Debates of Sept. 24th, 2014

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[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.