Erin O'Toole

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 25th, 2014]

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?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 25th, 2014]

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?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 24th, 2014]

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?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 24th, 2014]

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?

[International Trade, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that question.

Moments ago, the Prime Minister and President Park of South Korea took part in a signing ceremony for our historic free trade agreement with South Korea. It is our first in Asia, and 26,000 Canadians helped secure that democracy 60 years ago. This is about jobs, not just in B.C. but across Canada.

The NDP will likely oppose yet another trade agreement in this House. I would like to make mention that in one year, our government has signed more trade agreements than 13 years of—

[International Trade, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question. While she and her colleagues are surfing Facebook in their constituency weeks, our members are meeting with employers and meeting with the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters association. These are job creators in our country who have been asking for legal certainty in their dealings with China. They are selling in that country, and this FIPA will give our employers certainty in dealing with China.

The NDP should get offline and get meeting our employers across the country.

[International Trade, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my friend back to the House. I remind him that in June he stood in this place and asked why the government had not moved forward on this important FIPA with China. We have, and now he is still complaining once again. On CBC on the weekend, he was spreading myths about this FIPA.

The “P” in FIPA is for protection. This is about protecting Canadian exporters who are selling into that market, and it is the 30th FIPA Canada has signed over 20 years. This is good for our exporters. It is good for jobs.

[International Trade, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question, but as the member knows well, China is the second-largest economy in the world. Canadian exporters are selling to and dealing with that country on a daily basis, and the jobs created from that account for one in five jobs in Canada.

Canadian exporters have been asking for protection. The P in FIPA stands for “protection”. This will give these companies certainty in their contractual dealings in China. It is levelling the playing field, because Chinese companies already have such protections and certainty in Canadian courts. This is about securing that certainty for our exporting sector.

[Franklin Discovery, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the amazing Franklin discovery, the discovery of one of our ships lost since 1846 and the Durham connection to this discovery.

The Prime Minister's passion for the Arctic and for this Franklin discovery is well known. While we did not find Franklin slumped over the wheel as the Prime Minister hoped, we found one of the two ships in remarkable condition. This is an important part of our history as Canadians and of our Arctic sovereignty.

I would like to talk about the Durham connection to this discovery in the Victoria Strait.

Mr. Joshua Thienpont from Courtice, a graduate of Courtice High School, was on one of the vessels in the Arctic. A Ph.D. student from Queen's studying Arctic ecosystems, he was there as part of the Weston Foundation. This highlights another remarkable part of this discovery: the collaboration of Parks Canada, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, the Weston Foundation and others to bring forth this amazing discovery and our rich Canadian history.

I congratulate Joshua and the entire team on this remarkable discovery.

[Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise to pay tribute to just one of our storied military regiments. The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, or PPCLI, turned 100 this year. While known for its strength in western Canada, its origins are actually here in Ottawa. It was created by Captain Andrew Hamilton Gault in 1914, and its century of service afterwards has been inspiring.

In World War I, it fought at Vimy and Passchendaele. In World II, it was in Operation Husky, Sicily; Monte Cassino; and the liberation of the Netherlands. In Yugoslavia, the PPCLI was there for the tough fighting at Medak Pocket. In Afghanistan, in Kabul and Kandahar province, the PPCLI was there.

Three weeks ago, I was in Korea to see first-hand how, from school children to ministers of the government, they still remember and appreciate the sacrifice of the PPCLI in Korea in the Battle of Kapyong.

I am thankful for the PPCLI's century of service and sacrifice for Canada. While its motto was always “Once a Patricia, Always a Patricia”, its members have always been some of our finest Canadians.