OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 119 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, September 30, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 30, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 119 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 119 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 119 (Version officielle) 147 119 30 09 2014 2014/09/30 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers (1005) [ English ] Board of Internal Economy The Speaker : I have the honour to inform the House that Mrs. Ambler, member for the electoral district of Mississauga South , has been appointed member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Merrifield, member for the electoral district of Yellowhead, for the purposes and under the provisions of

section 50 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I should like to move concurrence in the report. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

Petitions Sex Selection Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. This morning I would like to table a petition on behalf of numerous constituents. They are requesting that the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Agriculture Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. They are all with regard to the right to save seeds. Petitioners are calling upon Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18,

an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food , that would restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs. Further, they call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable right of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

Asbestos Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by tens of thousands of Canadians who call upon Parliament and the House of Commons here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. In fact, they point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than from all other occupational or industrial causes combined, yet Canada still allows asbestos to be used in construction materials, textile products, and even children's toys.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers; to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad; and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

Impaired Driving Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions from citizens of Canada from Manitoba, British Columbia, and Ontario. These citizens want to see tougher laws and implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, today it is my honour to rise to present two petitions. The first is about CBC/Radio-Canada. [ English ] This is our national broadcaster. The petitioners presented petitions in English, so I will continue in English. The petitioners are from all over Canada. They are from Toronto and Markham, but primarily from British Columbia, from Vancouver, Nelson, and my constituency of Saanich—Gulf Islands. They are calling for stable, predictable funding for the CBC.

Waste Reduction Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is entirely from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, from North Saanich, Salt Spring Island and Victoria. They are all calling for the Government of Canada to work with the provinces to put in place a national program to reduce waste through extended product responsibility and extended producer responsibility.

Canada Post Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions in the House today in respect to the reduction of Canada Post services. The signatories to these petitions note that the elimination of door-to-door mail delivery will have a particularly adverse impact on seniors and the disabled. They call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan to end door-to-door mail delivery and increase prices, and to instead explore other options for modernizing the postal service.

Questions on the Order Paper Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act 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. Bill C-41. Second reading Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : 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.

(1010) 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.

(1015) There is lots of room of improvement, both for the Conservatives and I would even suggest for the New Democrats, on this particular file. [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : 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? (1020) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : 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 : Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development. Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : 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. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : 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. Mr. Don Davies : 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—

(1025) The Deputy Speaker : 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. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : 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? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : 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. Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : 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.

(1030) 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.

(1035) 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.

(1040) [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Hon. Ron Cannan : 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. Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : 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? Hon. Ron Cannan : 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. Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : 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%.

(1045) 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.

(1050) 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.

(1055) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy : 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. Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : 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. Mr. Gerald Keddy : 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. Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : 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 for 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.

(1100) Mr. Gerald Keddy : 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. Mr.

Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : 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.

(1105) 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.

(1110) Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : 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? Mr. Kennedy Stewart : 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. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : 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. Mr. Kennedy Stewart : 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. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : 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? (1115) [ English ] Mr. Kennedy Stewart : 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. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : 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.

(1120) 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. (1125) [ English ] Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : 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. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin : 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. Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : 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. Mr.

Robert Aubin : 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. (1130) [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : 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.

(1135) 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.

(1140) 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.

(1145) 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.

(1150) 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. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : 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? Mr. Erin O'Toole : 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. Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : 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. Mr. Erin O'Toole : 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. (1155) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole : 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. Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : 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. Mr.

Erin O'Toole : 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.

(1200) The Acting Speaker (Mr. 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 . Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : 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.

(1205) 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 .

(1210) Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : 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. Mr. Randall Garrison : 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. Mr.

Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : 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? Mr. Randall Garrison : 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. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : 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? (1215) [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison : 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. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : 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.

(1220) 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 ou