we owe it to Canadians to ratify this agreement as quickly as possible. Early implementation of this free trade agreement will ensure that Canadians can quickly begin to reap its economic benefits, providing more choice for Canadian consumers and more prosperity for our nation as a whole.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the minister on the conclusion of this important agreement.

It is, however, common ground that one of the weaknesses of this agreement is its impact on the Canadian auto sector, which is a key Canadian industry that adds billions of dollars to Canada's GDP. Industry players, such as Ford and Unifor, which represent most auto workers in Canada, are concerned that removing the 6.1% tariff on Korean products would damage domestic auto production and sales.

The U.S. negotiated a superior chapter on auto with Korea in its deal. There is a longer phasing period for tariff reduction and there is also a snap-back provision that protects U.S. auto production in case of a Korean auto product surge in that country which harms the U.S. auto sector. Canada did not get this measure.

Why did Canada not get as good a deal on the auto sector and the auto chapter as the U.S. did in its deal with Korea?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the premise of his question is quite incorrect. Canada secured a better outcome on autos than our competitors to the south.

I would remind him that the United States only received temporary accelerated dispute resolution. Canada was able to negotiate permanent accelerated dispute resolution mechanisms, which will clearly benefit our auto sector when it has disputes with the Korean government on non-tariff barriers.

I would also remind the member that on the safety standards relating to autos, we have been able to negotiate rules that allow Canada's manufacturers to build to EU standards and to U.S. standards, something again the U.S. was unable to secure.

I would also remind the member that the tariff phase-out on autos in the U.S. deal is five years. On the Canadian side, our exporters will have access to the Korean market immediately.

There are many other distinctions that make our agreement more valuable.

I would encourage that member and his party to stand in the House and support this agreement because it is in the interests of Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important we recognize that the government has not been overly proactive per se on the file. Chile, Singapore, the EU and the United States have already signed free trade agreements with Korea.

As a result of the government not doing its work, markets have been lost. I look at the pork industry in the province of Manitoba. It could have been doing much better had the government really been on the file in a more proactive fashion.

Does the minister believe the pork industry in Manitoba will be compensated for his slowness to achieve an agreement as a result of the U.S. market taking up some of that production and selling to Korea at the expense of many Manitoba pork producers?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that pork producers are strongly in favour of this agreement and have lauded us for getting this deal done.

I would remind the member that this negotiation started under a Liberal government and it never got it done. It took a Conservative government to conclude negotiations with Korea in a way that represented significant benefit to our economy.

I would also remind that Liberal member of the sorry history of the former Liberal government on trade. Over 13 long years, how many trade agreements did it get done? It was three.

This government in a short eight years has concluded free trade agreements with 38 different countries around the world, and there are more to come.

We will not take lessons from the Liberals on trade. We are the ones who have credibility on trade.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was an honour and a pleasure for me to be on the international trade committee for two years while we were going through the negotiations.

Agriculture in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is one of many small businesses in my riding, but it is the main industry. With respect to the trade agreements that have been made, I have always believed that agriculture forms the foundation because we want safe, secure food in our country and then we build on that.

Could the minister clarify the significance of what this trade agreement will mean to pork and beef producers in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex? They are some of the best in the country. We have the greatest around the world. What will the impact be on their industries as a result of this agreement?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member really put his finger on what this is all about. It is about improving opportunities for Canadians, for Canadian companies, for our agriculture sector, for processes across the country.

I can tell the member that the beef and pork industries, the cattle producers, are strongly in support of our efforts to conclude this agreement. I can also tell him that our goal was to achieve a balanced outcome to this agreement, one that represented a long-term benefit to Canadians.

Clearly, in the beef and pork sectors, as the U.S. and the EU were able to bring their agreements into force, it represented a tilting of the playing field against Canada. This agreement would, of course, rectify that situation.

I also want to highlight that Canada has a world advantage in a host of sectors. In agrifood and agriculture, we produce premium, high-quality products for which our trading partners are prepared to pay a premium price. That is the opportunity in South Korea. They want our products. We are now going to be able to make those products available to them.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of International Trade for his speech. I am also very pleased to hear him say that he was pressured by pork producers, among others. They have better things to do than to pressure the minister.

Considering how long it took for the minister to conclude this agreement—the government has been in power for almost nine years—why did he give priority to signing minor agreements with dictatorships and tax havens in Latin America rather than entering into an agreement with South Korea?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly where that question was directed, but I will try to understand.

The member refers to smaller economies around the world. Canada has, of course, negotiated trade agreements with countries such as Peru, Colombia, and Honduras.

Unlike the opposition, which believes that isolation is the way to treat countries that are emerging from a troubled history, this government believes that engagement is the way forward. When we engage, when we provide new opportunities for trade and new opportunities for these countries to develop their own prosperity and move more of their people into the middle class, we are also able to share with them our best practices in such things as human rights, the environment, labour, and democracy. That is where Canada's strength is. That is why we engage with those countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reviewed the agreement with Korea, and unless I missed something, I do not see an investor state provision within this agreement.

Did Canada attempt to achieve that with Korea, and if not, why not? Did Korea reject our efforts?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read her materials again.

I do not know if she was able to listen to my speech. I highlighted the fact that this agreement does actually include investor protections. Essentially what it does, just for her elucidation, is set out a clear set of rules that apply after an investment is made, such that if a Canadian company invests in the Korean marketplace, the Korean government cannot discriminate against that Canadian company and cannot treat it less beneficially than a Korean company. The same thing holds true for investments into Canada.

The other thing this investment chapter does is set out a clear set of rules under which investment disputes are resolved. Those disputes will be taken out of the domestic context into the international arbitration context, where unbiased, fair, broadly accepted rules will be applied by fair, independent, and impartial arbitrators.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Drummond, The Environment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for international trade, I am pleased to stand to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-41, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

By way of background, Canada and South Korea first discussed the possibility of a trade agreement in 2004, and negotiations for a trade agreement officially launched in July 2005. In a testament both to the challenges that such agreements pose and to less than satisfactory diligence on the part of various governments, it took some nine years to bring this agreement to completion.

Notably, several trade agreements have been concluded by Korea and other partners over the past 10 years. A trade agreement between Korea and the EU entered into force in 2011, and a Korea-U.S. agreement became operative in 2012. As well, Korea and Australia recently concluded negotiations.

As I will expand upon later, these nations' agreements have played a critical role in shaping Canada's bargaining position. As major competitors with Canada, their advantage in securing preferential first entry to the Korean market has done substantial damage to Canadian exporters in a myriad of sectors.

The Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement was signed on March 11, 2014, and submitted to Parliament on June 12, 2014. Once in effect, the agreement will eliminate 98.2% of South Korea's tariff lines and 97.8% of Canada's tariffs. While many tariffs between our two countries are already quite low, there are a significant number of tariffs and other barriers to market that exist that will either be removed immediately upon this agreement's implementation or phased out over various periods of time.

The NDP uses three important criteria to assess trade agreements. First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values, and if there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant and strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

New Democrats also evaluate trade agreements on a comprehensive basis to determine if they are of net benefit to Canada. In our estimation, we believe that the Korea trade agreement meets these tests.

I will deal with each in turn.

First, since emerging from authoritarian to civilian rule in 1987, South Korea has transitioned into a multi-party democracy with an active trade union movement, a diverse civil society, and freedom of expression. South Korea's so-called tiger economy has succeeded in rapidly industrializing the country and raising the welfare and incomes of the Korean people.

Today South Korea is a developed country, ranking 15th on the Human Development Index, the highest in East Asia. South Korea has developed social programs, sound rule of law, low levels of corruption, and high access to quality education, including having the highest level of post-secondary education participation in the OECD.

In recent years, South Korea has 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.

There is no doubt that South Korea is a democratic country that possesses admirable environmental and labour standards and shares important Canadian values, including respect for human rights.

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant and strategic value to Canada? South Korea is a G20 country with the 15th-largest GDP. It is the G20's eighth-largest importer. South Korea is Canada's seventh most important trading partner and our third largest in Asia, after the two larger economies of China and Japan.

In 2013, total bilateral trade between our two nations totalled nearly $11 billion. Canadian exports to South Korea totalled $3.4 billion, while Korean exports to Canada totalled $7.3 billion. In relative terms, Canada exports the same amount to South Korea as it exports to France and Germany. We import approximately the same amount as we do from the U.K.

South Korea is also a major part of the Asian global supply chain and is a gateway market for other Asian economies. As this is Canada's first trade agreement with an Asian country, it provides an important opportunity to gain advantages in the Pacific region and diversify Canada's export markets. Economic models predict that this deal is expected to increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32% and expand our economy by $1.7 billion.

In addition, the Canadian and South Korean economies are largely complementary, meaning that most Canadian industries do not compete directly with Korean industries. As Korea has emerged as a world leader in renewable energy and green technology and needs energy and energy technology from Canada in return, we can increase our trade in these important sectors and, more importantly, build Canada's green technology sector.

Domestically, a trade agreement with Korea offers significant economic benefits to a broad cross-section of economic sectors in Canada that represent all regions of the country. In fact, this agreement is favoured by almost every industrial sector in Canada.

Sectors that support the Korea free trade agreement include manufacturing, heavy industry, aerospace and transportation, forestry and wood products, agriculture, beef and pork industries, agri-foods and food processing, energy and chemicals, fish and seafoods, financial services, and high technology.

In sum, South Korea is a large market that offers significant opportunities for Canadian business to gain a foothold in important Asian markets.

It is vital to note that Canadian exporters have lost some 30% of their market share in South Korea since 2012, when the EU and the U.S. implemented agreements and secured preferential access for their companies. These losses are estimated to total several hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and are mounting each year that U.S. and European competitors enjoy tariff advantages and increased market access to Korea.

The losses have been particularly heavy in the agri-food, seafood, and aerospace industries. These sectors sustain thousands of quality, family-supporting jobs with high rates of unionization. As an example, when Korea signed the FTAs with the United States and the European Union, Canadian aerospace exports to Korea dropped by 80%, from $180 million to roughly $35 million.

Yuen Pau Woo, former president and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, and, in my estimation, Canada's leading expert on Asia-Pacific issues, said that Canada is:

....an outlier compared to most of our industrialized country competitors, certainly in the G-7 and the OECD, and that puts us at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis countries that do have trade agreements with Asian partners. The best example of this competitive disadvantage is in the case of Korea, where we have been negotiating—as you all know—coming to nine years now. In the meantime, we have been overtaken by the United States and more recently, by Australia. Both of those countries now have margins of preference, particularly in the cultural sector, that put our exporters at a disadvantage.

Canadian exporters need a level playing field to compete in Asia and to protect the jobs they provide here in Canada. In the view of New Democrats, this agreement is essential to do so.

This agreement offers the opportunity for Canadian producers and exporters to increase trade with a modern democratic country with a high-income complementary economy. It will allow Canadian producers in a wide variety of sectors to more effectively access an Asian gateway economy that plays a pivotal role in global supply chains and offers entry opportunities not only to Korea but to other Asian economies.

It will level the playing field for Canadian exporters, who can compete with the best in the world when given the opportunity to do so on equal terms. It will permit Canada to deepen our Asian presence and diversify our trade patterns beyond the North American and European markets. There is no doubt that Korea is both a significant and a strategic economic partner for Canada.

Third, are the terms of the proposed deal satisfactory?

This is not the precise agreement that New Democrats would have negotiated. This deal includes investor state dispute settlement, a provision that allows corporations to launch legal challenges to government measures that they believe violate the terms of the agreement. They are permitted to file their suits not in domestic courts but in international trade tribunals that lack certain fundamental attributes of judicial independence and the rule of law.

This is something the New Democrats would not include in any trade agreement we negotiate. We believe such provisions carry excessive risk and are unnecessary when dealing with nations with independent and well-functioning judiciaries, which both Canada and South Korea possess.

There are also legitimate and well-founded concerns about the possible impact of this agreement on the Canadian auto sector. Knowledgeable industry actors, such as Ford Motor Company and Unifor, which represents most auto workers in Canada, have both expressed the view that this agreement will reduce domestic auto production and sales, and that South Korea adopts policies that serve to impair access to its domestic market.

In our estimation, however, when viewed on a comprehensive basis, this agreement is of net benefit to Canada. It benefits the vast majority of Canadian export sectors, and we believe that its weaknesses can be dealt with by effective Canadian government policies.

An examination of a few key sectors bears this out. This agreement is not only good for Canadian agriculture and the agrifood industry, it is essential. The agrifood sector represents 8% of the Canadian economy and is said to sustain one in eight jobs, or over two million jobs.

As stated, Canada has suffered significant losses in market share for Canadian agricultural exports to Korea following implementation of the Korea-U.S. deal in 2012. For example, Canadian beef exports to South Korea shrank from $96 million in 2011 to $8 million in 2013. Canadian pork exporters went from first to fourth in the Korean market. Australia, a major competitor of Canada in many agricultural products, is poised to bring their own agreement with Korea into force. As well, January 1, 2015, will see the next reduction in tariffs for U.S. and EU products, further exacerbating the harm to Canadian sectors.

The Korea FTA will progressively eliminate 86.8% of agricultural tariff lines and allow Canadian exporters to compete on a level playing field and recapture these markets. There are also impressive opportunities for Canadian grains, pulses and oils.

In aerospace, the agreement will gradually eliminate 100% of industrial tariffs. As such, there is general support for the Korea FTA among manufacturing sectors in Canada, notably Bombardier and other Aerospace Industries Association members.

According to Jim Quick, the president of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, South Korea is an important market due to its proximity to other major economies, including Japan, China and Malaysia. He said in the next 20 years, airlines in the Asia-Pacific region would account for 37% of global aircraft demand, or 12,000 planes worth $1.9 trillion. At the same time, half of the world’s air traffic would be driven by travel to, from, and within the Pacific region.

Similar opportunities lie in light rail and transit infrastructure. Global Canadian champions like Bombardier see important opportunities in South Korea to position themselves to tap this growth.

Canadian seafood producers on both coasts stand to benefit from the Korea agreement. Pacific seafood and fish product exporters are being out-competed in Korea by their Alaskan competitors due to the fully implemented Korea-U.S. agreement.

Current seafood and fish product tariffs in Korea for Canadian exporters are up to 47%, and most of these tariffs lines will be eliminated. Lobster farmers see growth opportunities in the Korean market on the Atlantic coast.

Canada's forestry and wood products industry, including newsprint, wood pulp, wood panels and other value-added products, contribute over $20 billion to Canada's GDP and employs over 230,000 Canadians, many of them in high-skilled and unionized jobs. Canadian exporters to Korea are disadvantaged by tariff lines on Canadian wood products, which reach 10%. The Korea agreement will provide growth opportunities for value-added wood products. This will help develop good jobs in the vital Canadian value-added economy.

With respect to energy and green technology, New Democrats see sustainable technologies and renewable energy as key industries of the future. They are estimated to be a $3 trillion sector and we believe that Canada must position itself for this economic opportunity and environmental imperative. As stated, Korea is an emergent global leader in this area and encouraging sustainable trade and technology transfer is one of the most compelling parts of this agreement.

There are positive and negative aspects of this agreement in terms of the Canadian auto sector, and opinions on it are mixed. General Motors, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda all have automotive production facilities in Canada and support this agreement. Ford and Unifor are also significant stakeholders in Canada, but they do not. The Korea FTA will gradually eliminate Canada's 6.1% tariff on auto product imports from Korea over a three-year period. In turn, South Korea's 8% auto tariff will be eliminated immediately upon the Korea agreement's implementation.

Other positives include rules of origin provisions that recognize Canadian-U.S. integrated products without volume limits and an accelerated dispute mechanism that allows for monitoring of non-tariff barriers. This will permit disputes related to motor vehicle trade to be resolved in a timeline that is as fast or faster than the Korea-U.S. deal, and it could be used to obtain remedies to unfair trade barriers to Canadian auto exports into Korea. In addition, transitional safeguards exist in case of a surge in imports.

At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about the deal's impact on the Canadian auto sector. These concerns have validity, as more Korean imports will affect domestic auto sales to some degree, and South Korea has been cited for implementing non-tariff barriers that restrict access to its market.

It is also a fair criticism that this agreement does not go as far as the Korea-U.S. deal does in protecting domestic auto producers. Under that deal, U.S. tariffs are phased out over a longer period, five years, and there is a snap-back provision that permits the U.S. to impose duties if certain import and export numbers are exceeded. The Conservatives were unable to obtain these protections in this agreement.

What is without doubt is that the current 6% Canadian tariff on Korean-made automobiles is insufficient to meaningfully keep products out. Among other things, lower Korean labour costs and vertical integration savings substantial exceed the tariff. More compelling, Korean automakers service the Canadian market from U.S. plants, with more opening in Mexico within two years, and their products enter Canada tariff-free due to NAFTA in any event. Accordingly, between 40% and 50% of Korean auto products already enter the Canadian market tariff-free from the U.S., so the status quo is clearly insufficient to assist Canadian production.

It is clear that the Canadian auto industry faces a very competitive global environment. It is equally apparent that this requires more support form the federal government. In 2013, Canada failed to attract any of the $17.6 billion in auto investments that were made around the world, not a penny. Competing countries like China, Brazil and our North American trading partners are upping their games, subsidizing up to 60% of the capital investments required to establish auto plants.

New Democrats believe that more needs to be done to support auto manufacturing in Canada, to promote growth in the sector and to encourage the competitiveness of North American brands around the world.

Therefore, a New Democrat government would pursue strategies to strengthen the Canadian auto sector. These would include policies that would encourage Korean automakers to locate production facilities in Canada; assist Canadian automakers to better access Korean and other Asian markets; closely monitor non-tariff barriers and act quickly and effectively to resolve disputes; place substantial resources into trade offices and lead frequent trade missions to Korea; and work with industry and labour to create an effective auto innovation fund.

Both CETA and the China FIPA have provoked widespread public concern in Canada and New Democrat share those concerns.

Importantly, the Korea agreement differs substantially from those two agreements. Unlike the China FIPA, the terms of the Korea agreement are reciprocal. Unlike CETA, the Korea agreement does not apply to provincial, territorial or municipal procurement or Crown corporations, where most Canadian procurement is located. Unlike CETA, the Korea agreement does not apply or negatively affect supply-managed agricultural products. Unlike CETA, the Korea agreement does not contain any negative intellectual property provisions, for example, pharmaceutical patents or copyright.

Notably, intellectual property expert, Professor Michael Geist has pronounced positively on the IP terms of the Korea agreement, calling it an example of a good agreement in this important area. While the Korea FTA does have an ISDS provision, it contains transparency guarantees and is fully cancellable on six months' notice. This is contrasted with the China FIPA, which binds Canada to ISDS for 31 years, and CETA, which appears to do so for 20 years.

Unlike the Conservatives and Liberals, a New Democrat government would involve a full spectrum of Canadian stakeholders, including industry and labour leaders in monitoring and implementing this deal. Unlike those two parties, the New Democrats would work diligently to eliminate non-tariff barriers and scrutinize the use of the investor state provisions very closely. Unlike those two parties, a New Democrat government would not hesitate to renegotiate or terminate this deal if meaningful market access is not achieved or the ISDS provisions are abused.

Overarching all, New Democrats want to deepen Canada's trade linkages with the Asia-Pacific region, something we recognize as essential to maintaining Canadian prosperity in the 21st century. We support breaking down harmful trade barriers, but believe government should provide the support Canadian industry needs to remain competitive in a more open world economy. We agree with such diverse voices as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress that the government needs to do more than sign trade agreements. It must promote Canadian exports, develop sound Canadian industrial strategies, invest resources in trade commission services, and participate meaningfully in regional and international bodies of all types.

The Korea trade agreement presents a vital opportunity to diversify Canada's economy and promote good quality job creation in Canada. We cannot let this opportunity pass.

While certain terms of the agreement are not what an NDP government would have negotiated, on balance we believe that the benefits of the Canada-Korea trade agreement are significant for Canadians. We will be supporting the legislation accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only had the honour of being in the House for almost two years, but every once in a while a member of Parliament gets to witness history in this place. It is history because for the first time in the history of the CCF and the New Democratic Party of Canada it seems, from the very intelligent and informed speech from my colleague, that the NDP may stand in the House for the first time and support trade, so I applaud that.

I would note that his colleagues from Windsor West and Parkdale—High Park, a number of his colleagues, have been extremely critical of trade with South Korea, our important first free trade deal in Asia. In fact, the member for Parkdale—High Park has stood in the House saying that we need to get rid of the trade deal with South Korea.

I would ask the member this. GM, Ford, Chrysler, I live in a proud GM community. The decisions on making cars on those lines are made in the U.S., so would it not be in Canada's interests to ensure that the Canadian subsidiaries of these companies have the same market access as their American plants do? Is this not a win for automobile manufacturing in Ontario?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that history is made. It is the first time that a member of the Conservative government has called the New Democratic official opposition “intelligent and informed”. I would encourage a repetition of that astute observation.

The New Democrats' trade policy is one where we want to look at each trade deal on its own merits. We want to approach it from a rational, thoughtful and balanced point of view, and I have already pointed out the different criteria that we have. That has been typical of the New Democrats' trade policy for the last two years, and certainly this Parliament. Of course, my friend knows that this is not the first agreement that the New Democrats have supported. We supported the Canada-Jordan trade agreement, and we voted in favour of it.

In terms of the automotive sector, I wish it were that simple. We have a Canadian and American integrated auto sector, and I do believe that this agreement provides challenges and the auto sector has raised legitimate concerns. I would encourage the government to work with the auto sector, both industry and labour, to help improve the Canadian auto sector so that we can create good Canadian jobs and increase auto production in this country. Korea provides that opportunity to do so, but only if the government provides the policies that will assist the industry.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, this is the first free trade agreement the New Democrats actually stood and supported. The Jordan one, they did not stand to support. I guess it is complicit in what they were doing. Nevertheless, barring any confusion, yes, they are supporting it.

However, I want to get the member's impression on the shipbuilding industry. Some years ago, when there was first discussion about Korea, there was some concern about the shipbuilding industry itself. How does the member feel about that in this particular agreement? Is he okay with that? I will just leave it at that for now because I am sure there is a lot more to come.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party because it gives me a chance to comment on the Liberal approach to trade. The Liberal trade critic said about CETA that the Liberals have been very happy to be supporting that agreement for all these years, and they look forward to the text being released so they can finally determine what it is they have been supporting. That is not a thoughtful approach to trade.

As well, I should correct my hon. friend. He knows full well that the New Democrats voted in favour of this, and often votes are taken in the House where some we stand for and some we do not, but we all know what the result of that is. The Liberal Party is an expert in opportunism so the Liberals should know what they are talking about.

In terms of shipbuilding, again I would encourage my hon. colleague and members of his party to read the agreement. They would know that shipbuilding is exempt from this agreement.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway very much for the tremendous job he does in studying bills. He helps me quite a bit with my analysis of the situation.

One of the things I learned in reading this free trade agreement was that there were a number of differences compared to the free trade agreement with China, for example. Although we had many concerns—well-founded ones, I think—about the agreement with China, those concerns seem to have disappeared for a number of the topics in the free trade agreement with Korea.

Are the Conservatives learning from their mistakes? Did they listen to the advice from our critic? How come this time we seem to have a better agreement?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really speak about where the government gets its sources of information, but I will say that the Canada-China FIPA stands in stark contrast to the deal before the House. Many Canadians have serious concerns about this FIPA, not the least of which is that it provides for secretive tribunals to hold hearings behind closed doors on lawsuits filed by investors that will put taxpayers' liabilities in the billions of dollars, and which violate the Canadian concept of the rule of law. It is also undemocratic, and worse, the Canada-China deal will be in force for a minimum of 31 years. It is a bad deal and not a good example for Canada. I note that the Liberals support the Canada-China FIPA along with the Conservatives. Only the New Democrats have stood in the House with the Green Party and opposed the deal.

The agreement with Korea, in contrast, has guarantees of transparency in its investor-state provisions. The hearings must be open and the agreement is cancellable on six months' notice. All investments under that agreement would not fall under the ISDS provisions after the six-month period. So the New Democrats, when we are government in 2015, will be watching this agreement very carefully to make sure that the procedure is not abused, so that we can protect Canadian taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you for allowing me an opportunity to ask a question of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. It allows me to clarify that that the investor-state provisions in the treaty are not referenced in the bill before us. I apologize for confusion on that score.

Does the member for Vancouver Kingsway find it odd that here we are debating a bill, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea, and never had an opportunity to examine the act to implement the Canada-China investment treaty, the FIPA that was referred to just moments ago, which was passed by order in council, with no opportunity for hearings before the trade committee, no opportunities for examination, and no vote in this place, but passed merely by the royal prerogative exercised by the Prime Minister and Privy Council? I personally find it deeply offensive that such is the case, as the member point out, with this much more dangerous agreement. I do not think the agreement with Korea, other than for the investor-state provisions, is a dangerous agreement. The agreement with the People's Republic of China is a dangerous agreement and we had no opportunity to debate it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that it is regrettable and, in fact, wrong that the House did not have an opportunity to debate the Canada-China FIPA. Certainly the New Democrats brought forth a motion and devoted one of our opposition days to that very subject. We also moved motions before the trade committee to have that committee study it. Unfortunately, that was not accepted by the government. So the New Democrats have used every tool we have in the House to try to get a debate on that important deal.

We believe that all trade agreements, including FIPAs that govern investment, ought to be debated in the House. In the case of trade agreements, they usually require enabling legislation. That is why we are debating this, as these agreements must come before the House because they require legislative amendments. FIPAs often do not require legislative amendments, which is why cabinet has the ability to pass them. But as a matter of policy and good governance, both FIPAs and trade agreements should come before the House for thorough scrutiny and debate before Canada commits to them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we talk about international trade and the importance of free trade agreements. One of the things that is really important for us all to recognize is the overall trade surplus or deficit. We need to recognize that over the last five or six years, there has been a gigantic trade deficit created in Canada. Although it nice to see the trade agreements coming in, Canadians need to be concerned about the growing Conservative trade deficit that started under the current Prime Minister and continues to grow. We need to be concerned about that. Would the member not agree with that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with that. When the government took office in 2006, Canada had a current account surplus of about $18 billion, and today it has a current account deficit of some $64 billion. So there has been about an $80 billion swing to the negative since the government came to power. I think that is because the government has taken an ideological approach to trade. Conservatives will sign any trade agreement with anybody, regardless of the terms, without taking a strategic, thoughtful approach to trade policy. New Democrats believe that we should take a thoughtful strategic approach, with balanced trade agreements that will benefit the Canadian economy. New Democrats would support those agreements if they do, and will oppose them if they do not.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to support this deal. We are going to be voting in favour of it.

Canada is a trading nation. We understand that, as the 11th largest economy in the world, it is absolutely essential for Canada to be fully plugged into the global economy, and that means doing trade deals.

We are also very pleased that we finally have a deal with South Korea, an advanced and exciting democracy. It is a great country for us to be doing business with.

What I am going to be talking about first is Canada's position in trade, our views on what we should be doing and what we see going wrong. Then I will talk about this specific trade deal with Korea.

Starting with why trade is important and what Canada's current position is, trade has never been more important for Canada or any other western developed economy in this 21st century. We are living in the age of globalization and countries that do not figure out how to plug themselves into the global economy are going to fail. They are going to fail their citizens and, crucially, they are going to fail to deliver the kinds of middle-class jobs and middle-class incomes that are at the centre of the Liberal approach.

For Canada, exports account for about 30% of GDP, and one in five Canadian jobs right now is linked to exports. That is why this is such an important issue and why the Liberal Party stands so firmly in favour of free trade and an expanding Canadian trade relationship with the world.

What I am very sad to note, however, as my colleague from Winnipeg has already alluded to, is that right now Canada is falling behind in trade. We hear a lot of glowing rhetoric from the other side of the House, but the reality is that we are not doing well in trade, and all Canadians are hurting because of it.

The Liberal Party believes in listening to businesses and to the people who are out there building our economy. That is why we paid so much attention to and are so worried by a report that was published this year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The title of this report alone should worry us all. It is called “Turning it Around: How to Restore Canada’s Trade Success” . That really tells us everything. We used to be doing better than we are doing today, even as the rest of the world is getting better at trade and better at export-led growth.

When we look inside the report, it gets worse. I would like to read parts of it because it really paints a worrying picture of what is happening right now in Canadian trade. This is what the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has to say:

...the increase in exports and outward investment has been slow in recent years, and diversification to emerging economies has been limited.

The Chamber of Commerce points out that Canada's falling behind its own lagging performance has come at precisely the time when the rest of the world has been surging forward. That is something we will see when we turn to speaking specifically about trade with Korea.

The Chamber of Commerce goes on to give some detail about what is happening. It says:

Despite more firms looking abroad, Canada is lagging its peers according to several measures. Over the past decade, the value of exports has increased at only a modest pace...This is despite significant price premiums received by Canadian producers of energy, mineral and agricultural commodities.

Now, here comes the crucial part. The Chamber of Commerce says:

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.

If we take out the growth in commodity prices, what we have seen is a 57% increase in trade worldwide over the past decade and Canada actually falling by 5%. We hear a lot of glowing rhetoric about trade performance. We have a lot of photo ops of trade deals signed. However, the reality is that the numbers reflect a Canadian economy that is performing more poorly in exports. This is also seen in the numbers my colleague referred to in mentioning the swing from a trade surplus to a trade deficit. Exports are an area that we believe is essential to driving growth and producing middle-class jobs. Economists agree with us.

This is a real problem. It is a huge issue for Canada. It is a huge issue for all middle-class Canadians.

Let us turn specifically to Korea. As I said, the Liberal Party is pleased and proud to support a free trade deal with South Korea. However, we have a real problem with the timing of this deal. The problem is that it has come too late. That lag has done real and quantifiable damage to the Canadian economy and to Canadian exporters.

In describing his pride in having secured this deal, the minister spoke earlier today about how this deal will “restore a level playing field”. He also said, “our fiercest competitors...are already benefiting from their own preferential access”. That is sadly true but not something to be proud of. We should be ashamed and sorry that our fiercest competitors are enjoying preferential access and that it has taken us so long to get this deal done.

The United States has already done a deal with South Korea, which was ratified by the U.S. Congress in October 2011. As far as I know, the current Canadian government was in office then. That agreement went into effect in March 2012. Again, the government was in office. We did not have a deal then and that hurt Canadian exporters, who were put at a disadvantage relative to U.S. exporters.

A deal with the EU has provisionally been in force since July 2011. Again, the current government was in office. It allowed a huge trading bloc to do a deal with South Korea, which really did serious damage to Canadian exporters.

Australia is smaller than us. One would think it would have less leverage, yet it has already done a deal. It did its deal in April 2014.

This has done real quantifiable damage to the Canadian economy and to Canadian exporters. We have lost 30% market share. The minister himself pointed out that our fiercest competitors already enjoy preferential access. They have used it and the loss to Canadian exporters is quantified at some $1 billion. That is serious damage to the economy.

While we are pleased and proud to vote for this deal now, our question is this. Why was it not done sooner and why did the government allow Canada to lose $1 billion? We could do a lot of good in this economy with another billion dollars.

The minister also spoke about how he is proud of this deal and how it is important because it will provide an essential foothold in Asia. That is a lot of boggle. We think it is very important now for Canada in its trading relationships to move to deal with the fast growing, emerging markets in Asia. However, we are gravely concerned that with the poor performance we have seen in Canada's trade negotiations with Korea, where I underscore we have lagged behind the U.S., the EU, and Australia, all of whom are our competitors and peers, we could see a similar lost opportunity in the absolutely crucial trans-Pacific partnership talks. Canada joined those talks late. They started in 2008. Again, the members on the other side of the House were in government. Canada was not at the table. Canada did not join in until June 2012. If we get to the party late, we have to deal with terms that are not of our own making, and so we start at a disadvantage.

The Liberal Party would like to assure Canadians, and also our friends on the other side of the House, that we will be watching Canada's performance in those negotiations closely. There is already some talk that Canada, in multilateral arenas of all kinds, is not seen as the most valued, the most co-operative, partner. Therefore, we will be watching closely.

I would like to assure our partners in the TPP talks and the Canadians who are so eager for that deal to get done that if the members on the other side of the House do not manage to get it done in the next 12 months or so, it will be a priority for us and we will get that deal done.

What is also essential for us to focus on, and where we would like to see much more performance, is a wider understanding of the other emerging markets that we should be going after.

We are glad to support the Korean deal, which we do without reservation, but the sad history of this deal is that because we started late and did the deal late, Canadian companies have suffered. Making up that 30% lag, that 30% loss, will require a lot of hard work by our companies. They are coming from behind.

We want to ensure that does not happen again. We would like to see the government much more aggressively pursue trade deals with other fast-growing emerging markets around the world; particularly, in Africa. That is a part of the world that is full of opportunity for Canada, for Canadian companies, and where a trading relationship can do a lot of good.

I would also like to see much more action from the government in an area where we see very strong rhetoric but, sadly, not always the action to match; that is, our relationship with Ukraine.

Most of us here were proud to be in this House when President Petro Poroshenko spoke to us and talked about how proud he is of the Canadian relationship with Ukraine. He also invited us to quickly conclude a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

Again here, I am sad to say, Canada is falling behind. Europe signed a trade deal with Ukraine last Tuesday. We like to call ourselves, Canada, Ukraine's best friend. Where are we on that file? It is time, really, for us to act. The message is the same. The rhetoric is okay. We really want to see action. We will strongly support and work with the government on a deal with Ukraine. That is something, surely, we can get some cross-party support on and act quickly and get it done.

We are very happy to support this deal. We think a free trade agreement with Korea is important. We understand the absolute importance of free trade for Canada.

We would like to see the government do a better job of actually focusing on the results. It is really important.

We have spoken in this debate already of the swing we have had from trade surplus to trade deficit. That is not a good report card for the Canadian export sector. That is the number we have to look at and we really have to focus on. A big part of the problem is that we are coming late to these trade deals.

I want to remind this House that the United States Congress ratified its deal with Korea in October 2011. It went into effect in March 2012.

The EU agreement has been in force since July 2011.

Again, even in Australia, which is smaller than we are, their agreement was signed on April 2014.

So, it is great that we are doing this deal with a strong democratic country in Asia. It is great for our exporters to now have access to those essential Asian economies. However, we really need to underscore, even as we support this deal, that it should have been done more quickly and that our exporters have suffered. They have lost $1 billion. They have lost about 30% of their market because, again, as the minister himself said, our fiercest competitors are already enjoying preferential access.

Nonetheless, it is better late than never. We are pleased to be supporting this deal. Korea is already our seventh-largest merchandise trading partner. It is a democracy. There are a lot of exciting technologies there. It is a great match for us.

We have heard particular enthusiasm from agriculture food producers, from the aerospace industry, and from spirits industries. We are hopeful that, thanks to this agreement, those Canadian exporters who lost out because their competitors enjoyed preferential access, while they did not, will be able to make up some of those gains.

We are going to be supporting them in that effort. We are glad that we finally have a deal that will allow them to do that.

However, again, we must not lose sight, even as we back this deal, of the fact that it has taken a long time to get there and that, going forward, it is really essential for Canada to not be following in the wake of the U.S., the EU, and Australia when it comes to doing trade agreements with emerging markets.

It is really important for us to be in the lead. When one is first at the table, one gets the best deal—and not only does the country get the best deal, but its businesses get the best deal. It can be very hard to unseat a competitor who gets in first because he or she enjoyed preferential access because his or her government was more on the ball.

On TPP, it is going to be really important for Canada to shift from this hostility, this sort of go-it-alone bullying approach that has characterized our attitude in multilateral organizations of late. This is a really important deal, and with this opening up of the Asian markets, about which we have spoken so much today, and of which we hope the Korean deal will be a harbinger, TPP is going to be where the rubber meets the road on that. It is an essential opening to Asia.

We understand the need for some closed-door negotiations in trade agreements. We get that. These are very complicated. TPP is particularly complicated because so many parties are at the table. However, it is important to note that we have started those negotiations at a disadvantage. We did not get there until 2012. Everyone else, apart from Mexico, was there from 2008. We had to agree to accept some of the terms that had already been laid out without us there.

It is really important that we play ball now, that we are involved and seen as productive partners. It can sometimes be appealing, and maybe make a testosterone-type person feel particularly good, to use harsh, bullying, tough-guy rhetoric when talking, perhaps in the House. However, we are only the world's 11th largest economy, and when it comes to trade negotiations we have to be co-operative and collaborative and earn the trust of our partners. I would strongly urge the members on the other side of the House to take that kind of approach—dare I call it a small l liberal approach?—when they sit down at the table at the TPP negotiations. This is really essential for the future of Canada's export economy. If the Conservatives want some tips on how to do that, we are happy to talk.

In closing, we do support the deal. South Korea is a powerful economy. It is a democracy. It is a great place for our Canadian companies to be doing business. We regret the fact that we have lost 30% of market share due to the slowness of the agreement being done. However, we are confident that the House will support the deal and that Canadian companies are strong enough to bounce back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Toronto Centre for her remarks, but what I find stunning is that her passion for trade is bubbling over here today, yet the Liberal trade critic has yet to join the trade committee. In fact, the strategy she talks about, of emerging markets like Africa and all these sorts of things, were discussed for weeks at the trade committee when all parties in the House discussed the global markets action plan, where we talked about this strategy. I would urge the member to consider actually attending the committee of which she is the critic, to talk about these ideas in more detail.

I would also note, from her remarks, that Australia's deal with South Korea has not been ratified. In fact, we have the opportunity to be pretty much almost at the same time as Australia.

In terms of her enthusiasm, I appreciate that. Perhaps she would find her home better on this side of the House, because historically, if we look at market access for Canadian companies, we see that 98% of market access has been secured through Conservative government free trade deals.

My question relates more to her continued reference to TPP. We are at the table with TPP, which has a potential market of 700 million consumers, but this is about making decisions. Our side has supported long-standing commitment to supply management. One of the leadership contenders for her party suggested that supply management should be tossed aside to get a TPP deal done. Does the hon. member take that same position?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will go through the member's comments one by one.

First, on the facts with respect to Australia. The negotiations started in 2009 and the agreement was signed in April 2014, which is what I said. It was tabled in the Australian parliament in May 2014. Australia signed the deal before we did. Again, we have to get better at this.

I am rather touched by the hon. member and his colleagues' interest in the Liberal Party's allocation of the valuable time of our MPs and who sits on which committee. I am proud to work with my skilled and knowledgeable colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who represents us effectively on the trade committee.

As far as I know, a majority government has a lot of prerogatives, but it does not get to decide how opposition members spend their time and which committees they formally sit on. I do really want to clarify this. I want to be clear that I do not sit on that committee for the Liberal Party, and so to allege that I am absent and not performing a duty that I am obliged to perform is not correct. I want to be able to say that in this House. That is very important—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member might have the opportunity on some of the other comments and questions to continue with that.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when speaking about the Canada-EU trade agreement, the Liberal trade critic said:

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.

It begs this question. Why is it that the Liberals are willing to support trade deals before they even read them or see the details?

My question is about democracy. My hon. colleague mentioned favourably that Korea is a democracy, yet the Liberals supported a free trade agreement with Honduras, where the democratically elected government was overthrown by a coup, where journalists are regularly killed, where the LGBT community is persecuted, and where human rights are brazenly violated. They also supported the China FIPA, which has all sorts of problems in many other respects as well.

I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could name a single country with which the Liberals would not support signing a trade agreement.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on CETA, we in the Liberal Party are adults and we understand and respect the fact that, if trade agreements are going to be done, they need to be done behind closed doors. That is particularly true when it is a complicated agreement, as it necessarily is with the 27-member-state European Union. We get that. From the start we have been supportive of CETA in principle, and I am proud that we have been.

We support free trade. For our government negotiators to go to the table being able to say they have cross-party support is effective and important for Canada.

Equally, we appreciate the reality that we are only able to evaluate an agreement in sum when we see what negotiators have come up with. Trade is like a Rubik's cube; each piece is dependent on the whole. We can only evaluate it definitively when we see the details, and that was the point.

I would be happy to talk about Honduras, but I see the Speaker is telling me to sit down, so I will.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked briefly in her opening remarks with respect to the bill about the importance of having an overall balance to trade, where Canada has fallen short in recent years.

Maybe she could give her perspective or provide a bit more clarity on how important a surplus in trade is and that it ultimately equates to more jobs for Canadians, which helps our middle class.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is legendary in the House for his ability to talk about anything and to know about everything, and I salute him for that.

When it comes to trade, our issue is this. We are firmly pro-free trade, and we hear that rhetoric coming from the other side of the House. It is one thing to have bold ambitions, but those ambitions have to be matched with actual performance.

It is not just our party that is concerned about this. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the respected voice of business, is also really concerned. We are seeing the reality, which is that Canadian trade and export performance is falling behind. That is a real problem for the 11th-size economy in a globalized world economy, and it is part of the reason why our middle class is falling behind.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeing more and more cars coming from South Korea. Even my brother bought one and it was cheaper. I am therefore concerned about this.

What is the Liberal Party's plan to protect the great work that is being done by the people in Canada's automobile industry? What will the Liberal Party do to make sure these people continue to have jobs? Do the Liberals have a plan for that?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I will not try to answer her in French right now, but maybe next month. It is very important to me.

It is absolutely true that Korean cars are present in the Canadian market, that South Korea currently exports a lot more cars to Canada than the other way around and that there have been some concerns around it.

The reality, though, is the Canadian car export market in South Korea right now is relatively small and the match of Canadian manufactured vehicles that would suit the needs of Korean consumers is really small.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am slightly off the topic of the Canada-Korea agreement, but I am looking forward to a response from my hon. colleague from Toronto Centre because she made some very important observations about balance of trade issues in the situation with Canadian exporters.

I wonder what the position is of the Liberal Party on the fact that exports from Canada have tilted rather toward raw resource exports and away from manufacturing and value added. My own analysis of the economics of the situation is that we have actually undermined our productivity in doing this because we know the manufacturing sector has a lot more innovation and a lot more R and D than the raw resource sector.

Has she any comment on whether our economy would be healthier if we did more value added prior to export?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Part of the reason we are seeing this view, and I emphasize this because it is really important, coming from the business community, among others, that Canada's export performance is falling behind is because of this balance.

We do not need to shrink from the fact that we are a powerful commodity producer. That is a great thing, but that cannot be the only leg on which our economy stands, particularly because our economic performance has been flattered by high commodity prices, which we cannot count on lasting forever.

In building a stronger export-driven Canadian economy, we have to work harder to be sure that value-added exports are a big part of it, including really high-valued manufacturers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very 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. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I am very pleased to speak to this bill, especially as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I had the opportunity to work with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, our international trade critic, who did a great deal of work on this file. He consulted the stakeholders and did an excellent job on Bill C-41.

The NDP uses three criteria to assess free trade agreements. We assess such agreements on an individual basis. In other words, we do our homework on every free trade agreement. The first criterion is respect for democracy, human rights and environmental standards. Free trade agreements must be negotiated with countries that have high standards in these three areas or are in the process of achieving these objectives.

The second criterion for reviewing these free trade agreements has to do with the trading partner's economy. Is the economy of the proposed partner of significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, the terms of the proposed agreement have to be satisfactory.

Unlike the Liberal Party, which is ready to support free trade agreements without even reading them, the NDP feels it is important to read free trade agreements before taking a position on them. Having studied the free trade agreement with South Korea, we are proud to support Bill C-41 because the agreement fulfills those three criteria. South Korea is a democratic country with very high environmental standards that is of significant strategic value to Canada.

I would like to talk about South Korea's profile and our trade relationship with that country. South Korea is a world leader in environmental policy. Over the past few years, it has invested billions of dollars in an ambitious green growth strategy designed to improve energy efficiency and stimulate green and renewable technology. The Conservative government would do well to follow this innovative country's example.

South Korea also clearly complies with high environmental and labour standards and shares the Canadian values of human rights and democracy. Since South Korea has become a world leader in renewable energy and green technology, Canada can take advantage of this free trade agreement to boost trade in these important sectors.

South Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trading partner and the third-largest economy in Asia after China and Japan. Businesses in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles will also support a broader free trade relationship with South Korea.

In 2013, Canadian exports to South Korea were valued at $3.4 billion, while South Korean exports to Canada were worth $7.3 billion.

I would like to talk a little about my riding and the economic sectors that are crucial to the economy of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, which is in the Lower Laurentians. As many people know, my riding is home to a number of world-class small and medium-sized businesses in the aerospace industry. Examples of those businesses include Patt Technologies and Metcor in Saint-Eustache, as well as DCM Aerospace and TMH Canada in Boisbriand. I am proud to say that there are 20 companies and 4,000 employees working in the aerospace sector in my riding.

I therefore welcome the measures in this free trade agreement that will boost this sector, which is so important to the Montreal region. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will create more opportunities to access markets in the aerospace industry. In fact, as soon as this agreement enters into force, 100% of tariff lines will be duty free. Current duties can be as high as 8%. This, then, is great news for the aerospace sector.

I would like to quote a stakeholder in that industry. Jim Quick, the president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, said:

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 South Korean market, which is especially important given the considerable growth the aerospace industry will see in the Asia-Pacific region in coming years.

Clearly, the gains for this important economic sector have been thoroughly studied, and I support the measures in this free trade agreement.

Another sector that could also benefit from this free trade agreement is the wine and spirits industry. As I tell everyone who visits my beautiful riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, we are home to the largest red wine producers in Quebec, and I am very proud to say so. In the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, tariffs on ice wine, which are currently 15%, will disappear. This is definitely good news for Quebec's wine producers.

As I have little time remaining for my speech, I would like to speak briefly about the part of this free trade agreement that concerns investor-state disputes. There is a caveat with respect to the NDP's support for this bill. An NDP government would not have included this type of dispute settlement mechanism in a free trade agreement with Korea. Canada and Korea are both democratic countries with strong justice systems. It should be noted that Korea's main opposition party is also opposed to this mechanism. An NDP government would negotiate with South Korea in order to drop this part of the agreement.

Fortunately, unlike the Canada-China investment agreement, this agreement is not binding on the government for 31 years and can be renegotiated or terminated with six months' notice. That is good news.

I welcome questions from my hon. colleagues. I would like to say once again that I support Bill C-41.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is a refreshing change for members of the New Democratic Party to support a trade deal. This is the first time in all the years I have been here, in fact, that the New Democrats have supported any of the trade deals that have been signed.

However, richer than that was the former speaker, the member of the Liberal Party, who stood up and had the gall to ask why this deal was not done sooner. Her party was 13 years in government, and what trade deals did it sign? I think it was three, with Costa Rica and Panama. The Liberals just did not do the job. That is clear.

She had the gall to do that, and it surprised me. At least this member is finally changing her ways, and I want to commend her for doing that.

I would ask this question: why have the New Democrats finally seen the light on trade? Why do they finally see it as something that is important to the Canadian economy and to jobs?

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

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

I have had the opportunity to work with him on different parliamentary committees. He must have been absent quite a bit since being elected because the NDP has supported a number of free trade agreements with other countries.

I would like to speak about our record. We opposed the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. However, the NDP rose in the House to support the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement in March 2012, when my colleague was an MP. Jordan is a democratic country of strategic value to Canada. The NDP will also support the South Korea free trade agreement.

It is not true that we oppose all free trade agreements. Unfortunately, this Conservative government focuses too much on agreements with countries such as Honduras, an undemocratic country of no value to Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for Canadians who might be watching, the New Democrats are being a bit deceiving here. Technically, this will hopefully be the first agreement for which the New Democrats will stand in their place and vote. People and viewers should be aware of the fact that the New Democrats have never stood in their place and actually voted in favour of a free trade agreement.

Having said that, I want to question the comment from the Conservative member.

He talked about the Korea deal. We need to recognize that Korea itself began the process in 2003 and that Paul Martin initiated Canada's interest in 2004. That is pretty rapid. It seems to me that the slowness crept in when the new Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, took office.

I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment in terms of the opportunities lost because the current Prime Minister was asleep at the switch, which has ultimately cost Canadians jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Liberal members need to stop toeing the party line.

In March 2012, the NDP rose in the House to vote in favour of the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. I imagine that the Liberal member was unfortunately not there that day either.

I also want to point out that the Liberals supported the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Honduras is a country where the government was recently overturned in a coup d'état and journalists are regularly murdered.

Is there a free trade agreement that the Liberal Party will not support?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am very pleased to stand in the House and speak about Bill C-41, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

Let me start by saying how pleased and proud I am of my colleague, our trade critic, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway. He has been on this file for a couple of years now, and he has done a masterful job of carrying forward with the New Democratic Party vision on trade.

The member has analyzed any agreements that have been made public, which, by any stretch of the imagination, are few and far between. That member has done a great job, not only in examining and analyzing any details that we do find out, but also in speaking with people involved in trade from one end of this country to the other and around the world to help develop our policy.

New Democrats want a strategic trade policy whereby we restart multilateral negotiations and sign trade deals both with developed countries that have high standards and with developing countries that are on progressive trajectories. Countries such as Japan, India, Brazil, and South Africa are examples.

The precise terms of this agreement are perhaps not what we would have negotiated, but it is fair to say that we think that—surprise, surprise—it is not a bad deal on balance. We have some concerns about the agreement, but it is a deal that we think deserves to be supported.

Unlike the Canada-China FIPA, this agreement does not tie the government's hands for 31 years. It is unlike CETA, in which the investor state dispute settlement mechanism chapter would continue to apply for 20 years after cancellation of the deal. Under the Korea free trade agreement, it can be fully cancelled after six months.

It is important that members of this House, particularly the Liberal members, understand that it is important to make sure people use their heads when they are negotiating any deal and make sure that they understand what is contained within that deal.

As I said when I started out, we certainly support the idea of trade, but we need to think about it in a responsible manner. We need to approach it in a common sense fashion, as any democratic government would, to make sure it is in the best interests of the people of our country. For example, we need to make sure we do not make deals that tie the hands of sub-national governments, as happens with investor state dispute mechanism provisions.

We need to understand that we are a democracy, that we uphold democratic principles in this country, and that we are not going to give up those principles. We are not going to give up the rights of citizens and governments to make decisions over purchasing and over matters that are determined through democratic process. We are not going to cede those rights to corporations, either here or elsewhere.

What do we want? New Democrats want to deepen Canada's trade linkages with the Asia-Pacific region, something that we recognize is essential to maintaining Canadian prosperity in the 21st century.

We want the government to do more to support our automotive industry, for example. We understand that there are some concerns about the impact that reducing the 6.5% tariff will have on the automotive sector. We have to recognize that the automotive sector is under increasing global pressure as a result of competition, so the government should be participating actively with the automotive sector to make sure that it is providing the supports necessary to maintain a vital and vibrant industry that provides a lot of family-sustaining jobs.

We support breaking down trade barriers, but we believe that government should provide the support the Canadian industry needs to remain competitive in a more open world. We agree with the various organizations and individuals who say that governments need to do more than simply sign trade agreements. They must do more to promote Canadian exports, attract investments, and help Canadian companies penetrate the South Korean and other Asian markets.

Finally, we want a strategic trade policy, as I said earlier, whereby we have multilateral negotiations and sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and with developing countries that are on a progressive trajectory.

What do we have here, then?

As has been explained by my colleague, our trade critic, we have three main criteria for trade agreements that we look to in evaluating them.

First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? I would suggest that South Korea is such a country.

Since South Korea emerged from a dictatorship in 1987, it transitioned into a vibrant, multi-party democracy with an active trade union movement, relatively high wages, a diverse civil society, and freedom of expression. In fact, in recent years, we could learn a great deal from a country like South Korea. It has invested billions in an ambitious green growth strategy aimed at improving energy efficiency as well as boosting renewables and green technology. It clearly respects high environmental and labour standards and it shares our values of human rights and democracy.

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? I would suggest that again South Korea passes the test.

South Korea is Canada's seventh most important trading partner and third in Asia, behind the two largest economies, China and Japan. In 2013, Canadian exports to South Korea totalled $3.4 billion, while Korean exports to Canada totalled $7.3 billion. We export the same amount to South Korea as we export to France and Germany. We import the same amount as we do from the U.K. This is Canada's first trade agreement with an Asian country, and it provides an opportunity to take advantage of the Pacific region, which is extremely important.

Third, are the terms of the proposed deal satisfactory? Again I suggest that in this case they are satisfactory.

With regard to jobs, the agreement will create a level playing field for Canadian companies and workers exporting to South Korea.

In agriculture, the free trade deal is essential. Canada has suffered significant losses in market share for Canadian agricultural exports to Korea following the implementation of the Korea-U.S. FTA.

In the aerospace sector, there is general support for a Korean FTA among manufacturing sectors, notably from Bombardier and from aerospace industry associations. The deal will gradually remove 100% of industrial tariffs, with an estimated value of $1.9 trillion in business to be generated by this sector of the economy.

With regard to seafood, there is a 47% tariff on Canadian exports to Korea. It will be eliminated. It is a big deal for seafood exporters in my community on the east coast and for exporters on the west coast as well.

With forestry and wood products, it is the same thing. This is a good deal.

However, I mentioned that there are concerns about the impact this deal may have on the auto sector. We are calling on the government to pay attention to those concerns. They are very legitimate, and we want the federal government to do more to support the auto industry in Canada.

We will propose solid, effective policy measures to strengthen the Canadian auto sector. It is a move that needs to happen, so I would indicate that to members.

We are using our heads when it comes to analyzing the trade deal. In this case, we give a thumbs-up.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I see that the hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Bill C-41—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that agreements have not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-41, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

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

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about the question on the investor state provisions in the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I agreed with my hon. colleague when he said that these agreements by definition would give corporations the ability to sue Canada in arbitrations. They would allow them to sue for damages, for bills and for laws that are passed municipally, provincially or federally. It is anti-democratic.

I do understand that the trade critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, feels that this investor state agreement is acceptable because there is a level of transparency in the six month opt-out clause, but in principle, it would do the same thing that the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour finds objectionable.

I wonder if he is not troubled that we would pass any further bilateral trade agreements that would create these additional powers for foreign corporations.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely sensitive to this issue and to any agreement tying the hands of any government. However, I am sufficiently confident, as a result of the analysis that we have done on this, that this free trade agreement would not apply to provincial, territorial or municipal procurement or crown corporations, where most Canadian procurement is located.

Secondly, under the investor state provisions, we understand that not only would the process, for the first time ever, be laid out in a transparent matter, but we would be able to cancel this provision within six months. While it is certainly not what we would negotiate, which I indicated off the bat, and I do have concerns in those areas, in this case I would suggest to my hon. colleague that I am sufficiently convinced that the concerns that she raised are not at issue in this agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the member's comments on the potential position that the NDP would have regarding Ukraine.

We had the President of Ukraine address the House. Many of the comments that he made were well received by most people. One of the comments was in relation to Canada going into a free trade agreement with Ukraine. I noticed that there was not as much enthusiasm coming from the New Democratic part of the House.

Has it taken a position? Does the member have any thoughts as to what he feels the NDP is likely to do with any sort of potential trade agreement, listening to what the President of Ukraine said? I appreciate the fact that the New Democrats are very supportive of this particular agreement that we are debating here today. That is why I ask about Ukraine, given the importance of Ukraine today and what is happening.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the question coming from the member for Winnipeg North would have absolutely nothing to do with the piece of legislation on the table at the moment. I do not know if he is troubled by the fact that we have given thoughtful consideration to this piece of legislation and we support it. I do not know exactly why he is asking another question.

This is an important deal. Let us not forget, this is the first time that the government has negotiated a deal that we are comfortable in supporting, that we believe meets the three criteria that we laid out that are in the best interests of Canadian industry and of Canadians, and we think it is worthy of support. That should be something that we are all paying attention to and that we are all concerned with because let us be clear that the government House leader just stood and talked about the fact that they were not able to come to an agreement on anything. Once again, Conservatives are going to apply time allocation and closure on a whole host of bills, a whole host of important issues. Yes, we are surprised that they were able to negotiate any deal that we could support, but wonders never cease in this chamber.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we get to the interruption and finish government orders, just a couple of things that occurred in the course of this afternoon's debate that I would pass along for the benefit of all hon. members. First, members should be cautious not to use the actual given name or family name of other hon. members, but to use their riding name in reference in the course of their speeches.

Second, there were a couple of occasions where you may recall in reading our procedures that members should be cautious to watch that they do not come in front of a member who has been so recognized and is standing and giving their remarks or commentary, do not come between them and the Speaker, particularly if they are in the camera shot. This is kind of a disrespectful thing, and members should honour the member who does in fact have the floor and is recognized as such. I know members are usually very careful about that, but just as a reminder to watch that. It particularly occurs when members at the south end of the chamber are speaking. There are other ways. Members can go in behind and so on to avoid the camera shot. Just a suggestion to keep our discourse here in the chamber civil and respectable as it always is.

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today, it is my great pleasure to address this House about the benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. Specifically, I would like to highlight how this agreement would benefit every single region of this country, thereby increasing prosperity for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is also my pleasure to share my time with the member for Calgary Northeast.

I would first like to emphasize that our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first agreement with an Asian market, would create thousands of new jobs in Canada and would provide Canadian business and workers with a gateway to Asia, enhancing our global competitiveness.

South Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trading partner. It is the world's 15th-largest economy. It is a priority market under our government's global market action plan.

In 2013 alone, Canada's South Korea two-way merchandise trade reached over $10.8 billion. Moreover, South Korea is a gateway to the vibrant Asia-Pacific region. As the fourth-largest economy in Asia, with a sophisticated market, it offers strategic access to a regional and global value chain that has become increasingly important for business to succeed.

Unfortunately, Canadian businesses are currently at a disadvantage in this very key Asian market compared to their main competitors in the U.S. and Europe. As a result of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement and the Korea-EU free trade agreement, which came into effect in 2012 and 2011 respectively, Canadian companies have in fact been losing ground to U.S. and EU companies that are already benefiting from their preferential access to the South Korean market.

In order to restore a level playing field for Canadian business, Canadian officials have worked tirelessly to negotiate the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, which is a state-of-the-art, ambitious, and comprehensive agreement that covers virtually every facet of modern commerce.

It is only this Conservative government that can deliver an agreement like this to Canadians. Every Canadian knows that the NDP have systematically and consistently voted against trade. This, in the face of the fact that it is clear that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families.

Even worse is the shameful record the Liberals have on neglecting trade. 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.

Canadians remember the last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade. That was when they campaigned to rip up the North American free trade agreement.

At the core of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is the elimination of tariffs on virtually all trade between Canada and South Korea. Immediately upon implementation, over 88% of Canada's current exports would be duty-free. Once the agreement is fully implemented, South Korea would remove duties on 100% of non-agricultural exports and 97% of agricultural exports.

This is a fantastic outcome for Canadians, especially given that Korea's current tariffs are, on average, three times higher.

I would now like to turn to key sectors and substantial regional benefits of the agreement. We have ensured that each region has something to gain from early implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

Let me start with agriculture and agri-food products, which have been heavily protected in South Korea. Once the agreement is fully implemented, tariffs would be eliminated on 97% of Canada's agricultural exports. This includes strong outcomes for key product groups such as beef, pork, canola oil, barley malt, pulses, animal feeds, fur skins, soya beans, fruit and vegetables, and many processed foods.

This is good news for farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers across Canada, including the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, as their products would become more competitive in the rapidly growing South Korean market. In the Prairies, for example, the agricultural and agri-food sector is a key driver of economic activity. Saskatchewan, Alberta, and my home province of Manitoba stand to benefit especially from enhanced market access for products such as beef, pork, grain, oilseeds, pulses, canola oil, barley malt, and forages.

I am happy to report that Canada also achieved an ambitious outcome for fish and seafood products. South Korea would eliminate all of its tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products, some immediately. The overall outcome for fish and seafood companies compares favourably with KORUS, including lobster, which is Canada's top export in this sector along with hagfish, halibut, and certain Pacific salmon.

The list continues. With regard to forestry and value-added wood products, South Korea would eventually eliminate all of its tariffs on Canadian exports including softwood and hardwood lumber, particle board, and many others. Some 85% of Canadian exports would be duty-free upon entry into force. These products are of particular export interest to British Columbia, the Prairies, and Quebec. Through the elimination of tariffs, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would provide improved access and new opportunities in the South Korean market.

For other industrial goods, which include aerospace, autos and auto products, rail, information technology, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, to name a few, over 96% of Canadian exports would be duty free immediately. That is 96%. Also, 99% would be duty-free within five years and the remaining 1% would be covered off in 10 years.

Manufacturers from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and the Prairies are expected to enjoy notable benefits in this regard. For example in Quebec alone, some 295,000 hard-working Quebecers and their families depend on the industrial goods sector for their livelihood. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would bring additional opportunities for Quebec's industrial goods sectors such as aircraft parts, cosmetics, and metals.

The benefits do not stop here. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would also achieve strong outcomes in services, business mobility, investment, and government procurement, all of which are on par or better than what was achieved with South Korea in either the U.S. or the EU agreement.

The agreement would provide enhanced market access for Canadian service providers in such areas as the professional environment and business services. With regard to business mobility, Canada obtained the most ambitious provisions from South Korea in any of its free trade agreements, which would allow for freer movement of highly skilled professionals between the two countries by providing Canadian professionals with preferential access to the South Korean market. As a chartered accountant, soon to become a CPA, I think it is important to note that in my profession alone there are almost 190,000 CPAs who would now have access to this bigger market.

In addition, the investment chapter, which includes extensive protection for investors, would provide a more transparent and predictable framework of rules. The investment chapter would facilitate the continuation of South Korean foreign direct investment into Canada's provinces and territories, including in the energy sectors, thereby contributing to their continued growth.

In conclusion, this free trade agreement with Korea would enhance market access and level the playing field for Canada vis-à-vis its competitors across the board, benefiting Canadians in every province and every territory. This would lead to more Canadian exports, more jobs for Canadian families, and more prosperity for our economy and for our children.

Stakeholders have given us clear signals that early entry into force of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is vital to ensuring Canada's competitive position in South Korea. This desire to have the agreement enter into force as quickly as possible has been echoed by many key industry stakeholders.

Our government is moving quickly to answer the call of Canadian business and workers. We are here to create jobs, to create growth, and to achieve long-term prosperity for all our children.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I see the hon. member for Vancouver East is rising.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the member who just spoke for interjecting just before the questions and comments.

However, I want to rise on a brief point of order and let the House know that when we were debating the topic of the missing and murdered indigenous women on Friday, September 19, I noted in my comments that I met with the Minister of Justice in 1999. In actual fact, I was in error of the year. I did meet with the Minister of Justice, but I believe the year was 2002. I have tried to go back and look but it is hard to find a calendar from that year. However, I did want to correct this in the record because it was not in 1999, but a bit later and I believe it was 2002. I just want to note that for the record.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East, and in particular, for bringing this to the attention of the House in short order relative to when the comments were offered.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for her speech on Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea.

The NDP takes the time to properly examine every free trade agreement proposed. We use very specific criteria to determine whether a free trade agreement is satisfactory or not. The NDP will support Bill C-41 on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea at second reading.

There are certain criteria that we are feel are important when examining such agreements. The first is whether the proposed trade partner respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards and Canadian values.

Next, we want to know whether the proposed partner's economy is of significant or strategic value to Canada and whether the terms of the proposed agreement are satisfactory.

Since this free trade agreement meets these criteria, or at least appears to, we are going to support this bill at second reading.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. NDP member for her remarks.

I am pleased for all Canadians that the NDP decided to support this agreement. It is a very important agreement for the future, for job creation, for economic growth and for long-term prosperity.

I am quite impressed that the NDP decided to support our bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia, my home province, is closer to Korea than any other part of Canada. We have many people who have immigrated and are now proudly Canadian. In my own riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, we have cherries, we have wine and we have many other agrifoods that could go to Korea. When I say that my constituents are very happy to see this particular free trade agreement, I hear massive support in my riding for it.

I do know that in the member's previous life she was a business professional. This agreement, because it is a modern free trade agreement, allows for professionals from Canada to go and do business in Korea and offer their services there. Does the member think there are many opportunities for other business professionals to be able to reach out and compete globally in places like Korea?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. This free trade agreement links us to the 15th-largest economy. It links Canada to a world of opportunity.

Jayson Myers, the president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters Association said, “Asia's rich markets are the next frontier for Canada in our quest to...eliminate tariffs and non-trade barriers to trade investment”.

He talked about elimination of tariffs and non-trade barriers. I just want to commend the work of the hon. parliamentary secretary in his efforts to break down internal barriers for the wonderful Okanagan wineries in his riding. With his work and through his efforts, we will not only benefit in selling that great wine to the Korean market and other international markets, but also in selling it to internal markets in Canada.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment, then a question. First, New Democrats will be supporting this trade deal. The way we look at all trade proposals is based on some fundamental principles. One of those principles is about reciprocity. For example, is there built within the trade deal a reciprocal agreement with the country we will be trading with? Unlike the China investor protection agreement, which is not reciprocal in its nature and takes 31 years to get out of the agreement, this has other provisions that give us greater assurance that the deal would be fair for Canadians.

My question is this. Obviously, for certain sectors in any trade deal there are potential winners and potential industries that would be hurt. The winners seem clear. They are agriculture, forestry and fishing products. As a representative from northern British Columbia, those are important. However, there has been concern raised about the auto sector.

Already, Korean auto manufacturing is coming into Canada through the United States and Mexico, with new plant builds planned there for Korean automakers. Does my hon. colleague know of any efforts by the Canadian government to encourage or ensure that Korean automakers are also planning to set up new shops in the Canadian market, so that we can have those value-added jobs created here in Canada as a potential result of this trade deal?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I truly do support my hon. colleague opposite and the NDP's support for the bill because it is these kinds of free trade agreements that are going to make an enormous difference for the prosperity of our children, our communities and Canadian workers or business people. It is so important that we support this.

We have to level the playing field, because we have to catch up in this very important Asian market.

The reciprocity the member referred to is absolutely entrenched in the bill. I specifically compliment the officials who worked with the government on this incredible trade opportunity. This is state of the art. It is a very ambitious and comprehensive agreement and there is reciprocity in every facet. This is about modern commerce.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. We know that trade is responsible for one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for 64% of our country's annual income.

Trade is the cornerstone of the Canadian economy, and Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders and into new markets for economic opportunities that grow Canada's exports and investments. This is why our Conservative government is delivering on its commitment in the Speech from the Throne to expand trade with Asia.

I am pleased to speak today on the importance of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, or CKFTA. This landmark achievement, Canada's first free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region, is a game changer. It will provide new access for Canadian businesses and workers to South Korea, which is the fourth largest economy in Asia with an annual GDP of $1.3 trillion and a high-growth market of 50 million potential customers.

South Korea is a major economic player in its own right and a key market for Canada. It is Canada's seventh largest overall merchandise trading partner, and third largest in Asia after China and Japan. Two-way trade between Canada and South Korea totalled more than $10.8 billion in 2013.

Canadians recognize Asia's growing economic strength and believe that closer economic ties with Asia are necessary for Canada's future prosperity. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is projected to add thousands of Canadian jobs to the economy, increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32% and boost Canada's economy by $1.7 billion.

South Korea also serves as a gateway for Canadian businesses and workers to the Asia-Pacific region. As a result of this agreement, Canadian companies will be able to use South Korea as a key base for expanding their presence in Asia and to access its regional and global supply chains. This Canada-Korea free trade agreement creates a mechanism to increase the already substantial people-to-people connections shared by South Koreans and Canadians.

I would like to discuss in some detail the concrete and real benefits that will be available to Canadian businesses, from coast to coast to coast, after the implementation of this agreement. Unlike the NDP who loves to oppose our trade agreements, our Conservative government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness, which in turn adversely affects middle-class Canadian families.

The CKFTA will cover virtually all aspects of commercial activities between Canada and South Korea, including trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement, non-tariff barriers, environment and labour co-operation, and other areas of economic activity. The agreement increases potential market access for Canadian exporters and investors from every province and territory, and it would remove non-tariff barriers that hinder trade.

Additionally, under this agreement, Canada has secured greater opportunities related to temporary entry for business persons than those enjoyed by South Korea's other free trade agreement partners. This will provide an advantage to Canadian business persons needing to move between the two countries to conduct business.

Investment is a key component of the bilateral economic relationship between Canada and South Korea. It is an area that has great potential for growth, which is assisted by the increased certainty and transparency created by the CKFTA. Canada will be able to attract more investments, such as the 2013 opening of Samsung's first Canadian research and development centre in Vancouver, which focuses on the development of Samsung's enterprise security solutions and provides technical support for the company's diverse customer base. This centre already employs 60 people and more employment is expected.

There will also be many exciting opportunities in agriculture, fish and seafood, forestry products and the industrial goods sector. South Korea imports 70% of its food, representing a $20 billion market per year. However, Canadian agricultural exports to South Korea currently face high tariffs, which average over 50%. This places Canadian exporters at a serious disadvantage with their competitors, notably the United States, when trying to access the lucrative South Korean market.

With this agreement, Canadian businesses like Conestoga Meat Packers, a co-operative of 150 southern Ontario family farmers who have been producing premium-quality fresh pork for more than 30 years, will have the opportunity to be on equal footing with their competitors in the South Korean market. The elimination of tariffs on fresh, chilled, and frozen pork will give companies like Conestoga the opportunity for continued company growth, an integral component of their business plans. The CKFTA would provide Prince Edward Island-based Cavendish Farms with a golden opportunity to grow their presence in the South Korean market and to expand in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.

While current South Korean duties range from 18% to a staggering 304% for potato products, the CKFTA would provide tariff elimination on most potato products, thereby helping to level the playing field with South Korea's other FTA partners. This means jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

On fish and seafood products, which are the economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada, the CKFTA contains an ambitious outcome that would eliminate 100% of South Korean tariffs once the agreement is fully implemented. Companies like Nova Scotia-based Clearwater Seafoods, North America's largest vertically integrated harvester, processor, and distributor of premium shellfish, will benefit from this strong CKFTA outcome.

In fact, we are already getting a taste of what increased seafood trade with South Korea will look like. Shortly after the announcement of the conclusion of negotiations on the CKFTA, Korean Air Cargo launched weekly service to South Korea from Halifax and is expected to transport a minimum of 40,000 kilograms of live lobster over the course of the summer. This would benefit Atlantic Canadians, as it would help to develop the South Korean market for fresh Canadian lobsters and provide a gateway for exports to other Asian markets.

South Korea imports $500 billion worth of industrial goods every year, including aerospace products. Canada's aerospace industry, which consistently ranks as one of Canada's top manufacturing sectors, will benefit from the immediate elimination of tariffs on turbo propellers, turbojet and propeller parts, and ground-flying training equipment. Tariffs on all aerospace goods would be eliminated upon implementation.

For Montreal-based CAE, a global leader in modelling, simulation, and training for civil aviation and defence, this agreement is very welcome news. CAE employs approximately 8,000 people in close to 30 countries and offers civil aviation and military and helicopter training services worldwide, including in South Korea. CAE is a prime example of Canadian companies that have recognized the value of South Korea as a regional base to serve clients in the Asian market. This type of investment would only increase once the CKFTA is implemented.

As we can see, the benefits to Canada and Canadians from this agreement are robust, multi-sectoral, and significant. Being well positioned in the Asia-Pacific region is critical to Canada's prosperity, and this agreement is a major step in realizing the untapped potential in Asia.

Of course, it is shameful that this past summer the NDP trade critic protested alongside well-known radical anti-trade activists, such as The Council of Canadians and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, at an anti-trade protest. Despite all the evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the NDP, together with its professional activist group allies, is ideologically opposed to trade.

Just as bad are the Liberals, who, during their 13 long years in government, completely neglected trade and completed only three free trade agreements, compared to our 43 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.

To close, I am happy to hear that both parties have now decided to support this bill. I am very optimistic that they have learned from the past and that they will continue to support our trade agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do our homework for every free trade agreement. We studied this agreement with South Korea and we decided to support it even though the agreement is not perfect. We believe it can produce rather significant economic spinoffs for Canada.

However, the Conservative government negotiates free trade agreements with all sorts of countries, including undemocratic ones such as Honduras, where journalists and workers are murdered. In committee, witnesses told us that the free trade agreement with Honduras would only make matters worse when it comes to the serious human rights problems in that undemocratic country.

Is there a country the Conservatives do not want to negotiate a free trade agreement with? What are the criteria? Will they do their homework next time?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is on record that the NDP has a long, very proud history of being anti-trade. Some people call it the “no development party”.

I understand why the New Democrats find it difficult to find points to criticize in this free trade agreement. We, the Conservative Party of Canada, know that trade is good for Canadians and good for families. It creates jobs. It will bring prosperity, and prosperity tackles so many other problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Calgary Northeast.

He mentioned the urgent need to ratify the agreement, as did his colleague from Winnipeg South Centre. However, the need would not have been so urgent if the government had been more serious about the negotiations, instead of focusing on countries such as Honduras that have less strategic value. If the government had focused on this agreement, we probably could have signed it sooner and devoted the necessary resources to it. I am not the only one to say so. In fact, this was also mentioned in an internal memo at the international trade department.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that. Why did the government spend so much time negotiating agreements with much less strategic value, as it did with Honduras and Panama, instead of devoting all its resources to more significant agreements such as the one with South Korea?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that ratifies what I said earlier about how it is very hard for the NDP to support a trade agreement.

We can see from the comments that my colleague made how many heels the New Democrats are digging in, how deeply they are digging them, and how hard it is for them to come out and say that they are very proud to support trade.

It is amazing.They talk about the criteria, and of course we have the criteria. This side of the House understands that we have to negotiate to the point to make sure that we get what is in the best interest of Canada, Canadian workers, Canadian businesses, and Canadian families. That is why negotiations were very important.

We will not sign any agreement if it is not for a good cause and good for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and particularly for his last intervention, in which he talked about trade being good for all Canadians.

Many people may not know that South Korea sells steel rebar, which is used to create buildings. Lowering tariffs would reduce housing costs for people in people in British Columbia, something that I am very supportive of.

The member mentioned the Samsung centre and how it is looking to expand, hire more Canadians, and expand operations in British Columbia. These are great benefits.

The NDP has this issue with countries like Honduras. However, in Okanagan—Coquihalla, we have cattle ranchers. Some operations are larger and some are smaller. When we have multiple markets, including larger markets like South Korea and smaller markets like Honduras, does it not make sense to the member that all Canadian producers, whether they are smaller operations or larger operations, should be able to find niche markets or large markets and get the best value and the best price?

I ask the member if he could clarify whether my thinking is correct.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, diversification is important. Smaller and bigger markets are both important, because they provide opportunities to all kinds of businesses, specifically small and medium-size enterprises, to open new gates—even floodgates, I would say.

As I mentioned in my speech, tariffs on potatoes can be up to a staggering 304%. That tariff would be eliminated. Imagine the opportunities we Canadians and Canadian businesspeople could have in a market like South Korea, which is projected to increase exports by 32% and boost the Canadian economy by $1.7 billion annually.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I will have the opportunity to speak at length about why the NDP believes, all things considered, that it can support this agreement with a democratic country whose economy has high standards. I am not saying that everything is perfect, because that is not the case. If the members on this side of the House had been at the negotiating table, we could have done things differently.

Before I get into the compliments, I want to start with some criticism. Our colleagues opposite like claiming that they are the champions of all things trade. However, the data on this topic shows a different story. Since 2000, Canada's trade balance has experienced a sharp decline and it has been consistently declining since 2004. To be more specific, we went from 5.75% of the GDP to a deficit of 0.61% of the GDP. I do not understand how the government can seriously claim that it is effective and committed to trade when it gets such poor results for our exporters.

I am getting off topic. Let me get back to Korea. I remind members that Canada is lagging behind compared to other countries and major economies in terms of trade with Asia Pacific countries, and in particular Korea. While Canadian companies had to wait for the never-ending negotiations to come to a close, the United States and the European Union had already signed free trade agreements with South Korea in 2012.

Over these two years, our exporters lost 30% of their share of the South Korean market. What is worse is that the government dragged its feet and chose to sign bad agreements with trade partners that have questionable human rights records, such as Honduras, which we have already talked about. I am bringing this up today because this very issue came up in internal memos at the international trade department.

It is rather absurd to see that the government insists on negotiating agreements that legitimize bad working-condition and human rights practices, when doing a better job with Korea would have helped our exporters much more quickly. Our exports to Honduras in 2013 were just over $43 million. With Korea, we are talking about $3 billion a year in potential exports.

I have some serious questions about the government's priorities. Why wait 10 years to negotiate with South Korea? Why give priority to less developed economies and smaller trading partners?

I have other questions as well. What did our exporters lose because of this delay? How many jobs could have been created or maintained? We will not get a trade policy that works and helps our economy, our companies and, especially, our workers by signing any old agreement and then bragging about how many of them there are afterwards. Instead, we should be signing good agreements and supporting our exporters.

This government likes to paint the NDP as a party that is fundamentally against trade and supports blind protectionism. Therefore, I will once again try to explain to the Conservatives the criteria that the NDP has developed and that shape its position on international trade. Perhaps it will clarify things.

Unlike the other major parties in the House, we carefully analyze each agreement, then we support or reject it based on its merit. The criteria we use are completely logical and legitimate and reflect our social responsibilities as a developed country.

The first criterion concerns respect for democracy, human rights, environmental values and labour condition standards. Based on this criterion, South Korea has made significant progress since the dictatorship fell in 1987. It is now a democratic and multi-party political regime that supports freedom of expression in a relatively diverse society. In terms of labour standards, sweatshops are not common practice, far from it. Wages are adequate, and labour movements and unions are not openly suppressed or delegitimized.

I believe that my colleague said it before me, but for information purposes, South Korea rates 15th on the United Nations human development index. Social programs are also being developed in South Korea, particularly access to post-secondary education and energy strategies, while corruption is at a minimum. Therefore, this agreement meets this first criterion, which covers human rights.

Our second criterion relates to the overall economic and strategic value of this alliance for Canada. We could talk about this criterion in terms that the government could understand by looking at the Investment Canada Act, for instance. We are asking the same questions. Is this agreement in the best interests of Canada? However, instead of relying on the arbitrary opinion of just one minister, we are assessing and quantifying this criterion in light of the global economy and trade figures.

The answer to the question about the objective meaning of the partnership is clearly positive. South Korea is Canada's seventh largest partner and the third largest economy in the Asian market. Canada's trade exports with South Korea are essentially the same as those with France or with Germany. We are talking about $3.4 billion in 2013.

In economic terms, this agreement could be fruitful for Canada, given that Korea is an attractive gateway to other Asian economies. In addition, our two economies are quite complementary, which means that not many of our industries will be in direct competition. That is an important point.

In addition, virtually all the economic sectors in Canada welcome the agreement and will very likely derive substantial benefits from it. These sectors include the aerospace industry, the high tech sector, the shipping industry, the forestry sector, the mining sector, the agricultural sectors—namely the hog, beef, wine and grain industries—and the seafood industry. We therefore recognize that this agreement has strategic value and meets the second criterion.

The final criterion relates to the practical terms of the agreement. We need to read an agreement before we can approve it. It is a signed contract between two nations. The details of the agreement are very important, and that is why it is inconceivable for us to support or reject an agreement without having even read it. We therefore took the time to read the terms of the trade agreement between Canada and South Korea.

Are the specific terms of the agreement satisfactory? Will they be advantageous for Canada or not? As was mentioned earlier, the two countries will essentially be on equal footing thanks to our complementary economies and South Korea's improvements in the areas of human rights, environmental standards and treatment of workers.

Speaking of workers, we are not the first country to sign a free-trade agreement with South Korea. Many countries have done so before us, including the United States. Earlier, I mentioned the fact that our economies complement one another and that work conditions are good. Many large union groups, such as the UFCW, have thrown their support behind the agreement between Korea and the United States because it has the potential to create thousands of jobs. What is more, those jobs will be local, well-paying jobs in sectors of the economy where the jobs are often unionized. They support the agreement between Canada and South Korea.

To continue, I will now explain why this agreement meets our criteria and why we will be supporting it at second reading. For a while now, it has been recognized and often stated that Canada must diversify its trade partners and try to reduce the percentage of trade that it conducts with the United States and the European Union, its traditional partners.

In light of that, it makes sense to strengthen ties with South Korea, which is our seventh-largest trading partner. In fact, when it comes to Asia, we need to be talking about the entire region, not just Korea. South Korea is our third-largest trading partner in Asia, and it is important to expand trade with the country. The NDP recognizes that increasing trade with Asia is a crucial step towards ensuring prosperity, economic growth and dependable jobs in Canada in the 21st century.

Korea is also a gateway to the rest of the Asian market. Under this agreement our exporters will have more and better opportunities in the Asian market. This will be good for our economy and for diversifying Canada's international trade.

Unlike other countries that Canada has signed agreements with despite the NDP's objections, such as Honduras, South Korea is a well-established, globally recognized democracy. Supporting a toxic, authoritarian regime that violates its citizens' rights is not even an issue in this case. In other words, this is exactly the kind of developed economy that we should be developing a deeper, more sustainable trade relationship with. It has high labour and human rights standards, and it is the kind of partner we should be looking for.

When we trade with other nations, we have to think about the goods that will be traded, that will travel from one country to the other, but we also have to think about what we are supporting with that trade. In the case of Honduras, I spoke at length in the House about how the agreement would support a country that is heading the wrong way in terms of human rights, a country where, in most cases, workers struggle with terrible working conditions.

Those concerns do not apply to Korea. Instead, this is a partner that shares our values of democracy and justice. By doing business with Korean companies, Canadian exporters will be working with partners who understand their obligations in terms of working conditions and how employees should be treated.

Consider how easy it is for a Honduran company to lower its labour costs and provide a dangerous working environment for its employees. How can we ask Canadian companies to accept that a foreign competitor can be subject to domestic regulations that are so radically different from our own? With South Korea, our companies will be dealing with partners and competitors who are subject to very similar regulations and whose reality is the same.

That is really good, because even by purchasing Korean products here, our consumers will be giving their money to responsible businesses that have good practices.

That is not the case in some other agreements. It is also important to remember the environmental aspect. Korea has high environmental standards and is a world leader in that regard. It leads the world in renewable energy and green technology, and it is in our interest to boost our trade with these sectors, which are so important for the future. The Koreans are offering us this opportunity, and it just seems logical to me that we should take it in order to increase the portion of our economy that depends on greener power. This will be quite a change from what we are doing now.

We are definitely not the only ones who think this agreement could be good for the Canadian economy. A number of industry associations in sectors including aerospace, agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, chemicals, energy, forestry and financial services also think so.

This agreement is good news for our agriculture sector, because it will enable our pork and beef producers not to expand their presence on Korean markets, but actually recover lost ground. For instance, Canadian beef exports to South Korea dropped from $96 million in 2011 to just $8 million in 2013. Canadian pork experts dropped from first place on the South Korean market to fourth place between 2011 and 2013. The free trade agreement with South Korea will eliminate nearly 87% of agricultural tariff lines and finally allow Canadian exporters to play on a level playing field.

It is becoming increasingly urgent to conclude this agreement before Australia's trade deal with South Korea is implemented, because Australia is one of our major competitors in agriculture.

As for seafood, fishers on both coasts will benefit. Current tariffs are 47%, and most of them will be eliminated. Fishers and processors on the west coast can barely keep up with their competitors in Alaska because of the trade agreement that already exists between the United States and Korea.

Some 230,000 jobs in the country depend on forestry. It is also important to my riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, where the sector has gone through some tough times. Canadian exporters currently face tariffs of 10%, which will disappear with the agreement.

In light of all these facts, it seems that the free trade agreement with South Korea satisfies our three criteria. I am quite proud that we took the time to do this analysis instead of just sticking to a purely ideological approach like some parties that are prepared to sign any agreement no matter what or other parties that approve these agreements without even reading them. Only the NDP has a sensible, balanced approach to trade. We are the only ones who want to ensure that trade agreements with other countries will truly benefit Canadians.

Now that I have gone over the positive aspects of the agreement, I want to be clear that it is not perfect. The agreement in its current form is not something we as a government would have signed. Let us talk about the automotive sector. There are some positive aspects, of course, such as the elimination of the 6.1% tariffs on imports and the 8% tariffs on exports. This will be good for consumers here, and also for our exports to Korea. Other positives include the rules of origin provisions that recognize Canadian-U.S. integrated products, which is vital to our manufacturers. The same goes for the accelerated dispute resolution mechanism, which will make it easier to lift non-tariff barriers.

There are also some legitimate concerns about the automotive sector. That is why an NDP government would do everything in its power to allay those fears and mitigate the potential consequences by encouraging Korean automakers to set up plants here in Canada and helping Canadian automotive products access the Korean market more easily. We should monitor non-tariff barriers closely, act swiftly and effectively to resolve disputes, and conduct frequent trade missions to Korea. That is why I would like the government to explain how it plans to mitigate the consequences for the automotive sector, especially since the conditions it obtained are less favourable than what is in the American agreement.

Yesterday, when we announced our support for this agreement, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, clearly said what I mentioned earlier: this is not the agreement that we would have negotiated. The biggest problem with this agreement is obviously the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism. An NDP government—just like the main opposition party in Korea—would not have included this mechanism in the agreement. When the NDP is in power after 2015, we could perhaps negotiate with the government of Korea to remove this provision.

The principle of these investor-state mechanisms is cause for concern and rightly so in many cases.

Consider the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. It took the government a long time to negotiate the agreement and then to ratify it after it was announced. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley just mentioned that in a question.

This investment protection agreement has a number of flaws. First, it is not a reciprocal agreement and it clearly favours China. We mentioned that in several speeches. Even if the agreement had to be cancelled, Chinese firms could sue the Canadian government before secret tribunals for 31 years. That is another major flaw of the agreement.

Furthermore, China could continue to impose conditions concerning local preferences, such as suppliers and jobs, whereas Canada could not. The fundamental issue of reciprocity is involved here.

Finally, the Conservative government was not even able to negotiate national treatment for any new Canadian investment in China—not for companies already in China, but for all new investment made after the agreement is signed.

The investor-state dispute resolution mechanism in the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is different. It is 100% reciprocal, as is the rest of the agreement. What is more, if the agreement is cancelled, it ceases to apply after only six months, not after 31 years, as is the case with the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement between Canada and China.

Furthermore, this free trade agreement with Korea contains transparency measures. Some hearings will be public and teams of experts may even allow third parties who are not directly involved in the dispute to make presentations or submit written briefs. Civil society and non-governmental organizations can therefore get involved. There are no such measures in agreements such as NAFTA or previous versions of this type of investor-state provision.

The dispute resolution mechanism in the agreement with Korea is also faster. For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA provides for a period of 90 days between the date that the claim is submitted and arbitration. The disputed measure must be in effect for at least six months. The technical summaries that we received for the Canada-Korea free trade agreement indicate that the timeframe will be shorter and that things will move faster in cases involving fresh produce or motor vehicles.

That is why, despite this negative aspect, there are advantages to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement that outweigh the disadvantages.

After conducting a complete and comprehensive assessment of this agreement, we decided to support it. It is not the agreement an NDP government would have negotiated. However, we find it acceptable.

Ultimately, we believe that this agreement will be good for Canada and our exporters. It will have a positive effect on the forestry and agricultural industries in my riding and those of many other members on this side of the House.

However, I want to emphasize that the government should tell us about its plan for one of the industries that will be the hardest hit, the automobile industry. We still have not heard any answers from the government in this regard.

The NDP's prudent and balanced approach is the right approach, and it should be used so that trade agreements benefit our exporters, our economy and our workers.

It is imperative that we have a healthy debate in the House. However, when I listen to the Conservative members' speeches, and particularly their answers to our criticisms of the agreement, I can see that they do not feel they should have done anything differently.

In internal memos, officials with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade were critical of the fact that the department's resources were focused on less strategically important agreements than the one with Korea, for example. That prevented us from concluding the agreement as quickly as we could have.

The United States and the European Union have had trade agreements with Korea since 2012. We lost considerable ground because of the government's strategic choice, which I do not understand. In all honesty, the government has not managed to explain this choice to me.

For example, beef and pork exporters who had extremely well-established niches in Korea lost that initial advantage because the government was slow to act.

I will soon take questions from Conservative members, I hope, and probably from other members of the House.

I would like them to keep in mind that no party in the House is perfect, the process itself was flawed and the government should learn from its mistakes so that it can be much more effective in future trade agreement negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's mostly positive speech, he kept slipping between the Korean free trade agreement and the Canada-China FIPA. I am trying to follow where he got lost a bit, but I will focus strictly on Korea, which is the purpose of this debate.

In his comments, he mentioned the U.S. snap-back provision that was provided through the U.S. free trade agreement with Korea. From my understanding of snap-back provisions, they have really limited practical value. I think that when we measure the tariff level of 2.5% between U.S. and Korea against the 6.1% level that we are dealing with in the Canada-Korea relationship, there is a different set of dynamics. The other piece of the snap-back provision, which I think really minimizes its impact, is that it is a 10-year provision in the U.S.-Korea agreement, and it cannot even be used in the first four years.

I wonder if my colleague opposite would comment on where he sees the deficiency in our agreement and the substantive impact that he was referring to.

The other thing I want to mention quickly is that 85% of Canadian production is built for export. I wonder if he would comment on where he sees the impact of that export production impacting this relationship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions.

It is clear from my speech and my previous interventions in the House that we are in favour of diversifying markets for Canada and our exporters. Putting almost all of our eggs in one basket—be it the European Union or the United States, our two main markets right now—is a risky approach. That is why we like the possibility and the prospect of diversifying our export markets.

If we compare our agreement with the agreement the United States signed with Korea, we can see that we took a long time to act once the agreement was signed. I think the member would agree that the government put a great deal of emphasis on signing the agreement with the European Union, to avoid having to compete with negotiations between the United States and the European Union. This agreement should have been just as urgent, but that was not the case. The timing of the negotiations and the fact that they were probably not given as much attention as they should have are to blame in part for our being behind the United States, which has already eliminated many of its tariffs because of its agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a great deal about the automobile industry. It is a very important industry. I can recall my party, the Liberal Party, being very proactive going all the way back to the 1960s in terms of the Auto Pact arrangement. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is obviously a concern. Having said that, we will be very diligent as we continue to watch what is taking place within that industry.

The member made one specific comment which I want to flesh out a bit. I am not sure about this and this is why I am looking for clarification. He indicated that he believes an NDP administration would force Korean manufacturers to make their automobiles here in Canada. How would the member propose to do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North. The automobile industry is extremely important, and we will also be watching how this agreement affects the industry, particularly in terms of the non-tariff barriers that were perceived as a problem with the agreement between the United States and South Korea. They are also a concern here. I understand and we will be watching that.

I do not think the interpretation reflected what I said. I did not talk about forcing Korean companies to move to Canada. I talked about encouraging them to do so. There is a series of measures we could implement, especially when we have this type of agreement with a country. Obviously, much closer trade relations could make it easier to negotiate and, with various incentives, could encourage companies to move here.

If tariff barriers are eliminated, and hopefully non-tariff barriers will not stand in the way, our current producers will have significantly more export opportunities.This is a good thing, but it requires ongoing monitoring and we will have to draw some conclusions eventually. Right now, we export roughly 100 cars to South Korea. With this trade agreement, we will have greater opportunities. I hope our car manufacturers will be able to take advantage of that. We will do everything we can to help them, specifically by organizing trade missions to South Korea.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in an earlier question, the member opposite mentioned that he wondered why the NDP member was raising the issue around the Canada-China FIPA in the context of this piece of legislation. My understanding is that the member was drawing a parallel between the fact that in the Canada-China FIPA there is no ability to renegotiate the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism for 31 years, whereas in this agreement it can actually be renegotiated in six months.

The member certainly raised some concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism as outlined in this particular agreement. I wonder if he could highlight for the House specifically some of the concerns with regard to this investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her question. In fact there has been an ongoing debate on such a provision since NAFTA was signed.

The NDP has never been in favour of such a clause, particularly because of its secret nature. Administrative tribunals usually meet behind closed doors, and people cannot really attend or participate, even though some individuals might be directly or indirectly affected. We are therefore not very fond of this provision.

However, in the case of South Korea, even though we could eventually renegotiate or even eliminate the clause if the South Korean government agrees, there is still more transparency than in other agreements such as NAFTA. There is greater effectiveness and, most importantly, greater accountability for the decisions that are made. We do not welcome this provision in particular, quite the contrary—as a number of debates and speeches have made clear—but it is a provision that we could eventually renegotiate when the NDP is in power and if the South Korean government is open to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite and find him to be a very reasonable and very kind gentleman. However, I am confused. The New Democrats say they do not like certain measures of this agreement and they have concerns around the auto provisions, but they will encourage the Korean companies to set up shop in Canada. However, the very policies of the NDP increase costs, whether they be the inputs themselves or its labour policies coupled with its taxation policy. They actually discourage that kind of investment.

There are so many great things about this country. We have an educated population. Ontario has a thriving auto sector. There are great workers, suppliers, and the supply chain. It makes a world of sense. However, the New Democrats say that they do not agree with investment protections that give investors long-term security so that when they build these big plants and choose to come to Canada they have some sense that they will not be arbitrarily picked on and treated differently from the way the local companies are treated.

Could the member opposite square this circle? Could he help me with my confusion on his stances that seem to be total polar opposites?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the hon. member. I have had the opportunity to chat with him on occasion.

I see no contradiction there. Clearly, we would look at the benefits and disadvantages of any NDP policy that we would hope to apply. Obviously, if the policies implemented were a disincentive to investment, we would study that negative impact.

These conditions are more than just economic in nature. Other criteria should also be taken into consideration. For example, there is a possibility that non-tariff barriers in the auto sector could be lifted. We need to monitor that.

We must also ensure that this is a two-way street. The conditions applied here must also be applied by South Korea to our exporters.

We are completely consistent on that. We want this agreement to be reciprocal, to foster good trade relations and, at the other end, we also want to provide good conditions for the Koreans who are looking to invest.

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

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Don Valley West.

I rise today to talk about the landmark Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I will specifically concentrate on the benefits and opportunities created by this agreement for our agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters.

Canadian farmers and processors produce some of the best quality food in the world. Our products reflect Canada's dedication to excellence, safety and innovation.

In 2013, the agriculture and agri-food sector accounted for 6.7% of Canada's total GDP and contributed to one in eight jobs in Canada, employing 2.2 million people.

It is estimated that approximately half of the primary agriculture production in Canada is exported. The processed foods industry is also highly export dependent. Overall, with export sales topping a record of $46 billion in 2013, Canada is the world's fifth largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food.

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last left this question, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound had eight and a half minutes remaining in the time, something I neglected to inform him of prior to statements by members.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to finish the major part of my speech and would remind you that I am splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West.

As such, continued success of the agriculture and agrifood sector is heavily dependent on an ability to compete in international markets over the long term. Therefore, it is no surprise that our government continues to work tirelessly to increase access to some of the fastest growing global markets, including South Korea.

Yet despite all the evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the NDP, together with its activist group allies, is and always will be ideologically opposed to trade. When the NDP talks trade, it is not the interests of hard-working Canadian families it has in mind; it is the interests of its core supporters, its radical activist group allies, which are of concern to it.

The Liberals are just as bad. During 13 long years in government, the Liberals completely neglected trade, completing only a paltry three—three—free trade agreements.

[An hon. member]

We signed NAFTA for God's sake. That is the biggest one, right?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, by the sound of the heckling, they do not like the truth.

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. In fact, the last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade, they campaigned to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment. As Canada's first FTA with an Asian market, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is truly a landmark achievement.

With average Canadian exports from 2011 to 2013 of agriculture and agrifood to South Korea reaching almost $644 million, Canada is one of South Korea's largest suppliers. This agreement would further deepen our trade ties by improving market access for all of Canada's key agricultural export interests.

In general, South Korea would eliminate tariffs on around 70% of Canadian agricultural exports within five years. Within 15 years, 97% of exports would be duty free. This would lead to substantial gains for agriculture given that this sector is so heavily protected in South Korea. For example, South Korea's average applied agricultural tariff is 52.7% compared to 6.8% for non-agricultural goods.

The Canada-Korea FTA is critical to re-establishing a level playing field for Canadian agriculture and agrifood producers competing in the South Korean market, where major competitors from the United States and the European Union currently benefit from preferential access under their free trade agreements. Australia signed an FTA with South Korea in April 2014, and is expected to enter into force in the coming months.

While these are just some of the broad benefits for the overall sector, there are also significant gains for key agricultural products, including in meats, grains, pulses, oilseeds, fur skins, animal feeds, processed foods, alcoholic beverages, and fruits and vegetables.

In particular, beef and pork were Canada's two top priorities and among the most challenging areas of the negotiation. Under the Canada-Korea FTA, tariffs as high as 40% on fresh, chilled and frozen beef and pork would be eliminated over periods ranging from five to fifteen years.

Importantly, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement rules of origin reflect the integration of the North American livestock industry, which is a key result for us.

This agreement also aims to further Canada's position as a global supplier of grain and grain products by opening new markets in South Korea. Our grain exports would benefit from the immediate elimination of South Korean tariffs on some of Canada's high-quality grains and special crops, including wheat, rye, oats, mustard seed, and canary seed.

Wheat flour would benefit from tariffs eliminated over five years, while Canada's exports of barley malt to South Korea would be immediately duty-free under large commercially significant transitional quota volumes and will gain unlimited duty-free access after 15 years.

This agreement also holds tremendous potential for Canada's oilseeds and oilseed products sector. Tariffs on canola would be eliminated immediately upon implementation, while the current tariff of 5% on refined and crude canola oil would be eliminated over three to five years. Canadian exports to South Korea of identity preserved soybeans would see immediate duty-free access under permanent quota volumes. This is a product of particular interest to Ontario and Quebec.

Other key sectors that would benefit are Canada's fruits, vegetables and pulse sectors. Under the agreement, current tariffs of 30% on frozen blueberries would be eliminated within seven years, while tariffs on pulses, such as kidney beans, lentils and chickpeas, would be eliminated over five years. Tariffs on feed peas would be eliminated immediately upon entry into force.

This agreement also includes notable benefits for processed foods and alcoholic beverages. Upon entry into force, duties on icewine would be eliminated from current duties of 15%. This is significant, as icewine makes up 90% of Canada's white wine exports to South Korea. Furthermore, duties on rye whiskey would be eliminated upon entry into force.

Canada would receive immediate duty-free access on Canada's key processed food exports, including frozen french fries, maple syrup, maple sugar and golden roasted flaxseed. Other products that would see their tariffs eliminated during a phase-out period include baked goods, chocolate, sugar, confectionery, and cranberry and blueberry juices.

These are just some examples of the types of agricultural sectors and products that would benefit from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. Given this positive outcome, a wide range of agriculture and agrifood stakeholders, such as the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance, the Canola Council of Canada and Pulse Canada, to name a few, have strongly and publicly supported this agreement.

To ensure that Canadian farmers and food processors benefit fully from this groundbreaking agreement, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food continues to work closely with the Canadian agriculture industry to open new doors in South Korea.

I would like to take this time to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of International Trade for the great work that they have done in the past number of years in getting not just the Canada-Korea free trade agreement but all the other ones that the government has signed. There are more to come.

In April, the minister led a delegation of 30 agriculture associations and companies to seize on the opportunities for agriculture trade heralded by this agreement. The visit successfully strengthened agricultural trade ties between Canadian exporters and South Korean importers. As our competitors in the European Union, the United States, Austria, Chile and other countries have already signed or implemented agreements with South Korea, Canada's farmers and food processors are currently at a major disadvantage to access this market. This disadvantage would widen further if Canada delays in ratifying this agreement.

I know that I am running out of time, but I would like to emphasize the great importance of this deal for all Canadian business, and particularly agriculture. With that, I welcome questions.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We support the bill as written, but there is a problem related to investor protection even though, fortunately, the time-limited clause can be cancelled with six months' notice.

I would like to know what it is about South Korean institutions and the country's legal system that is problematic enough to warrant this kind of investor protection clause.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member and his party are going to support the agreement. I certainly welcome that and would have hoped for nothing less.

When we are negotiating any deal, we all know that in negotiations—and they are exactly that, negotiations—we do not get everything we want. However, this deal would be a great improvement to the situation we have now, when it comes to trade.

If producers of Canada were not protected under this deal, simply put, this government would not sign it. Therefore, I feel quite confident, and I think he will too if he looks at the fine print, that this deal would have Canada protected and allow us to ship our products.

In my riding, I have everything from apples, to beef and pork. I have it all. In fact, it is the second-largest beef-producing riding in the country. This would be huge for our farmers across this country, and again, I thank him for his support when the time comes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do think the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound outlined a number of the positive aspects for the agriculture community in the agreement, and that is good.

He said in his remarks that our beef and hog producers have been disadvantaged since the U.S. signed its agreement with South Korea, and that is true. To put that into perspective, I have to ask where the government has been and why it has taken so long to negotiate this agreement. The talks were initiated in 2004, and we have seen the Americans start to displace us in the market.

I worked with the member when he was chair of the agriculture committee and was at a meeting where Secretary Vilsack was speaking. It really bothered me that he stood in front of the hall and bragged to the Americans about how they were displacing Canadian beef in the South Korean market. Therefore, it is a good thing that the agreement is signed.

I think it is critical that the House and the place down the hall get this done before January 1, because on January 1, if this implementation agreement is not passed here and in South Korea, we will fall another 2.5% tariff behind, which would really disadvantage our beef producers.

Therefore, I ask the member opposite this. Does he have any ideas on how we can be absolutely sure that the implementation agreement gets signed in both countries by January 1? That is the critical point now.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there was definitely a lot of support in there for this agreement. All I can ensure, as can he, is that I will, and I know this government will, do everything we can to see that this is done, and I feel confident that will happen.

I would urge him to do the same, follow with his words—and I am not going to doubt he will do that—urge all his colleagues, and urge the opposition across the way. This can be done in that time frame. I, for one, would be very disappointed if we, in the House, did not do our parts to see that this happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for sharing his time with me and for his presentation this afternoon.

On Monday, September 22, 2014, thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canadians witnessed the signature of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first bilateral FTA in the fast-growing and dynamic Asia-Pacific region. This is more proof that our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians.

South Korea is a key gateway to the wider Asia-Pacific region, offering strategic access to regional and global value chains. South Korea is the fourth largest economy in Asia, boasting a robust $1.3 trillion economy. It has a population of 50 million, with per capita GDP of more than $25,000, one of the highest in Asia, making it one of Asia's most lucrative, dynamic and advanced markets. It is home to many large multinational conglomerates, including now household names such as Samsung, Hyundai and LG. This landmark agreement is a pivotal step toward growing and deepening Canada's ties with this vibrant economy and the region as a whole.

South Korea is a priority market in the global markets action plan, or GMAP, Canada's blueprint for creating jobs and opportunities at home and abroad through trade and investment, the twin engines of economic growth. Under the GMAP, our government will concentrate its efforts on markets that hold the greatest promise for Canadian businesses, which include South Korea, and stands ready to harness Canada's diplomatic assets to support the pursuit of commercial success by Canadian companies abroad, particularly small and medium-sized Canadian enterprises.

To open new markets for Canadian businesses and create jobs and opportunities for hard-working Canadians, we have launched the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history. In less than seven years, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with 38 countries and is negotiating with many more.

Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment. This includes the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, with the European Union, which will be the most ambitious trade partnership that Canada has ever negotiated.

Canada is also actively pursuing a trade agreement with 11 other Asia-Pacific countries through the trans-Pacific partnership, or TPP, negotiations. These agreements would open new markets and create new business opportunities to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

South Korea has its own very active program of pursuing bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements. Aside from its agreement with Canada, it has signed FTAs with the United States and the European Union, in addition to eight other partners across the globe. It has also recently concluded an FTA with Australia. In light of South Korea's own ambitious trade agenda, there is an urgent need to implement the CKFTA as soon as possible to level the playing field for Canadian businesses and ensure they are able to compete in the South Korean market.

Canada and South Korea have a strong and robust bilateral trade and investment relationship. Two-way merchandise trade between the countries reached almost $11 billion in 2013, making South Korea Canada's seventh largest overall trading partner and third largest trading partner in Asia. South Korea's direct investments into Canada have climbed from $397 million in 2005 to $4.9 billion by the end of 2013, a more than twelvefold increase in less than a decade.

No government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. During 13 long years in government, the Liberals completely neglected trade, completing only three small 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.

Similarly, the NDP only has the core interests of its radical activist-group allies in mind, not those of hard-working Canadians. That is why, despite all evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the NDP is and always will be ideologically opposed to free trade.

Our government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness, which in turn adversely affect middle-class Canadian families.

The CKFTA is a comprehensive agreement that would eliminate tariffs and provide enhanced access and strong disciplines across all major areas of commerce. It would be a major boost to Canadian exporters looking for a foothold in the lucrative Asian market.

The agreement's most visible outcome is the ambitious obligation undertaken by Canada and South Korea to eliminate tariffs for all sectors, including textiles and apparel, chemicals and plastic, information and communication technology, aerospace, metals and minerals, as well as agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, and forestry and value-added wood products.

On the first day the agreement comes into force, over 88% of Canada's exports would be duty free, and over 99% would be duty free once the agreement is fully implemented. As average South Korean tariffs are three times higher than Canada's, 13.3% versus 4.3%, tariff elimination is absolutely critical for Canadian businesses exporting to the South Korean market.

For Canadian consumers, the elimination of tariffs under the agreement stands to reduce the cost of imported products and expand choices for them that are increasingly cost competitive.

This agreement would also strengthen the bilateral energy partnership, an area of significant potential for both our nations.

South Korea is already the world's second-largest importer of liquefied natural gas, LNG; fourth-largest importer of coal; and fifth-largest importer of crude oil. It is seeking to diversify its energy suppliers and improve its energy security.

Canada is a natural partner for South Korea. With some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, Canada is poised to become a large, stable, and reliable supplier of energy to Asia. By removing tariffs on Canadian oil and natural gas, this agreement would make Canadian LNG and petroleum products more competitive in South Korea and help create jobs and opportunities at home here in Canada.

The CKFTA would also provide enhanced market access for Canadian service suppliers in areas such as professional services, environmental services, and business services, and temporary entry commitments that are the most ambitious South Korea has agreed to in any of its FTAs.

The investment provisions in the CKFTA would provide a more predictable and rules-based climate, including investor protections, which would encourage increased investment flows between Canada and South Korea and expand the prospects for joint ventures.

The CKFTA also includes a range of provisions governing government procurement, intellectual property, telecommunication services, and electronic commerce, as well as substantive environment and labour provisions in dedicated chapters. It contains strong provisions to reduce or eliminate non-tariff measures that hinder market access for exporters and investors, backed up by fast and effective dispute settlement provisions.

Going forward, the CKFTA represents a firm commitment by both sides to grow and expand this important strategic relationship.

Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. It is even more so in what remain challenging times for the global economy. In these uncertain times, our prosperity depends on our ability to take advantage of economic opportunities in emerging markets.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would help Canada compete more effectively and thrive in the world economy.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound did not completely answer my question. I will turn to my colleague, the hon. Conservative member for Don Valley West, and come back to the issue of the investment protection clause included in the agreement.

I would like him to tell me whether the Government of Canada insisted it be included. If that is the case, I would like him to explain why it is in there. Did Canada push for it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the investment arrangements within the agreement are fully reciprocal. They would operate under the same terms that we would operate, and one of the pieces that is particularly unique in ensuring that there is fairness and reciprocity in our negotiation and in protecting investors on both sides of the equation is the accelerated dispute resolution provision. This would create a fast, efficient, and functionally inexpensive way of ensuring that we could have accelerated dispute resolution in place to resolve disputes as they arise and protect our investors across both sides of the ocean.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat fearful for the member that he has bought into the tremendous amount of spin that is coming out of the Prime Minister's office on this particular trade agreement. Let me give him a dose of reality with some facts.

Korea is the one that actually put itself on a road to signing trade agreements throughout the world, and that was done back in 2003. In 2004, Canada, under then prime minister Paul Martin, initiated interest and started the process. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter there was a change in government and the new government decided to drag its feet. Not only countries like Chile, United States, and the European Union, but other countries have actually already signed and implemented agreements with Korea. Canada, on the other hand, has been very negligent on the file.

My question for the member is this. Would he not acknowledge that, because of that negligence, there are certain industries, including the pork industry in my own province of Manitoba, that have lost out on opportunities because of the current government's lacklustre attitude in trying to get a trade agreement signed with Korea?

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

Mr. Speaker, I clearly cannot agree with the member opposite, as his positioning of this is entirely wrong.

It did begin in 2005 and it stalled in 2008. These agreements reached an impasse. I do not know if the member opposite has been involved in negotiations of any type, but clearly when in the middle of complex negotiations, it happens that one will reach these positions that are intractable and cause for impasse. It was rekindled in 2012.

I agree that lost time is lost productivity and lost performance and business. So today, with 38 free trade agreements signed by this government in 7 years, many more under way, and now this agreement coming to fruition, our government has clearly demonstrated leadership in bringing free trade opportunities to Canadians and businesses for more fruitful relationships with these countries. In this case, it would open up 50 million new consumers to Canadian small and medium-sized businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Don Valley West for his strong support of our ambitious trade agenda as a government. I will make a quick comment before my question. I find it quite ironic that my Liberal friend talks about spin when the simple fact is that, of all the market access negotiated in free trade agreements for Canada, almost 98% is due to the Conservative government. The 2.5% is something about which the member should not be bragging.

The member for Don Valley West is a strong champion for our automotive industry in Canada, and certainly it is important to my riding in Durham. Can he talk about how important this is, to ensure that our manufacturing lines in Ontario have access to as many markets as the production lines in the United States do?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is extremely relevant in this transaction, because the auto sector is the one that would be greatly affected on both sides of the ocean, both in Korea and in Canada.

Currently, about 88% of all vehicles manufactured here in Canada are manufactured for export. For Canadian companies manufacturing their product here in this country, we have to ensure that we are supporting open markets. Clearly the agreement would do that. We have funds like the automotive innovation fund, which encourages investment in this country for manufacturing purposes. I hope that in the case of this agreement we would have Korean companies investing in new plants and facilities to ensure that their products would be built here, both for the export market and for sale in North America.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Drummond, The Environment.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Today we are talking about Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. The NDP wants to strengthen trade ties between Canada and the Asia-Pacific region. We recognize that this is vital to Canada's prosperity in the 21st century. That being said, before signing off on anything, the NDP evaluates trade agreements according to important criteria. That is why it has often opposed these deals in the past.

We feel it is important that our potential partners believe in democracy, human rights and labour laws. They should have adequate environmental standards that are in line with Canadian values. These details are very important. If there are problems in these areas, we must ask our partners to take steps to meet those objectives. That is important.

South Korea is a democratic country but was under a dictatorship for a long time. Changes in a country's history do not happen overnight. The 1987 dictatorship did not disappear one day and it was all sunshine the next. It takes time to get used to living with our differences, which is why I am going to talk about a fundamental point.

South Korea was under a dictatorship until 1987, at which time it became a multi-party and dynamic democracy that built a labour movement. That does not mean that everything is going perfectly well, either, but still, wages are good and civil society is beginning to organize.

However, when we sign free trade agreements, we have to be aware of the true labour conditions in the other countries involved in the negotiations. We hope that they are like us in Canada, but that is not the reality. It is something else entirely.

As a matter of principle, the NDP does not want to sign free trade agreements with dictatorships or totalitarian regimes like China. The NDP expects that countries that sign free trade agreements with us uphold human rights and are environmentally aware. Above all, they must respect workers' rights. The NDP wants to negotiate with countries that share these same fundamental rights that are so important to Canadians.

Let us go back to South Korea and all the changes it went through. Having lived under a dictatorship myself, I can assure you that it takes time for meaningful change to occur within civil society and among those who held power for so long. It takes a long time for democracy to really take root and for real changes to emerge.

I am not talking only about changes to legislation, since constitutions can be changed and highly productive people can be put to work in the institutions. I am also talking about changes in the social conscience, not only among workers, but also among those who hold political power and those who hold economic power. That is very important.

The link between political and economic power should lead those people to adapt to a new vision. This does not happen overnight; it can take a generation before these changes really happen. People need to believe in the future and press on.

To further my research on unions, I went to Amnesty International. I learned that a lot of things are happening in South Korea, but I still thought that we should not expect that country to be as advanced as ours. After reading some documents, I learned that this year there was a strike at Samsung and the union leader, Yeom Ho-seok, who was 34 years old, took his own life in his car on May 17.

This union leader explained his actions in a letter: “I sacrifice myself because I cannot bear to see any longer the sacrifice and pain of others as well as the difficult situation of fellow union members”. We are not talking about 1987; we are talking about 2014.

Jamie Doucette, a lecturer in Human Geography at University of Manchester and an expert on labour and democratization in South Korea, explains that “Samsung's refusal to recognize itself as the employer of unionized workers conforms to a standard corporate practice in South Korea”.

That is why I am saying that we cannot expect miracles. I think our Canadian companies really have a duty to help not only the leaders of South Korean companies but also the country's political leaders to understand what the real values of workers and unions are. In that sense, Canada has a lot to offer.

We all know that South Korea has a very dynamic economy. Environmentally speaking, it has made real progress, which is a great thing. Its GDP is also very high.

However, the situation of its workers really worries me. We must and we can do better with these agreements. This should be Canada's trademark. We are capable of exporting these visions and ways of doing things. That costs nothing. All we need to do is share best practices.

I would like to go back in time a little. I am thinking about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that we signed back in 2008, but have discussed recently in Parliament.

I was invited to go to Colombia last summer along with a group of Canadian union members and so I went. I had an opportunity to visit the country, although I was accompanied by journalists. It does not matter. I was able to see how little respect some Canadian companies showed their Colombian workers and how they felt entitled to pollute, which they would never do here in Canada, and certainly not in the way they are doing in Colombia.

To conclude, we are going to support this agreement. However, I hope that we will take extra steps to ensure that workers' rights are upheld under these agreements.

We, as members of Parliament, are about to allow major Canadian companies to set up shop in other countries. However, these companies must act as true ambassadors of Canadian values and of respect for working conditions and human rights.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her wonderful speech and for the excellent presentation she gave on why we support this free trade agreement. However, it is very important to point out that we are not supporting it blindly.

This free trade agreement contains a new clause that we are concerned about. Under this clause, large corporations will be able to take legal action against the Canadian government if they feel their free trade rights have been violated. However, the rights of governments should take precedence.

Would my honourable colleague care to comment on that?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I completely agree with him.

Who are the sovereigns of a country? They are the citizens of that country. Companies should not be telling them what to do. That aspect of the bill is worrisome.

Since the negotiation of free trade agreements began, the sovereignty of people to make decisions about natural resources has been called into question. That is unacceptable.

That has to change because we are starting to give certain companies power that will have an impact on us, right now, and on our children's future. It is the Canadian government that will have to pay. That is unbelievable.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the second day of a truly groundbreaking parliamentary session where the New Democrats, after 40 years, look like they will stand in the House and support a trade agreement.

The NDP trade critic yesterday outlined the three criteria, in a very cogent speech in the House, on which the NDP judged these trade agreements.The first was democracy and respect for democracy. The second was strategic direction. He was not too clear on that. The third was terms that were satisfactory. However, in the hon. member's remarks she seems to contradict the NDP trade critic by saying that there is no respect for democracy, labour rights and that sort of thing.

The member for Windsor West and the member for Parkdale—High Park have spoken very critically of a deal with Korea.

Is she one of the members of the official opposition who does not agree with its overall position to support the deal and could she outline what parts of the three-pronged NDP tests she has issues with?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague quite understood what I said. We can all agree that this sort of thing will take time for a country that was once a dictatorship.

Korea has made great strides. This country survived for years under a system of oppression. We can make comparisons between Canada and Korea, but we are not the same. That is why we need to focus on that. It is true that there are unions in Korea and that is wonderful, but they are still weak compared to those in Canada.

What do the NDP and Canadians expect? We expect to share our way of doing things so that the quality of life of workers in other countries improves. That does not mean that they do not have unions. They do, and they also have legal strikes.

I am not contradicting my colleagues. I am simply providing additional information. What I am saying is that we cannot pretend that we are all the same. We have to understand each country's history. I believe that Canada can do more to improve working conditions. Canadian companies must not be allowed to profit from irregularities. On the contrary, Canada must set a good example for workers.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge privilege for me to be able to speak to Bill C-41. The New Democratic Party will be able to support the entire bill. Yes, the entire bill. However, when we get into the details, we will closely examine some aspects of it and will have suggestions for changes to improve the bill or, at the very least, consider potential renegotiations with South Korea on some aspects that could pose a problem.

I have spoken about the investment-protection clauses on a number of occasions since this debate started. The NDP is not the only party to oppose this type of clause. The main opposition party in the South Korean national assembly opposes it as well, which is wonderful news. Once again, despite my repeated questions, the members of the government party in this House unfortunately were not able to tell me—I cannot imagine that they were refusing to answer—whether this is a requirement of the Government of Canada or whether Korea wanted to have this type of clause.

That said, we can all agree on the heart of this debate, which is that the NDP supports this bill. This support is contingent on the status of this bill. It is at second reading and will go to the Standing Committee on International Trade to be studied and debated. Obviously, the NDP's support is very much related to the situation in South Korea. As the member for Honoré-Mercier so eloquently stated, the country now has much more solid democratic institutions. South Korea emerged from a rather repressive dictatorship in 1987. It has much freer legal, social and economic structures. Now there is freedom of speech and the union movement has gained support and legitimacy.

I was looking at some figures from the OECD. In South Korea, the overall unionization rate is around 10%, whereas in Canada it is around 26% or 27%. According to my research, unionization rates are much higher in big Korean corporations—around 40% in the 10 largest Korean corporations, compared to the overall unionization rate. That is good news, but as the member for Honoré-Mercier pointed out, that does not prevent these big corporations from using appalling tactics to suppress union activism. Unfortunately, these tactics led one union leader to commit suicide because of what he saw, what he shared and what he heard from the people he represented.

Fortunately, like Canada, Korea is evolving rapidly. Like my colleagues, I acknowledge that evolution, that march toward a future that we all believe will be much better. That being said, I was really very critical in previous debates on other bills related to other free trade agreements, such as the Canada-Honduras and Canada-Panama free trade proposals. I was really very critical of, among other things, the appearance of moral endorsement of countries plagued by corruption and crime as well as the inequality inherent in the negotiations. We can all agree that negotiations between Canada—a very rich country with some 35 million inhabitants—and very small countries—those with just a few million inhabitants and a per capita gross domestic product that is not in the same league as Canada's—can hardly be called negotiations between equals.

In these cases, we cannot say we negotiated on an equal footing. Nonetheless, with regard to the negotiations between South Korea and Canada, we are negotiating as equals, and that is excellent news.

I must say that it was an honour and a privilege to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade. Bilateral agreements are not as bad as multilateral negotiations where it is easy to leave out exceptional provisions, specific measures, and to be taken hostage by special interests, as we unfortunately see far too often in many negotiations between two countries. I know that this philosophy is widely shared by my NDP colleagues.

As I pointed out in the beginning of my speech, the current free trade agreement raises a number of important questions. I wonder how far Canada pushed for certain clauses or whether it was the Republic of Korea that imposed its will relative to other negotiations.

There was talk about access to government contracts, for instance, provincial and municipal government contracts as well as those associated with crown corporations. Fortunately, that is not part of the agreement, unlike the agreement between the European Union and Canada. Accordingly, we are supporting the free trade agreement.

As a result of what happened with the European Union, we hope that through the negotiations we will get to know all the aspects of this agreement and ultimately vote on it after reviewing what might be improved and offering suggestions.

I talked about protecting investors. Fortunately, we have a relatively open process in this agreement, compared with the much more opaque process we had for other free trade agreements. What is more, either party can withdraw with six months' notice, which is excellent news.

I will use my two minutes remaining to talk about the carelessness of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party—there is no denying it—when it comes to the choice of partners Canada negotiates with. My Liberal colleagues went to great pains to criticize the Conservatives for dragging out the negotiations for a free trade agreement between South Korea and Canada. However, they are mum on how the agreements with Colombia, Panama and Honduras were fast tracked.

Given the Conservatives' record, we should perhaps not be surprised by this discrepancy. The Conservative Party takes shortcuts and does not take the time to choose its partners. Furthermore, some very close friends of President Putin were not included in Canada's sanctions, which are completely warranted in light of the situation in Ukraine.

In closing, I will draw a parallel to my time on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Passing stringent laws, much like signing free trade agreements, is of little value if they are not supported by a strategy and by concrete, robust and consistent means.

That is the modus operandi of the Conservative government. All too often it has become stuck on adopting measures without thinking them through and without supporting their implementation; above all, they are stuck on what I would call a certain magical thinking. I hope that if we adopt this free trade agreement, the means will soon follow, and I hope that the Conservatives will walk the talk, because this is an extraordinary opportunity for both our countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, as I had said to his colleague, this is a transformative week in the House with the NDP supporting free trade for the first time. I would make note that just yesterday the head of the Unifor union called this deal a disaster from its standpoint, and the member raised some concerns with some of the labour provisions.

I note that the head of the Ontario Federation of Labour also suggested that the announcement of the NDP on minimum wages was really done to hide its support of free trade.

Therefore, have the New Democrats consulted with their supporters in organized labour in Canada in their consultations before making the decision to support this agreement and whether the minimum wage proposal was a concession in that regard, as Sid Ryan suggested just yesterday?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade for his question. The NDP approach in general consists of consulting all stakeholders party to a debate, negotiation or bill, which is not necessarily the government's approach. I have sat on three committees and I have seen the very strict selection criteria for witnesses, which is unfortunate. I find that deplorable.

Having said that, I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade that when it comes to unions, all democratic states allow for freedom of association. I was looking at OECD figures before giving my speech. In 2007, the rate of unionization in Canada was 27% and in the democratic state of Israel, it was 33%.

I would like to bring this figure to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to say to him that unions are partners of society and the economy, and that they are equal in value to any other partner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is very much aware, the Liberal Party has indicated its support for the proposed Korea-Canada free trade agreement.

Some concerns have been expressed over the last number of years relating to the automobile industry. It is an industry that is of vital importance to our country. It affects some provinces more than others, but it has interests throughout the country in its vitality and ongoing growth wherever possible.

It is great to see this agreement as we have been waiting for it for a number of years.

In certain other sectors we have fallen behind. I refer to my home province of Manitoba, for example, and the lost opportunities with relation to port sales. Could the member comment on this? Because of the government's inability to negotiate this as quickly as other jurisdictions, whether it be Chile, the U.S. or the European Union, there will be a cost in lost opportunities. Does the member have any concerns or thoughts that he would like to share with respect to those lost opportunities because of the government dragging its feet on this issue?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can certainly shift the topic of the debate to the costs associated with the delays in some rounds of negotiations. However, I would like to take my colleague down another path and ask him to consider the risks associated with blind adherence—for instance, adherence to an agreement whose terms we know nothing about, as is the case with the free trade agreement with the European Union.

Clearly, the Liberal Party has a long history of wilful blindness. Consider the purchase of four used, inoperative submarines, which we are still paying for to this day. When you get involved in those kinds of processes, you have to take full responsibility. I say “full” because haste is a real danger.

As for this free trade agreement, we must remember that the global conditions can be very difficult for a country like Canada. In the auto sector, there is no denying that competing countries like China and Brazil actively support their auto sectors to such a great extent that investment subsidies can reach as high as 60%; this is huge and very costly for everyone and it is preventing Canada from reaching its full potential.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East.

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government's top priority is jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. That is why we are working hard to open new markets to increase Canadian exports and investments in the world's most dynamic and fast-growing economies. This includes South Korea, an increasingly important country that is both a priority market and a natural partner for Canada.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first bilateral trade agreement with an Asian market, is projected to create thousands of jobs for Canadians by increasing Canada's GDP by $1.7 billion annually and our exports by about one-third over current levels.

The agreement is critical to re-establishing a level playing field for Canadian companies in the South Korean market, where major foreign competitors from the U.S. and the European Union currently benefit from preferential access because of their respective free trade agreements with South Korea.

The focus of my remarks today will be on the centrepiece of the agreement: the elimination of tariffs on virtually all trade between Canada and South Korea. Over 88% of Canada's exports would be duty free immediately and over 99% would be duty free once the agreement is fully implemented.

The potential benefits from such a huge amount of Canadian exports becoming duty free is why we need this agreement urgently. We need to restore our competitive position in the South Korean market, as I noted earlier.

The previous government ignored trade. While this Conservative government has been ambitious on behalf of Canadians, the Liberals offered only complacency. While the rest of the world moved forward, Liberals held Canadian enterprise back through their inattention, inaction, and incompetence.

Fortunately, Canadians have, for almost nine years now, chosen to have steadier, more visionary hands at the helm. We are, under this Prime Minister's leadership, repairing the damage from 13 years of neglect.

Over time, this agreement would result in the elimination of all South Korean tariffs on industrial goods, forestry and value-added wood products, and fish and seafood products. This is great news for workers in B.C., Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and my home province of Ontario, which needs every bit of good news on the economic front that it can find right now.

It would also eliminate the vast majority of South Korea's agricultural tariffs, including in priority areas for Canada, such as beef, pork, grains, pulses, oilseeds, vegetable oil, and processed foods. This would lead to substantial gains in these sectors, given that these are the areas most heavily protected in South Korea.

Allow me to go into detail on how tariff elimination would benefit Canadian exporters and workers in these industries and benefit the communities that depend upon them.

In 2012, 1.8 million Canadians were employed in the production and manufacture of industrial materials, which would include aerospace and rail goods, automobiles, information technology products, metals and minerals, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. If there is something that can be manufactured, chances are a Canadian is either producing it or working on ways to improve it.

With this agreement, over 96% of Canadian exports of industrial goods would be duty free immediately, more than 99% within five years, and the rest within 10 years.

I want to note the excellent results of particular interest and importance to Canadian exporters in such diverse fields as information and communications technology, aerospace, and rail goods. These are sectors in which South Korean tariffs would be eliminated immediately, creating new opportunities for companies in these sectors to expand their international business while at the same time creating jobs here at home. In the case of aerospace, over 80% of the sector's output is exported. This sector provides direct and indirect employment to 170,000 Canadians.

As well, there are very positive outcomes in the industrial machinery, chemicals, plastics, metals and minerals, pharmaceuticals, and textiles and apparel sectors, where most South Korean tariffs would be eliminated immediately and the rest within five years.

This would mean reduced barriers for these products in South Korea and an improved competitive position for Canadian exports. This is critical to industries such as chemicals and plastics, which export over half of their production abroad.

I would also note that South Korea is one of the world's largest energy importers, and Canada, of course, is a large and stable supplier.

While Canada does not currently export liquefied natural gas to South Korea, this agreement will result in the immediate elimination of South Korea's 3% tariff on LNG, thereby enhancing the prospects for energy exports to Asia from Canada's west coast.

I will now move on to forestry and value-added wood products, another industry that contributes substantially to Canada's economy. Under the CKFTA, 85% of our exports to South Korea would be duty free immediately, including pulp, paper, and some lumber products. Within three years of implementation, 98% of our exports in this sector will be duty free, and the rest will be duty free within five to 10 years. This will help our industry to diversify into Asian markets and to reduce its dependence on the U.S. market. It will also allow value-added wood product exporters in Ontario and B.C. to compete on an even footing with our competitors in the South Korean market.

I saved the best for last. From primary agriculture and processing to retail and food service, the agriculture and agri-food industry accounts for one in eight jobs in Canada and for 6.7% of Canada's GDP. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will result in significant benefits for Canadian producers and exporters through the elimination of South Korean tariffs on around 70% of our exports in the agricultural sector within five years and on 97% of our exports once the agreement is fully implemented.

This is particularly important for my area in southern Ontario, the Region of Waterloo, and in particular the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, which I am privileged to have been elected to serve three times now. We are blessed to live in a community where the 100-mile diet is a privilege, not a chore. We are home to Canada's largest year-round farmers' market.

Food processing is one of the largest employment sectors in my area. The farmers I represent will be pleased to know that for beef and pork, we have achieved tariff elimination over periods ranging from five to 15 years. This is the same tariff outcome for beef that the U.S. and Australia obtained in their respective FTAs with South Korea, and it will level the playing field among Canadian, U.S., and European exporters for Canada's top-traded pork lines.

This means that producers and exporters like Conestoga Meat Packers, a co-operative of 160 southern Ontario family farmers, can compete on an equal footing to provide the large and growing market in South Korea with high-quality Canadian meat products. In fact, when I learned that I would have the privilege of speaking to this topic today, I contacted Conestoga Meats directly to get a first-hand perspective on this trade agreement. Conestoga's president, Arnold Drung, states that this agreement will solidify more than 50 jobs at his plant alone. In fact, it is already investing in new equipment and technology that will enable it to ship fresh product to the Korean market. He concluded by saying, “Our congratulations to the Government of Canada on concluding this important agreement.”

This agreement is important to all Canadians farmers, not just pork producers. For other agricultural products, we will receive immediate duty-free access for key Canadian export interests such as wheat, frozen french fries, and fur skins. This agreement will also provide for tariff elimination over time or for duty-free within-quota volumes for a variety of other agricultural products, such as barley, malt, wheat flour, soybeans, canola oil, forages, pulses, blueberries, and many processed foods.

Overall, the tariff elimination package represents a very strong outcome for Canada, particularly given that South Korea's current tariffs are, on average, three times higher than ours. This agreement compares very favourably to what our competitors obtained in their agreements with South Korea.

Despite all the evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, there do remain special interests who told us free trade with the U.S. would put an end to our sovereignty, who then told us that NAFTA would bring economic ruin, and who made similar fearmongering statements about free trade with Europe.

The Liberals completely neglected trade and 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. The last time the Liberals talked about free trade was when they campaigned to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement. Of course that promise was ignored, as were their promises on child care, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, eliminating the GST, and protecting health care.

Stakeholders from across Canada, in all sectors, have called for this CKFTA to enter into force without delay to secure Canada's competitive position in the South Korean market.

We must pass this legislation quickly so Canadians can access the benefits and opportunities of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement as soon as possible.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very good speech in the House. However, I would like to talk to him about two things.

I do not know how many of our Conservative colleagues are talking about us being radical. I just want to point out that we support this agreement. We have important and essential values. We must absolutely do business with democracies, and the country's labour conditions must be good and decent, obviously.

Therefore, we support the bill. I want to ask a question that I think is a bit amusing. If we do not support it, what would the hon. member say about us? I am curious to hear his answer. Let us say that we do not support it; what would he say? Would he say that we are monsters or nightmares? However, we do support it. Is that clear for all the members opposite?

My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou brought up something very important. Signing agreements with democracies is all well and good, but moving forward requires that there be a plan. We are still stalled in my riding, meaning that every SME is criticizing the management of research and development funding. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, and it is still true now. I hear about it at dinners with business people. We cannot compete with Asia if we do not have strong research and development support. In Asia, they are obsessed with research and development, and new technology.

What does my colleague think about that aspect of the problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague must have been listening to a different speech, because I never used the term “radical”.

When I was preparing my speech and I found out I was in agreement with some of my colleagues in the NDP, I certainly thought I had better check my facts to make sure I was really on the right track.

To my knowledge, this is one of the first, if not the first free trade agreement the NDP has ever supported. It is great news, and I thank the NDP for that support.

Getting back to research and development, our government has shown, time and time again, that our investments in research and development and innovation are second to none.

When it comes to the agricultural sector, which I was referring to in my speech, the farmers in my area are not interested in going to the mailbox to get a cheque from the Government of Canada. What they want is the ability to compete on a level playing field.

Conestoga Meat Packers, which processes 4,000 hogs a day, is owned by the farmers. Farmers want us to invest in research and development that will help them to have traceability for their products as they are marketed overseas, and to assure their customers that they have the highest quality product that is available anywhere in the world.

It is our innovation, our research and development in the agricultural sector, that has helped them to do that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was nice to hear the member reference the 100-mile diet.

One of the sectors within the 100 miles of the riding that the member opposite represents is the auto sector. That is the one sector that is the most nervous, and worry continues to circle it as we talk about this trade deal.

We support this trade deal, but does the member opposite not realize that, by not supporting the auto sector as strongly as the government could have, the very industries he talks about in his riding may lose customers at home as auto workers may lose their jobs in a very fragile market?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this just shows the kind of fearmongering that was here when NAFTA was signed.

We know that over 80% of the cars we produce in this country are exported. To suggest that by signing this free trade agreement with Korea we would somehow put auto jobs in jeopardy is simply not factual.

We also have some very clear protections in this agreement, which are sometimes referred to as snapback protections. Our protections are much higher than those offered to the U.S. in the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement.

It is pretty clear that, in the negotiations to get this agreement in place, all the due diligence was done. Canada has done a great job of protecting the auto sector. By the way, the auto sector supports this free trade agreement. Across the areas I represent, the auto sector is supportive because it does recognize the many benefits to all of the other sectors, which will benefit all workers in Ontario.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today about the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, or CKFTA. This agreement is Canada's first FTA in Asia. It is a landmark agreement for Canada that would create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians.

The CKFTA also represents a watershed for the Canada-Korea bilateral relationship.

No government in Canada's history has been more committed to creating jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers, and their families. Deepening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world, like South Korea, is key to these efforts.

Trade between Canada and South Korea is already significant, with two-way merchandise goods of just under $11 billion last year and two-way investment approaching $6 billion.

The agreement is expected to significantly boost bilateral commerce and, in turn, economic growth in both countries. On our side, the projection is that the CKFTA would increase Canada's GDP by $1.7 billion annually and our exports by about one-third over current levels. Those are significant numbers.

Most importantly, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would restore a level playing field for Canadian companies in the South Korean market, where foreign competitors including the U.S. and the EU are already enjoying preferential access due to their respective FTAs with South Korea. For Canada this was a crucial consideration as we have seen our exports to South Korea fall sharply, particularly in the wake of the Korea-U.S. deal that was implemented in 2012.

The enhanced market access and regulatory commitments would be on par with the best treatment provided to any foreign companies, including from the U.S. and the EU.

Turning to investment, while Canada and South Korea enjoy a well-established relationship, there is considerable scope for expansion above current levels—about $5 billion in South Korean investment in Canada and $534 million in Canadian investment in South Korea.

Canada benefits from greater foreign direct investment. Canadian foreign direct investment in South Korea would improve our access to South Korean markets, technology, and expertise and enhance the competitiveness of Canadian firms in Asia.

Greater South Korean investment in Canada would stimulate economic growth and job creation here at home, providing new technologies and increased competition in the Canadian marketplace, ultimately benefiting Canadian consumers. In addition to financial services, which I mentioned, key sectors that stand to benefit from the agreement include automotive parts, transportation, and telecommunications.

Yet despite all the evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the NDP, together with its activist-group allies, is and always will be ideologically opposed to trade.

Just as bad are the Liberals who, during 13 years in power, 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. The last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade, they campaigned to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The investment chapter of the CKFTA provides strong disciplines against discriminatory treatment as well as protection from expropriation and access to independent investor-state dispute settlement.

These and other provisions would put Canadian investors on a level playing field with their competitors in South Korea and provide investors from both countries with greater certainty and transparency and protection for their investments, while preserving the full right of governments to regulate in the public interest.

Canada has also maintained its ability to review foreign investments under the Investment Canada Act, and decisions made under the ICA could not be challenged under the agreement's dispute settlement provisions.

In the area of government procurement, now a $100 billion-plus market in South Korea, the FTA would give Canadian suppliers access to procurement by South Korean central government entities for contracts valued above $100,000. This would put Canadian suppliers on an equal footing with U.S. competitors and in a more advantageous position relative to key competitors like Japan and the EU.

Strong intellectual property rights provided for in this agreement would complement access to the South Korean market for Canadians who develop and market innovative and creative products. New protection for geographical indications “Canadian whiskey” and “Canadian rye whiskey” would secure the national brand recognition for Canadian distillers in the South Korean market.

The intellectual property outcomes would also be also covered by the FTA's dispute settlement procedure, which would give Canadian copyright, patent, and trademark owners an additional layer of protection in the South Korean market.

Our Conservative government understands the importance of trade to our economy. It represents one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for 64% of our country's annual income. We are proud of our record on trade because of the benefits trade brings to Canadians in all regions of our country and in all industries.

To put it simply, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a historic initiative that would 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, particularly small and medium enterprises, as well as investors, workers, and consumers.

Canadian stakeholders from across Canada have called for the CKFTA to enter into force without delay to secure Canada's competitive position in the South Korean market. We must pass this legislation to implement the CKFTA so that Canadians can access the benefits and opportunities of this agreement as soon as possible.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my question for my Conservative colleague: Canadian exporters have lost 30% of the market since 2012, when the United States and the European Union implemented free trade agreements with South Korea. The two nations gained preferential access for their companies. Why was the government so slow to act, and why did it end up with an agreement that is not as good as the one that our other two economic partners got?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague looked closely at the agreements between South Korea and the EU and the U.S., he would find that our agreement is in fact much better in terms of all the different aspects of the duties and implementation.

On the implementation, as my colleague said previously, these negotiations take time. At the same time, we have been negotiating with Europe as well as India and a number of other deals, and so this agreement took its place in priority to be completed.

We are here now, we are at the place where the agreement is ready. We just need to ratify it here and get on with it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the question that was just posed.

Since the current Prime Minister was first elected, this file has been on his desk. The government had the opportunity to move forward in negotiations with South Korea, but chose to make it low profile in terms of trade. There were other trade agreements the government put a higher priority on, whether they were with Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, or other countries.

Why does the member believe that the current Prime Minister put such a low priority on South Korea, considering the other countries that I have referenced, which I will reference again when I get the opportunity to speak? Why was there such a low priority on South Korea?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague thinks this was put on a low priority, that is his perspective, not ours on this side.

We have been working diligently with the negotiators to make sure the deal was acceptable to us and beneficial for Canadians. All Canadians across every province of this country would benefit from this. The negotiations went on to achieve that, and that was the time it took to actually get it here to be ratified.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while Korea obviously has a much stronger democracy and human rights record than countries the government has signed agreements with, such as Honduras, New Democrats are still opposed to the investor state provisions in this agreement. However, unlike the Canada-China FIPA agreement, which ties the government's hands for 31 years, this agreement can be renegotiated or cancelled after six months. Therefore, we see that as a positive thing because we disagree with the investor rights provisions of this agreement.

My question for the member opposite is this. Considering that the Canadian government did not get the same protections that the U.S. was able to secure, what is the government going to do to ensure that Canada's auto industry can benefit from this agreement?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments on the agreement and I appreciate her support for the bill.

Certainly, there are provisions in the agreement to support the auto industry. They are mainly to do with the auto parts that are involved. This agreement would allow them to be manufactured in Canada, hopefully, at some point and benefit the workers here. Therefore, this is a positive statement in terms of Canada and Korea with regard to the auto industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to investor state dispute settlements. I think my colleague mentioned that it would put both investors at the same level. A couple of states, even Germany, just talked about the Canada-EU trade deal, saying that these kinds of dispute settlements are not beneficial for the people and the state.

I am wondering what makes it so important in every single trade deal the government has negotiated to include dispute settlement in its basic principles. What is it that makes it so important for Canada to include a dispute settlement agreement in every single one of the trade deals it has negotiated?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague. Clearly, in any agreement there are going to be disputes. There are interpretations of the text in a particular field or segment of the marketplace and clearly those differences need to be resolved. That is why every deal has a dispute settlement process. This one in particular, I believe, is one of the better dispute settlement processes, which allows disputes to be settled quicker than in some of the other agreements.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who will be next up, know that we only have 10 minutes remaining in the time allowed for government orders today. He may be intending to go longer than that and if so, he will have time remaining when the House next resumes debate on the question. I will give him a signal in the usual course, a couple of minutes before the end of government orders at 5:30 p.m.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the heads up on that. I will probably have to continue tomorrow. Fortunately, I will be here tomorrow.

This is an interesting issue, a very important issue to debate, and it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the bill.

I like to think the Liberal Party has been very consistent over the last number of decades in regard to the importance of trade. Canada is a trading nation. We are very dependent on our exportation and importation, but it is our exportation that has really enabled us to have the type of lifestyle we have in comparison to any other country in the world. We need to trade with other nations. With this particular agreement, I was quite encouraged with New Democrats recently making a decision, and it is a somewhat historic decision, to support a trade deal, so I commend them on that.

Having said that, over the decades we have been very supportive because we recognize the immense and tremendous value that trade has for each and every one of us, no matter what region of the country we live in. Finding where we can assist and help facilitate that trade is something that is very important for us. In the last couple of decades, there has been a movement toward signing and trying to accomplish trade agreements between different nations. Ultimately, this is in Canada's best interest. It is one of the reasons we take this file very seriously. We want to support, in principle, the government moving forward and signing a trade agreement.

Having said that, I would suggest the Conservatives on the other hand have been a little boastful in the wrong places. I am always amazed by every Conservative who speaks to this particular trade agreement, one would think there is a direct funnel or email blast that goes out to every Conservative member of Parliament and whoever does their speeches, which comes directly from the Prime Minister's Office, because they are so consistent with what the Prime Minister wants them to say about this particular agreement, trade in general, jobs in general. There is no variation. This is because the Prime Minister's Office has such a tight grip on the Conservative members. I am sure they must realize that often what they are talking about is simply not true. One would think that they would not say it if they knew it was not true, but they go ahead and say it anyway. It is almost as if someone from the PMO is monitoring what is being said inside the chamber, and the member gets a little star beside their name if their speech contains one of those PMO spin points. It is truly amazing.

I have asked the question on several occasions specifically in regard to the Korean deal. The Conservatives like to stand on a pedestal and say they are the first, or they have accomplished something that the Liberals could not and how wonderful they are, “Please assist us in patting ourselves on the back for a job well done”. That is the type of attitude.

Let us put it into a proper perspective for all those backbenchers, the minions that receive that bulk email blast that comes directly from the Prime Minister's Office. This is what is not in that email. I would suggest they might want to listen to it.

It was back in 2003 that Korea, not Canada, made the decision that they wanted to progressively pursue trade agreements with other nations.

[An hon. member]

The Liberals should have done that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member from across the aisle heckles that the Liberals should have acted on it. My colleague from Montreal is right, we did.

Paul Martin acted on it within the year. Within the year, we had action being taken by the Paul Martin government, because the Liberals recognized it, as we had in the past. It is not unique. When we talk about the other countries, whether it is Honduras, and I made reference to El Salvador, those are all agreements. Yes, the Conservatives did sign on the line, but they were actually initiated under Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien. However, the Conservatives will still take the credit. That is fine; they did sign them.

Getting back to Korea, in 2003, Korea had this ambitious road that it wanted to go on in terms of free trade agreements. The Paul Martin government acted on it right away. What did the current Prime Minister do with it? He did not even put it on the back burner. He took it completely off the stove. He did nothing on the file. It sat for years. Then, all of a sudden, the United States signed up. The European Union signed up with Korea. Now, all of a sudden, we have a government that says, “No, no no. We are negotiating this agreement and we want to have a free trade agreement with Korea”. It is somewhat late to get a little anxious.

What has happened because the government fell asleep on the job? It is not only the U.S. and the European Union. Even countries like Chile and Peru beat Canada to the punch, and we have a huge vested interest.

I come from the province of Manitoba, where the pork industry is a very important industry. I can tell members that pork sales have been lost because of the Conservative government's incompetence and inability to be able to come up with an agreement with South Korea in a more timely fashion—

[An hon. member]

The hog farm moratorium.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hog moratorium from the provincial NDP did have an impact, too. I will acknowledge that.

Having said that, there could have been more pork sales from Manitoba to Korea, but because countries like the U.S. beat Canada to it, because the Prime Minister made it such a low priority, many of my pork producers and manufacturers in Manitoba have lost out. This is because of the Conservative government and its inability to recognize the important value of having this as a higher priority.

That is the reason I put it into a question to a number of Conservative members who stood up. Before they start patting themselves on the back, they should fire back a reply email to the Prime Minister's Office and ask why they waited. Why did we take so long? How did we allow countries such as Chile and Peru, the European Union and the U.S. to beat us in coming up with a free trade agreement with South Korea? That is important.

What about trade as a whole? We want to talk about falling asleep at the switch in terms of one agreement. Imagine, if members will, a graph. Under that graph, we have Jean Chrétien and the Liberals and Paul Martin and the Liberals for 13 years. We have this graph at zero, where we have a trade surplus on the top of that graph. That is where will find Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and the Liberal governments during the 1990s and all the way up. That is when we had the trade surpluses.

What do members think happened when the current Prime Minister took office? It is a sad story. It plummeted down. We went below that centre point and we have had a huge trade deficit. The Conservatives took a surplus in trade and turned it into a deficit.

What does that mean for the middle class today in Canada? It means that thousands upon thousands of jobs have been lost because the Conservative government did not understand the file on trade. It might like to talk about trade as if it is the great champion of trade, but if we take a look at the facts, they will clearly demonstrate that there is only one party in the House of Commons that understands international trade, and that is the Liberal Party.

The sooner the Conservatives realize that, the sooner they should be coming over to us and asking for good ideas, and starting to act on our ideas. That will result in more trade.

I will be able to continue tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North will have 10 minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

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 September 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to a bill dealing with free trade. The Liberal Party, traditionally through decades, has been fairly clear in terms of recognizing the value of world trade. The Liberal Party does not fear having trade agreements. In fact, we have been advocating and are very supportive of the movement toward additional agreements. We see the value in the sense that Canada is very much a trading nation. We are very dependent on trade. Trade equals jobs here in Canada. It is important to our lifestyle. The way we live here is dramatically affected by the amount of trade that we have throughout the world.

Liberal governments in the past have demonstrated very clearly that we understand the trade file. In fact, going back to the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin era, we find that we consistently had trade surpluses. This is something that is highly achievable if the government understands the complexities of the whole file of trade. This is something that the current government has been somewhat challenged on. Yes, the Conservatives talk about free trade agreements and they have entered into some free trade agreements, but where they have been found wanting is in the area of overall trade. When it comes to overall trade, we will find that since this Prime Minister has become Prime Minister, we have been going down from the original high of billions of dollars in trade surplus to where we have seen billions of dollars in trade deficit.

That is important because at the end of the day a healthy trade surplus means more jobs for Canadians. It means that our middle class is going to be doing that much better economically. On the one hand, we recognize the value of entering into free trade agreements, but on the other hand we want to emphasize to the Conservatives that they are not doing their jobs when it comes to overall trade for our country. This is where the government really needs to improve. Regarding our manufacturing industry, one only needs to look at the devastation in Ontario in terms of our manufacturing jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost because the current government has been asleep at the switch and not addressing the needs of our manufacturing industry, not only in the province of Ontario but in other areas also.

Today, we talk about the free trade agreement with Korea. The Conservatives like to pat themselves on the back, saying how wonderful they are for getting this free trade agreement with Korea. The reality is that Korea has been attempting to get free trade agreements with countries around the world since about 2003. Shortly after the Koreans initiated that bold initiative of wanting more free trade agreements, Paul Martin expressed an interest in Canada being a part of that free trade initiative by Korea. In 2004, the negotiations actually began. Looking at what Korea has been able to accomplish, we see it has agreements in place with several nations, including the European Union, the United States and smaller nations like Chile, and I believe, Peru, a number of nations.

Canada, on the other hand has been asleep again at the switch and there has been a significant cost. I have referred to it in the past and I will reinforce it this morning. The pork industry in the province of Manitoba could have had more pork sales to Korea had the government acted in a more prompt fashion, or had it followed the lead of Paul Martin in 2003-04.

At the end of the day, that is just one industry, albeit an industry I am very proud of in Manitoba because of the jobs that have been generated, whether in Brandon, Winnipeg, or rural communities, through pork production. Some of the huge pork farms that are out there contribute good, strong, valuable jobs to our economy. There is no doubt this free trade agreement would enhance certain industries in Canada, and Liberals look forward to that. However, there should be no doubt that the government was not doing its job by allowing other countries to move forward, and in essence, take a bit of the share away from what Canada could have had if the government had been a little more aggressive on this file.

The government talks a lot about the European Union agreement. The Liberal Party was again supportive of going forward with a trade agreement with the European Union.

It was interesting that when the president of Ukraine addressed the House of Commons, one of the things he made reference to was the need to have a free trade agreement with Ukraine. When one thinks about it, Ukraine is moving rapidly toward freer trade association with the European Union, yet Canada seems to be putting that issue on a back burner. Liberals would ultimately argue that there is merit for us to be looking at a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

What about other Asian countries? A few years ago, I would have been standing in my place and talking about the Philippines. The Philippines is a beautiful, wonderful country. Today, we continue to be very dependent on the Philippines for immigration. Tens of thousands of people come to Canada from the Philippines every year and we have benefited immensely, economically, socially and more, because of immigration from the Philippines.

Why not take advantage of this relationship with the Philippines and look at other ways, outside of immigration, to expand relations between the Philippines and Canada? We should look at trade. There is so much more that we could be doing on the trade file and again we see the government falling short on a number of occasions.

I was on a panel with the New Democrats and Conservatives and we were talking about trade. The NDP seemed to be of the opinion that they have supported trade agreements in the past. The reality is that the New Democratic Party is very different when it comes to world trade. It seems to be willing nowadays to change. For the first time, it appears it might vote in favour of this legislation.

I have challenged New Democrats in the past and I will do it again because they still like to say that they supported other free trade agreements, in particular the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. New Democrats should review some of the comments they made about the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement.

It is fair to say that there has not been a day inside the House of Commons where New Democrats have stood in their places and voted for a free trade agreement. If I am wrong, I challenge any New Democrat to stand in his or her place when it is time to ask questions and tell me the date so that we can look up in Hansard when New Democrats voted in favour of a trade agreement. There is always hope. This could be the first agreement that they vote in favour of.

The point is that we in the Liberal Party have recognized the value of free trade. We hear lots of words from the Conservatives, but they suffer in terms of tangible action. Yes, agreements have been signed, but let us recognize the fact that they have not been all that timely in terms of their announcements, and so forth. Many of the agreements we have today are there because they were initiated by the former Liberal government.

There is lots of room of improvement, both for the Conservatives and I would even suggest for the New Democrats, on this particular file.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Naturally, we like to talk about the NDP's position on free trade agreements. Unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals, we prefer to look at the agreement itself to see if it has any benefits. In our speeches, we have said that we have three principles and that we rationally analyze the merits of each agreement. I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks of this approach, of analyzing agreements before supporting them. Does he think that is a good way to do things?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, the New Democrats have been consistent on that particular point.

The New Democrats say they would like to be able to see the details, analyze, and so forth. I have been inside the chamber and I hear that all the time from them. However, in fairness to the Liberals, the New Democrats have to acknowledge that as much as they like to see the details and do the analyzing, the fact remains that they have never, ever stood in their place inside the House of Commons and voted in favour of a free trade agreement. That is the reality.

No members of the NDP caucus can actually stand in their place and say that they stood and voted in favour of free trade deal x. We know that for a fact.

The New Democrats can say that as a political party they analyze and look at agreements, but the reality is that at their very core the New Democrats just do not believe in it for whatever reason.

This is where the Liberals differ from the New Democrats. We recognize the world for what it is, and it is not that large a place. We need to have trade. Canada is dependent on world trade. The Liberals have delivered on trade with multi-billion dollars in trade surplus, which has generated tens of thousands of jobs. For 20% of the people employed today, it is because of trade.

The Liberal Party recognizes the value of trade. The New Democrats have never done that. That is something—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the Liberals are on side with this trade agreement. It is really unfortunate that they did not get any done during their 13 years in office.

The member spoke about issues related to Manitoba. We know that, between 2010 and 2012, the average annual exports for Manitoba were something over $106 million. Examples of tariffs that would be removed are wheat, pork and most pork-processed products, rye and rye seed, oats and oat seed, kidney beans, potatoes, and pig fats.

I wonder if the member could talk about the benefits that would come to his province of Manitoba when we get this free trade agreement signed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could indicate to the Conservative member that—had the Conservatives done their homework—back in 2003 when Korea approached the world and said it wanted free trade agreements, Paul Martin's Liberal government was one of the first governments to actually act upon what Korea had initiated.

The current government sat for over decade, doing nothing. I should say virtually a decade. It waited until 2013 or 2014 to actually get into serious negotiations. As a result, countries like the United States, the European Union, I believe Peru, and definitely Chile beat us to it.

The member made reference to Manitoba, which lost opportunities for further increased trade with Korea in industries like our pork industry, because the Conservatives did not aggressively pursue a free trade agreement with Korea in a more timely fashion.

If the member wants to compare administrations, I would suggest that all she needs to do is take a good look at and analyze the free trade agreement with Korea, compare what the Liberals did, acting within 18 months of the desire to achieve the agreement, with the government taking over 6 years to even come to the table in a serious way to get an agreement.

I would suggest that the government has a lot of room for improvement in terms of negotiations with other world countries.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member went on and on about the New Democrats not standing in this place and not voting for an agreement, and he challenged us to prove him wrong. I have the Journals from Monday, March 5, 2012, and I would like to table this document showing the New Democrats stood in the House and voted in favour of the Canada-Jordan agreement at second reading. Where he is confusing it is that, at third reading, we let that agreement go by a voice vote, which happens all the time in the House. As a matter of fact, we understand that the Liberals have sent a request to New Democrats to allow the South Korea agreement to pass by a voice vote.

The hypocrisy and the inaccuracy of the Liberal Party is again breathtaking. I would ask for unanimous consent to table this document in the House, so that the member will once and for all be quiet and no longer state that the New Democrats have not stood in the House and voted for the Jordan agreement, because we did.

Moreover, maybe he can answer a question. Besides the Liberals not supporting the free trade agreement in the 1980s—he prattles on and on about how the Liberals have always supported free trade, but Canadians remember they did not—the Liberal trade critic has said this about CETA:

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

Now is that not a classic description of the Liberal Party to support something without ever reading it, or—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I think the member is moving beyond the request for unanimous consent, into debate. Does the member have unanimous consent to table the document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is no unanimous consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend from Winnipeg North about an aspect that is often confused with trade agreements but has nothing to do with liberalizing trade and has everything to do with putting foreign corporations in a superior position to domestic government, and those are what are referred to generally as investor state agreements. As the member may know, the Green Party opposes investor state agreements because, by their very definition, they are anti-democratic.

I know there are some concerns within the Liberal Party, but it seems members are generally in favour of investor state agreements, and I wanted to ask my friend from Winnipeg North if there are any limitations on Liberal Party support for investor state agreements such as the Canada-Korea agreement we have before us now?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure of the terminology of investor state agreements that the member is referring to. I will take her at face value. Obviously in any sort of an agreement there are always certain aspects that raise concerns. What we are talking about is the overall principle of having free trade agreements, and the benefits to Canadians as a whole have been, generally speaking, very positive.

There are always going to be concerns. When I think of the Korea agreement, for example, one of the biggest concerns that I and members of my caucus have is in regard to the automobile industry. We are very sensitive to that industry and the needs of that industry. This is an industry where, again, through time, we have seen very progressive, liberally minded prime ministers talk about ways in which we can expand that industry and complement it.

Whenever there is a trade agreement, one of the more responsible things to do is to look at where and how that agreement would impact real jobs here. For example, in the Korea agreement, part of the concern I have, and I know many of my colleagues share it, is the automobile industry. When we talked about the European Union agreement, I raised the issue of the impact on cheese sales. There are always going to be different aspects of an agreement, but in general I believe that free trade agreements are a positive thing and we have to recognize that in principle.

As for the point of order from my New Democratic Party colleague, this is the first time in all the months or years of my challenging the NDP that they have actually suggested a date. I look forward to doing the follow-up and I will look into that date. I would be shocked to find that all the members of the New Democratic caucus actually voted in favour of that agreement. However, I will wait and do a little research on that date. I was encouraged. This is the first time in which an NDP member has actually stood and declared a date, but I would still be surprised if every member of the New Democratic caucus actually voted in favour of a free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to rise in the House. This morning I rise to speak on this historic free trade agreement between Canada and Korea.

I am delighted to be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, with whom I have had the opportunity to be on the trade committee for the last eight and a half years. He used to be the parliamentary secretary to the trade committee as well, and so we have a good working relationship. He also has a thorough understanding of the importance of this agreement for not only his constituents but all Canadians.

I want to touch on some of the aspects of this free trade agreement and how it would strengthen our trade and investment ties across the Pacific.

This agreement would increase the prosperity of both countries and 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.

I do not think members will find any government or any prime minister in Canadian history who better understands the importance of trade to our economy. Trade represents one in five jobs and accounts for approximately 60% of our country's annual income. We also 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.

As I said, no government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of new 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.

I would also like to thank the opposition parties for their understanding and support of why it is important to ratify this agreement quickly and have it implemented by January 1, 2015.

I worked together with my honourable colleague across the aisle, the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the NDP official trade critic, who stated last week in this House that:

This agreement offers the opportunity for Canadian producers and exporters to increase trade with a modern democratic country with a high-income complementary economy.

He went on to say that:

It will level the playing field for Canadian exporters, who can compete with the best in the world....

Finally, he said:

There is no doubt that Korea is both a significant and a strategic economic partner for Canada.

I could not agree more, and in that regard I would like to highlight the key elements of our trade strategy for Asia and South Korea.

The economic potential of Asia is immense, with a constantly evolving political transformation and a monumental demographic shift. Asia is important to Canada because it offers new opportunities to expand Canada's economic prosperity.

The importance of this agreement is that it would be the gateway to the Asia-Pacific, which has a population of 50 million-plus. This agreement would open the doors. That is why our government has taken such a rigorous and strategic approach to trade with Asia.

My hon. colleague, the Minister of International Trade, has travelled numerous times to various parts of Asia, including the conclusion of this agreement with South Korea and the pursuit of agreements with India and Japan. He will be leading a delegation to India next month. These agreements would lead to increased trade and investment, enhancing Canadian prosperity for generations to come.

Investment is a key driving force for economic growth and competitiveness in Canada. Canadian companies that invest overseas can expand their client base significantly and bring capital back into Canada, which can create jobs. Foreign companies that invest in Canada create jobs as well, boost our economy, and contribute to economic growth that benefits all Canadians.

While Canada and South Korea enjoy a strong investment relationship, ample scope remains for further growth in both directions.

South Korea's direct investments into Canada have risen from $397 million in 2005 up to $4.9 billion by the end of 2013. South Korea is the twelfth-largest investor country in Canada and the fourth from Asia.

South Korea is one of the world's great science and technology powerhouses. I am very interested in innovation and technology, and I had a chance to visit Taiwan a couple of times, as well as Korea, earlier this year.

South Korea has one of the highest expenditures on research and development, R & D, as a share of GDP among OECD countries, spending 4% of GDP. While most private sector R & D takes place domestically, South Korean companies have begun investing in research centres overseas, including Samsung in my home province of British Columbia. Others are becoming more active in utilizing overseas R & D staff and resources.

With this agreement's investment-related provisions and Canada's world-leading, cost-effective R & D environment, Canada would become an even more attractive destination for South Korean R & D investment.

Other examples of South Korean companies' continued interest in Canada are not hard to find. KOGAS, South Korea's national gas company, has already invested heavily in a Canadian LNG project.

My colleague across the way will be interested in knowing that Green Cross, a South Korean biopharmaceutical company, will be opening a new company, a manufacturing facility in Montreal, as it breaks into the North American market. For these companies and many more, Canada is the destination of choice.

Something that is near and dear to the constituents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country and to wine lovers across Canada is also something that is very appealing to the palate of the people of South Korea, and that is our great Canadian icewine.

As I alluded to, I had the opportunity and the honour of travelling with the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade on March 11 to Seoul, Korea, for the signing of the free trade agreement with President Park. It was an historic moment and an incredible experience. At Blue House, President Park's house, we were able to enjoy a toast of Canadian icewine, which was the icing on the cake.

A champion of the Canadian wine institute is the president, hard-working Dan Paszkowski, who indicated:

The Canadian wine industry is pleased to support the Government of Canada in its work to finalize negotiations for the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. South Korea is an important market for Canadian wine producers, as evidenced by the significant growth in the value of Canadian icewine exports, which increased nearly 25 percent between 2012 and 2013. With a successful FTA, the Canadian wine industry anticipates even stronger export growth in the coming years.

I recently spoke with Dan, who said that about 95% of the market right now is the export of icewine to South Korea, but there is a huge potential for other products once the South Korean community starts to taste our product. Something of interest is that the highest price point for red wine is South Korea. These are great things to raise our glasses and cheer about in the future with this agreement.

In other investments abroad, Canadian direct investment in South Korea has fluctuated over the years. We have seen an upward trend in recent years. Specifically, at the end of 2013, Canadian investment stock in South Korea was at $534 million, up from $390 million in 2012.

Canadian companies continue to show increased interest in investing in South Korea. Major Canadian companies such as Magna International, Bombardier—whose facility in South Korea and we had an opportunity to tour with the Prime Minister—and Pharmascience have already invested in South Korea, and more investments and partnerships are on the horizon. Just this past May, the clothing brand Joe Fresh announced it would open its first store outside of North America in Seoul, with plans to open nine more retail outlets in the South Korean capital by the end of the year.

This agreement will level the playing field for Canadian companies in the South Korean market, which we all agree is important. Canadian businesses can compete with the world when they are on a level playing field.

The agreement sets out transparent and predictable rules, something also very important for businesses. They want stability, predictability, and transparency.

The agreement will ensure that Canadian businesses in South Korea will be treated no less favourably than South Korean businesses. It will protect Canadian businesses from discriminatory treatment and provides access to an independent international investor state dispute settlement mechanism. The same rules will apply to South Koreans investing in Canada, further increasing the attractiveness of Canada as an investment destination. I do not think anybody would disagree with each country being treated the same way, respectfully and with the same rules. These rules have been a standard feature of Canada's comprehensive free trade agreements since NAFTA and have been shown time and time again to be in our national interest.

For Canadian companies that invest abroad, there is no substitute for being on site where their clients are. Canadian companies that invest in South Korea will now find it easier to have their professionals on site in South Korea. The agreement will provide new preferential access for professionals from both Canada and South Korea and will facilitate greater transparency and predictability for the movement of businesspersons between the two countries.

Our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. 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.

The global market is shifting. More companies are looking to Asia for growth. The South Korean market provides a landmark opportunity for growth in neighbouring markets in Asia, Japan, and China. This agreement will provide fair access to the whole South Korean market and ensure continued growth for Canada.

Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy, and it is even more so in what remain challenging times for the global economy. 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 regions around the world.

I would ask for a quick ratification of this agreement by all parties.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has an agreement with Korea, a country that respects human rights. For example, the agreement will help improve working conditions in a number of sectors, including the aerospace industry.

In Canada, manufacturers are closing their doors. Companies are trying to extract minerals from the earth, but sooner or later, there will be none left.

In addition to the agreement that will improve things for the aerospace industry, does the government plan to do anything to ensure that the industries of the future—which create good unionized jobs—can grow and diversify our economy so that it does not depend solely on natural resources?

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

Mr. Speaker, aerospace is something that is near and dear to my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. Kelowna Flightcraft is the largest private employer in my riding. Aerospace and aviation, with their innovation and technology, are sectors that are very important to Canadian communities across the country.

Canadian companies are leading the way. Jim Quick, the president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, said:

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 South Korean market, which is especially important given the considerable growth the aerospace industry will see in the Asia-Pacific region in coming years. We congratulate the Government of Canada on this achievement, and thank its representatives for their ongoing commitment to boosting Canadian competitiveness in international markets.

As we can see, the aerospace industry is very supportive of this agreement. It would benefit all of us across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his great speech outlining many of the benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

All of us in the House know that during the 12 months following the Korea-U.S. agreement, our exports to Korea dropped dramatically. One of the sectors that was impacted most severely was the agricultural sector. In fact, in Ontario, there are current tariffs on pulses of 607% and of 30% on pork.

In my riding one of the producers, which is co-operatively owned and produces processed pork, knows that its exports stand to rise dramatically with the signing of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I am sure that if my colleague had had more time, he would have outlined many of the other agricultural areas in British Columbia that would benefit as well from the signing of this agreement. Could he take a few minutes to outline some of those benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question and for his hard work for his constituents in his riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, another innovation centre in our country.

This agreement is very important for agriculture in British Columbia specifically. My riding has vineyards, orchards, and a variety of different crops. There would be a reduction of up to 45% in tariffs for blueberries and cherries, for example. I know that the vice-president of the BC Cherry Growers' Association was very excited about this development. The Minister of International Trade is also the member for Abbotsford, which is the blueberry capital of Canada. He is also very excited.

In agriculture and agri-foods, there is a 10% tariff to be removed on frozen rays, skate, whitefish, sole, flounder, salmon, frozen crab, and seafood. We are looking at other agricultural products throughout Alberta, such as wheat. The pork and beef industries are going to be big winners. Of course, the Canada-U.S. agreement took a lot of that market away, so we are going to get our market share back to our customers through this bilateral agreement with South Korea.

Agriculture is a big component, as is seafood from both the Pacific and the Atlantic.

Another winner will be the forest sector. I have Tolko mills in my riding, so it is a win-win all around the country.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is as real pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

Before beginning my comments, I would like to thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country not just for his support for this particular agreement but also for his work on trade and on behalf of Canadian exporters during his tenure on the trade committee.

This free trade agreement is an ambitious state-of-the-art agreement covering virtually all sectors and aspects of Canadian-Korean trade, including trade in goods and services, investments, government procurement, intellectual property, labour, and environmental co-operation.

This free trade agreement, Canada's first with an Asian country, is yet more proof that our government is focused on creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians in every region of the country.

I would particularly like to focus on benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement to Canada's fish and seafood industry. Surrounded by the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans and home to the Great Lakes, Canada has one of the most valuable fishing industries in the world.

In 2012 alone, the fish and seafood industry contributed more than $2.2 billion to Canada's GDP and provided some 41,000 jobs for hard-working Canadians. It is also the economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada.

Canada exports most of its fish and seafood. It is the world's seventh-largest exporter of fish and seafood products, exporting an estimated 73% by value of our fish and seafood production.

Asia is an important market for Canadian fish and seafood products, and with this dynamic market, it is rapidly growing in importance in global trade.

Canada has a proven ability to export to Asian markets, including South Korea. Between 2011 and 2013, Canada exported an average of $49 million in fish and seafood products to South Korea. However, there is still much room to grow in this vibrant Asian market, and Canada must act now.

I must say that during this debate I was able to listen to the words of the MP for Winnipeg North, although he mainly concentrated on volume and was a little light on facts. I have heard in this House that all of the parties intend to support this trade agreement and I thank the opposition parties for that.

However, let us be clear on the Liberal record on trade: in the 13 years they were in government, they signed three agreements. We have been in government for eight years and we have signed 43 agreements. There is no comparison.

Times were good when the Liberals were in government. The dollar was low and exports were high. It was not anything they did that caused that; rather, it was the free trade agreement signed by Brian Mulroney's government that caused that increase in dollars in the country. However, the danger of doing nothing in the good times was that when the recession hit in 2008-2009, we were left in a virtual trade deficit. We had to work extremely hard to find markets for our exports, and Canada is an exporting nation.

We took the risk of falling behind. We have not fallen behind. We have actually caught up; now we are moving forward again, and times are getting better.

Canadians well remember that the last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade, they campaigned to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was happy to see that once they got into government, they forgot their campaign promise, and Canada was actually able to move ahead on that.

Once fully implemented, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate South Korea's tariffs on all fish and seafood products. South Korea's tariffs in this sector, which include fresh, frozen, and processed fish and seafood, run as high as 47%. With the elimination of tariffs, Canadian products would become more competitive, allowing Canadian firms to increase exports in this dynamic market. As we know, exporters from the U.S. and the EU are already benefiting from preferential access to the South Korean market.

Some of the products that would benefit from immediate tariff elimination include frozen lobster and Pacific and Atlantic salmon, whether fresh, chilled, frozen, or smoked. They currently have duties of up to 20%.

In all, 70% of fish and seafood tariff lines will be duty free within five years of the agreement's entering into force. All remaining duties in this very sensitive Korean sector will be entirely eliminated within 12 years.

The outcome for Canada's top fish and seafood export interests is on par with or better than those agreements obtained by the U.S. and EU. Compared to the U.S., for example, Canada obtained stronger results for fish and seafood for roughly half of Canada's key exports, including lobster, hagfish, and halibut. By year five, Canada will have duty-free access for more fish and seafood products than either the EU or the U.S. will have at their five-year mark under their respective FTAs with Korea.

The benefits do not end there. In addition to tariff elimination, this agreement contains robust provisions that will ensure that Canadian fish and seafood exports are not undermined by unjustified trade barriers. The chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary measures negotiated with Korea 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 the WTO members to take the sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary for the protection of human, animal, or plant health, as long as they are based on science and are not used as disguised measures to unnecessarily restrict trade. Far too often we see phytosanitary measures becoming non-tariff trade barriers. The agreement we have signed with Korea should prevent that from happening. It also establishes a committee of experts who can collaborate and consult on phytosanitary issues to enhance bilateral co-operation. The committee will provide a forum in which issues can be discussed and resolved before they become major problems.

At this time, I would like to take a moment to elaborate on the benefits pertaining to lobster. Lobster is an iconic Canadian crustacean, Canada's top and most valuable export in the fish and seafood sector. It is certainly an important product in my part of the world, in southwestern Nova Scotia. The south shore, along with West Nova, are the main lobster exporters in Canada. In 2013, Atlantic Canada's exports of lobster were worth $888 million and accounted for 95% of all Canadian lobster exports. Canada's exports of lobster to South Korea were worth an average of $18.2 million annually between 2011 and 2013. Again, we accounted for nearly 37% of Canada's total seafood exports to South Korea.

Current duties of up to 20% on lobster products faced by Canadian exporters will be totally eliminated. This summer we got a taste of what increased lobster trade with South Korea will look like. Korean Air Cargo launched weekly service to South Korea from Halifax to transport an expected minimum of 40,000 kilograms of live lobster. This happened only a few months after the announcement of the conclusion of negotiations on this agreement. This is the type of opportunity that can be generated across this country from coast to coast to coast.

Given the many benefits of the agreement, the stakeholders from the fish and seafood industry have shown great support for the Canada–Korea free trade agreement.

I will quote the Lobster Council of Canada, which supports the agreement:

...it will greatly enhance our industry's competitiveness in South Korea. Tariff elimination and improved market access for lobster exports helps to ensure long-term prosperity of our industry and the thousands of people it employs in [Nova Scotia].

It is not just about Nova Scotia. We have a huge inland fishery in Canada, worth nearly half a billion dollars, in the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Great Slave Lake, and Great Bear Lake. We have a major fishery in the Arctic Ocean for arctic turbot. We have a fantastic fishery in British Columbia. We are surrounded. We have a very viable wild fishery in this country and an aquaculture industry that will now have a marketplace for its products. For B.C. halibut and arctic turbot, we are looking at a reduction in tariffs of 10%. That is a huge difference for these fishermen and plant owners.

This is a great agreement. This is a smart agreement for Canada, and it is a great agreement for fish and seafood.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Canada-Korea agreement. The NDP leader has considerable experience from decades as a provincial minister and in government and the public service. We can trust him to develop trade and economic policies for Canada. The Conservative government is tired and corrupt. The NDP is ready to work at finding real solutions to the real problems facing Canadian families.

Does my esteemed colleague agree that this introduction shows that the NDP is a good party?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it may have been the translation I was getting a little wrong. I will not repeat in English everything the hon. member said in French.

Here is the reality. The reality is that this is a good agreement for Canada. If the NDP continues to support this agreement, it is the right thing for that party to do. Unfortunately, its record on trade is not great. It has not supported free trade agreements in the past. However, if it changes its tack and supports this one, I will be thankful for that, absolutely. It is the proper thing to do.

More importantly, this agreement is exactly like all other agreements we have ever signed. It would improve the quality of life for Canadians, create jobs and opportunities, and immediately put more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. It also has investor state provisions the NDP is supporting that would allow companies to be on a level playing field with their competitors in Korea.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his discussion about the fish industry in his own province of Nova Scotia.

We know that by removing tariffs and barriers, goods become available to consumers at a lower cost and people's purchasing power increases, as they have access to more imported goods. I wonder if the member could speak a bit about how the increased purchasing power of the people in Nova Scotia is going to translate into a higher standard of living for the people of Nova Scotia.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely clear. Canada is a trading nation. Roughly 50% to 60% of business in Canada is export related. What the hon. member is asking about is trickle-down economics. Every time a wild blueberry producer in Nova Scotia is able to eliminate a 25% or 10% tariff, that is more dollars. That is real money.

Let us understand how insidious a tariff is. A tariff is on top of all the other costs. Producers have already covered their cost of production, have already paid wages, have already paid a lot of taxes on that and certainly all the remittances. Then, on top of that, there is a 10% tax called a tariff. That would be a 100% profit that would go back to a business and go into trickle-down economics in the form of wages and more goods, if producers were buying that product from another distributor. That money would go back into the economy and end up at the local service station, grocery store, and furniture store. It would be very good for the Canadian economy.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his contribution to the debate with respect to what this agreement would mean to the fishing industry.

My question to him is actually in respect of investment in South Korea, in particular as it deals with the highly integrated chaebol system in South Korea. I would like to get the parliamentary secretary's comments with respect to whether there would, in fact, be an appropriate balance between Canadian companies being able to invest in such a highly integrated industrial economy like South Korea's compared to South Korean firms that would be able to invest here in Canada.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

Up to this point, quite frankly, it has been difficult for Canadian firms to invest as much money in Korea as they would like to invest. We understand the protection in the South Korean economy.

However, for the first time, this levels the playing field. Canadian firms will have every opportunity to invest in South Korea, as South Koreans have to invest in Canada. That is really what these trade agreements are about. If we break them down to the lowest common denominator, there is rules-based trading that is fair for everyone.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-41, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. Before I start, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

There are a few points I want to make on this bill. First, I would like to praise our critic in this area, the member for Vancouver Kingsway. This member is a lawyer with a very good reputation. He has spent a lot of time on this file making sure that he is using the utmost of his knowledge to understand and digest this deal and has explained it to the rest of us.

I feel very confident when the member says to us that we should be supporting this trade deal. The diligence he has put into this file gives me a lot of confidence that this is something we should do. I have been looking through the deal myself, and I concur with the critic's recommendation. I will be supporting this at second reading and look forward to this deal going ahead.

It is not just the local links with my neighbour from Vancouver that also gives me great confidence that this is a good idea. We also have a local MLA, Jane Shin, from Burnaby, who is the first Korean-Canadian MLA elected in British Columbia. I have spent many hours talking with her about how we could build closer links between our country and Korea.

Ms. Shin has been doing fantastic work in Burnaby. I look forward to hosting a round table with her and the member for Vancouver Kingsway on this issue in the near future.

My inclination on trade deals goes back to my Scottish roots, which make me hope for the best and plan for the worst. When I see trade deals, I like to think that perhaps we can support them. We start with the idea that we can support a trade deal, then we look at it in as much detail as we can to decide whether it is good for Canada. In fact, the NDP uses three important criteria to assess all trade agreements.

First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values in general? That is very important. I think most Canadians would agree that priority for trade agreements should be given to countries that share our values.

Second, are these deals of significant or strategic value to Canada? We do not want to sign frivolous deals. Is it just an announcement for the sake of an announcement, or is this really going to lead to economic growth in Canada?

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

Looking through this deal, and talking to the critic and local representatives, we think this free trade deal with the Republic of Korea passes all these tests.

I am happy to say that along with the deal we have signed with Jordan, this is another trade deal we can support, and I will be voting yes.

One of the reasons I am favour of this is that it is also different from some other deals, such as the FIPA with China. Where I think Canadians should draw a distinction is that the deal with Korea is reciprocal. That means that both countries will have more or less equal access to one another's markets. The terms of the China FIPA deal are not reciprocal, in my understanding.

It is important to go through the various clauses of these agreements to make sure that we are getting the absolute best deal we can.

I am especially excited about building better links with Korea, because in my capacity as the critic for science and technology, I have had the pleasure of meeting with a number of advisers to the President of Korea regarding their investment in science and technology.

The President of South Korea, Park Geun-hye, is an engineer by profession and has decided to continue her country's investment in science and technology in order to build their economy. I applaud this.

In my conversations with the advisers to the President of South Korea on investment in science and technology, a number of very interesting things came to light.

First, the President of Korea has made a commitment to ensure that 5% of their entire economy is reinvested in research and development.This is a massive amount of money, both from the private and public sector. It actually leads the world in the proportion of money invested in research and development.

It was explained to me that the reason Korea was so gung ho on science investment was that after the war Korea was essentially bombed flat with very few energy resources, so Koreans decided to invest as much as they could into innovation to grow their economy. We can see through the companies Korea is famous for, like Samsung, that this investment has paid off.

In conversations with presidential science advisers, they have said their goal is to make Korea the leader in the world in science and technology, not only in investing in applied sciences but also basic sciences. In addition to committing to investing 5% of the GDP into research and development, the President of Korea recently said that there would also be extra investment in basic sciences. That is in stark contrast to what happens here. Where Korea is aiming at 5% of GDP to be invested in research and development, Canada is only at about 1.7%, and that is a decline over the past few decades from about 2% when the Liberals were in power.

These trade deals will provide windows. We are often boastful in Canada, thinking we are the best in the world and there is not much we can learn from other countries. Closer ties are important to us because maybe here we will see the importance of investing in science and technology.

What is also extremely interesting with the Koreans is that they recognize the link between basic sciences and applied sciences. We cannot have companies building new types of widgets if we do not invest in the basic infrastructure of science and technology. That is exactly what the Koreans do and I hope we will learn from them.

The other thing the President of Korea has also said is that Korea will invest in stable funding for its science community. It is critical not to lurch from year to year with unstable investments, wondering if a lab is going to continue on. Rather, the President of Korea has said that Korea will invest in stable funding, not just increases but longer term.

The value of such agreements is that we get to see what other countries are doing, and Korea is leading us at this point in investment in science and technology.

The New Democrats have a number of proposals going forward that we would like to put in place which would complement this kind of Korean approach to science and technology. At a recent policy convention, we developed a national science strategy just like Korea has. More important, we passed a unanimous resolution that we move to match the percentage of GDP invested by public and private sectors in research and development as found in other global leading countries, such as the United States.

It is not just Canada that is trying to catch up to Korea in its investment in R and D. Korea invests 5% of its GDP into research and development and the United States is at 3%. We are at 1.7%. However, if the NDP became government, this resolution would build on these types of deals in order to increase Canada's investment in R and D.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, I travelled to Seoul with the then foreign affairs minister. While I was there, we had a briefing from some of the people who were conducting the efforts to achieve this agreement. At the time, I asked them if there were provisions to allow for Canadian automobiles to have access to the country. The room went rather cold in a hurry. They had not reached that stage of the agreement.

Being the critic for international human rights, for me a concern is the standards of labour law, labour respect and human rights in that country. My belief is that it is more solid than any other agreement we have seen the government sign. In fact, Colombia's and some of the others were disgraceful. What is the member's opinion of this?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the great work he does in and outside of the House. If we take post-war Korea, there is a dedication to rebuild the economy first and then a commitment from the late eighties onward to democratic reform and human rights. I think those are present in the labour force in Korea, the labour standards, and I would think they would be equally as strong in Korea as in Canada. Again, this is another reason why I support the agreement.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my colleague's concerns about reciprocity in the auto sector. Coming from Ontario, the auto industry has been a huge player in the Ontario economy and we have heard a great deal of concern expressed about the lack of reciprocity when we deal with other markets, especially the emerging car markets.

My question for my hon. colleague is about the protections that have been negotiated to ensure we maintain a strong and vital car industry in Canada, as well as being able to trade into markets like Korea. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's concerns on this issue.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the great work my colleague does in his riding and in the House. We have some concerns about the impact on the auto industry, but where we should start is the lack of effort on the other side of the House to support our automakers. The industry has essentially been abandoned by the Conservatives. On this side of the House, we have done our best to protect it, and that is where things have to start.

Again, there are clauses built into the agreement to protect our auto industry still and we will monitor those as they go along. I share my friend's concerns, but wish the government would actually do more to encourage and boost the auto industry in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with me on that. I get the sense that the potential problems the auto industry could face have more to do with the Canadian government's lack of a strategy for the industry than with possible competition.

Korea has overcome absolutely extreme difficulties. Its economy was based on subcontracting: it manufactured low-end vehicles for competitors. However, it invested heavily in research and development and achieved a level of excellence that makes it competitive. Why do we not do the same thing here?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from Jerry Chenkin, president and CEO of the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association of Canada, who said:

Free and open trade with priority markets in Asia, most notably Korea and Japan, is vital to Canada's national interest to be globally competitive, create jobs and increase prosperity...

We have consulted widely on the bill and support it because we feel it is a great deal for Canada and for all sectors of the economy.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously pleased to rise this morning to express my point of view on the free trade agreement with South Korea. I very humbly but very fervently hope to dispel or shatter the false impression that the New Democratic Party is a party opposed to free trade agreements.

Unlike the other opposition party, the NDP understands that people think we should take the time to thoroughly analyze an agreement before deciding where we stand on it. That way, we can provide crystal clear explanations of why we support it, what its weak points are and what can be improved.

We take this thorough approach to studying these files and figuring out the real benefit to Canadians, whether they are workers or business people, because of the analytical ability and experience of our leader, the member for Outremont. He is very capable of sharing his analytical ability and his experience with the whole caucus, and I believe that makes us all better analysts.

Getting back to the free trade agreement with South Korea, one of the key principles around trade policy is the diversification of export markets. The slowdown in demand from the United States in 2008 made each and every one of us realize the risks involved in concentrating all of our exports and investments in just one market.

The vagaries of current economic conditions are pushing us to gradually reduce our trade dependence on the United States. Supporting the measures set out in Bill C-41 is therefore crucial. However, we must not forget to use our critical thinking skills when it comes to certain controversial measures in the bill, notably the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.

It is important to bear in mind that NDP support for free trade agreements depends as much on democratic criteria as it does on criteria related to Canada's economic interests.

In fact, those criteria must be analyzed together when we assess the social and economic effectiveness of a free trade agreement. It would be completely absurd and counterproductive, for instance, to sacrifice respect for labour and environmental standards on the altar of economic effectiveness.

Accordingly, we support the implementation of this free trade agreement, especially given that South Korea represents a successful model, both politically and economically. Moving from a dictatorship to civilian rule, the Korean political system has proven its openness to civil society by allowing freedom of expression and promoting a multi-party system. The Korean political system rests on a vibrant trade union movement that is working to provide social protection for workers by guaranteeing labour standards comparable to ours here in Canada and offering relatively high wages.

The South Korean government's budget for 2014 includes a significant increase in spending on improving that country's social safety net and support for local communities. In economic terms, South Korea has a diverse industrial base, bolstered by high public spending on research and development, to the tune of 4% of GDP. Canada can learn something from the Koreans in that regard, since Canada is far less involved in research and development. A top-notch education system supports the efforts by the government to strengthen the industrial fabric.

These criteria are vitally important. Other countries offer attractive economic opportunities for Canada, but the absence of democracy, minimal social protection and transparency makes their political system completely unpredictable and therefore naturally detrimental to trade and investment. Accordingly, having South Korea as a preferred trade partner is a good choice on many levels.

South Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trade partner, with Canadian exports to South Korea worth $3.7 billion.

It is interesting to see that the Canadian and Korean sectors that will benefit from this free trade agreement are complementary markets rather than competing markets. There is a high demand for raw materials in South Korea, while Canada has a limited ability to export its energy resources. The free trade agreement will create a market for Canada's energy resources, thereby creating jobs in the energy sector in Canada. This is an important part of the NDP's analysis of each free trade agreement: looking at how it will improve the everyday lives of Canadians, no matter which province they live in.

What is more, with regard to Korea's social and environmental standards, Canada's economic sectors will not fall prey to social and fiscal dumping measures, and neither will the social safety net that our workforce enjoys.

Korea has also worked on improving its corporate governance. Some groups broke up or restructured in the wake of the Asian crisis in order to rebuild on a more solid financial and management foundation. Korea has an economic profile that is highly favourable to us. Rating agencies have assigned Korea an A2 risk rating. In other words, its political, social and economic situation is conducive to business and long-term investment.

Of course, Bill C-41 will allow us to win back the market shares lost to our American and European competitors, whose countries have already ratified free trade agreements with Korea. This has had a negative impact on the Canadian aerospace industry, whose exports to Korea have dropped by 80%.

I would also like to point out that free trade agreements rarely obtain the consensus and support of all of the economic sectors involved. I am thinking here of the Canadian automobile industry's concerns about this free trade agreement. In reality, it is up to the government to support the automobile industry's growth. The evolution of this industry strongly depends on the growth recorded in countries such as China and Korea. The same could be said for the forestry industry, which specifically affects Quebec and the riding and region that I have the pleasure of representing.

However, Bill C-41 provides for a dispute resolution mechanism that promotes the export of Canadian automobiles to Korea, and includes transitional safeguards if there is a sudden increase in imports affecting the Canadian automobile industry.

Finally, let us look at the unfortunate investor-state dispute settlement mechanism included in this bill. It is a regressive and undemocratic measure. Under this mechanism, private companies could take legal action against the Canadian government if the government were to pass legislation that would reduce the future profits of those private companies or investors.

With such a mechanism in place, private companies would have the ability to undermine Canadian health policies, social policies and financial regulation policies by suing for damages in courts outside Canada's jurisdiction. What is more, the investor-state case law shows that the courts more often find in favour of investors, calling into question the sovereignty of states over their own jurisdictions. An NDP government would repeal this provision, which is opposed by the main opposition party in South Korea. We have found some kindred spirits there.

The free trade agreement between Canada and Korea provides a momentous opportunity to diversify the Canadian economy and promote the creation of quality jobs in Canada. Some of the terms of the agreement are not what an NDP government would have negotiated. However, a cost-benefit analysis shows that the advantages outweigh the risks involved.

A critical examination of free trade agreements can be vital since such agreements can undermine local producers and entire sectors of the economy that were once thriving. Nevertheless, it will allow Canada to gain market shares in an area of the world where economic growth has not yet reached its full potential.

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

Mr. Speaker, I specifically thank my colleague for his support for this initiative.

Before I ask my question, I would just like to bring to the attention of members in the House a very interesting article in the fall edition of the official news magazine of the Canadian Snowbird Association. It is on fascinating South Korea, story and photos by Barb and Ron Kroll, talking about some of the tourist opportunities that are coming in South Korea. It looks like a fascinating place to visit. I have visited several countries in Asia, and I sincerely look forward to the opportunity to visit Korea if this article is any indication of what is available there.

One of the things we know about free trade is that countries can work on what is their comparative advantage. The province of Quebec has a real comparative advantage in the forestry industry, and I wonder if the member could talk about some of the advantages he sees for the forestry industry in Quebec with this Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. If an all-party delegation one day tours Korea, I would be pleased to go.

Let us get back to her question, which has two parts. First, my colleague thanked me for supporting her government with respect to this free trade agreement. The NDP is proving that when members take the time to carefully analyze bills, it is possible to greatly decrease or even eliminate the partisan approach that hinders debate and the continued development of this country.

All parties in the House should follow the example set by the New Democratic Party in that regard. Just this past Saturday there was a very well-attended walk in support of forestry in the region I represent. In Shawinigan, plants in the forestry industry, especially pulp and paper plants, are still closing.

If we focused on research and development, for example in the area of new fibres or value-added wood products, my region would flourish with this free trade agreement. It would be a great support because there are large quantities of this resource in the area.

We have to develop exports of value-added products rather than raw materials.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. While listening to him earlier, I was thinking a lot about Descartes's Discourse on Method, and I think we should reread the classics.

My colleague has clearly shown the reasoned approach taken by the NDP to free trade agreements, which is quite the opposite of the ideological approach of saying yes to everything, regardless of the consequences, as long as there is business to be done.

I am convinced that my colleague is a person of reason. Could he tell me a little more about the problem caused by extrajudicial tribunals in the conduct of government business? That is one of the NDP's concerns.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the philosopher from Louis-Hébert for his question.

Every country needs to protect itself against the loss of self-governance. The dollar sign should not be put on the economic altar above the best interests of citizens, the very people we are supposed to serve.

When we look at each party's approach to free trade agreements and economic measures in the House, we can see that there will be choices to be made when it comes to choosing a government in 2015. There is indeed a variety of choices; these choices have to do with the development and vision of a society.

We want to do everything we can to serve the Quebec and Canadian public, to ensure that no one is left behind because of a measure we would not have control over.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand today in the House to speak to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I am proud of the work done by our Prime Minister, our Minister of International Trade, and truly our government in growing new markets for Canadian employers, because one in five jobs is directly attributable to trade. It is an honour for me to talk about yet another important trade agreement that this government has brought to Canadians and to Canadian exporters.

I am also going to use some of my remarks today to talk about why I am very proud of this agreement in particular, as a Canadian and as the member of Parliament for Durham, for bringing together two peoples who have a deep and rich shared history, although it is only about 70 years long in duration. Our relationship was forged in the battles of the Korean War and has emerged as an important relationship for Canada and Asia. I will dedicate a few remarks to that aspect of the relationship.

Trade promotes dialogue between nations, and it also promotes security. The deals we are negotiating are not just huge wins for Canadian employers, but they are also huge wins on international security and helping make sure that globalization allows all people to benefit. The result will be a mutual dependence between countries on the trade and commerce front and more stability and security for their citizens, particularly in Asia.

This is truly yet another incredible free trade agreement negotiated by our government. The Korean GDP is $1.3 trillion. Korea's economy is the 15th largest in the world and it has roared into that position in the last few decades. It is already Canada's seventh-largest trading partner, which is an important point that we focused on. It is a market of 50 million people, and increasingly, a market that is seeing a middle class emerge in the country, and with that middle class comes the demand for quality of products, particularly food and agricultural products, from a country like Canada. People want to provide the best food in the world for their families, and we are seeing that in Asia, particularly in South Korea.

We are following a pattern of engagement to make sure we also keep the playing field level with our main competitors in global commerce. The European Union negotiated a free trade agreement with South Korea in 2011. The United States negotiated a free trade agreement with South Korea in 2012. We have been at the table pretty much alongside our friends and competitors from Australia. We want to make sure our exporters have a level playing field and the opportunity to grow in an important market. Since the U.S. free trade agreement with Korea came into force, we have seen a reduction of $1.5 billion in exports to South Korea because of the tariff elimination that some of our competitors saw.

We were still able to forge a great deal. We do not rush and make a poor deal on behalf of our exporters. We make sure we stay at the table to negotiate an ambitious and important outcome, and that is where we are at.

A review of this free trade agreement has led to estimates that our exports to South Korea would increase upon implementation of this deal by 32%. That is almost a $2 billion addition to our gross domestic product. When fully implemented, the agreement would remove duties on 98% of tariff lines.

I will go back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. One in every five Canadian jobs is attributable to trade. Deals like this not only secure those jobs that are there now, but they grow more, because as a modest country in the 33 million to 35 million range, we need to sell beyond our borders.

I would remind the House, particularly people who are just waking up to the benefits of trade such as my friends in the NDP, it is Conservative governments that have granted Canadian exporters access to 98% of the markets that are available to Canadian exporters. Pretty much every trade deal or all of that access is attributable to this government and the last Conservative government. That is a fact that as a free trader I am very proud of. Our exporters, once given a level playing field, can compete with the best. Those are the opportunities, an almost $2 billion addition to our GDP from this deal.

What are the big winners? As parliamentary secretary, I have had the good fortune of visiting parts of this country to talk trade, to talk this agreement and to help industries consider market access to take advantage of these agreements. The big winners are all regions of the country because of their particular products, and I will run through those, but also our agricultural sector. In the years of our best friend and trading partner to the south playing games on the trade front with country-of-origin labelling and things like this, our beef and pork producers needed secure access to a growing market. Korea is big beef- and pork-consuming market. It is only going to grow more. The Koreans want access to high-value, high-quality products, yet we could not get in there.

First, there were regulatory issues that we had to smooth out, but also a tariff rate of up to 72% on beef and beef products. Adding 72% to the cost means we cannot access that market; it is as simple as that. Pork and pork products had a 30% tariff rate with most pork products and processed pork products. The tariff walls that Canada has had in reverse on some South Korean products are trivial in comparison. We are talking about 4% or 5% nominal tariffs that an efficient business can perhaps absorb. We cannot absorb a 30% or 72% tariff rate, so those markets are essentially not accessible. Now they will be.

Another huge winner is a part of the country that is dear to my heart. Atlantic Canada will have immense wins with this deal, and British Columbia as well and potentially the Arctic. Seafood tariffs were another one of those high-tariff ranges, ranging from 16% to 47% tariff rates. That is essentially a tariff wall.

I had the honour of being in Korea a few a weeks ago, and I will speak to that in my remarks shortly. We were there a few days before the beginning of Chuseok, which is the Korean thanksgiving celebration. The Koreans were happy to tell us about this and we were talking about the differences between our Thanksgiving and theirs. Theirs is more of an ancestral history event where they go back to the town where they grew up, and it is a point of honour for them to bring a special food to their ancestral home and their family at Chuseok. The most popular food in the last year to two years was Atlantic Canadian lobster. That is a product that already had a 20% tariff rate, yet people were recognizing that the best lobster in the world comes from Atlantic Canada and they were still absorbing that 20% hit. That is going to be eliminated.

I was also fortunate to be at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport some months ago to meet with Korean airlines officials as they sent their second of many dedicated cargo flights to Halifax to take Atlantic lobster back to South Korea, where most was consumed in South Korea or traded in Asia. That is a market we have already been forging, and it will only benefit more from this deal.

Wood and wood products, another major export for us, had tariffs in the 5% range on most wood products and 10% on processed wood products. I have seen first-hand Viceroy Homes, which employs people in both Port Hope, Ontario, and in Burnaby, B.C., a Unifor unionized workplace that has predicted it will double the size of its workforce as a result of South Korea alone. It already had market access as a high-value wood-product company of windows and homes. With the reduction of the 10% tariff, it is now very competitive and it is hiring Canadians because of that.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, frozen shrimp and a lot of crab products have a 20% tariff wall. In Nova Scotia, known for its blueberries, there is a 45% tariff on fresh and 30% on frozen. In Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, parts of our country known for potatoes and processed potato products, such as french fries, of which I perhaps have had a few too many from time to time, there is an 18% tariff rate, making it hard to be competitive in that market.

In Quebec, maple syrup has an 8% tariff. As for flight simulators, CAE is a company I visited while I was in South Korea to see its investments in that country. On flight simulators there is a 5% tariff rate that will come down. In Ontario, aerospace and rail has an 8% tariff. On nickel products and a lot of refined metal products, there is an 8% tariff. In Manitoba, chemicals have an 8% tariff. On pork, as I said earlier, there is a 30% tariff. I toured the Maple Leaf site in Brandon, which is waiting for access to South Korea. It has made the investments and is ready to do it. It just needs the markets that we are now opening up.

In Saskatchewan, canola oil has a 5% tariff. One of the craziest ones is unroasted barley malt, which has a 269% tariff rate. That is a wall. That is a tariff cage, I would suggest. In Alberta, industrial machinery is at an 18% tariff rate. Once again, Alberta beef, which we just enjoyed here in Ottawa last week, has a 72% tariff rate. We cannot access those markets. In B.C., of course, which has a robust, diverse economy but is also known for its wine, wine has a 15% tariff rate. I know my friend, the MP for Kelowna—Lake Country, is quite keen to see access to that market increase.

This is our first free trade agreement in Asia. As I said at the outset of my remarks, the cultural and historical bonds between the countries make this a perfect partner for our first FTA in Asia because its dynamic economy, which is now the 15th largest in the world, with brand names we all recognize, that opportunity and freedom was secured by Canadians.

There were 26,000 of our young men and women who served in the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, and 516 gave the ultimate sacrifice. When I was in South Korea last month, I was amazed. From schoolchildren to ministers of the government, every one of them thanked us for that commitment 60 years ago. That is the foundation upon which our relations are built. This is a lovely evolution to that relationship now, that we will drop our tariff walls and fully trade as partners.

Many of us took part in the PPCLI, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry's 100th anniversary just last week on the Hill. There was a wonderful parade, joined by the Van Doos, another proud regiment also celebrating its century. That regiment distinguished itself on the battlefields of South Korea.

In the battle of Kapyong, the PPCLI was one of the few units, the only Canadian unit, to receive a presidential unit citation because its bravery over the course of several days, repelling a communist Chinese advance and saving the lives of Americans, New Zealanders, Australians, and Koreans. They were surrounded. They called in fire on Hill 677, their own position, to make sure they held that line. That is the Canadian commitment to countries such as South Korea and that is why I was so touched to see that first-hand in Seoul.

I also had the honour of joining Minister Park, Korea's Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, at the national war monument and national hall of honour, where our delegation, which included the MP for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and Senator Yonah Martin from British Columbia, laid wreaths at the hall of honour and at the 60th anniversary marker that our government erected when we tried to make sure that our veterans from the Korean War do not think of it as the forgotten war anymore. We have been trying to show them how much we appreciate them. Minister Park laid those wreaths with us and spoke with fondness of the Korean War veterans from Canada he has met over the years.

In the hall of honour and in the war museum, we got to see the spectacular artwork of Canadian war artist Ted Zuber. It was really Korean veterans themselves who raised a lot of the money to hang that spectacular painting by a Canadian artist, a war artist who, incidentally, served in the Royal Canadian Regiment. Now I have named all three of our regiments. His work depicting our service and sacrifice in South Korea is stunning and sits in a place of honour in that war museum.

On a personal level, in Durham, my friend who lives quite close to me, Doug Finney, is currently the president of the Korean Veterans Association of Canada representing those veterans in Canada. I was honoured that he was able to join our government, the Prime Minister and the Governor General at a state dinner just last week at Rideau Hall honouring the visit of President Park from South Korea, the night before the historic signing ceremony for this trade agreement.

We are forged in the history of war and of conflict, but what has emerged is a robust, strong democracy in Asia that is now our gateway into a fast and growing part of the world.

The Koreans I met were truly inspiring. Our first evening in Korea we met with children from H2O Pumassi, who had just two months earlier visited Canada to come and thank our veterans. In fact, in solemn ceremonies, they even washed the feet of some of our veterans. These are children whose parents may not have even born when the conflict took place. Their deep remembrance of our sacrifice is palpable and moving for us. That was our first dinner. They hosted us to show us photos of their trip to Canada. It was truly inspiring.

Many Korean Canadians came here for opportunity, have done well and are now trying to help out back in their home country. Mr. Ron Suh was on the ground in Seoul and joined us for some of the events. He has been working to build bridges for decades as the regional president of the National Unification Advisory Council. It is a position that the president of South Korea asked Ron to fill so that he could work as part of the diaspora toward unification, which is something I think all of us would like to see to eliminate some of the horrors of oppression in North Korea. People who have been building these person-to-person ties between our countries since the war are inspiring.

Similarly, there are South Korean veterans who fought in the war and then immigrated to Canada afterward. They have an association and I have been very fortunate to meet some of these veterans in my travels across the country. They are the living embodiment of the bridge between our countries.

Our work in the national assembly during that visit was to make sure that our friends in South Korea ratified the deal on their side quickly, as we will in the House. I have to thank Minister Park and Minister of Education Hwang; Representative Chung, the speaker of the national assembly who met with us and hosted a meeting; Representative Kim and the trade committee, who we met with us directly to ensure quick passage of this free trade agreement.

We also met with members of their opposition to make sure that events in their country at their national assembly and other things did not interfere with the passage of this important new evolution of our relationship as countries. We met with Representative Woo, the policy chair for the opposition coalition, NPAD.

I thank all of those representatives for the meeting and for helping forge the bonds between our countries.

Durham is an area with a history of a strong and productive auto industry with General Motors in Oshawa. My father is a GM retiree. As the member of Parliament for Durham, I am happy to say that our government has secured an outcome on automobiles that is as strong or stronger than some of the provisions our U.S. friends have. Not only do we get immediate duty-free access to those markets, but we have a permanent specialized dispute settlement procedure for non-tariff barriers.

This is not a five-year dispute settlement such that the U.S. secured in its agreement. We have a permanent dispute resolution so that we can make sure that our automakers have access.

An important point that some of my friends in the opposition like to ignore is that the decision on what vehicle rolls off the lines for our great and productive workforces in Oshawa, Oakville and Windsor is not made at the Canadian subsidiary. That decision is made in Detroit.

How could our government possibly allow our country and those plants to have one less market that they could access? How could we possibly do that? I said to Unifor and representatives of one of the big three that it would be against our national interest. We want to make sure our plants, which are some of the most efficient in North America, have the same market access as their counterparts in the U.S. because they compete for new products to roll off their lines.

I hope that, with my remarks today, I have shown why South Korea is our partner in Asia with our first free trade agreement there. It is a relationship forged in sacrifice, service, and mutual respect. This agreement would be a tremendous win for both countries.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with intent to my hon. colleague's comments, and he definitely made some good points.

However, since 2012, Canadian exporters have lost about 30% of their market share. When it comes to the EU and the U.S. implementing trade agreements with South Korea, they got preferential access.

I wonder if the member could comment on why the government has taken this long and why it was not able to negotiate as good a deal or a better deal than the U.S. and the EU on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did address that direct question in the beginning of my remarks. We are actually following directly on the heels of a lot of those partners, including the U.S., and there has been a drop in exports from 2012 until now, when we have a trade deal close to completion.

The important thing to remember is that, in negotiation, Canada is going to stay at the table until it has a deal that is in the net national interest of all of our exporters in all of our sectors. It would have been imprudent to rush a deal just because the Americans had one. I will tell members why. We needed better outcomes on agriculture, and we secured them. More importantly, on autos, we have a better dispute resolution process for non-tariff barriers than the U.S. was able to negotiate, because we could use their negotiated outcome as a reference point.

Our permanent dispute resolution procedures are far superior, so not only is this a well-timed deal, but it is a better deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, my mother was born to parents who had had a first family very early in life. As a result of that first family, I have a cousin who is one of the 516 Canadians who are buried in South Korea.

My cousin was Lance Corporal John Howard Fairman, who died on October 13, 1952. He was part of the Royal Canadian Regiment, and his service number was SM-9462. He was the son of my uncle Howard and my aunt Blanche Fairman.

My colleague here has spoken about the people-to-people ties that we have between Canada and South Korea. I wonder if he has any further comments on how the commitment and service of the Canadian Forces has helped to forge this relationship, which is some 60 years old.

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

Mr. Speaker, I love it when members of this place honour it by sharing those personal reflections and their personal memories of sacrifice. I would like to thank the member of Parliament for Newmarket—Aurora for doing that.

The sacrifice of Lance Corporal Fairman is appreciated today, not only in Canada but in South Korea. The children of Pumassi came to Canada to thank us for the sacrifice of people like Lance Corporal Fairman.

This sacrifice is the foundation of our relationship. From that have sprung cultural, business, and international ties, but it is still the foundation. To see the names in the Hall of Honour was touching, because it was a snapshot of Canada 60 years ago. There were names from all provinces and places in Canada. There were French names and English names. There was diversity. Some of the veterans who died had only just served in the last decade in World War II.

Our government has tried to make sure those veterans did not feel that their conflict was a forgotten war. They actually helped to secure democracy for South Korea in Asia. Look at what that country has done with that. Now, we have the ability to continue that strong relationship through this agreement.

I would like to thank the member for her reflections.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. In this free trade agreement there are many more things we agree on than not. However, I could not help but think about the people in my region and about my desire to see the forestry industry play a bigger role as a result of this free trade agreement. Although we would be exporting wood, I once bought a fully made Young Chang piano, which was manufactured in Korea.

My question is a simple one. Does the parliamentary secretary believe that his government is doing enough in terms of research and development? An analysis showed that the Koreans spend 4% of their GDP on research and development. Does the parliamentary secretary's government do enough to ensure that we will be in a position to trade value-added products through this free trade agreement, and not simply natural resources?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that, as I said in my remarks, the wood and wood products sector would be a huge beneficiary as a result of this agreement. That is what we love about this agreement. I am sure the one in five jobs in his riding that are due to trade will see benefits. Wood products have a 5% tariff rate, up to 10% for finished wood products and plywood, those sort of products. I used this example in my remarks, that the finished wood products, the higher value added—so we are getting two levels of job creation from this product—are already accessing that market, because Canadian finished wood products are among the best in the world, but they have a 10% duty.

Viceroy Homes, which is a neighbour of my riding in Ontario and has employment in B.C., would double its workforce in the next 10 years as a result of this new market alone. It has a beachhead in these markets, but that beachhead was made with a 10% burden on its back. We would get these tariffs eliminated. That would only lead to more jobs across Canada, including in the member's riding.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's speech, and he recognized the contributions that the minister and the Prime Minister have made to this agreement, but he really did not recognize his own. It is high time that the rest of us in the House did recognize the contribution that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade made to this extremely important agreement.

The reality is that we have about a $1.7 trillion economy in Korea. We expect to boost our trade balance with it by somewhere around $1.7 billion or $1.3 billion. Those sound like big numbers, but my question for the hon. member is very simple. We have a great base level of trade; we have a chance to expand it across all fronts on which we trade with Korea. I think the $1.7 billion number is modest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his kind remarks. Certainly I have been able to perform in this role because of the confidence of the Prime Minister and of my minister, but the parliamentary secretary was modest himself. There were big shoes to fill because he was the parliamentary secretary for International Trade, and in his work, particularly on growing a lot of the markets we see being opened to Canadian exporters now, he was a big part of that. His work is deeply appreciated.

Estimates are sometimes hard to nail down. The GDP injection of $1.7 billion to $2 billion as a result of this deal over time could very well be modest. South Korea already represents the seventh-largest trading partner for Canada. It has been going up and I know, Mr. Speaker, because you have been doing a lot of work growing this relationship over time, we are on the fast-track. As I said in my remarks, the emerging middle class in South Korea and greater Seoul, with 12 million people, wants high-value, high-quality Canadian products, particularly food products. I talked about Chuseok and the rush to get Atlantic lobster. There is a desire for beef. E-mart, one of the chains in Seoul, had a sale and test market on Canadian beef and the scores were off the charts. They are demanding top world-quality food from a safe and strong regulatory regime. The member is right that these numbers could be far bigger, which is even more of an impetus to get this deal passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, we are at the point, now, where speeches are 10 minutes instead of 20.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to support this Canada-Korea free trade agreement—appropriately, Canada's first in Asia.

Contrary to the incessant rhetoric about our position from the government side, we in the NDP have always supported balanced trade. When evaluating trade deals, we have been clear about the criteria that should be applied. New Democrats believe that, in fact, there are three essential criteria that should be used in deciding whether to endorse any trade deal that is before us.

First is the question of who we should prioritize when it comes to doing business.

If we are going to have special deals in place, who are the partners with whom we should be dealing? This is not just a question of values, like practising democracy and respecting human rights—important as those are—but it is also a question of fair trade. Does the prospective trade partner trade on a fair basis? Is it a nation that ensures fair labour laws and necessary environmental standards are in place at home; or is it a nation engaged in a race to the bottom and one competing solely on the basis of who can pay workers the least and endanger the environment and health of workers the most?

The second criterion is the question of the strategic value of prospective partners to Canada. Can both countries benefit from a trade deal; or is this a case where one will take the other for a ride?

Finally, there is the question of the deal itself. Are the terms of this agreement acceptable for Canadians? Is this a fair deal? New Democrats have consistently voted against trade deals that have unfairly bound Canada to losing deals for decades at a time.

However, when it comes to Korea, I believe members will hear universally from this side that we believe this deal with Korea meets those criteria.

Korea struggled for many years in what proved to be a very painful transition to democracy, but now, Korea has arrived and is a stable multi-party democracy.

Korea's human rights record is generally good—one of the best in Asia. It is a country with rule of law and very low rates of corruption. Even on a topic very dear to my heart, LGBTQ rights, the situation is rapidly improving in Korea, even including movement on transgender rights.

The role of Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, as a strong advocate for recognizing LGBT rights as human rights seems to have resonated in his home country, and social acceptance for the LGBT community in Korea is growing rapidly.

Perhaps down the road, as even closer friends, Canada and Korea can give each other a nudge on LGBTQ rights. Equal age of consent, for instance, exists in Korea, though not formally in all provinces in this country and, of course, equal marriage is not yet a reality in Korea.

On the second criterion—is Korea a strategic partner for Canada—as both are trading nations, the answer to this is, clearly, yes. Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trading partner and our third-largest partner in the Asia-Pacific.

In 2012, manufactured goods accounted for more than half the value of Canada's exports to South Korea and, with a GDP that is very high for Asia, about 75% of Canada's, the South Korean population has the resources to consume the full range of products—from technology to agri-food and from consumer goods to culture—that Canada has to offer.

In fact, to maintain our present position in trade with Korea, we actually do need this deal. Canadian exporters have lost 30% of their market share in Korea since 2012, when the EU and the United States implemented agreements and secured preferential access for their companies.

This deal is needed to help Canada level the playing field for Canadian exporters and protect the jobs they provide. It raises the question of why this deal was not prioritized over some of the others that we have had in front of us, in this House, previously. When, in fact, Canada and Korea have largely complementary economies, then that means, in most areas, we will not be in competition with each other.

There are also some great opportunities here. As Korea is rapidly becoming a world leader in renewable energy technology, there are some great opportunities in the exchanges of new ideas on how we reach a sustainable energy future together.

In one area where we do compete, autos, it is important to note that many of the Korean cars coming into Canada are already being manufactured in North America, in the United States or Mexico, so they already enter our markets duty free. Plus, this deal would see the gradual reduction in Canadian auto tariffs, from their current level of 6%, but the immediate elimination of duties on Canadian autos going to Korea.

In fact, I believe this is a balanced deal, even in the one area where we do compete.

I have already entered the realm of the third criterion: are the terms of this deal fair, in and of themselves? My conclusion is that this deal is a fair trade deal.

This deal does not include some of the things I find most pernicious in other deals. As a former municipal councillor, I am very glad to see that sub-national procurement is not part of this deal. We have seen too many agreements come before the House which tie the hands of municipalities and local governments in attempting to achieve their objectives by requiring them to submit to some free trade requirements, which are quite onerous.

We do have some concerns about this deal. We are opposed to the investor state mechanism in this agreement as is the main opposition party in Korea. When the New Democrats form government, we will work to have this provision dropped.

Fortunately, and unlike the Canada-China FIPA, this agreement does not tie the government's hands for 31 years. In fact, if things go wrong, it can be renegotiated or cancelled after only six months.

Beyond the three criteria that we think apply to all deals, there is another reason that Korea is a good candidate for closer economic relations, and that is the long-standing relationship between Canada and Korea. That relationship is not just based on immigration, though as of 2011 were more than 161,000 Koreans were living in Canada with over one-third of those, more than 53,000, living in British Columbia. While Koreans are still not a large community in my riding, they are a growing presence in greater Victoria.

This long-standing relationship is not just based on the large number of Korean students studying in Canada each year, more than 20,000 Koreans, but that makes Korea the fifth-largest source of foreign students in Canada.

I also note that there are more than 100 active exchange agreements in place between educational institutions in the two countries, including agreements with institutions in my riding. Camosun College, where I taught for 20 years before coming here, teaches the Korea language and also hosts Korean exchange students every year. These international exchange students help provide an important element of diversity in the student body at Camosun and, as I know from my own teaching experience, an important value of diversity within the classroom.

This close relationship is also not just a result of a large number of Canadian teachers who have taught in Korea, but there is an amazing number of Canadians teaching in Korea right now. I note that even the current occupant of our chair taught English in Korea. There are some 5,000 Canadians teaching English in Korea right now.

This relationship is not just a consequence of the fact that 2013 marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Korea and Canada, but we do have an important shared history in what is sometimes to referred to the Forgotten War; that is the Korean War from 1951 to 1953 and the two-year period when Canada remained in Korea following the ceasefire.

A total of 26,791 Canadians served in Korea during the Korean War, plus another 7,000 served there in the ceasefire in 1953 through 1955. While 5,000 women were recruited and served in the Canadian Forces during the Korean War, only a small number of nurses actually served in the combat zones, while the rest played key roles here at home.

Of those who went to Korea, 516 died in combat, including 378 buried at the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Busan, South Korea. Over 1,000 more were seriously wounded. These losses had a huge impact on many families in Canada, not forgetting the much greater losses and the enormous scar left on Korean society to this day, a society which remains technically at war in a war which has been largely forgotten.

In Canada, the Korean Veterans Association struggles to keep the memory of those sacrifices alive in the face of dwindling numbers as a result both of the passage of time and unfortunately of illness and death.

Unit 27 of the Korean Veterans Association has remained active in greater Victoria under the leadership of Ken Kelbough as president from 2011 to 2013, and now Ray Renaud as the 2014 president.

In conclusion, I would argue that Korea is the best prospective trade partner the government has presented to the House. Who better to trade with than a developed country that is a stable democracy with high labour and environmental standards? Who better than a country that is the world's eight largest importer? Who between than a country with whom we have a long-standing series of close relationships? Who better as a partner than Korea with which Canada has had this relationship for the past 50 years, including blood shed in a common struggle?

Who better than Korea? Few nations I can think of. That is why I am proud to stand in the House and support Bill C-41.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, we were quite amazed that the NDP had discovered the importance of trade. It is not hard as one in five jobs come from it.

In the three principles the member discussed, I am trying to contrast those alongside some of the comments his colleagues have made with respect to the South Korean trade deal. The member for Windsor West and the member for Parkdale—High Park suggested that we should not do a deal with South Korea.

How did the NDP forge consensus on South Korea being, on his second pillar, one of those strategic countries? It certainly runs counter to what several of his colleagues have suggested in the House.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a question of timing here, as we often hear from members on the other side. They take old quotes from before the time we were actually discussing the deal in front of us now and try to bring them forward.

If the hon. member were to look at what we have had to say about the current deal, he would find there is a great deal of unity on this side of the House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. For many Canadians, when they think of Korea, they think of the fact that many of our uncles and fathers served there.

On September 1, the 100th anniversary of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry took place in the town of Elk Lake. The Princess Pat's came there to celebrate Jack Munroe, who saved people in the porcupine fire, who was a founder of Elk Lake and who fought Jack Johnston who was heavy-weight champion of the world. Jack Munroe was also a vaudeville star and a professional football star. He was also the first Canadian to set foot in France in 1915 with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. That is a historic fact.

As we were there with the veterans, we counted, and it was the Princess Pat's who were in first in the first world war, in first in Sicily, in first in Korea and in first in Kandahar.

What does my hon. colleague think about our tradition of remembering the people who served our country?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with a bit of regret, we were a bit slow in recognizing Korean veterans. It is only very recently we completed the Korea Veterans' National Wall of Remembrance in the Meadowvale Cemetery in Brampton. That was 2013.

Then this summer we added a tribute in black granite in Burlington to the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy that sailed to Korea.

While World War I and World War II had larger conflicts with many more Canadians involved and have occupied our memories more, recently we have turned to those sacrifices and made some good steps in honouring those who served in Korea.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is regularly attacked and criticized for not supporting economic agreements with other countries. Could my colleague tell us in a few words why it is important to avoid acting like the Conservatives, who support any old economic deal with countries like Honduras and Colombia, or acting like the Liberals, who give a blank cheque to the Conservatives for any economic agreement?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the example I talked about when we dealt with the question of Honduras, which has an absolutely awful human rights record and has the highest murder rate for transgender people anywhere in the world, in contrast to Korea, which is making great strides toward protecting the rights of all Koreans.

We have to look at the deal in the context of which of these nations is striving to achieve the standards and values that we all hold important.

I was one of those who was very firmly against a deal with an unelected government of Honduras, with a terrible human rights record and with very little to offer Canada. I am not sure why we were prioritizing that relationship at all. In contrast, Korea has a democratic government, a good human rights record, complementary economies and great opportunities for Canadians, plus these long-standing relationships with students and people teaching in Korea.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about one of the historic agreements that Canada has embarked upon and what it means in the creation of jobs and prosperity, not only for the individuals in Canadian businesses but for individuals and their families as well.

I am pleased to talk about the Canada-Korea free trade agreement and the effects it will have on our economy.

My riding is Lambton—Kent—Middlesex in southwestern Ontario, so I am likely going to focus a little more on the particular area of southwestern Ontario. However, in Ontario in general, Ontario's exports to South Korea were an average of about $516 million. When this agreement comes into force, Ontario's key exporters and providers will see a significant amount of new opportunities. Exporters to South Korea will benefit not only from markets that open, but from non-tariff provisions as well. These provisions will ease regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights and make open, transparent rules for market access.

Today, colleagues will be speaking, and from what I understand, we are going to see consent to support the agreement, which is good.

I want to also direct my comments and appreciation for the Minister of International Trade, who spends so much time not only travelling but with his colleagues across the world to make agreements like these come into place. In this case it is South Korea.

A little while ago we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade speak. He spoke in depth about the trade and benefits that would be seen, not only by Canada but also the reciprocal benefits for South Korea. He spoke with compassion that comes with the history of why Canada and South Korea were able to make such a strong agreement that would give Canada, in some cases, such preferential treatment.

We have talked about the Korean war and its effects on Canadians. Because of our government wanting to recognize that significant conflict, these tributes have been made across Canada to recognize our veterans who died in that conflict.

This agreement will not only improve market access, but it will also look at the interests of Ontario in many areas. We think about agriculture, minerals and metals, but in many cases we do not think about aerospace, medical devices and clean technology. We are a leader in the environmental aspect of clean technology. We have food manufacturing, information, communications technology and life sciences. Canada and Ontario are leaders in these areas. It will also improve access to professional services with Ontario, with greater and more predictable access to a diverse South Korean market.

The agreement would also provide predictable and non-discriminatory rules for our investors and ensure that investments benefit from greater protection in the South Korean market. Suppliers from Ontario would also benefit from preferential access to procurement by South Korean central government agencies for contracts that would be valued above $100,000.

There will be strong provisions in the agreement, such as on non-tariff measures. That is a critical point. When we talk about developing trade agreements, we need to talk about effective dispute settlement provisions for non-tariff measures.

As was said earlier, particularly by the parliamentary secretary, the benefits for Canada in terms of those dispute settlement provisions in this agreement will give strong reference to Canada, should those issues ever arise. We often look at how that would work for Canada in relation to the examples of Europe and the United States. What we have is a stronger agreement with South Korea than even Europe or the United States have. That is not in all areas, but they are comparable, and in some areas we are preferred.

Let us talk a bit about the industrial goods sector, which accounts for about 12% of Ontario's GDP. It affects about 525,000 workers in Ontario. Once this agreement is in place, 95% of tariffs on industrial products will immediately go away. This is going to be a huge benefit to Ontario and to the industrial sector. Unlike in the United States, where they will go in three to five or 10 years, the majority of ours will go right at the start.

In terms of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, most of us in this House recognize the name Jayson Myers, who is its representative. He said:

Our Free Trade Agreement with South Korea is...a first step in gaining more open access for Canadian exports.... this agreement should make Canada an even more attractive destination for investors and manufacturers, create jobs and opportunities for Canadians and level the playing field for Canadian businesses making them more competitive on the global stage.

I want to also touch a bit, as others have, on the automotive sector, which will benefit from this agreement. It looks at going beyond the traditional North American markets and reaching into South Korea. It will provide a level playing field for competition for our auto industry. In fact, in terms of this agreement, Canada got preferential treatment over the EU and the United States, particularly around accelerated dispute settlements. Our agreement between Canada and the South Korea government will have an expedited dispute settlement agreement provision.

I want to get to an area that is close to my heart, and that is agriculture and the processing part of agriculture. As we know, the agriculture and food processing industry is a significant driver in Ontario, with some $44 billion in GDP generated by that industry alone. Almost one-third of that $44 billion comes from agriculture and food processing. As well, the total agriculture-agrifood system, which includes primary agriculture, processing, food services, retail, and wholesale accounts for almost 12% of jobs in Ontario.

Since the implementation of Korea's free trade agreements with the U.S. and EU, Canada's share has dropped significantly, which is the other reason this agreement is so important to get into place now. This agreement will eliminate tariffs, in whole or in part, on 86% of current agricultural exports. This duty-free access will give Canadian products, particularly beef and pork, preferential access to the South Korean market.

We know that there are other products in Ontario, and those are our great wines. This will take away that 15% tariff on our ice wine, something that is unique. The 20% tariff on Canadian rye whisky will also disappear. Spirits Canada has been very supportive of that.

We are looking forward to getting the agreement signed by January, because it is not only good for Canadians as a whole but is good for Ontario and Lambton--Kent--Middlesex.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

The NDP will support this agreement, not because it is a free trade agreement, but because we think that it is reasonably worth supporting.

Obviously, some aspects of the agreement bother us. No agreement is perfect. For example, there is a mechanism for settling disputes between private companies and the government.

Could my colleague tell me whether he is comfortable with the idea that a state or a government could be partially limited in what it can do because of a dispute settlement mechanism? Can a private company have the upper hand on its own government and prevent it from doing what it wants to?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a little trouble with some of the translation. I do not want to answer the member's question wrongly, so I am wondering if he could give a summary and maybe I could pick up the translation a bit better. Maybe it is a problem with my hearing piece.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by this legislation. I do not know if the Green Party is going to be alone in opposing it. Maybe the Bloc Québécois will join us, and we will have a mighty force of four.

It occurs to me that this deal is not going to be in Canada's best interests, and I say that because I am concerned about the investor state provisions and because of Korea's history of robust economic policy and its success in continuing to expand the trade deficit the EU and the U.S. were experiencing even after the EU and U.S. concluded deals with Korea.

Korea manufactures high-value exports, particularly cars, and has a frankly brilliant, but difficult for competitors, trade strategy, with the government of Korea working strongly with its private sector. It leaves us in a situation where we can see on the record that neither the U.S. nor the EU were able to close the gap in their trade deficits with Korea after signing deals. In fact, those gaps widened.

Could the hon. member tell me why he thinks Canada will be any different?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on the auto industry. When the United States and Europe signed agreements with South Korea, their exports to South Korea doubled.

Our auto industry supports this initiative. Last year Ford Canada had the largest exports to South Korea in its history.

The companies and individuals who support this deal belong to chambers of commerce. Perrin Beatty, for example, told us that he saw first hand how Canadian companies were losing their footing in markets in other countries. Some were even making the difficult choice to shut down their marketing offices.

A free trade agreement between Canada and South Korea will help our businesses and will increase growth opportunities across our industries, industries such as ag-food, aerospace, infrastructure, energy, and chemicals, and the list goes on.

We have a list of industries, companies, and organizations that all support this deal, because it will give Canada a great opportunity not only to expand its markets but to expand its investments.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and very proud to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. I would like to congratulate the minister for his work on this file.

The vast majority of Koreans who live in Quebec live in my riding. I speak with them a lot, and I take part in many of their activities. This agreement was a frequent topic of conversation in recent months. They are proud that such a free trade agreement has been concluded with Canada. They are very happy. This Thursday, I will be in Montreal with them to celebrate the Republic of Korea's national day. I am sure that we will have some very rewarding discussions about this agreement.

This will be the first time that the NDP will vote in favour of a free trade agreement because the NDP has a very rigorous position on this. We use three key criteria to support or reject this kind of opening up of markets, which will be the focus of my speech.

First, the proposed partner must have utmost respect for democracy and human rights, as well as adequate environmental and labour standards. The partner must basically share Canadian values. If those criteria are not met, the country must be on its way to meeting them.

Second, we look at whether the proposed partner's economy is of significant or strategic value to Canada. Finally, the terms of the agreement must be satisfactory.

In this case, the NDP feels that this free trade agreement has net benefits for Canada. I will address these benefits sector by sector in my speech.

The reason why we have been opposed to most free trade agreements, whether under the Conservatives or in the past, is that the environmental, human rights and labour law criteria were not met. To me and my party, entering into a free trade agreement with a country is a lever that Canada can use to raise the standard of living of people in the country. South Korea is a very democratic country with a high rate of unionization. It upholds human rights and is quite advanced in green technology.

Since its transition from a dictatorship to civilian rule in 1987, South Korea has become a vibrant, multi-party democracy with a very active trade union movement. South Korea's economy made it possible to industrialize the country and raise the standard of living of the Korean people.

Two years ago, I travelled to Asia with some of my colleagues in the House. We went to Thailand and Cambodia. I found that the standard of living in Asian countries is unfortunately not adequate sometimes. The leaders of those countries must raise the bar, because the world is becoming more industrialized and is developing more and more positively. That is why Canada must do its part on the world stage. I am glad that we are signing an agreement with a country that is well aware of that.

South Korea is currently ranked 15th on the human development index, the highest ranking of all East Asian countries. South Korea has introduced social programs and sound rule of law. It has low levels of corruption and provides high access to quality education. South Korea has the highest level of post-secondary education participation in the OECD. That is quite impressive, and I congratulate them.

Furthermore, Korea has emerged as a world leader in renewable energy and green technology. Canada could increase its trade with Korea in this important sector. Canada should be thinking more about the green economy and renewable resources. Perhaps we could learn from Korea.

The right to unionize is very important to us, and Korea allows that. Here, convenience store owners are going out of business because they are not allowed to unionize. In contrast, Korea is trying to encourage people to unionize and have good working conditions, specifically humane working conditions, and decent wages. We are very proud of that aspect of Korea.

We are still wondering if this proposed partner's economy is of significant and strategic value to Canada. As I said earlier, Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trade partner and its third-largest in Asia, behind China and Japan. Canada already does a great deal of trade with those countries.

In 2013, Canadian exports to South Korea were valued at $3.4 billion, while South Korean exports to Canada were worth $7.3 billion. Canada and Korea already do a fair bit of trade. Canada imports roughly the same amount from Korea as it does from the United Kingdom. Our exports to Korea are about the same as what we export to France. Thus, it is already a reliable market.

South Korea is an important player in Asia's global supply chain. In fact, South Korea is the gateway to Asia. A free trade agreement will allow Canada to potentially discover new markets through this country.

However, there is a caveat. Right now, Canada and South Korea have complementary markets. To date, the two countries have not developed the same specialities.

Many sectors have already indicated that they are in favour of this free trade agreement, including some very significant segments of the manufacturing industry. For example, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada has indicated that it will benefit from the agreement. Bombardier, in my riding, is also very happy about the agreement. The Aluminum Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada, which represent heavy industry, have said that this is a good agreement. The agreement will certainly be good for wood products. By all accounts, Canada will be able to export many forestry products. Canada will also have to expand its agricultural sector. The food processing, seafood and high-tech sectors have already indicated that they support the free trade agreement and that it will be beneficial for them.

The terms of a free trade agreement are the third criterion the NDP uses to determine whether it will support that agreement or not. For example, what will the agreement do for jobs in Canada? It will level the playing field for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses that export their products to South Korea. Ever since the European Union and the United States signed free trade agreements with Korea, Canadian exporters have been losing market share. We are going to try to gain it back.

Every year, Korea's tariffs are reduced for European Union and United States exporters. Right now, tariffs are costing Canadian producers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. We are going to try to recover that money.

Since I only have a minute left, I cannot talk about all of the sectors that I wanted to. Personally, I support the agreement. Had the NDP negotiated this agreement, we would have made some small changes. My colleagues spoke about the automotive industry, which may be affected. Parliamentarians will be responsible for discussing this situation and finding measures to help that industry. The automotive industry provides good jobs, and we must make sure that those jobs are not lost. I admit that I am a bit concerned about that.

I would like to state once again that I will vote in favour of the agreement and that I am proud of it. I am now ready to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate we heard a number of Liberals talking about the fact that the NDP had chosen not to support a majority of the free trade agreements, but I would like to point out some of the reasons that this is different from other free trade agreements.

This is a reciprocal agreement. The Korean FTA does not apply to provincial, territorial, or municipal procurement, unlike other agreements, and it does not apply to or negatively affect supply management of agriculture. As well, shipbuilding is completely exempt.

Those were some of the areas that were very troubling to us in other free trade agreements. Would the member say this is perhaps indicative of our relationship with South Korea, which has been in place since the 1950s?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question.

Indeed, I based my speech on the NDP's criteria. I know that the Liberals and some Conservatives have attacked us, saying that this is the first time we have voted in favour of a free trade agreement. I explained why we are in favour of this agreement. Canada has had a good relationship with Korea for many years. Last year, or two years ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Korea. This is very important to us and to my constituents. As I said, there are hundreds of Koreans in my riding. This is a free trade agreement with a democratic country that respects the unions, human rights and workers' rights. That is what our party advocates, and I hope that is what our country advocates. Of course we should be entering into free trade agreements with ally countries that share our values.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

My question has to do with what the hon. member from Hamilton was asking about this agreement with Korea. He may not be right. This is about investment and the possibility of lawsuits for damages following decisions by provincial and municipal governments. I will cite section 8.1.

I only have it in English in front of me, but it says in section 8.1, in relation to scope and coverage of investment, in subclause 3:

For the purposes of this Chapter, measures adopted or maintained by a Party means measures adopted or maintained by:

(a) a national, sub-national, or local government and authority...

This to me means that all levels of government are open to suit by Korea if Korea's investors do not like the provisions of those measures.

Could the hon. member comment?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I did not have time to get to that, but as I mentioned at the end of my speech, if the NDP were to negotiate a free trade agreement with Korea, some of the provisions would not be included. Some aspects would not exist. We would perhaps have spent more time studying the provision mentioned by my colleague.

That said, we have to consider the benefit to Canada at present. When the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association of Canada, the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia, the Lobster Council of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada and others too numerous to mention all say that they support the agreement, we have to ask ourselves whether it will benefit Canada.

I would say to my colleague that we would not have included some elements in the bill. However, I believe that Korea will be a very strong ally. We should have free trade agreements with countries that, as I was saying, have the same values as we do. I think that is part of it.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand before the House today to speak about the benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

This free trade agreement, Canada's first with an Asian market, would create thousands of new jobs in Canada and provide Canadian businesses and workers with a gateway to Asia, enhancing their global competitiveness.

No government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses and workers and their families than this government. Deepening Canada's trade relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is a key to these efforts.

I would like to focus on the benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement in relation specifically to small and medium-sized enterprises. Small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, make up the backbone of the Canadian economy. This importance is highlighted in our Conservative government's global markets action plan. In fact, a key part of this government's pro-trade plans is to provide SMEs with new and improved market access so that they can expand and win in the global marketplace.

The reality is that many barriers exist that prevent SMEs from accessing new market opportunities and taking advantage of global and regional value chains, and one of the most significant barriers for SMEs is high tariffs. High tariffs pose a significant barrier for any business trying to break into a new market, but this is especially true for SMEs, which tend to have fewer resources and a smaller market share. As we know, tariff reductions are at the core of the Canada-Korea free trade outcome.

Our Conservative government understands that when SMEs sell more of their goods, they create jobs, so when our free trade agreements bring tariffs down, helping our SMEs compete and win, those free trade agreements create jobs for Canadians.

I am happy to report that the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on virtually all current exports from Canada to South Korea. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would result in the elimination of 100% of South Korean tariffs on industrial goods, forestry and wood products, and fish and seafood products, as well as the elimination of the vast majority of South Korea's agricultural tariffs. In all, once the agreement is fully implemented, South Korea will remove duties on 100% of non-agricultural exports and on 97% of current agricultural exports. This would significantly improve South Korean market access for Canadian SMEs.

To help business owners, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement contains simple and clear rules of origin that would make it easier and less costly for Canadian SMEs to do business in the South Korean market. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement also contains clear and transparent origin procedures that would ensure the effective and consistent administration of the rules of origin so that they do not represent costly barriers to trade.

Non-tariff barriers are a growing concern in international trade. Non-tariff barriers, whether in the form of unjustified trade restrictions or lack of transparency, could seriously undermine gains made in market access. The effects of non-tariff restriction barriers tend to be magnified for SMEs that do not have the level of resources of a large national or multinational corporation. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement contains strong disciplines on non-tariff measures that would help SMEs reap the benefits of this agreement.

For instance, the agreement promotes and requires the use of internationally accepted standards to minimize duplicative certification and testing of products. Moreover, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would improve transparency with respect to standards and regulatory development by ensuring that SMEs and other companies have access to information such as laws, regulations, and administrative rulings that can affect trade.

I would like to note that these strong disciplines on non-tariff measures are backed up by the Canada-Korea free trade agreement's fast and effective dispute settlement provisions.

The benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement do not end there. In addition, through tariff elimination, user-friendly rules of origin, transparent origin procedures, and reduced non-tariff barriers, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement contains strong provisions that would improve access for services and facilitate business mobility.

With regard to services, Canadian SMEs would benefit from preferential market access in key areas of export interest, including research and development services, professional services, environmental services, and business services, among many others.

In addition, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would enhance business mobility by giving Canadian business people new and preferential access to the South Korean market by removing barriers to entry, such as economic needs tests. It would also ensure that new barriers in this area, such as quotas and proportionality tests, will not be introduced in the future.

Some of these provisions are the most ambitious that South Korea has ever agreed to in its free trade agreements, and they would allow Canadian SMEs to compete with key competitors in the U.S. and the EU on a level playing field.

Lastly, I want to speak briefly on investment.

Canada already has significant foreign investment in South Korea, including in the automotive, transportation, financial services, and life sciences sectors. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement includes a robust framework of rules that will result in an environment characterized by greater predictability and stability for Canadian firms that already have investments in the South Korean market and for companies that wish to expand their investments or make new investments. This is relevant to Canadian SMEs whether they exist on their own or are looking to partner with larger Canadian firms.

These are just a few examples of how the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would enhance market access for SMEs and make them more competitive in the global market. As we can see, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a much needed, high-quality agreement that would bring significant benefits to Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises as well as to Canadian consumers and other businesses.

Our government understands the importance of trade and exports to our economy. Exports are responsible for one out of every five jobs in Canada. The prosperity of Canadians depends on the continued expansion beyond our borders into new markets that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment.

However, this past summer the NDP's critic protested alongside well-known radical anti-trade activists, like The Council of Canadians and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives at an anti-trade protest.

The NDP's record is just as bad and shameful as the Liberal record. During 13 long years in government, the Liberals completely neglected trade. When our government was elected in 2006, Canada only had trade agreements with five countries, the most important two being the United States and Mexico, and that agreement was signed by another Conservative government.

The Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in the era of global markets. With the free trade agreement with Korea and the historic agreement between Canada and the European Union, Canada will have ratified free trade agreements with 43 countries.

Only our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is just another example of how this Conservative government is getting the job done.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his remarks. I did not realize that I was a radical activist and that the people who had the decency to vote for me did not have political judgment.

In the case of this agreement, we should not confuse South Korea, a developed and democratic country, with Honduras, where drug traffickers have the upper hand.

It is vitally important that we ask how this government will ensure that Canada exports not just fish, but high-value-added manufactured goods.

What mechanisms will again spur the industrialization of Canada so that we actually export high-value goods?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, taking tariffs off will just make Canadians more competitive, and I really believe that Canadian companies and workers can compete in the global market.

Just to give members an idea, British Columbia trades $1.76 billion a year with Korea. A small item of that is fish and seafood exports to South Korea. There are currently tariffs ranging from 10% to as high as 20% on those exports. They would disappear. That would make our fishery more competitive. It would open the market and maybe even expand the market. That would be a positive thing for Canadian companies.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that when the Liberals were in government, they had a difficult time with trade agreements.

However, I am looking at the statistics since 2003. For the years 2004 through 2008, on average, we had a trade surplus of at least $50 billion per year. Then from 2008 to 2011 and all the way to 2013, there was only one year when we had maybe half a billion dollars of trade deficit. In all the other years, we are looking huge amounts of deficit in trade.

Would the member agree that the trade agreements they are signing are insignificant and are maybe not doing the job?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, history shows that when a country with a strong economy competes in the marketplace in a world economy as it was in 2008, it really suffers, but we will find that the countries that suffer the most are doing most of the exporting to try to get their economy going.

Canada had the luxury of being almost a net buyer of goods and services from other countries, and that was helping those countries recover from the recession that we had in 2008.

However, I can assure members that as we open more markets, it just means that our balance of trade will improve, because Canadian companies are aggressive and are well-equipped to compete in these global markets.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in Ontario one of the concerns has always been the lack of reciprocity in the auto markets. Our automakers are a powerful force in the economy here in Canada. We receive competition from the Asian markets, but we have seen in the past a real reluctance to allow us to export a fair share into their markets. We have seen all manner of blocks put up. Meanwhile, we certainly have dealt with a wide array of Asian vehicles coming into Canada.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what provisions made it possible for us to get access to the Korean market, which has not been the most open in terms of access for automobiles from Canada?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we go into a free trade agreement with any country, we make sure that those barriers are eliminated and that there is market access.

As we have stated, in the agreement we have an easier mechanism to sort out any challenges that we would see as barriers. I believe we have to have a certain amount of faith in the agreement and have faith that those we are signing an agreement with are going to uphold those values.

The purpose of the agreement is to open up markets to both countries, and I have full confidence that Korea will give Canadian companies access to their market.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-41 on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

The Liberal Party and I support the initiatives that lead to free trade agreements. There are definitely many advantages to free trade agreements, and it goes without saying that Canada's economy gains strength when markets are opened. That is why we will support the bill to establish a partnership between South Korea and Canada.

We believe that it is important to establish a special relationship with South Korea, since we do more than $10.8 billion of bilateral merchandise trade with this country. Furthermore, South Korea already has free trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, which is an incentive for us to act quickly. We are now playing catch-up. We could end up at a serious disadvantage if we delay an agreement with South Korea even further.

Canada already lost more than 30% of its share of the South Korean market when South Korea signed agreements with the United States, the European Union and Australia. Since negotiations have been going on for nearly 10 years, we sincerely hope that this agreement will take effect quickly. Strategically, we are lagging far behind on markets we should already have access to.

This is the first free trade agreement that establishes an agreement with an Asian country, yet our primary trading countries are Asian countries, including Japan, China and Korea. The government is lacking a clear vision when it comes time to targeting new markets or quickly carving out a space in emerging markets.

The government boasts about signing free trade agreements, as we saw with the last member who spoke, but we have had some significant trade deficits since 2009. The announcement of a free trade agreement with South Korea will not magically fix that situation, as the Conservative government hopes. We think that the government needs to commit resources and make investments to increase trade.

For example, since the free trade agreement between South Korea and the United States was established, Canadian pork producers have lost the Korean market to the United States. This situation is unacceptable. We should have acted much more quickly before these kinds of things happened. Now that the agreement has been signed, this government has the duty to protect these industries and ensure that they regain their market share.

As the Liberal critic for small business, I am aware of the importance of this agreement for Canadian workers. Removing tariffs is often the support small and medium businesses want, to ensure that they have an equal chance of being competitive on the markets. The agreement can only help Canadian companies doing business with South Korea and the many subcontractors involved.

This agreement is even more beneficial when you take into account that the customs tariffs imposed by South Korea are about three times higher than Canada's, and they will be eliminated, on different schedules, once the agreement is in effect. These are small things that will matter a lot at the end of the year for Canadian small and medium-sized businesses.

I am pleased to hear the news for Canadian entrepreneurs who do business with South Korea, but I hope it is not too late for those who would like to enter the Korean market. Indeed, the various competitors from other countries have already become well-established since the signing of free trade agreements that preceded ours.

From another perspective, what concerns me about the free trade agreement between Canada and South Korea is the current situation with the Canadian automobile industry and what will happen once this agreement is implemented. The Canadian and North American auto market has already been significantly infiltrated by Korean vehicles.

About 100,000 Korean vehicles worth $2.6 billion are imported into Canada annually, while Canadian or North American vehicles do not really reach the Korean market. One hundred or so Canadian vehicles worth about $12.5 million are exported annually to South Korea.

Objectively speaking, it would be wrong to believe that free trade will create a balance. The government is really turning its back on the auto industry under this agreement.

In the final agreement summary, only South Korean imports from Canada are mentioned. There is no mention of Canadian imports from South Korea. We can therefore neither compare nor see the scale of the imbalance.

The government has gotten us used to that kind of thing: hiding important information to make it easier to pass bills that might be controversial. My concern is that the gap will only grow wider.

According to Unifor, Canadian auto sector imports from South Korea have increased by 1,010% since 1997. In that sector, the benefits are exclusively South Korea's. A greater number of Korean cars will enter the Canadian market, and it will get harder and harder to compete.

Another important and interesting aspect of the bill we are debating today is that it would not change anything in terms of intellectual property. Since becoming a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I have seen how big a global issue this has become. There are increasing demands to improve intellectual property protection, and there is a lot of pressure around that in various agreements.

From negotiations with the European Union to creating a trans-Pacific partnership, there is always disagreement about intellectual property. The surprising thing is that when a country complies with international intellectual property protection standards, a negotiating partner can ask it to do even more than the good things it is already doing, can expect all the parties to an agreement to use the same system. I am surprised but pleased to see that a free trade agreement that respects each country's system can happen.

Will the government be able to respect and protect our own Canadian standards as it negotiates agreements with the European Union and the countries working on a trans-Pacific partnership? It is difficult to tell at the moment, but our preliminary information suggests that the European Union's high expectations regarding intellectual property seem to be finding their way into the final agreement.

Over the course of the committee meetings, we repeatedly heard concerns about increased protection for intellectual property from representatives of various fields, including the pharmaceutical field.

Just this week, since the text of the final Canada-EU agreement was released, Canadians have already expressed concern about the potential increase in costs for drugs, as well as the possibility of higher costs in our health care system. I sincerely hope that their concerns will be taken seriously by this government.

To get back to the bill being debated today, I wish to support it so that it can be sent to committee for further study. I hope that we will have the viewpoints of all the sectors and stakeholders of society in the testimony at committee.

I hope that this agreement will not add significantly to the imbalance we can see in the automotive sector or that the government will at least keep an eye on the health of the Canadian sector.

I also hope that this agreement will help Canadian businesses by fostering more and more trade between the two countries. I think the elimination of trade barriers can only benefit the majority of Canadian businesses.

As I said before, such agreements have significant repercussions on local entrepreneurs. In fact, customs tariffs alone can account for many unnecessary direct and indirect expenses for small businesses.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for his speech.

He was very silent on an issue that comes up in every free trade agreement. It is something the NDP has many concerns about. I am talking about the settlement of investor-state disputes. This requires the state to compensate a private company for what it would estimate to be a potential loss of profit, because the government is doing its regulatory duty to safeguard the public good.

Do the Liberals agree with this type of provision, which we routinely find in the free trade agreements negotiated by Conservative and Liberal governments?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, but it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. It is a double-edged sword because some areas of technology require us to intervene pretty much right away. During testimony before the Standing Committee on International Trade, people from the technology sector said that they cannot wait years, as was the case during the softwood lumber dispute, which was dragged through the courts for years. Canadian technology companies like BlackBerry expect disputes to be resolved pretty quickly. They need a system that can hear both sides and reach a verdict as soon as possible.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a brilliant question just before his speech in which he juxtaposed all of the Conservative free trade deals, which they have agreed to, signed and boast about on the one hand. On the other hand, we went from a situation of trade surpluses under Liberals and descended into deep trade deficits under the Conservatives.

The NDP might say that free trade deals cause deficits, but I am enough of an economist and a Liberal to think that free trades are good for the economy and should normally lead to improved trade balances.

When the Conservatives sign free trade deals, they should be good for the economy and trade, yet they have descended into massive trade deficits. Is there some other aspect of Conservative mismanagement which, notwithstanding these trade deals, led to huge trade surpluses?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is a loaded question, but I will try to answer it in a non-partisan way as much as possible.

It is one thing to sign trade deals and another thing to follow up on. The world is changing and we see it as one world, a global economy. Leading trade partners in the last number of years are Canada, Japan and Korea. We started negotiating with Korea over 10 years a go. Japan has been negotiating more or less the same period of time. We are one of the last countries involved in TPP negotiations, and that has been going on for years.

Since the Conservative government came to power, we are always last. Signing a free trade deal does not provide us with extra trade. It is nice to say we will sign a free trade deal. The Prime Minister has signed a free trade deal with Europe I do not know how many times, I think at least three or four times in the last six months. However, it is not yet in law because we do not even know what Europe will do. It has not even begun. It just released the text. There is a bit of a disconnect between reality and announcements and what really goes on the business world.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk to the Canada–Korea free trade agreement, or CKFTA, specifically the benefits and opportunities created by the agreement for the Canadian beef and pork farmers.

Canadian beef and pork are world renowned and a significant contributor to our national economy. In every region of our country, hard-working beef and pork producers produce reliable and high-quality products that are constantly in high demand. The size of the industry is staggering. By 2014, there were 12.2 million head of cattle on over 82,000 Canadian farms and ranches. In the pork sector, there are approximately 12.9 million hogs on over 7,000 farms.

Our government, along with Canadian beef and pork producers, understands that Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments.

While the United States is a major export market for Canadian beef and pork, diversification and ensuring that Canadian farmers have access to a wide range of export markets for their products is key to their success. That is why our most recent Speech from the Throne committed to expanding trade in the Asia-Pacific region to benefit hard-working Canadians and businesses, especially to our crucial small and medium-sized enterprises and industries across Canada.

South Korea represents a significant market for beef and pork, and there exists much potential for increased Canadian exports. Between 2010 and 2012, South Korea's global imports totalled an average of approximately $1.3 billion annually, while global pork imports were worth an average of approximately $1.1 billion annually. Currently, Canada supplies only a fraction of South Korea's beef and pork markets. Canada's market share is also currently falling due to the competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States and the European Union that benefit from lower tariffs and preferential access due to the FTA they presently have with South Korea.

Specifically, following the implementation of the Korea-U.S. or Korea-EU FTAs, Canada's share of South Korean fresh, chilled and frozen pork imports dropped from 14.2% in 2010 to 8.9% in 2013, representing a loss of export value in excess of $22 million. During the same period, U.S. and EU market share increased from 66% to 76%.

In 2012, following the resumption of Canada's access to South Korea's beef market, Canada's fresh and chilled beef exports to South Korea were valued at around $10 million. However, in 2013, Canadian beef exports declined to $6.7 million as a result of a growing tariff differential, again vis-à-vis U.S. competition.

Our Conservative government is committed to levelling the playing field and opening new markets for high-quality Canadian beef and pork as Canada's first free trade agreement in Asia. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement provides critical new market-access opportunities in a dynamic region where there is significant demand for both beef and pork.

Starting with beef, exports to South Korea of fresh, chilled and frozen beef, which totalled over $43 million in 2002 prior to the BSE outbreak, are in the rebuilding phase following the restoration of 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, while exports of bovine genetics, offal and tallow averaged at over $15 million.

Importantly, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate high tariffs that serve as a barrier for increased Canadian exports. Specifically, the 40% tariff on fresh, chilled and frozen beef cuts, as well as the 72% tariff on some processed and prepared beef, will be eliminated within 15 years. Tariffs of 18% on most beef offal will be eliminated within 11 years, while tariffs on beef fats and tallow will be eliminated upon entry into force of the free trade agreement. In addition, the 18% tariff on embryos will be eliminated upon entry into force.

Beef stakeholders from across the country have unanimously and publicly supported this agreement. These include the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Meat Council, Manitoba Beef Producers, British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, Alberta Beef Producers, Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association and Beef Farmers of Ontario. Martin Unrau, past president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said, “This announcement means Canadian beef will be able to compete for meaningful access in the South Korean market”.

Canada's export of fresh, chilled and frozen pork to South Korea reached an average of $138 million from 2011 to 2013, while exports of processed pork, pork offal and fats reached $9 million during the same period. Although Canadian pork farmers are already exporting to South Korea, high tariffs remain for many of the pork products they produce. Thus, there is remaining significant untapped potential for this industry to export to South Korea, potential that can only be accessed through a tariff elimination pursuant to the Canada–Korea free trade agreement.

Under the agreement, the 22.5% and 25% tariffs on fresh, chilled and frozen pork guts will be eliminated within five to thirteen years. The 18% to 30% tariffs on most processed and prepared pork will be eliminated within six years. As well, the 18% tariff on pork offal will be eliminated within five years, while the 3% tariff on pig fats and oils will be eliminated upon entry into force of the Canada–Korea free trade agreement.

In addition to the industry associations mentioned above, key pork stakeholders across the country have publicly voiced their support for the agreement, including the Canadian Pork Council, Canada Pork International, Éleveurs de porcs du Québec, Alberta Pork, Maple Leaf Foods, Olymel, HyLife Foods, and the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.

This agreement also recognizes the integrated nature of this industry in the North American economy. It provides the rules of origin that would allow these world-class products to benefit from preferential treatment in South Korea. This is important as it allows Canada to continue to compete with other exporters of beef and pork to South Korea, including the United States and European Union, competitors that have benefited from lower tariffs since the implementation of their own respective free trade agreements with South Korea.

Take what Michael McCain, president and CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, said, “This agreement is a major win for Canada's agri-food industry”.

Shamefully, despite all the evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the NDP, together with its activist-group allies, is always ideologically opposed to trade. Just as bad are the Liberals, who during their 13 years in power completely neglected trade. The Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game in trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in the era of global markets.

In these uncertain times our prosperity depends on our ability to take advantage of economic opportunities in emerging markets. Not only would the Canada-Korea free trade agreement provide robust outcomes for Canadian beef and pork farmers, but it would allow Canada to level the playing field with key competitors and reverse the decline in beef and pork exports to South Korea.

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.

Any delay in ratifying this agreement would place Canadian farmers at a further disadvantage against their competitors, and Canadian jobs and opportunities. As Australia is nearing the implementation of its own FTA with South Korea, there is even a greater urgency for Canada to implement the Canada-Korea free trade agreement and gain preferential access as soon as possible so as to establish an even stronger foothold in this most important export market.

In order to support Canadian farmers and expand their export opportunities, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement needs to be passed now. This would create jobs and opportunities and contribute significantly to Canada's long-term economic growth and prosperity.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks.

One element of his speech really stood out: he referred to this government's most recent throne speech. I clearly remember that in the last Speech from the Throne, the government said it was going to prohibit companies from charging customers a fee for paying their bills through the mail. We are still waiting for that.

Therein lies the problem. We are always waiting for this government to do something positive for Canadians, and I mean for people, not just corporations. That is the crux of the problem. Since this government came to power, the manufacturing sector has lost 500,000 jobs. We would like to know what the Conservatives plan to do with this agreement, which could be very good, to ensure the return of Canada's industrialization and to ensure that Canada is not merely a source of raw materials.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the government that brought in close to 1.2 million net new jobs since the global recession. This is the government that reduced taxes for families and provides some $3,200 in additional benefits to the average family.

One thing that the NDP does not understand is that companies employ Canadians, so if we give market access to Canadian companies we can improve their chances of employing more Canadians. If we give market access to Canadian farmers we are allowing them to take advantage of higher prices, so they too can expand their operations and have a better quality of life.

I wish the NDP would get this. Those members just do not seem to understand what trade really means for Canada.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that what my Conservative Party colleague fails to understand is that we are voting in favour of a free trade agreement with South Korea. I do not see what there is to criticize about that.

However, I have a question for him about something concerning at least 100,000 workers with well-paid jobs in Canada. The concern has to do with the automotive sector and Korean cars. We want to know what is the government's plan for protecting the car manufacturing sector in Canada and for supporting these jobs in light of the Korean competition. What does the hon. member's government propose for defending Canadian jobs?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here is one thing I find very interesting about farmers. When farmers make money, they buy things. They buy vehicles, cars, trucks, tractors, and combines. They reinvest in their farming operations. Where are those jobs located that make those types of products? They are in Ontario in the manufacturing sector. Therefore, as we strengthen the agricultural sector, thus we strengthen the manufacturing sector that provides input into the agricultural sector.

I think if NDP members understood that, they would vote more aggressively on more free trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, the smears by my colleague across the way do not really bother me because I know that the entire Conservative Party has gotten into the habit of reciting and reading House briefing notes.

The Conservatives say that the NDP does not understand certain things, but I will provide an example of things that they do not understand. Korea used to manufacture Toyota Corolla replicas on old assembly lines bought from the Japanese. The quality was questionable. Today, the Koreans are at the forefront of the automotive industry because they developed serious industrial strategies and invested in research and development.

Would it not be nice if our government learned a thing or two from the Koreans?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one thing a free trade agreement does is bring in forced rules for both parties to follow, so that they understand what they can or cannot do. Of course, patent protections and licence agreements fall into those types of rules.

Again, I will come back to the Canadian farmers and producers that I talked about here today. They look at this agreement for the benefits. They understand what can happen when a market gets shut down, such as what happened to our beef producers when the U.S. closed the border due to BSE, or the country of origin labelling and the frustration they have been experiencing with that. They get it. They understand that the more market access they have around the world, the more chance they can sell all the products they produce.

When farmers are looking at marketing a cow, they may look at marketing steaks to Canada, parts of the beef to the U.S., and different parts to Asia and the Middle East. They need a variety of markets to take the different types of cuts that come from a cow.

Of course, these are the types of advantages they get from a free trade agreement. They can efficiently use the entire animal and sell what they can, most of the product and byproducts, to the variety of markets that have these different needs and desires.

It is the North Korea, or rather the South Korea free trade agreement—I was thinking the NDP was supporting the North Korea free trade agreement, which we have not done, which is why I was kind of confused when NDP members supported this agreement. I thought they must have heard the word “North” instead of “South”, but it is actually the South Korea free trade agreement.

This is a really good agreement for Canadian farmers and producers. I think everybody should get behind it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP does not usually rise in the House in support of a trade agreement, a free trade agreement with another country. In the past, we have been rather skeptical. We are still skeptical, because we are critical thinkers and we want trade agreements to benefit our economic sectors and workers, and to protect and defend our jobs. That being said, we are also aware that we must diversify our exports.

Canada and Quebec have always been nations of traders. Ever since we traded with the aboriginal peoples when we arrived, traded furs and dealt with our neighbours to the south, the Americans, we have always worked in production and commerce. We know that this is part of our economic and social fabric and that, today, we need to provide our goods and services to the whole world in order to keep thousands of jobs in the country and to sell our products, be it in Africa, Japan, Europe or China. We are aware that this is key to the economic well-being of our workers in all our economic sectors. However, we must consider and assess each trade agreement on its own merits and what we will or will not gain from it. We must ask ourselves certain questions every time we sign a treaty with another country.

The NDP determined that the trade agreement with South Korea had more advantages than disadvantages for many economic sectors. I will come back to that, but I must say first and foremost that we conducted a careful study to assess the benefits, the losses, the costs and the profits. I would like to point out that, unlike the Liberal Party, which gives the government a blank cheque by voting in favour of any free trade agreement without considering its contents, we think that we must do some serious work and determine whether it is truly advantageous for our businesses and the workers they employ. There are some very interesting things in South Korea's case.

We believe that we should always ask ourselves three questions before signing a treaty. For the most part, the Conservatives have botched these negotiations, which are not always to our advantage. That is why we have opposed these agreements many times in the past. In some cases, it was because we came out on the losing end; in others, it was because we were signing agreements with governments that had abysmal human rights records. Sometimes, the governments were linked to crime or there were politically motivated murders of union activists. For example, we were very concerned about the Conservatives' free trade agreement with Honduras, which we refused to support.

Question number one: Does the proposed partner respect democracy and human rights, and does it have adequate environmental and labour standards?

Question number two: Is the economy of the proposed partner of significant or strategic value to Canada and our exporters? We are a nation of traders, therefore exporters, and we are trying to diversify our exports. Opening up a new market can be a very attractive prospect, but does it have a significant strategic value?

As they say, the devil is in the details. The third question is the following: Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

According to the NDP's assessment, the trade agreement with South Korea is positive and satisfactory overall. Why?

I have been involved with unions and the defence of public services. I believe that protecting our public services and procurement for various levels of government is vital when governments have to make purchases or provide services. In the proposed agreement with South Korea, there is absolutely nothing that affects procurement for various levels of government.

Our public services are not at all affected by any aspect of this trade agreement. It really affects only the private sector. That is very important to me and to the people I represent. The agreement proposed today does not pose any threat regarding the privatization of public services, but we have serious doubts about the proposed agreement with the European Union. We still have not been given any details or seen the text of the agreement.

This is a fundamental value for me and for many progressives and social democrats. Some safeguards are in place in the private sector. Agricultural production, a supply managed industry, is not subject to this agreement. That is good news for most producers and farmers in Quebec and Canada, and we are very pleased about that.

First, this agreement does not privatize anything or attack any public services, which is a good thing. Second, we are concerned about the dispute resolution mechanism as it now stands.

Every trade agreement contains a dispute resolution mechanism for the two partners, in case a company deems that it has been treated unfairly with regard to its investments or its production capacity, for example.

One of the mechanisms in this agreement is not what the NDP or the main opposition party in South Korea would have negotiated.

It is clear that, next year, when the NDP takes office, we will sit down with our South Korean partners and review this dispute resolution mechanism to ensure that companies will not be able to take legal action against a government or a level of government over future loss of profit. This seems undemocratic to us and we are particularly concerned about it. We want to resolve this issue.

We are able to live with this agreement as it stands because it contains a clause that allows us to terminate our relations or a dispute with six months' notice, unlike the trade agreement with China, which ties our hands and is binding for 31 years. This clause protects us and it protects our workers and businesses in Quebec and Canada.

We can live with this, even if we are concerned about it and it seems undemocratic to us. We want to renegotiate with South Korea when we take office.

Third, we are concerned about support for the automotive sector in this agreement. The agreement has some huge benefits for a number of economic sectors, including the forestry, aerospace and agriculture sectors, and I think we have everything to gain. This will enable us to increase our exports and sales to South Korea, the 15th biggest economy in the world, which has 50 million inhabitants with purchasing power similar to that of Quebeckers and Canadians. It is a very attractive market in which to sell our products.

However, we also know that this country produces a huge number of automobiles. There are 100,000 good jobs in Canada—not in Quebec anymore—in the automotive sector, and we encourage the Conservative government to adopt measures that will support the jobs in Canada's automotive industry.

We do not think that the existing 6% tariff really protected us from exports coming from South Korea, especially since they had plants in the United States, and later Mexico, so that 6% tariff did not exist.

However, we are concerned about the potential increase in the number of South Korean cars coming into the country. We would like the government to be more proactive about protecting and defending the automotive industry to protect these good jobs.

I remind members that this agreement will help our farmers and our aerospace companies, such as Bombardier, which is why the NDP will support it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member, like his colleagues, continues to bring up the auto industry.

I would remind the member that before he was a member of Parliament, this government introduced the first national auto strategy, a four-pillar auto strategy, in 2008, with former Minister of Industry Jim Prentice. This resulted in a significant number of investments in the Canadian auto industry, some of the most recent being in Ford in Oakville. These are good, high-paying jobs, as the member will well know.

The auto strategy, particularly the auto innovation fund, focuses on two key elements. One is the types of vehicles, and the significant investments that will go with them, and technology that will meet very stringent fuel economy standards by 2025. The second is the requirement that companies bring green research and development to facilities. When we reopened the Essex Engine Plant in 2008, for example, Ford was required to build a major engine research facility there, which is employing Canadians for the next generation of jobs and platforms.

We renewed the auto innovation fund in 2013. That member voted against it, and so did his colleagues. In 2014, we added $500 million to that fund, which he voted against.

What further automotive support does the member plan to vote against?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We believe that the government is not doing enough to support the automotive sector and that we should do even more to protect this sector, which is vital to many Canadian cities and municipalities.

I also want to point out that we are playing catch-up here. It is all well and good to sign an agreement with South Korea, but we are about nine years late. The United States and the European Union have long had agreements with South Korea. This caused our exports to Korea in the aerospace sector, for example, to drop by 80%, from $180 million to just $35 million in 2012. The same goes in the agricultural sector. For example, Canada used to be the top exporter of pork to South Korea. Now, we are fourth.

I think it is too bad that the government waited so long and that now we are forced to catch up to our American and European partners.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I will pick up where he left off and talk about the losses our economy suffered because of how long it took to negotiate a free trade agreement with South Korea.

I am pleased that ridings such as mine will most certainly benefit from an increase in forestry exports; however, I cannot help but think that while we are considering sending wood to Korea—wood that may have been only minimally processed and turned into plywood or something similar—I bought a grand piano from Korea. That product has a much higher added value.

I did not get an answer when I asked this question of my colleagues from the governing party. Does my colleague feel that the government is doing enough when it comes to research and development to ensure that the products we are exporting have significant added value?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his excellent question.

No, and in fact the NDP has a very critical view of the government's current economic policy. It seems to be built on the idea that raw products and natural resources should be exported overseas as quickly as possible. Those exports will be processed abroad and then we will buy the final products. The other countries will benefit from the added value. Instead, we should have a solid industrial and manufacturing policy here in Canada. We have lost 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing industry over the past 10 years. That is completely unacceptable. Those were good, high-paying jobs.

An economy cannot be based solely on the mass export of raw natural resources. We need to be able to process those resources ourselves so that we can sell finished, processed products, such as pianos, to the world. There is value in that, and Canadians could put their expertise to good use.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise on this debate today.

Our Conservative government is focused on creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians in every region of our country. That is why our government launched the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. We are pursuing deeper trade and investment ties with many of the largest, most dynamic, and fastest-growing markets in the world. We are doing so to enhance Canada's competitive edge in a fiercely competitive global economy.

To this end, our government has developed the global markets action plan, GMAP, Canada's blueprint for creating jobs and opportunities at home and abroad through trade and investment, the twin engines of economic growth. Under the GMAP, our government will concentrate efforts on markets that hold the greatest opportunities for Canadian businesses.

In support of this, our government stands ready to harness Canada's diplomatic assets in the pursuit of commercial success by Canadian companies abroad, particularly by small and medium-sized enterprises. In fact, the GMAP establishes ambitious yet achievable targets over the next five years to expand the export footprint of the Canadian small and medium enterprise community.

Throughout the GMAP consultation process, it was clear that the Asia-Pacific region is a crucially important one to Canadian companies. It is home to the high-growth markets of the future. As Asia continues to prosper, the implications for Canada are profound in both the short and the long term. Trade has long been a very powerful engine for Canada's economy, and it is even more so in what remains a challenging time for the global economy.

It is shameful to note that during 13 long years in power, the Liberals completely neglected trade. They completed 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. In fact, the last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade, they were campaigning to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement.

It was also very disappointing to see this past summer the NDP trade critic protesting alongside well-known radical anti-trade activists, like the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, at an anti-trade protest. Fortunately for Canadians, they can count on this Conservative government to get the job done.

With the conclusion of negotiations for the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, our government has taken a meaningful and concrete step toward ensuring that Canadian companies have increased access to the Asia-Pacific region. South Korea has been designated a GMAP priority market. In addition to being the fourth largest economy in Asia, boasting a robust, export-oriented $1.3 trillion economy, South Korea is also a key gateway to the wider Asia-Pacific region that offers strategic access to regional and global value chains.

With a population of 50 million and a per capita GDP of more than $25,000, which is one of the highest in Asia, South Korea is one of Asia's most lucrative, dynamic, and advanced markets. It is home to many large global businesses, including household names like Samsung, Hyundai, and LG. I am sure almost every member in the House would be able to say they have products from some of those companies in their homes and offices, and I am sure most Canadian households would be able to say the same.

The priority sectors identified under the GMAP as holding promising opportunities for Canadian companies in the South Korean market include, but are not limited to, areas like agriculture, education, oil and gas, mining, information and communications technology, and sustainable technologies.

I will now touch on just a few of these priority sectors and emphasize how the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would transform these opportunities into engines of growth for Canadian companies and for the Canadian economy as a whole.

South Korea imported over 29 billion dollars' worth of agrifood and seafood products in 2013. Canadian exports to South Korea of those goods were nearly $416 million last year, representing less than 2% of the market share. This marks more than a 60% decline in Canadian agrifood and seafood exports over the proceeding two years. A key reason for this is the preferential access that our competitors have enjoyed since their free trade agreements with South Korea came into effect. Most notable are the Korea-EU and Korea-U.S. free trade agreements, which came into effect in 2011 and 2012, respectively.

South Korea's growing per capita income and demand for high-quality food present considerable potential for our Canadian products. Export growth in agrifood and fish and seafood products depend on the full implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. Only this would ensure that Canadian producers are on a level playing field with major competitors in the South Korean market.

Based on 2011 to 2013 average trade values, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on around 70% of agricultural imports from Canada into South Korea within five years, and about 97% of agricultural imports within 15 years. This includes all key Canadian products of interest. This duty-free access would give Canadian agricultural products, including beef, pork, canola and grains, the preferential access to the South Korean market that they need.

South Korea was Canada's eighth largest market for all goods exported in 2013. Even so, Canada is not ranked as one of South Korea's top 10 suppliers of mineral resources. Obviously, what that tells us is that there are significant opportunities for growth for Canada in this sector.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would significantly improve market access opportunities for Canada's metals and minerals sector by eliminating tariffs on all Canadian metal and mineral exports. This includes aluminum, iron, steel, nickel, non-ferrous metals, precious gems and metals, and other mineral products. Upon the agreement's entry into force, over 98% of South Korea's current metals and minerals imports from Canada, which currently face duties of up to 8%, would be duty free, and all remaining tariffs would be eliminated within five years.

If I may, I will move on to another sector that would benefit from the Canada-Korea free trade agreement and boost the ability of Canadian firms to expand their access into the South Korean market and beyond. That is the information and communications technology sector. South Korea is a major manufacturer of ICT products. Significant opportunities exist for Canadian ICT companies to partner with major South Korean companies, many of which are global leaders, and to leverage their global value chains.

In addition, South Korea is home to a large consumer base with a high propensity for adoption of new ICT technologies, particularly in telecoms, game development and entertainment. These are areas in which Canadian companies have significant expertise. The fast growth of 4G mobile services in South Korea also presents opportunities to be involved in the development of new wireless technologies and network services. South Korea has a high smartphone penetration ratio of 73% of its population, which is the highest in the world. That provides a great market base for Canadian game developers and digital entertainment producers.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would significantly improve market access opportunities for Canada's ICT sector by eliminating tariffs on all Canadian exports. Products such as cameras, transmission apparatus, and electrical conductors, which have current duties of up to 13%, would enter the South Korean market duty free upon entry into force of this agreement.

Without question, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would level the playing field for Canadian companies and enhance their ability to tap into lucrative global value chains, boosting their global competitiveness, profitability and long-term sustainability. Going forward, our government will continue to work closely with industry stakeholders to keep the GMAP attuned to global trends and to align it with our government's priorities.

Working together, we will build on our past successes to ensure a prosperous Canada that remains a champion of global trade and investment. On that note, I urge all members of Parliament to join me in supporting the implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, which would create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity in every single region of this country.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of my distinguished colleague's strong desire to support international trade agreements. However, the NDP does not support agreements willy-nilly. It imposes conditions.

First, the NDP requires the partner to be a responsible democracy when it comes to social, environmental and labour issues. Second, the partner's economy must be of strategic value. We sometimes want to trade in situations where we are not in competition. We do not want to allow someone to import containers of cocaine, for example. Third, the terms of the agreement must be satisfactory. We support the agreement with Korea because it meets those three criteria.

Does my esteemed colleague not think that those three criteria should apply to all the trade agreements that Canada negotiates?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the question from the hon. member. It was almost as if he did not get the memo. He has such a reflex to oppose free trade agreements, because his party always opposes them, it almost sounded like he was going to indicate that New Democrats were opposing this one as well, until he realized that he had to go against his reflexes and that they are actually supporting this one.

Having said that, there were all kinds of reasons why they would not support free trade agreements. That is a typical NDP position, to not support free trade agreements. As a government, we know how important free trade is for our economy and how important it is for prosperity and growth of jobs in this country. It is something that we will continue to move forward on.

I certainly hope he was not suggesting that this agreement with South Korea is not one that he indicated the criteria of having important trade value. Certainly the Asia-Pacific market is a very important lucrative market for Canada and one that we are very proud to be entering into. I certainly hope that the member, despite his reflex to oppose all trade agreements, will vote in support of this agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Liberal Party has been very consistent over the decades in terms of supporting the idea of world trade. Where it is possible for us to enter into free trade agreements, we encourage and support that in principle. Canadians need to be very much aware that ever since the Conservative government came to power there has been a graph that is fairly alarming. That is the surplus versus deficit of trade in Canada.

Ever since the Conservatives have been in government, we have seen a sharp decrease from when they took office and there was a multibillion-dollar trade surplus. Today we have a multibillion-dollar trade deficit. Even though the Conservatives like to crow about agreements, some of which, including this one, were initiated by Paul Martin, the former prime minister of Canada, why have Conservatives done such a poor job on the overall trade balance file? That equates to tens of thousands of jobs. Why such a poor performance on international trade?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really had to struggle to suppress my laughter when I heard the hon. member talk about the Liberal Party being consistent on anything. That is certainly not something that is a hallmark of the Liberal Party, to be consistent in its position on anything.

Having said that, I would put forward the following facts to the Canadian public and let them judge for themselves. During the Liberals' 13 long years in office, the Liberal Party signed three free trade agreements. Our government has seen that expand to 43 trade agreements. Which one sounds like they are getting the job done? I would suggest it is our Conservative government.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I am expanding on my colleague's last comment. Part of what has happened in the last decade and certainly in the last decade and a half is that we have seen extreme growth in the Asian market. Canada needs to secure entry into that supply chain to ensure that the delta between our products going into that market versus those coming from the United States or the U.K., where there are already free trade agreements in place, does not continue to widen.

I would like to give my colleague an opportunity, as a minister for a western economic portfolio, to talk specifically about the impact of this particular agreement on western Canada given the implications for the agricultural sector, as well as perhaps the Liberals' lack of knowledge on global economic dynamics, which have changed since their protectionist stance during their rule.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that opportunity because she is absolutely right. The Asia-Pacific region is such a vitally important potential market for us and a growing area of the global economy.

When I look at the time since the Korea-EU free trade agreement and the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement, which came into force in 2011 and 2012 respectively, certainly we have seen a decline in terms of our share of the market share in agrifood exports. Obviously, that means there is a lot of opportunity for us with the implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

This is something the Liberal member who asked the previous question indicated was done under Paul Martin. We can speak about the famous words of one former Liberal leader to another of its former leaders, that they did not get the job done. Well, they did not get the job done. This Conservative government did get the job done and we are now going to have access to the Korean market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the member elaborate on our position?

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

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

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

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

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

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

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

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

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

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

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important criteria to be focused on is how many jobs will be created for Canadians. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is focused on making sure that we increase our exports by 32%, which would boost the Canadian economy because of the $1.7 billion annual increase. That is very important to Canadians. Making sure Canadians have full-time, well-paying jobs is probably the most important criterion.

That is what this government is focused on: job creation. We are doing exactly that by passing this free trade agreement.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to good value-added jobs, one of the challenges with South Korea is the disadvantage we have with non-tariff barriers in the automotive sector in South Korea. Hundreds of thousands of Korean vehicles are purchased in Canada; meanwhile, we have very little opportunity to sell into South Korea.

I would ask my hon. colleague what the government is going to do specifically to ensure that the auto industry is not hurt by this trade agreement.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, evidence alone suggests that whether it be the export manufacturers here in Canada or the Canadian auto companies and their support for this free trade agreement, the total package of outcomes and tools for the Canada-Korea free trade agreement are as good if not better in many cases than those that have been negotiated with the EU and the United States.

This is good for Canadian auto manufacturers and for Canadians, because it means that we will be creating more Canadian jobs by exporting more cars.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak this afternoon to the trade agreement that we have been able to establish with our friends from South Korea.

First of all, let me give my congratulations to the Minister of International Trade for making this happen. The minister has been very busy on the international trade files and meeting with a number of countries, including Korea and our recent announcement of CETA. He is working very hard on other issues in the Asian market, such as a bilateral agreement with Japan. There is also the TPP, the trans-Pacific partnership, which is a larger trade pact where countries from Asia and in the Pacific are working very hard to put together an appropriate free trade zone so that countries like Canada can take advantage of those large markets for our goods and services. Right now, due to trade barriers, we have an issue accessing them.

We have to remember that Canada only has about 33 million people. The trade partners that we are after are much larger than Canada. Their markets are much larger than Canada's. It only makes sense that Canada would be a trading country. It started as a trading country, and it should continue that.

I would like to congratulate, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our foreign affairs advocates, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of International Trade, who all work together to try to promote opportunities for Canadian business in other areas of the world. We simply cannot survive on the Canadian market alone.

I have two stories that I would like to share. I am from Burlington, which is an urban riding. There is no one large employer. The largest employer in Burlington is a pork production facility. That is right. It is food processing. There are hogs that come in every day by the truckload and they are processed there. Its number one client in the past was South Korea, until South Korea signed a deal with the United States.

The deal had a significant impact on the ability of our Canadian companies, such as this one. It is owned by Canadians who own a number of food processing facilities across the country. They are the largest employer in Burlington, with about 800 or 600 people who work there now.

As a member of Parliament, the owners called me in. This was a number of years ago. They said that they were losing market share to their competitors because Canada was not at the table with a trade agreement with South Korea. This was not a secondary customer or a tertiary customer. South Korea was one of their primary customers. Some 90% of the product leaving this plant was for export, either to the United States or to Korea. The Korean deal with the United States had a major impact, not only on their bottom line but on our ability to maintain good-quality, high-paying jobs in Burlington.

With that information, I came back here and there was a discussion. I did what all of us on this side of the House would do. We are all free traders here on this side of the House. Being a Conservative means that we support free trade, and we make no apologies for that. We do not make excuses for that. We believe that free trade will create opportunities and employment for Canadians here at home for their products and services abroad, so I was very happy to find out that we were working hard on a South Korean deal and that things were progressing.

The largest employer within the boundaries of Burlington is this food production facility for pork production. However, in the riding next to me in Oakville is the head office for Ford Canada. I had a number of meetings with Ford Canada, which is an automotive producer with an excellent production facility here in Canada. The workers, bar none, are the best automotive workers available to Ford in North America.

Ford had some concerns about the South Korean deal. There was a tariff on the import of Korean vehicles of 6.1% or 6.2%. Ford was concerned that would give Korea somewhat of a market advantage. I was very clear with our friends at Ford, including the president for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I told the company that a Conservative government will continue to work on free trade agreements with key partners around the world because it is good for the overall economic business of this country. In my view, it is also good for Ford.

The automotive sector south of the border signed on to the deal. Things are a bit different south of the border. The tariff in the United States on Korean-made cars was slightly over 2%, which on a $30,000 car is not as significant as 6%. Ford felt the protective tariff that was there was not nearly as severe. However, tariffs on automobiles going into South Korea were around 8%. This deal will provide us with the opportunity to reduce tariffs on both sides. I have heard many times from previous questioners that there are non-tariff barriers to getting into those markets.

I have never been to South Korea but I have been to Japan numerous times. Based on the products that I have seen in Japan, we need to make vehicles that are designed for that marketplace to be successful and have access to that marketplace. North American manufacturers are getting there. They might be there already. It would be fair to say that before the recession, trucks and SUVs were not that popular in some Asian markets, including what I know of Japan.

That is why I wanted to talk about this today. We need to understand that our free trade agreement with South Korea is comprehensive. It will affect all marketplaces across this country. It will even affect small Burlington. It will have a huge impact on employment and our ability to trade.

Burlington has a close relationship with South Korea. A number of Canadians who fought for the freedom of South Korea live in Burlington. This past summer we unveiled a new naval monument on the lakefront to commemorate the activity of Canadian soldiers in the Korean War, particularly those in the navy. The HMCS Haida, which participated in that conflict, is in Hamilton. A lot of my constituents in Burlington served bravely for Canada in that conflict.

I am happy that we have been able to develop not only a diplomatic relationship with South Korea but a much closer economic relationship. I look forward to this trade agreement coming into force in the new year. It will benefit all communities across this country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under previous trade agreements, specifically NAFTA, there was a sidebar agreement on environment, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, and under that agreement the provinces could step forward and sign on. To its credit, my province of Alberta was the first to step up to the plate and then several other provinces stepped up to the plate. In the Canada-Korea agreement, annex 17-B, there is a provision that Canada shall use its best efforts to make this chapter applicable to as many provinces as possible.

My province and many provinces have established their own trade offices around the world. I am wondering if the member can speak to whether or not the Government of Canada has already put in motion dialogues with the provinces. If so, is it in negotiations with Alberta to sign on to this agreement?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear through this agreement, and others that we will be signing, about our relationship with the provinces. It is a mistake to consider that the federal government has a parental role with the provinces. They are well-established, independent governments and duly elected. This agreement and other agreements we have treat provinces as partners. As the agreement says in the section mentioned, we would work with our partners at the provincial level for them to enact the environmental protections that the member brought forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that for the last decade Korea has been fairly aggressive in pursuing other trade agreements. It was able to achieve some with the United States, the European Union, Chile and others. I am sure the member would recognize that there is and has been an advantage to those countries that were able to achieve an agreement earlier. We have seen that in terms of the pork industry, in particular, the agreement between the U.S. and Korea and the potential loss of market that Canada had.

I am wondering if the member might want to provide some comment in terms of what he believes it is going to take for Canada, in particular pork producers, to recapture some of the market that has been lost because Canada's the free trade agreement followed after the United States'.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question hits home directly. As I said, our largest employer is a pork production facility in Burlington. It might be a competitor to some of them in Winnipeg. The free trade agreement with the United States has had a detrimental effect on the ability of that company to compete. I had a meeting with the president of that company recently and he was clear that signing an agreement on the first is not going to change things overnight, but it does level the playing field. Without that levelling of the playing field, the company has no chance of getting back that market share. They believe they can be competitive not just on quality, where I think our Canadian pork can beat other nations, but also on price. That is what this trade agreement will help us accomplish.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, on that note, we recently negotiated a free trade agreement with the European Union. Looking at what happened with South Korea, we did lose some market share, which we now have to pick up. Does that not bode well to the advantage Canada is going to have with the European free trade agreement since the United States is now just beginning negotiations with that body?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it does not take an M.B.A. to know that being there first in the marketplace, companies are going to be better off. They can get established with customers, and establish their products. They will be able to develop business relationships. That is what CETA will do for us. In my community, the vast majority of employers are at the 50- to 100-person level. I have done numerous plant tours and discussions. Almost all of them sell to Europe. This will help them to be more competitive and able to grow hopefully bigger than 100 employees.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the point by my colleague from Burlington, it is true that we are a trading nation. If we look at the size of our country, as the member for Burlington mentioned, it has some 34 million people. With the kind of GDP we have, $1.8 trillion and growing, these kinds of deals are important. If we look at what has happened with Chile over the years, it is not just trade; there is education and a whole bunch of factors that go into it. We have to consider the fact that as a small nation of under 35 million people, the only way we can grow our economy is by finding these kinds of deals to get our goods and services to the rest of the world.

I am pleased to rise here today to speak to this historic Canada–Korean free trade agreement and how this agreement supports the government's firm commitment to expand international trade. It is our government that is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. By pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, our 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.Yet despite all the evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the opposition has been traditionally opposed to international free trade agreements. This anti-trade behaviour negates Canadians who depend on trade for their jobs and puts Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

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 United States and the European Union, are currently benefiting from preferential access under existing free trade agreements. This is why Canada is pursuing the most ambitious trade negotiation agenda in Canadian history.

Eight years ago, Canada had only five trade agreements, but since 2006, Canada has successfully reached free trade agreements with 38 countries: Colombia; the European Free Trade Association of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland; 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. These bilateral agreements establish a strong regulatory 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 opportunity for growth is a priority under Canada's new global market action plan, or GMAP.

Let us turn now to the historic Canada–Korea free trade agreement. South Korea is identified as a priority market in the GMAP, and the Canada–Korea free trade agreement represents an important step in increasing access to this fast-growing economy. This agreement is a landmark achievement that will restore a level playing field for Canadian companies competing in the South Korean market. South Korea is a dynamic and important partner for us. This nation is already Canada's seventh-largest merchandise trading partner and the third-largest in Asia, with an annual GDP of $1.3 trillion and a population of 50 million people.

Stronger economic ties with South Korea will create new jobs and opportunities and will contribute to Canada's long-term economic growth and prosperity. 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 investment under the agreement, Canadian companies can use South Korea as a strategic base or launching pad for growing their businesses throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The positive momentum of an agreement with South Korea will carry Canada forward in this vibrant region. However, creating new opportunities for Canadians in the Asia-Pacific region does not stop there. Canada is also actively pursuing a trade agreement with 11 other Asia-Pacific countries through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, negotiations. The current TPP membership represents more than 792 million people, with a combined GDP of $28 trillion, or nearly 40% of the world's economy. A prospectively high-quality, state-of-the-art, comprehensive agreement, the TPP stands to provide broad-based benefits across all Canadian industries and regions.

We are also looking at new trade partners in Asia and other priority regions in order to provide a diverse range of opportunities for Canadians. By becoming a member of the TPP and signing more free trade agreements, our government is seizing new sources of export growth and opportunities for international trade and investment.

Canada is committed to updating its existing free trade agreements to maximize benefits and opportunities for Canadians.

During his official visit in January 2014, our Prime Minister announced the launch of negotiations to modernize the existing Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement. These negotiations are well under way.

Canada will continue to take steps forward in expanding the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement. This modernization builds on our agreement with Chile, which dates back to 1997, and a trade relationship worth over $2.5 billion in 2013.

This year also marks the fifth anniversary of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, the third anniversary of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and the first anniversary of the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement.

Peru, Colombia, and Panama are among the fastest-growing markets in the Americas and thus serve as a strategic base for Canadian companies to expand into Latin America. Bilateral trade between Canada and the Americas reached $57 billion in 2013 and will continue to expand with the government's commitment to the region.

Let us not forget that this year Canada also celebrates the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, another record accomplishment of a Conservative government committed to growing our economy. NAFTA has provided a solid foundation for Canada's future prosperity upon which Canada continues to build and advance North American trade and competitiveness.

Twenty years ago, trade with the North American region was over $372 billion; in 2013, total trilateral merchandise trade reached over $1.1 trillion. Canada is now the top export destination for 35 American states.

The comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, with the European Union will be the most ambitious trade partnership Canada has ever negotiated. On August 5, Canada and the EU announced that the final CETA text had been reached, marking the end of the CETA negotiations. Once CETA is fully implemented, Canada will gain preferential access to the world's largest integrated economy, with more than 500 million consumers and a $17-trillion GDP.

Canada's competitive edge and combined access to these markets will lead directly to jobs and opportunities everywhere in 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 prosperity is directly linked to market access and 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 continued expansion beyond our borders into new markets that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments.

This agreement represents one of the 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 this bill.

When the agreement enters into force, over 95% of South Korean tariff lines for industrial products will be subject to immediate duty-free access. This means a great deal to Canadian entrepreneurs and SMEs across the nation, which depend upon free trade to enhance their global competitiveness.

Since it was informed by public consultation, this agreement has already received widespread support from Canadian businesses and stakeholders. Our government negotiated this landmark agreement to further the priorities of Canadian businesses while creating jobs and opportunities for Canadian taxpayers across the country.

The agreement is expected to create thousands of new jobs in a wide range of sectors, including industrial goods, agricultural and agri-food products, wine and spirits, fish and seafood, and wood and forestry products. These industrial sectors are crucial for the prosperity of provinces and the continued development of local communities. The evidence demonstrating the growth to be had from agreements like this is overwhelming.

When the United States and the European Union signed their own free trade agreements with South Korea, they both experienced a doubling of their automotive sector exports. Since it is one of the key industries in Canada, this free trade agreement will provide a substantial boost to our own automotive sector and our economy as a whole.

With substantial increases in Canadian exports to South Korea, the agreement is projected to boost the Canadian economy by $1.7 billion a year. Strong trade partnerships are essential to Canada's long-term success.

Canada cannot afford to be left behind, and it is this trade agreement that will provide Canadian businesses a foothold in South Korea and the Asia-Pacific market beyond, opening the doors to economic prosperity and growth.

The Canadian-Korea free trade agreement is essential for securing Canada's economic future and ensuring the sustainability of a high-quality of life for Canadians across this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask this question. I want to preface it with some work that was done for me by the Library of Parliament. It is independent research on a question I asked about countries that had national automotive strategies. Twelve countries in the world have them, and Canada is not one of them. However, one of them is South Korea.

This is what came back from the Library of Parliament. It is a short paragraph that I would like to read to the member to get his response.

In The Republic of Korea, the national strategy for the automotive industry is entitled Strategies and Tasks for Developing the Green Car Industry to Become One of the World's 4 Major Car Making Countries. The tasks included the objectives of producing 1.2 million green cars, exporting 900,000 green cars, and occupying 21% of the local car market by 2015. The government also plans to support financing for the installation of 1,351,300 battery chargers at 168 locations by 2020.

There is more on the parts division.

What is the Conservative government prepared to do to ensure that there is going to be fair market access for Canadian companies to ship to South Korea? What is the government going to do if we get dumped on by South Korea?

South Korea's national government has decided to intervene with this industry at a historic level, and it continues to do so as we enter a so-called free trade agreement. If the fair market itself is being interfered with by the South Korean government, what will the Conservative government do to protect Canadian auto workers?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Windsor West for his question on the auto industry. It is certainly an important industry for us here in Ontario and southwestern Ontario.

I want to talk about some of the things that are going to be lifted as a result of this agreement, and the first thing is tariffs.

In South Korea, there is an 8% tariff on Canadian auto imports, which will be eliminated immediately. Canada's 6.1% tariff will be reduced in three cuts over two years.

The rules of origin will change. Canada will have the ability to source inputs from the U.S. and benefit from tariff-free access, which is not currently allowed under the U.S. agreement. There will be a number of other things in terms of safeguards, internal taxes, and emissions. There is a list of things this agreement has done to try to level the playing field.

Again, I believe that our Canadian companies are among the best in the world. I believe that they can compete and that their products can compete with any products in the world, and certainly our automotive industry is no different.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to overall trade. I have highlighted before Canada's rather large trade deficit.

My question to the member is related to the agreement with Korea. We have a trade deficit with the Korea today. It is almost two to one. That is a bit of guesstimate.

Does the member believe that Canada will be in a better position as a result of this trade agreement and could anticipate seeing a balance between Korea and Canada when it comes to trade?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons we enter into agreements. It is to create additional access. With trade deficits, we look at trying to get access to other markets, which is helpful to us.

I want to talk about a few of the trade deficits that will be reduced. There is a list for different provinces. However, I will speak specifically to Ontario, and I apologize to my colleague, who is from Manitoba.

In terms of examples of tariffs that are going to be reduced, we can look at aerospace products at 8%; clean technology products at 8%; and nickel, rubber, chemicals, and plastics at 8%. I have a list here of products that will be reduced.

Once again, any time we can have reduced tariffs, it goes a long way to reducing the price of our goods that are going to other countries, which we hope, in turn, they will be purchasing more and at a fairer price.

Quite frankly, we know that we can compete. This was said before by my colleague for Burlington. Take pork, for example. With the U.S. having a head start and our tariffs remaining high, this creates a competitive disadvantage and a disincentive for other countries to import our products.

We believe that by looking at these deals and reducing tariffs, it will give countries an opportunity to buy our goods at a cheaper price and hence give us an opportunity to export more.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Vancouver South, I am honoured to represent my constituents who pride themselves in being the gateway to the Asia-Pacific. It is very timely indeed for me to be speaking to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement today.

As we know, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a historic initiative for Canada. It is an agreement that would strengthen our trade and investments ties across the Pacific and increase the prosperity of both our countries. It would result in job creation and enhanced opportunities for Canadian businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as investors, workers and consumers.

Canada is a trading nation. Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy, even more so now in what remains challenging times for the global economy.

Our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. It represents one in five jobs, contributes 60% of Canada's GDP, and over 40,700 Canadian companies are exporters.

Currently, Canada's trade is heavily weighted to traditional partners such as the United States. The North American Free Trade Agreement has benefited Canadian and American businesses through increased export opportunities resulting from lower tariffs, predictable rules and reductions in technical barriers to trade.

In 20 years, merchandise traded within the North American region has grown from $372 billion to over $1.1 trillion in 2013. There can be no doubt that NAFTA played a critical role in this dramatic increase.

Nevertheless, Canada's traditional partners are not growing at the rate they once did, and neither has our trade with them. At the same time, Asia's transformation is reshaping the global economy. Driven by the rise of China, this transformation has also been influenced by the growth of India, the continued strength of South Korea and Japan and the expanding potential of Southeast Asia.

Asia today is not only a source of a growing proportion of economic activity, including exports, services and capital, but also increasingly a centre of innovation. This is why Canada has prioritized trade with the Asia-Pacific in recent years. We recognize that Asia is one of the world's fastest growing economic regions and that it will be an engine of growth for the global economy.

It is important to acknowledge that while trade with our mature partners remains important, it is no longer enough to secure Canadian prosperity into the future. Canadian companies need improved access to markets both new and old. Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities to serve and grow Canada's exports and investments.

The reality we face today is one where our international competitors are giving their companies an advantage through new trade deals. This trend is both eroding Canada's preferential access to the United States and threatening our competitive position in other markets, including high-growth emerging economies in Asia.

Canada must respond to maintain Canadian access to existing markets and to open new ones. This means taking our guidance from our government's global markets action plan to conclude bilateral deals with important Asian markets.

Let me take this opportunity to highlight some of Canada's ongoing trade initiatives in the dynamic Asian region, beginning with the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an ambitious, next generation initiative that has the potential to be a leading mechanism for regional economic integration. It covers Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam, and represents a market of close to 800 million people and a combined GDP of $28.6 trillion.

Concluding a high calibre Trans-Pacific Partnership will achieve several goals. It will deepen our trade ties in dynamic Asian markets, set strong rules for the region and strengthen our traditional partnerships in the Americas.

Canada remains as committed as ever to playing a constructive role in advancing the TPP initiative and bringing an agreement to conclusion as soon as possible. We continue to engage at all levels with our TPP partners with the resolute goal of achieving a high standard agreement that brings benefits to every region of our country.

India is another priority market for Canada, and the comprehensive economic partnership agreement negotiations with India are an important part of the government's pro-trade plan. We view the CEPA as a building block in expanding our long-term commercial relationship with India. A trade agreement holds the potential for creating jobs and economic growth for both Canada and India.

Canada is committed to negotiating a high-quality trade agreement with India. We are looking to sign an ambitious agreement, which would improve market access for goods and services, eliminate tariffs and reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.

Canada is also engaged in ongoing economic partnership agreement negotiations with Japan. Launched on March 25, 2012, by the Prime Minister, negotiations are proceeding well, with six rounds held to date.

The sixth round of the Canada-Japan economic partnership agreement negotiations took place in July, in Ottawa, where progress was made in a number of areas. We are looking forward to a productive round seven this fall, in Tokyo.

Given Japan's commercial significance, Canada is fortunate to have two ambitious, high-standard initiatives within which to pursue greater trade and investment ties with Japan. Canada and Japan view working together on the TPP to enhance greater co-operation in the Asia-Pacific region and working together bilaterally on our EPA as mutually supportive efforts.

With all this progress, we cannot ignore China, Canada's second largest single-nation trading partner.

In 2013, our bilateral merchandise trade relationship reached more than $73 billion. Building upon the positive momentum of the Prime Minister's visit to China in early 2012, bilateral commercial ties have been strengthened through the August 2012 release of the joint economic complementarities study, the July 2013 expansion of the Canada-China air transport agreement and, most recent, the ratification of the Canada-China foreign investment protection and promotion agreement.

Canada and China have a long-standing and comprehensive relationship, which operates on many levels. We are committed to deepening trade and economic relations with this large and fast-growing market.

As Asian countries are deepening their economic integration, Canada is also actively contributing to an important regional fora, such as ASEAN and APEC.

It was to the detriment of our reputation as a trading nation that during the 13 long years in government the Liberals completely neglected trade, completing only three free trade agreements. In fact, the Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

It is important to point out that the last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade, they campaigned to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement. This is absolutely shameful.

Thanks to our Conservative government, however, we now have the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, our first free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region, and it is projected to increase Canada's gross domestic product by $1.7 billion and boost our exports to South Korea by more than 30%.

Moreover, South Korea offers strategic access to regional and global value chains for Canadian companies, and the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would increase their competitiveness in the Asia-Pacific region.

The signing of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement by the Minister of International Trade, on September 22, was a momentous occasion that not only solidified Canada's bilateral relationship with South Korea, but also highlighted Canada's intensified focus on Asian markets.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a significant step in Canada's orientation toward Asia, a shift that is integral to continued Canadian economic prosperity.

We must pass the bill quickly to ensure Canadians can start taking advantage of the benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement and what it will bring to us.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to intervene again. I like to talk about autos and bridges in this place and will continue to do so. In this respect it has to do with the auto sector which will be affected by the Korea trade deal. We are really concerned because there is such an imbalance in our trade right now.

The United States negotiated better tariff time periods in terms of the reduction period being longer. It also negotiated a snap-back provision. South Korea, as we know, has a national auto strategy and intervention at the state level for its industry. It has that national advantage.

The U.S. has a snap-back provision that allows it to put a hold on the automotive component should dumping take place in South Korea. The Canadian version of the agreement does not have this. Why not?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement is not as good, in fact, for the auto sector as the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. For example, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would provide immediate duty-free access to South Korean auto markets, with a five-year phase-out on the Korea-U.S. one. We also have safeguards against import surges, the same as the Korea-U.S. agreement, and a permanent specialized dispute settlement that are connected with the Korea-U.S. procedures, which will expire over 10 years.

In terms of the snap back, we would like to make a point of saying that the U.S. snap back has a limited practical value and the U.S. tariffs are only 2.5% compared to Canada's 6.1%. This low tariff is why Korea agreed to the agreement. The U.S. snap back expires after 10 years and cannot be used in the first 4 years of the agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member could not seem to help herself reflect on what the Prime Minister's Office says Conservatives should talk about on this file. She went to great length to indicate to the House that while in government, the Liberal Party was ineffective on the trade file.

I remind the member that even the agreement we have today was initiated under Paul Martin. It was Korea that pushed it. It started the process in 2003 and virtually within the year, then prime minister Paul Martin initiated discussions on Canada's behalf. It took the current government many years to put it together. In fact, the United States, the European Union, countries like Chile and Peru have already signed agreements.

Could the member speak to the lost opportunities because of the government being so far behind in coming up with an agreement which many other countries around the world have already signed, sealed and delivered?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that, in fact, I have raised my children in Vancouver and trade, as we know, is a very important thing for the Asia Pacific in Vancouver.

In this area, the member is absolutely right. The Liberal government did not get it done. Just like Kyoto, it did not get done. Just like child benefits, it did not get done. As a government, we did get it done, and we have these agreements in place right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario wants a team to be created to oversee the implementation of this agreement. Does the Conservative government plan to consult or work with that province? Second, what will the government do to protect Canada's automotive industry?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada is a federation of different provinces. Canada will support the Province of Ontario, just as it supports the Province of B.C. in opening up economic offices abroad, just as we have done with different countries. I am sure that with the signing of this agreement, Korea is a target for that.

We look forward to working with the different provinces in expanding our trade into Korea, as well as the Asia Pacific region.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming 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 Thunder Bay—Superior North, The Environment; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Health; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Natural Resources.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House and speak to Bill C-41. The government's trade agenda has provoked widespread public concern. Representing the views of so many Canadians, we have opposed to date all of the trade agreements negotiated by the government, save one.

Of these deals, the one with the greatest consequence to our economic future, and indeed our political future, has been the China FIPA. With respect to the China FIPA, business columnist and editor Diane Francis has said that the Conservative government demonstrated “the worst negotiating skills since Neville Chamberlain”.

Most recently, on CBC Radio, she said that trade deals are either “fair and reciprocal” or result in “colonization and hollowing out”. Francis concludes that the China FIPA is decidedly not reciprocal.

Of course, the NDP is waiting to see what CETA actually says. No breath is being held, however, in light of the unfortunate precedents set at the bargaining table by the government and its tendency to conflate increasing trade with expanding corporate rights and diminishing democratic rights and sovereignty, through the inclusion of investor state dispute settlement mechanisms.

It will be well understood by now that the Korea deal also includes an investor state dispute settlement mechanism. Certainly, an NDP government would not have included such a mechanism, were we responsible for negotiating this deal. It should be noted that Korea's main opposition party also opposes the inclusion of such a mechanism.

However, this is not the China FIPA deal, nor is it what we have seen of CETA as of yet. There are significant distinctions to be made here. The Korea deal is fully cancellable or renegotiable on six months' notice, unlike the China FIPA deal, which locks us in for a minimum of 15 years. This agreement has guaranteed transparency rules for ISDS tribunals, and hearings must be held in public. The agreement does not apply to provincial, territorial, or municipal procurement or crown corporations. Shipbuilding is, notably, exempt from federal procurement rules. The agreement does not apply to or negatively affect supply managed agricultural products. Finally, the agreement does not contain any negative intellectual property provision. I am happy to say that we are able to distinguish the agreement before us today from those that have come before it.

The outstanding question, of course, is this. What is there to recommend this deal? We believe the agreement will have a net benefit for Canada's economy and Canadian workers. That assessment is made by employing essentially three criteria. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed deal satisfactory?

With respect to the first of these, Korea has a robust multi-party system of democratic rule, an active trade union movement, and a diverse civil society. South Korea is a developed country ranking 15th on the human development index.

On the matter of the Korean economy and its strategic economic value to Canada, Korea is a member of the G20, it has the 15th-largest GDP globally, and it is our 7th-largest trading partner. However, it is worth noting that we are on the losing end of this trading relationship currently, with a trade balance deficit of about $4 billion and growing. It is unfortunate but important to note that, in the nine years that successive Liberal and Conservative governments took to negotiate this deal, Korea has moved forward with a free trade agreement with the European Union in 2011 and with the United States in 2012, and further free trade agreements are pending.

As a result, the market share of Canadian companies in Korea has dropped 30% since the full implementation of its free trade agreement with the United States. The losses have been particularly heavy in the agri-food, seafood, and aerospace industries. The Canadian agri-food business, which is a key economic sector here in Canada, responsible for 1 in 8 or 2.1 million jobs, was hit particularly hard.

Similarly, the Canadian aerospace industry was hit hard. Exports to Korea dropped by 80% from $180 million to roughly $35 million in the last couple of years alone.

It is well past time to ensure that Canadian companies and workers can take advantage of a fair, reciprocal, and freer trading relationship with South Korea. That is why we see, almost without exception, Canadian business representatives and Canadian labour across all sectors of the economy in support of the deal.

There is a notable exception: segments of the auto sector. They are important segments in the form of the Ford Motor Company and the union Unifor, in particular, which have withheld their support for this agreement. There are certainly positive provisions in the agreement for the auto sector, but this is not to suggest that the concerns of Unifor and the Ford Motor Company are unfounded.

It is worth noting that, last year, Canada failed to attract a penny of the $17.6 billion invested globally in the auto sector. It is also worth noting that the United States succeeded in its deal with Korea, where the Conservative government failed. It built stronger protections for domestic auto production into its agreement.

This raises the very important question of what the government is doing to support the auto sector in Canada to ensure that it is in a position to thrive in a globally competitive industry.

The 115,000 auto jobs are important jobs. They are far more important than the number would indicate, because they stand as representative of the kind of jobs that made certain parts of this country, and by extension the whole country, thrive.

In my riding of Beaches—East York, at the corner of Victoria Park and Danforth, there once stood a Ford Motor Company plant. It is where Ford made its Canadian Model Ts and Model As. It became the first Canadian plant of Nash Motors and finally American Motors until it closed down. Now, it sits next to what the City of Toronto calls, because of issues of structural poverty, a “priority neighbourhood”. A strip mall now stands where that auto plant once did.

Just outside the northwest corner of my riding is Toronto's Golden Mile. It was home to significant industrial concerns in the post-war period, including a General Motors van plant. A Globe and Mail article from some years ago probably captured best what became of the Golden Mile. It said:

...the Golden Mile was a golden flame that burned brightly for nearly half a century until it was snuffed out by big-box stores.

Today, it is the Eglinton Town Centre's towering pylon with a checkerboard of retail signage that stands tallest on the once-proud strip.

The Golden Mile mall, significantly, houses a City of Toronto social services office.

While we stand in support of this deal, this is an issue that points to a broader economic context of this agreement. We asked the government what it is doing for urban economies where we see tremendous growth and only growth of precarious employment; where there is a growing level of working poverty; where there are burgeoning, informal economies; where youth unemployment is nearing 20%; where nothing but big-box stores, dollar stores, and social service agencies stand where once stood industry.

It is not about going back. It is about moving forward. I do not see an economic vision coming out of the government, which addresses the economic needs of a vast portion of Canada and Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout the member's speech I sensed a note of regret that the official opposition is supporting this treaty, given the impact it is likely to have on the car sector within Canada. I have also read through the briefs presented by Unifor and heard its deep concern that this would expand the trade deficit between Canada and Korea, and allow Korean vehicles to flood the Canadian market, while we mostly export more raw materials toward South Korea.

I wonder if the hon. member is a reluctant supporter of this treaty, as his speech tended to suggest. Why would he not join the Greens and vote against it?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mistakes my concerns, I am afraid, and I will take responsibility for that.

I stand in support of the agreement. It is qualitatively different from the deals that have come before, that the government has negotiated previously.

However, I think it is worthwhile in the context of having a debate on this issue in the House to raise the important questions that this bill raises. What is the broader economic policy context for this bill? Where is the policy or strategy that reflects the desire to ensure we can compete in terms of innovation, for example? Where is the policy and strategy that ensures all can participate in the economic benefits of this agreement?

What I got from the government is that simply dropping trade barriers seems to be enough for it, and what happens thereafter is somehow magic.

I support the freer trade agreement with South Korea, but it does raise the question for the auto sector and more broadly. What is the broad economic vision for this country? I would point to my neck of the woods, my neighbourhood, where we see the legacy of a strong industrial Canada that is now covered over with big-box stores and dollar stores, and where people are struggling to make a living.

I would ask the government what it is going to do about that.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is relatively simple. Over the past few years, Canada has been losing industrial jobs and exporting its natural resources almost completely unprocessed. When the United States negotiates a trade agreement, it ensures that its industries are protected and it increases the value of its exports by processing them domestically. It provides those industries with investments, support and industrial policies, which we do not do here in Canada.

I would like to know if we could obtain this same economic agreement, supported by a policy of industrialization, which we currently do not have, since this would provide significant and real economic benefits.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a country where prosperity is increasing but is shared more fairly, then we need to have industrial policy to support the free trade agreements we are negotiating.

It is a particular interest and concern to me as the urban affairs critic, thinking about urban economies, because the government does not think about urban economies. What that indicates to me is that, in the absence of that thought, we are not going to grow an innovative economy. Urban economies are fundamentally the place where one grows an economy of innovation.

This is the very point. It is great to have a free trade deal of this nature, but as my colleague from Windsor has raised in his questions this afternoon, there is the issue of an auto strategy and other strategies that Korea has to support its free trade agenda. It has a green technology, green energy strategy that ensures Korea is going to be able to compete globally on those terms. It is 1 of 12 countries around the world that supports its auto industry with a national strategy.

We have none of these things. A trade agenda is great, and we will support dropping trade barriers where we believe it is of advantage to Canada's business and Canadian workers, but the very point of my speech here today is to urge the government to think about having industrial policy to support a trade agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canada–Korea free trade agreement is a landmark achievement that will result in mutual benefits and prosperity for both countries and lay the foundation to unlock the full potential of our political, economic, and security relations.

The most recent Speech from the Throne committed to expanding trade in the Asia–Pacific region to benefit hard-working Canadians and businesses, especially our crucial small and medium-sized enterprises and industries across the country. We are delivering on that commitment with this agreement.

The conclusion of the Canada–Korea free trade agreement negotiations was announced in Seoul by the Prime Minister and South Korean President Park Geun-Hye on March 11, 2014. During the announcement, both leaders demonstrated their strong commitment to raising the overall Canada–Korea partnership to a new level and to entering a new era in our countries' bilateral relations.

The Canada–Korea free trade agreement represents a significant achievement for Canada. It will provide exporters, investors, and service providers with strategic access to a key gateway to the wider Asia–Pacific region and will also provide a level playing field for them and their key foreign competitors from the U.S., the EU, Australia, and other countries that have concluded free trade agreements with South Korea.

In addition, the Canada–Korea free trade agreement is projected to boost Canada's GDP by $1.7 billion and increase Canada's exports to South Korea by over 30%. Canadian workers in sectors across every region of the country stand to benefit from increased access.

This free trade agreement is an ambitious, state-of-the-art agreement covering virtually all sectors and aspects of Canada–Korea trade, including trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement, intellectual property, labour, and environmental co-operation.

It is disappointing to note that during 13 long years in 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. Thanks to our government, Canada has reached free trade agreements with an additional 38 countries.

While the Canada–Korea free trade agreement will provide a modern and stable foundation to grow our bilateral relations, it builds on our long history of political and economic co-operation.

Canada and the Republic of Korea established diplomatic relations in 1963. During the Korea War between 1950 and 1953, Canada contributed the third-largest contingent of troops to the United Nations command. Some 26,791 Canadian soldiers served in Korea, of whom 516 died.

As I said earlier today, my cousin was one of those people. Lance Corporal John Howard Fairman, who died on October 13, 1952, was the son of my aunt and uncle, Howard and Blanche Fairman. He grew up in Hastings, Ontario, and volunteered for the Royal Canadian Regiment.

After the Korean War armistice, 7,000 Canadian soldiers served as peacekeepers between 1953 and 1957.

Prior to the establishment of diplomatic bilateral relations, Canada participated in supervising South Korea's first elections in 1948, as part of the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea. Currently Canada is the only state, other than the United Nations, with permanent military representation at the United Nations Command in Korea. Canada participates in the UNC military armistice commission that supervises the armistice.

As well, we are proud to have sent a Canadian delegation of veterans and government officials to South Korea for the 60th anniversary of the armistice on July 27, 2013.

This long-standing, strong, and meaningful relationship has been underlined by the recent leaders' visits. Indeed, The leaders have met twice this year. First, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister visited South Korea in March. In fact, the Prime Minister has visited South Korea on four occasions. The second meeting was just last week, when President Park made her first state visit to Ottawa. It was a great honour to welcome President Park and her delegation to Canada at that time. She was the first Korean president to visit Canada in 15 years.

The Governor General attended the inauguration ceremony of President Park in February 2013, accompanied by four Canadian parliamentary colleagues. This visit comprised part of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and South Korea. Both countries organized a series of activities and initiatives to further raise the profile of the relationship and deepen co-operation.

The Minister of Finance visited South Korea in October 2013 as Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans just recently travelled to South Korea to promote Canadian fish and seafood products.

The former Minister of Veterans Affairs, now the Minister of Public Safety, led a delegation of 35 Canadian veterans on a visit to South Korea in April 2013 as part of a revisit program for Korean war veterans. Some 74 Canadian Armed Forces personnel participated in the U.S.-Republic of Korea-United Nations Command military exercise in August 2014, forming the largest non-U.S. contingent from any of the other sending states.

I think members are beginning to see that Canada and South Korea are natural partners.

To further strengthen our already strong ties, Canada and South Korea have established a strategic partnership. Its purpose is to provide the opportunity to focus on areas affecting our bilateral relationship and to identify ways that we can work together regionally and globally on issues ranging from forestry to the Arctic to education to hosting the Olympic Games. This partnership will lay out a strategic direction for stronger relations in key areas of common interest, including energy and natural resources, science, technology and innovation, and Arctic research and development.

Our ties are not limited to bilateral relations. We recognize that we live in a changing and dynamic world. South Korea is in a region with many challenges. Canada and South Korea share similar regional views and objectives on a range of multilateral and global issues.

Our people-to-people ties are extensive and deep. Nearly 170,000 Canadians identify themselves as being of Korean origin. Over 23,000 Canadians are currently residing in South Korea, including about 3,200 language teachers, and 141,800 Korean tourists visited Canada in 2013. They constituted the eighth-largest source of tourists in Canada and spent almost $250 million in the Canadian economy.

Education ties are extensive and growing. South Korea is Canada's third-largest source of international students, with over 19,000 students. There are over 100 agreements among institutions in Canada and South Korea facilitating the exchange of students, faculty, staff, and curricula as well as providing joint research and degree programs.

South Korea is home to a Canadian studies community, including several university-based centres and the Korean Association for Canadian Studies. In Canada, the Korea Foundation supports several university research chairs and South Korean studies programs in universities across Canada.

When the Prime Minister visited South Korea in 2009, he was honoured to be the first Canadian leader to address the South Korean national assembly. At that time, he observed the following:

Canada and South Korea have been staunch allies in the defence of freedom and democracy.... We are not a warlike people, but when the cause has been just and necessary, Canadians have always answered the call. There is no doubt the cause of South Korean freedom was just and necessary. And, the truth of the ideals for which we fought has been revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt as this Republic has flourished, while the Communist North has floundered.

As I have described, Canada is a long-standing partner of Korea and its people. I believe that the Canada-Korea free agreement would contribute to this relationship and to both countries' mutual economic growth and prosperity.

I ask all hon. members to support this agreement, ensuring it enters into force as quickly as possible, as part of their support for Canada's broader collaborative and strategic partnership with South Korea.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the hon. member.

I note that article 17.4 of this trade agreement states that “The parties”—that is, Korea and Canada—“shall strive to facilitate and promote trade and investment in environmental goods and services”.

Korea has been congratulated by the OECD on adopting and moving forward expeditiously on their green growth indicators. Korea has been at the forefront of green growth. It has a national strategy over 40 years and a five-year plan. It has committed 2% of the annual GDP to green growth, with investments geared toward infrastructure to boost the economy. It has passed a U.S. $30.7 billion stimulus package to support its green ambitions.

The question for the government is this: what will it do to implement its obligations under this treaty?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would refer my hon. colleague to page 2 of the bill, where it talks about purpose. Right here it says:

The purpose of this act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of which, as elaborated more specifically through its provisions, are to

And here one of the provisions explicitly is:

f) enhance and enforce environmental laws and regulations and strengthen cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Korea on governmental matters

We will continue to work on all of these areas with our partners to ensure that the environment is protected.

I spoke specifically in my speech about issues related to the Arctic. Canada has been taking very vigorous action on the Arctic, and we are going to share that with our Korean partners.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in the past that the Liberal Party does support the trade agreement with South Korea. We see it as a step forward in overall international trade.

The member made reference to our current relationship, and we should be very boastful of our current relationship, whether it is foreign students or the economic ties that currently bring us together, not to mention out ties through immigration and the many contributions that people of Korean heritage bring to our communities, whether in downtown Toronto, out on the west coast, in my own lovable city of Winnipeg, or in all the regions of Canada.

That said, there are some legitimate concerns with regard to the agreement.

We see the benefits to the aerospace industry and we see the benefits to the pork industry. The specific question I have for the member is this: what sort of assurances can she provide to the automobile industry that the government and the agreement are being sensitive to the automobile industry, an industry we care deeply about?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member who represents the riding of Newmarket—Aurora, where the auto industry is thriving and we have secondary suppliers to the Big Three, I can say it is very important for the auto industry to stay strong.

I think we have had the discussion about how the tariffs would be reduced and how we would not have the kind of impact that some people are seemingly talking about as a threat to the auto industry.

I would like to address the hon. member's comments about the Korean people who have immigrated to Canada and the great cultural contributions they have made.

I have a rather large Korean community in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora. Substantially, they have a congregation that meets regularly in one of the churches in town, which tells me that the number of people in the area is large.

However, they have also bought farms in the area just to the west of me. They are providing produce, and they are excited about this agreement going forward because they see great opportunities for selling the produce they are growing here to Korea.

They are very excited about this opportunity. I thank them for the work they have done in our communities. I know they have invested in culture and in industry, and we thank them for what they have done for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to support Bill C-41.

Considering that it has taken approximately 10 years to get to this point, the NDP is proud of this agreement, which is the first free trade agreement that Canada has signed with an Asian economic partner. The terms of the agreement are largely satisfactory, with the exception of a few concerns that I will address later on.

Negotiations for this agreement officially began in 2005. The agreement, as it now stands, was signed on March 11, 2014, and was presented in the House on March 12, 2014. It was about time, because it had been nearly 11 years.

I would like to tell my colleagues about the criteria that the NDP uses to evaluate free trade agreements. To begin, the proposed partner must share basic Canadian values, such as respect for democracy and human rights, and it must have adequate environmental and labour standards. That goes without saying. When we negotiate a free trade agreement, we want to be sure that the other party shares the same values and applies the same industry standards that Canada does.

Then, we look at the proposed partner's economic situation. It must be of significant or strategic value to Canada. Finally, the terms of the agreement must be satisfactory. We believe that South Korea meets our criteria. Consequently, the NDP is supporting the bill. We have some reservations, but I will come back to them.

I would like to talk a bit about South Korea. Since the dictatorship collapsed about 30 years ago, the international community has watched the country transition to a modern democracy with high standards with respect to human rights, labour rights and environmental protection.

It is the only country in Asia to have been ranked 15th on the human development index. That accomplishment is due in part to the numerous social programs implemented by the government, the prevalence of the rule of law, low levels of corruption and access to quality education.

South Korea also launched an ambitious green strategy to improve its energy efficiency. It is abundantly clear that the country has great respect for the environment and that the government is making serious commitments in that regard. South Korea is a candidate that shares Canadian values around human rights, democracy and the environment. That is an extremely important aspect of an intelligent and balanced approach to a free trade agreement.

In addition, South Korea is of significant strategic value to Canada, which has been at a disadvantage ever since the United States and the European Union both signed free trade agreements with South Korea. That created an economic imbalance and affected a number of industries in Canada.

Preliminary estimates show that the agreement would eliminate almost 98% of tariffs for both parties. Also, Canadian exports to South Korea are expected to rise by 32%, which is worth about $1.7 billion. Let us not forget that South Korea can serve as a gateway to other Asian markets because of its position in the Asian supply chain.

Complementary aspects of the two economies redefine the success of the agreement because Canada and South Korea will not necessarily be in direct competition in their shared markets.

However, Canada would do well to support our automotive industry and create programs to encourage the Korean automotive industry to come set up shop here. I will come back to this later.

The biggest winners among Canadian industries are the heavy industry, agriculture—our pork and beef farmers have suffered greatly from the lack of agreement for many years—the forestry industry, the aerospace industry and the fisheries. A number of associations have expressed support for this free trade agreement.

I will start with the agricultural sector, which is vital to our economy. It accounts for about 8% of Canada's overall economy and provides nearly 2.1 million jobs. The two agreements signed by the United States and the European Union unfortunately affected our economic balance in the agricultural sector. For example, the Canadian beef industry saw its exports to South Korea drop from $96 million in 2011 to just $8 million in 2013. The same was true for pork exports. These two industries suffered a lot because we did not have a free trade agreement. The ratification of the free trade agreement with South Korea is an opportunity to turn things around for these disadvantaged industries, by eliminating 86.8% of the tariffs on those industries.

In the aerospace, seafood, forestry and food sectors, the situation is very similar. These sectors will significantly benefit due to the abolishment of export tariffs and increased market share in South Korea and the Asia-Pacific region in general. Jayson Myers, president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, says “Asia’s rich markets are the next frontier for Canada” in our desire to abolish all kinds of obstacles to ensure the expansion of trade investments.

While the agreement is superior to the one with China and the EU, we expressed a few concerns about this FTA. As I mentioned previously in my speech, there are some issues for the auto industry.

First of all, the NDP is calling on the government to do more to support the auto industry in Canada and is eager to propose solid, effective policy measures to strengthen the Canadian auto sector. The government can and should encourage Korean auto production in Canada and assist Canadian automakers to penetrate the Korean market.

The government continues to fail the auto sector, and I think it is time for it to take a more comprehensive approach. Our auto sector has suffered continuously from the lack of propositions by the government. The most positive features of the Korean FTA are the rules of origin provisions that favour Canadian-U.S. integrated products and the accelerated dispute resolution mechanism that allows for the monitoring of non-tariff barriers.

At the same time, our party has expressed some legitimate concerns about the Korea FTA regarding the Canadian auto sector. Unifor and Ford Canada's opposition is sensible as the FTA Korean imports will negatively affect domestic auto sales. As well, Canadian auto exports will suffer from Korean non-tariff barriers. Additionally, Korean producers seem to penetrate the domestic market through other NAFTA countries. For example, 50% of Korean auto products enter the Canadian market tariff free through the U.S.

In closing, I would like to talk about the many potential problems with the investor dispute settlement provisions. As we know, the German government said that it was not necessarily ready to ratify the Canada-European Union free trade agreement because Canada had insisted on including investor-state dispute resolution provisions. We know what kind of adverse effect this type of mechanism can have on the sovereignty of governments and on their ability to adopt environmental or economic regulations that favour industry in Canada.

The NDP is asking that free trade agreements not include this type of mechanism. As I already said, this could have an adverse effect on the sovereignty of governments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on a couple of points that my colleague made near the end of her speech, pointing out that 50% of Korean cars currently enter Canada duty free from the U.S. under NAFTA and that over 85% of Canadian production is exported. We know that is the current situation, but since the Korea-U.S. free trade deal was signed, U.S. auto exports to Korea have more than doubled from $340 million in 2011 to over $800 million in 2013. Since the Korea-EU agreement was signed, exports to Korea have doubled from $2 billion in 2010 to $4 billion in 2013.

Considering the facts that currently 50% of Korean cars can enter Canada through the NAFTA already, if we remove these tariffs would we not expect to find similar results to the U.S. and the EU after they signed their Korea free trade agreements, with auto exports actually doubling? Also, Ford set an annual sales record last year in Korea. From 2012-13, Ford was the fastest growing brand being sold in Korea. The concerns that the Ford Motor Company had and the concerns about possibly reducing numbers, I think these numbers would indicate the opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the point I wanted to make in the House.

The government failed to help the auto industry in Canada. We have continuously been disadvantaged through the government's inability to strengthen our industry.

The government should be adopting policies to help stimulate Canada's automotive sector and encourage other countries to invest in Canada.

The point I was trying to make was not about whether the free trade agreement was going to support the industry or not. I was talking about the government's constant lack of leadership when it comes to stimulating our own economy.

Signing a free trade agreement is not necessarily the equivalent of waving a magic wand and erasing everything the industry has gone through since the government refused to adopt policies that were appropriate for the situation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on the bill.

I would like to ask her why it would be important for the government and the other opposition parties to adopt an approach as balanced as ours. As we know, the Conservative and Liberal approaches are not as balanced.

Sometimes, free trade agreements are signed with somewhat questionable countries. Other parties approve some free trade agreements without knowing all the details.

Why is it important to have a balanced approach and to read all the details of an agreement before voting on it? How important is this for Canada's economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, when we negotiate a contract or a free trade agreement, we must ensure that the people with whom we are negotiating are on an equal footing. We want to help our industries, but not at any cost.

The government negotiated dozens of free trade agreements that contained provisions to encourage economies to respect workers' rights. The government signs the free trade agreement and then later ensures, for example, that the countries' values are in line with Canada's values.

Personally, I believe that when we negotiate a contract or a free trade agreement, we must ensure that the people with whom we negotiate are on an equal footing. This applies to any situation. I am not going to tell someone that I am going to sign his contract and that I will check later whether or not he complies with the terms of the contract. First, we must ensure that the person signing the free trade agreement will and already does respect Canadian values concerning the environment and workers' rights, for example. I believe that is the least we can do. That is a realistic approach. It is a balanced approach, and that is precisely why the NDP is calling on the government to take that kind of approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as this debate continues on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, particularly on Bill C-41, which would bring the treaty into effect, that as the leader of the Green Party of Canada, I am able to put more fully on the record the position I have stated so far through questions and comments. The Green Party will not be supporting this treaty. I will explain the fundamental reason and then will go into some of the details.

Fundamentally, the Green Party of Canada will never support an agreement that includes an investor state provision. We believe investor state provisions are, by definition, anti-democratic. By definition, the notion that we should allow a corporation or investor from another country to have superior rights to Canadian companies in response to Canadian laws, whether passed at municipal, provincial, or federal levels, is offensive. The first of these was chapter 11 of NAFTA.

I will go into more detail later as to why we oppose investor state agreements and the particularities of the Canada-Korea agreement. I also want to back up and say that in the Canada-Korea treaty, the Green Party believes we missed our opportunity to ensure that we had a more balanced deal.

Let me say this about South Korea: what a tremendous economy it has built. In the wake of the collapse brought about by currency speculation, the trading in currencies that created a meltdown of what were then described as the Asian tigers, Korea, through a lot of state-led economic policy, has built an economy that is championing renewable energy, as some of my colleagues in the NDP have mentioned, and championing clean tech. There is a lot to be admired in what South Korea is doing. Therefore, the comments I am making about this trade deal are not in any way to suggest that South Korea is not a really impressive democracy doing a lot with technology.

The difficulty the Green Party has is with the way this trade treaty is going to go forward. We agree with the concerns of the auto sector in Canada, both the CEO of Ford and Unifor, representing the workers, that we will lock in our trade imbalances and not reduce them.

I know some of my colleagues have mentioned Unifor. Let me read into the record the views of the CEO of Ford Motor Company of Canada, Dianne Craig, who said, in response to this treaty, “...South Korea will remain one of the most closed automotive markets in the world” under the new deal. She went on to say that the trade agreements the U.S. and the European Union have executed failed to reverse their negative trade flows, but those treaties were more protective of their domestic car markets than Canada's treaty with Korea would be.

I am again quoting the CEO of Ford Motor Company of Canada: “No Canadian manufacturer can compete with a market controlled by non-tariff barriers and currency manipulation”. Of course, we know that this agreement does not deal with those barriers to Canadians' access to the automotive market.

It is quite true that we have a lopsided relationship in trade with Korea. In 2012, we were exporting $3.7 billion worth of exports to Korea, and $3.7 billion is an impressive number. However, we were importing $6.4 billion in imports from Korea. The story of what constituted that $3.7 billion worth of exports and $6.4 billion worth of imports is worth touching upon.

Canada has largely been exporting raw resources to Korea. Under this deal, the commodities touted in the materials that have accompanied the deal have talked about what this would do to improve agricultural exports and raw commodity exports, whereas when we look at what we have been importing from Korea, it has been high-value manufactured imports.

Let us look at what Canada has been exporting to Korea. I will quote Jim Stanford, who is a very respected economist who works with Unifor. He put it this way:

We export mostly raw material to Korea, and we import sophisticated high technology products from Korea.

Continuing the quote from Jim Stanford, he said:

Canada's top four exports to Korea last year were coal, copper, aluminum and wood pulp. Our top four imports were motor vehicles, electronic circuits, auto parts and smartphones.

There is nothing in this trade deal that is going to change the characteristics of what we are importing and what we are exporting. I referenced the history of what we have seen with the quote from the CEO of Ford Motor Company of Canada. She certainly mentioned the experience of the U.S. and the EU. Concluding trade deals with Korea did not change the gap that existed in trade flows. In other words, having executed deals like this, and ones that were more protective of their auto markets, they still saw the trade deficit with Korea expand.

There is something wrong. This is a larger conversation I would like to have someday in the House. The Green Party believes that Canada is losing out in productivity and in R and D by allowing our exports to be skewed over the last number of years from 60% value-added exports to, currently, 60% raw material exports. Being a compliant resource economy for other countries around the world is not in the best interest of our economy and certainly is not in the interest of rebuilding our manufacturing sector.

I turn quickly to the issue of investor state agreements. By definition, they are perverse, but it is interesting how different they are becoming, depending on what country we have negotiated with. It is at least important that on the Canada-Korea agreement we are being given the opportunity to vote on something. We are having a full debate in the House of Commons. On the most devastating, damaging agreement yet negotiated by any government in Canada, the Canada-China investment treaty, the so-called FIPA, we did not have debate. We did not have votes. We did not have a bill go to committee. That was because it was not a trade deal; it was an investment deal. It was a stand-alone treaty. It gives, because it has now been ratified, the People's Republic of China the ability to bring arbitration cases against Canada for changes in our domestic legislation, whether municipally, provincially, or federally. That treaty includes no transparency whatsoever and binds us for 31 years.

At the far end of the extreme of trade agreements with an investment provision, which showed that the Government of Canada was dealing with a negotiator from another party that wanted to reduce the pernicious nature of investor state agreements, we have the new text of CETA with the EU, the comprehensive economic trade agreement. The Green Party will not be supporting CETA. However, when I read through the investor state provisions, what a revelation. It is quite different. It is night and day in terms of transparency. If the CETA goes through, for arbitration cases brought by investors from the EU against Canada or by Canadian investors against the EU, the arbitrations themselves will be open to the public. The most we can expect out of any other trade agreement, such as, in this case, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, is that we will get public notice of the fact that these proceedings are happening at all.

That is also what occurs under most of the intermediary bilateral investment treaties that were negotiated after chapter 11 of NAFTA. Chapter 11 of NAFTA, like the Canada-China investment treaty, has no transparency whatsoever. The CETA is at the far end of the spectrum. It says that they will open up these arbitrations to the public and let people with an interest actually present evidence and participate. It is almost getting like a court as opposed to a private arbitration in a hotel room somewhere.

In the case of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, the investor state provisions fall in the mid-range. They are not as pernicious, nor do they lock us in for 31 years, as the Canada-China agreement does. Neither are they bending over backwards to try to win over people who oppose investor state agreements. Clearly, that is the case in the European Union. They stand in opposition to CETA because of investor state agreements, at least in Germany. However, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement still includes that measures adopted by a party include municipal, provincial, federal, and local governments and non-government bodies acting with authority from local parties. In other words, we are opening up the gates once again to investor state arbitration suits that could cost us billions, this time from Korea.

Both of us in the Green Party will be voting against this treaty. I urge other members of this House who are concerned about the impacts of this treaty to join us, no matter what their party instructions are.

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

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague from the Green Party about her party's very strong opposition to investor state dispute resolution provisions.

I talked to some experts in my own riding of Kingston and the Islands from Queen's University, lawyers who specialize in dealing with some of these disputes and in writing treaties, to try to understand this issue. They seemed to uniformly emphasize that Canadian businesses need that protection in other countries, and that on the whole, Canada probably gains from these agreements.

The other thing they emphasized is that if we look at all the damages Canada has had to pay so far, if we take out the AbitibiBowater settlement, which reflects the value of assets that were seized, expropriated, by the Newfoundland and Labrador government, and add them up, it comes to only about $20 million so far. We have to put that in the context of $600 billion worth of foreign investment in Canada. It is one thirty-thousandth. If we put that in context, what I have gotten from the experts I talked to in Kingston is that it is very small compared to the amount of investment in Canada.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if she could comment on that and explain her party's opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party's strong opposition is drawn from empirical data and extensive experience, including advice from international lawyers, particularly Canada's leading arbitration lawyer in this area, and the only one who is not personally benefiting from participating in these investor state disputes, Prof. Gus Van Harten, at Osgoode Hall Law School.

His view is buttressed by an EU think tank study called “Profiting from Injustice”, which examines the hundreds of investor state agreement disputes around the world and finds a very distinct pattern. The smaller economic power almost invariably loses, whether it is an investor corporation from the smaller power versus a larger government or, reversing it, a larger government investor suing a smaller country.

The reality is that no U.S. company suing in the U.S. under Chapter 11 of NAFTA has ever won, and the U.S. private sector companies suing Canada have almost always won.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically hone in on one aspect of the speech by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with respect to the auto sector and put some context around where we are right now. I look to her for some recommendations she might support.

Right now there is a 6% trade barrier Canada raises against Korean automakers coming into the Canadian market. Korea, reciprocally, holds an 8% barrier.

Korean automakers have been building in the U.S. and in Mexico, and that is the way they have been entering the Canadian market and avoiding that trade barrier. They are not building in Canada right now.

I would suggest that this would also be cited as a current problem in our trading relationship. What types of steps would the member be encouraging a more progressive Canadian government to take to encourage some of that auto manufacturing to take place in the Canadian context, as it is taking place in the U.S. and on the Mexican side of the border, thereby avoiding the trade barrier we currently impose, prior to the agreement being ratified?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to have trade deals that have targeted measures that would protect and allow our sectors to expand and allow us to have Korean vehicles made in Canada, as my hon. colleague suggests. Therefore, tariff reduction should be tied to measurable targets in reducing bilateral trade imbalances in strategic sectors, such as in the automobile sector.

It would certainly be helpful in creating a tariff-free zone if we had specific measures to require that larger Korean firms start building in Canada. We should be able to retain the ability, as the Korean government has retained its ability to intervene in its markets, to create the kinds of interventions that moderate the damage of trade imbalances. This agreement would not do it but as I mentioned even the CEO of Ford Motor Company thought we should be dealing with it. The trade agreement should include provisions regarding currency misalignment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to rise to make a short speech about Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. It is a pleasure for me because this proves that the official opposition, the NDP, examines the context of each bill introduced in the House. It studies bills not based on its ideology, but on the facts, and with a view to determining the merits of each free trade agreement.

We have some concerns about this agreement, but there are also benefits for the Canadian economy.

It has been said that the problem with rigid ideology is that we often get the answer before we ask the question.

We have often seen with trade deals by the Conservatives and often their strange bedfellows, the Liberals, that they say yes before reading the text. They say yes before trying to understand what the impacts are going to be. The NDP has taken a very transparent and clear approach to the trade deals as they have been presented to us over the previous years in the House of Commons. Applying a consistent and transparent approach to trade negotiations allows Canadians to judge us on our approach to those trade negotiations. It also allows the New Democrats to apply a consistent measure to the trade deals, and judge each one in context as it comes forward.

What would some of those criteria be? Certainly, one would be the strategic diversification of the Canadian trading relationships we have with the world. Korea obviously meets this test. It is the seventh largest economy and the fourth largest in Asia. It is a key entrant into the Asian market, with which we presently have no trade deals.

My hon. colleague preceding me mentioned an agreement that the New Democrats do not support, which is one that was negotiated, signed and ratified in secret with the Chinese government. That is the so-called FIPA, or the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. We do not support it for obvious reasons, which I could get into but I want to stay focused right now on the Korean deal that is before us.

Another key condition for us as New Democrats in looking at any deal is an element of reciprocity. It is no good for Canada, often as a more primary resource economy and an economy that is smaller when dealing with the United States, China and other potentially larger economies, to not embed reciprocity into the very DNA of the negotiations. That has been accomplished in this deal and it gives us some comfort.

Are we trading with another nation that has at its heart democratic rights and institutions so that they can have a free and informed debate on their side, not only of the trade deal but of the relationship going ahead? That is clearly a test that has been met by the Republic of Korea, which has a strong and long history of democracy. It holds high standards not only for democracy and human rights, but for workers' rights and the environment. These are tests that are important to us as New Democrats.

There has been a number of trade deals signed by the government with foreign regimes that cannot make that claim. The reason that it is so important is that when we make a trade deal or relationship, we assume that all ships will rise in the harbour, as Reagan used to say. That depends on whether our trading partner is willing or able to enforce a higher standard for environmental protection, for workers' rights and for democracy.

If we are dealing with a regime, as the Conservative government has been only too willing to do, that is unwilling, unable or unlikely to do that, what is the positive force that we are looking for in trade in the world? If what is happening at the end of the day is that a regime that is abusive of human rights and does not uphold high standards for workers and the environment is allowed to continue, it gets to wrap itself in the good name of Canada. It can say, “We must be a good country because Canada has agreed to a trade deal with us”. The Conservative government has done that too often.

Allow me a moment to contrast this, as I alluded to earlier, with the Conservative and, I would say, Liberal approach to the foreign investment protection agreement with China. It was negotiated in secret and then signed in Russia. It was held for two years before it was ratified by the government, with no debate and no transparency whatsoever. It is a deal that locks Canada in for 31 years, even after we decide that it is no longer beneficial to us.

Take a moment to consider that. What country in its right mind would sign an investor protection agreement with 31 years before it is able to withdraw from such an agreement?

Questions of reciprocity need to be taken right off the table. I can recall a brief blip in the Prime Minister's logic that was exposed here in the House when the NDP was asking questions about the reciprocity, the reciprocal nature of such a deal as the China FIPA deal. The Prime Minister said Canadian companies will be protected by the rule of law in China, and then he had to pause because such an assurance is obviously ridiculous on its surface and in its intent. We have seen what the challenges have been to many foreign companies attempting to operate in China, rules around intellectual property agreements, rules around just basic protection for those seeking to do business in China. It is farcical for the Prime Minister of Canada to suggest that there would be any such protection.

FIPA was entered into in this mix of secrecy and the notion of “just trust us” from the Conservative Party, which no one does when it comes to things like this. With such a large trading partner only growing in influence and power, and with serious concerns about human rights abuses, about impacts on the environment, about democratic institutions that are not yet robust in China, we were able to say with a great deal of confidence that Canadians were overly wary of this. Chinese Canadians, recent immigrants to this country from China were also wary of such a deal. Any government that lacks the confidence to bring a trade agreement of any kind to the floor of the House of Commons speaks volumes about what is behind that trade deal.

In any trade deal, and this is true regardless of the nature of the trade deal, regardless of the trading partner, there are certain aspects of our economy that will greatly benefit, others that will benefit less, and others that may be hurt.

We are asking important questions about the agreement with Europe right now, because the government has refused to give us details on support to the dairy sector, for example. That sector will obviously be harmed by what is happening with the European trade deal. There are potential impacts on pharmaceutical medications and costs to Canadians and to the provinces, which are already reeling from a $36 billion cut to transfers in health payments from the federal government. Canadians want to know if their prescription medications are going to get more expensive under the trade deal with Europe, and the Conservative government has offered us absolutely nothing. This goes back to the Conservatives saying, “Trust us, do not worry”.

I mentioned the auto sector earlier in a question to my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. Korea is a growing and significant power in auto manufacturing.

Let me summarize the context that we are faced with. Canada levies a 6% barrier on autos coming in from Korea. Korea inversely puts an 8% barrier on Canadian imports with a number of other non-tariff trade imbalances. Korean manufacturers have been building cars in the United States and Mexico. Obviously, a car manufactured in those places will enter Canada trade-barrier free, and they have been for a number of years. When the U.S. signed its trade deal just two years ago with Korea, the gap widened but the overall volume of cars going to Korea and cars coming from Korea into the U.S. went up.

Canada has been lagging behind. We are concerned because the government has been slow to move in negotiations with Korea and our auto manufacturing sector has been losing market share. Market share has also been lost across agriculture, wood products and a number of other things that have raised concerns for many of us.

Let us take the global context for a moment. Foreign direct investment in the auto manufacturing sector alone approached nearly $18 billion last year. Do members know how much foreign direct investment came into Canada? The answer is zero. That should be a concern to all Canadians whatever their political stripe and their influence. Canada may be and in fact is slipping behind our competitors when it comes to investing, particularly in the new technology, the advanced stage cars that are coming on line that take us away from the carbon economy. Canada has fallen too far behind in that.

More support needs to be given to build that next generation of automobile. If $18 billion globally has gone into the advanced auto sector and manufacturing and Canada has received nothing, this should be cause for alarm. However, we see in this trade deal that even though we are opening up this new segment to Korea, there is no support for the Canadian auto sector whatsoever. This raises concerns for us. The concerns raised by Unifor, Ford and others are important for us to consider.

The New Democrats will support this deal with some reservations on the investor state protection agreement in particular. Our Korean counterparts in the opposition government right now are also raising concerns. A future New Democratic government would revisit those aspects of the bill, take out the most odious aspects. Hopefully a Korean opposition would see likewise the benefits of having a good trade deal for Canada and Korea without some of the more egregious parts of the act that we have concerns with today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member concluded his remarks by saying that the New Democrats would reopen the agreement. I acknowledge the importance of our automobile industry in Ontario. The member had the opportunity to highlight his concerns. Would he like to add anything further to it given we have to be brief?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, highlighting the importance of the Canadian auto manufacturing sector is incredibly important.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred until tomorrow, October 1, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow, immediately before private members' business.