8843 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 133 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, October 28, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 28, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 133 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 133 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 133 (Version officielle) 147 133 28 10 2014 2014/10/28 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36

(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions.

Committees of the House Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) Motion for concurrence moved that the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented on Monday, March 24, 2014 be concurred in. The Speaker : Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: On division The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Rouge National Park Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present petitions on behalf of residents of the GTA with respect to the creation of Rouge national park. We know that there is a 100-square-kilometre public land assembly that surrounds the Rouge River and Duffins Creek watersheds in Toronto, Markham, and Pickering. This publicly owned federal, provincial, and municipal land is predominantly designated as a provincial Greenbelt natural heritage system.

It is the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron, Wendat, and Seneca first nations and their sacred burial and village sites. The petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada protect the irreplaceable 100-square-kilometre public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge national park and ensure that all people and organizations within the community are consulted in the creation of the Rouge national park.

Impaired Driving Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present on behalf of constituents today. The first deals with impaired driving. Petitioners call for 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.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with sex-selective pregnancy termination. Petitioners call on Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through gender selection pregnancy termination.

[ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition about strengthening our communities by reuniting families through the Canadian immigration system. The petition reads as follows: We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

WHEREAS the Conservative government’s radical overhaul of Canada’s immigration system is turning Canada into a less welcoming country;

WHEREAS these changes weaken our communities by limiting possibilities for families to reunite in Canada with overseas spouses, children, parents and grandparents;

WHEREAS families seeking to reunite on Canadian soil face unacceptable barriers and wait times as long as nine years;

WHEREAS this government’s misguided response to growing backlogs has been to impose a two-year freeze on reunification applications for parents and grandparents; THEREFORE we the undersigned call on the Government of Canada to make reuniting families a central priority in Canada’s immigration system.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders (1010) [ Translation ] Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41,

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-41. Third reading The Speaker : The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has 13 minutes left for her speech. Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to continue speaking to Bill C-41 , the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement. It is my great pleasure and honour to support this bill and this free trade agreement, the crux of which is tariff lines between Canada and South Korea.

The NDP believes that this free trade agreement will benefit Canadian industries and that it can produce plenty of positive economic spinoffs for Canadian industries, such as aerospace. First, I want to point out that Korea is one of Canada's biggest trading partners. It is Canada's seventh-largest trading partner, the third-largest in Asia after China and Japan. In 2003, Canadian exports to South Korea totalled $33.4 billion while Korean exports to Canada totalled $7.3 billion. The NDP supports a balanced and sensible approach to free trade agreements.

We believe it is critical to review each individual agreement to determine its benefits. The NDP believes that Canada must negotiate free trade agreements with trading partners that respect democracy and human rights and have adequate environmental and labour rights standards. That is the case in South Korea. In addition, the trading partner's economy must be of significant or strategic value to Canada. As I explained in my speech, this free trade agreement with Korea passes that test. We also have to ensure that the terms of the proposed agreement are satisfactory.

I know that a number of stakeholders, including most Canadian industrial sectors, have said this is an excellent agreement. That cannot be said of all of the free trade agreements negotiated by the Conservative government over the past few months and years. The NDP understands the importance of implementing this free trade agreement as of January 1. In fact, Korea already has free trade agreements with the European Union and the United States. Since those countries implemented their free trade agreements with Korea, Canadian exporters have been losing significant market share.

What is more, each year, Korean tariffs come down for EU and U.S. exporters as a result of those agreements. This is estimated to cost Canadian producers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. We therefore understand how urgent it is to implement this free trade agreement as soon as possible. The losses have been particularly heavy in the agri-foods, seafood and aerospace sectors. I would like to emphasize the aerospace sector in particular since it is essential to the economic well-being of the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

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

(1015) Canada’s largest private-sector union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, has publicly supported the Korean free trade agreement. This union represents tens of thousands of workers in the food processing, seafood, milling, agricultural and distilling sectors. I am very proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I have been able to work with our critic for international trade. We worked extremely hard to improve Bill C-41 . Although we support the bill and although it will be beneficial to Canada, we believe that it is not perfect and that it can be improved.

The NDP proposed three amendments to the Standing Committee on International Trade, which were defeated not only by the Conservatives, who hold a majority on the committee, but also by the Liberal member who sits on that committee. One of the amendments that the NDP critic proposed to improve the bill sought to eliminate the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. The NDP believes that this is a rather controversial aspect of the bill because we are talking about a free trade agreement between two democratic countries with solid and stable legal systems.

The Conservative government has a history of negotiating free trade agreements that contain these investor state dispute settlement mechanisms. These free trade agreements are even a cornerstone of this government. However, we do not believe that such a measure is necessary in a free trade agreement with South Korea. As we have seen in the news in recent weeks, many countries did not agree with this investor state dispute settlement mechanism. Germany, for one, has spoken out against these mechanisms in free trade agreements.

The main opposition party in South Korea also opposes this mechanism, and an NDP government would negotiate with South Korea in order to get rid of it. This mechanism definitely does not have unanimous support in the international community. The good thing about this free trade agreement is that it is not binding on the governments for 31 years, like the Canada-China investment agreement, or FIPA. Unlike that investment protection agreement, the free trade agreement with South Korea has guaranteed transparency rules for investor state dispute settlement tribunals, and the hearings must be held in public.

That is at least one good thing about this bill. I would like to digress for a moment and talk about intellectual property. I would like to quote an expert in this area who is often quoted in this House, Michael Geist. He also often appears as a witness before parliamentary committees. I encourage any Canadians who might be interested, including my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, to look for and read what he has written on the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement.

(1020) Unfortunately, I do not have time to read the text in full, but this illustrates at least that the

section on intellectual property has some positive aspects that we can support. I will quote from what Michael Geist wrote. [ English ] He said: The IP

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

article he says: [ English ] ...the Canada--South Korea agreement may provide a model for many other countries that wish to include intellectual property provisions in their trade agreements but are content to require each party to meet international standards rather than the domestic rules of one of the parties.

The U.S. and E.U. approach has been to export their rules to other countries, but Canada and South Korea have demonstrated that respect for domestic choices and compliance [to] international obligations is a better alternative. [ Translation ] The free trade agreement between Canada and Korea is interesting in its approach to intellectual property. Since I have just a minute left, I would like to reiterate that the NDP has a balanced approach to free trade agreements.

We will look at the text of the free trade agreement with the European Union and consult Canadians before deciding whether or not we will support it. Nonetheless, the free trade agreement between Canada and Korea is a positive, model agreement. I am proud to support it. Our approach is not like that of the Conservative government at all. The government wants to negotiate free trade agreements with every country, regardless of their record on respecting human rights and without any concern for the benefits to Canada.

We must choose our trade partners carefully, and that is what an NDP government will do. [ English ] Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments, and thank her and her party for their intended support of this bill, because it is very important. There was one point in her comments where there may have been a translation issue. I am not sure. However, she referred to the Canada-China free trade agreement. I would just like to inform the House and Canadians that we do not have a free trade agreement with China.

We have a foreign investment protection agreement, which is very crucial for potential investors in a foreign economy. For that reason, I wonder if my colleague could explain why she would not have stood up for those foreign investors who intend to invest in South Korea, by having her committee try to remove that

section from this bill. It is a very crucial

section for those who intend to invest in South Korea. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understood the question. I think he was talking about the fact that I mentioned the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. The NDP is opposed to this agreement between Canada and China. He is right. That is not a free trade agreement, but rather an agreement that protects Chinese investments in Canada and allows Chinese companies to take over and control Canada's natural resources. That is why the NDP is against this investment protection agreement with China.

He also raised the matter of the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. This should be debated. International stakeholders demonstrated that this mechanism was not necessary between two countries that have sound justice systems like Canada and Korea. As far as free trade agreements between these two countries are concerned, we can rely on our solid and transparent justice systems. This mechanism is therefore not necessary in this free trade agreement. In future, the NDP will exclude this mechanism when it negotiates free trade agreements. (1025) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, it is important that we catch this particular point: in 2003 South Korea made the determination that it wanted to enter into free trade agreements throughout the world. Canada has been somewhat slack in not giving this file the attention it deserved. In fact, it was former prime minister Paul Martin who really initiated the discussions with South Korea back in 2004, just a year after South Korea had expressed its interest. It has taken the current Conservative government almost a decade to take that interest South Korea had and put it into a free trade agreement. Now, do not get me wrong.

The Liberal Party has consistently, from Korea's initial interest back in 2003, wanted to see a free trade agreement. We have supported the bill in second reading. To that extent, I think it is noteworthy to recognize that the NDP has taken a different road, a road to support free trade agreements. This is something that is very new here in Ottawa. It is a new policy shift for the New Democrats. I wonder if my NDP colleague could provide some comment as to why there has been that shift in NDP policy in favour of free trade agreements.

Can we now anticipate, for example, that NDP members will support the economic trade agreement with the European Union? [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu : Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to disagree with the Liberal Party's approach to free trade because a few months ago that party supported a free trade agreement with Honduras. It is shameful that the Liberal Party is prepared to negotiate a free trade agreement with an undemocratic country where journalists are murdered and workers are not safe. That economy is of very little strategic importance to Canada.

However, the Liberals followed the Conservatives and supported that free trade agreement, which, in fact, will not improve the human rights situation in that country. Quite frankly, I do not believe that that position is in any way good for the Canadian economy or for our international reputation. If the NDP is voted in as the government next year, we will strengthen trade ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region. We recognize that this will be vital to Canada's prosperity in the 21st century. I hope that the NDP will form the government and that the Liberal Party will support us. [ English ] Mr.

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

The Conservative record on trade has been very poor. When the Conservatives came to power back in 2006, we had a trade surplus of, I believe, about $16 billion. However, we now have a trade deficit of over $60 billion, which has accumulated over that period of time. Could the member talk about how we can improve on creating local jobs and help expand, not only sending oil and raw materials to other countries but creating local manufacturing jobs, with these trade agreements? (1030) [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right about the numbers.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a terrible track record when it comes to international trade. He also mentioned the Liberal Party's position on the free trade agreement with the European Union. I would like to quote the Liberal trade critic concerning that agreement: We have been supportive of the deal from the start. It’s important to say this is a great step, but also we really need to start seeing some details. At some point though we need to see what it is we’re actually supporting.

The Liberals were prepared to support an agreement without having all the details, without doing their homework and without doing what had to be done to ensure that it really was a good agreement. The NDP is ready to do the work and to study the agreements. We even travelled across the country to consult Canadians about this free trade agreement. It is critical that we do this work. I would like to get back to the question my colleague asked about how we can support the manufacturing sector and increase exports.

According to the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, free trade agreements are an excellent step, and we must negotiate them. However, we need to do more and we need to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to export, because it is often more difficult for them to export products to other countries or economies. We need to ensure that there are services to help these businesses get information on the other countries they may be exporting to.

In addition, and to mark Small Business Week, we need to put an emphasis on small business and on helping them export. [ English ] Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be sharing my time with the member for Kelowna—Lake Country . It is my pleasure to reiterate the importance of Canada's free trade agreement with Korea. No government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers, and their families.

Deepening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to these efforts. Our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. It represents one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for more than 60% of our country's annual income. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is an ambitious state-of-the-art agreement covering virtually all sectors and aspects of trade between Canada and Korea. It would also be Canada's first free trade agreement with an Asian market.

When President Park of the Republic of Korea visited Canada in September, she and the Prime Minister also announced their intention to develop an agreement on science, technology, and innovation co-operation between our two countries. I would like to focus my remarks on this important development in the Canada-Korea relationship. Canada is globally renowned for its strength in innovation, its R and D capacity, and its highly trained workforce. Research and development is crucial for Canada's success as a trading nation. It plays a key role in shaping the economy and creating the jobs of the future.

It creates new goods and services that improve the standard of living for Canadians and for communities around the world. The Canadian science, technology, and innovation landscape is rich and diverse. Our Conservative government understands the importance of science, technology, and innovation in addressing key societal challenges. Indeed, all Canadians know our future growth and place in the world will increasingly be driven by our ability to innovate. Let me provide some insights into how innovation is linked to economic development.

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

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

Canada generates about 4.1% of global knowledge, despite accounting for just 0.5% of the world's population. That is courtesy of the Council of Canadian Academies, The State of Science and Technology in Canada, 2012 . Clearly, we are punching above our weight, and our linkages with international innovation leaders are crucial to maintaining our advantage. Korea is an ideal partner for Canada in science, technology, and innovation co-operation. Strengthening relations with Korea through a formal agreement would allow Canada to build a lasting strategic framework with one of the world's most innovative economies.

Korea is not only a top funder of research and development projects, but an expert in introducing new technologies into the marketplace. These are the types of partners Canada needs to advance our expertise in innovation. In addition to supporting the relationship between the two countries, a science, technology, and innovation agreement would complement the Canada-Korea free trade agreement by enhancing opportunities for Canadian industry to gain access to cutting-edge research networks and technology in Korea.

(1035) A preliminary analysis suggests that the most promising sectors for co-operation align with those that would be supported by Canada's free trade agreement with Korea, namely aerospace; automotive; energy, including sustainable technologies; advanced manufacturing; health and life sciences, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices; and information communication technology, or ICTs. If the House will permit me, I would like to discuss the benefits that would accrue to Canadians from strengthening the Canada-Korea science, technology, and innovation relationship.

A science, technology, and innovation or STI agreement would be supported by robust CKFTA outcomes in the areas of services, investment, temporary entry, and intellectual property. The services and investment provisions would provide Canadian suppliers of professional services such as R and D with greater and more predictable access to the Korean market and would encourage additional investment in the science, technology, and innovation sectors. Temporary entry provisions would provide new preferential access to the Korean market, facilitating movement between Canada and South Korea for business visitors.

The free trade agreement's commitment to strong intellectual property rights and rules for their enforcement would provide Canadians who develop and market innovative and creative products with access to the Korean market. An STI agreement would be an effective tool to assist Canadian companies to increase exports of value-added industrial and advanced manufacturing products, making Korea an attractive market not only for our traditional energy and agricultural exports but also for science, technology, and innovation exports.

An STI agreement would also benefit Canada by facilitating increased access for Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, as well as research institutes and universities to Korea's innovative ecosystem and global value chains. Canada's R and D largely depends on our universities. Korea relies much more on industry. The Korean R and D approach can help Canada commercialize research and scale products.

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

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

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

This agreement would strengthen our trade and investment ties across the Pacific, increase the prosperity of both our countries, and create jobs and enhanced opportunities for Canadian businesses. With that, I call for the prompt implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement for the benefit of Canada and all Canadians. (1040) [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell me exactly what Canada stands to gain from this investor state dispute settlement mechanism? [ English ] After signing the investor state dispute settlement section,

chapter of 11 of NAFTA, the Canadian government had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to American companies and lost the capacity and the possibility to legislate environmental policies or investment policies. I would like the member to tell us what exactly we are going to get from this kind of mechanism in another trade agreement. Are we going to have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Korean companies, as we did for American companies? I would like the member to tell us what we are going to get from these kinds of mechanisms. Mr. John Carmichael : Mr.

Speaker, this government is committed to creating free trade opportunities for Canadian businesses around the world. In fact, in the past seven years, some 43 new trade agreements have been signed globally by the government. That is something that I think all Canadians should not only be proud of but should also see as opportunities for growth. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is going to create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians by increasing Canada's exports to South Korea by 32% and boosting Canada's economy by $1.7 billion. This is opportunity.

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

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

(1045) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, what we have witnessed is a great deal of Conservative spin coming right from the Prime Minister 's Office. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say the Conservative government is a leader when it comes to trade. In reality, when it comes to trade, the government has lost more trade opportunities than any other political entity in the history of Canada. The member made references to 43 trade agreements, but 28 of those countries are all part of one, the European Union.

When the member says 43, he has to watch the way he twists the words around. When it comes to the Canada-Korea deal, this is a deal Korea expressed an interest in back in 2003. One year later, Paul Martin said that we should act on this opportunity. It took this government years and years of being pulled by the South Korean government, and now we finally have an agreement before us. How many opportunities and jobs does the member feel Canadians have lost because of the government's inability to negotiate a freer trade agreement with South Korea years ago? Mr. John Carmichael : Mr.

Speaker, if we are going to talk spin, clearly my friend opposite has strayed far from the topic at hand today. Let us just talk about this. In the tenure of the Liberal Party as government for this country, it signed three free trade agreements. We have signed 43. If we lump in 28 from the European Union, that is fine. Canadian businesses now have access to 500 million consumers. We are not losing opportunities. We are gaining them every day through an international trade component led by this government that is getting the job done for Canadians and for Canadian growth and Canadian prosperity. Hon.

Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important free trade agreement and to share my time with the hard-working member for Don Valley West . I will start off by reconfirming that there is no government in Canada's history that has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers, and their families. The Minister of International Trade has been spending many days away from home trying to secure new markets and to deepen Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world.

I think it is key to these efforts. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first FTA with an Asia-Pacific nation, is an ambitious, state-of-the-art agreement covering virtually all sectors and aspects of free trade. Today I will speak specifically to the foundation of the agreement, which is the extensive and profound people-to-people ties that bind Canada and South Korea. I think that is a very important aspect that has not really been talked about. It is an increasingly interconnected world. People-to-people ties are crucial to ensuring long-term success in the competitive global economy.

It is all about relationships, and this free trade agreement is a classic example. It is a landmark achievement that would result in mutual benefits and prosperity for both of our countries and that would lay the foundation to unlock the full potential of our political, economic, and secure relations. Canada can leverage its rich history and flourishing people-to-people ties with South Korea to build on this free trade agreement and pave the pathway to jobs and prosperity for generations to come.

Canada and South Korea have had formal diplomatic relations for over 50 years, yet the connections between our two peoples extend back more than a century. Prior to the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1963, Canada came to South Korea's aid in the Korean War, contributing the third-largest contingent of troops to UN forces. More than 26,000 Canadian soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder with their Korean brothers and sisters against the spread of tyranny. Unfortunately, more than 500 individuals ultimately gave their lives.

George Barr, from the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 26 in my riding, and others across Canada, have been incredible ambassadors for the Canada-Korea relationship. The memories of helping folks in Korea and Canada continue to strengthen that bond. Korean President Park was here last month for her official state visit, and she laid a wreath in memory at the National War Memorial. It was one of the highlights of her visit and was a testament to the importance of the shared history of our two nations.

When I had the honour of travelling with the Prime Minister and the delegation in March for the initial signing of the agreement in Seoul, the Prime Minister and the delegation laid a wreath at the Seoul National Cemetery, as well. I would like to take a moment to think about Corporal Cirillo. His funeral procession is taking place in Hamilton right now. I am thinking about soldiers, the men and women who sacrifice their lives, and our thoughts and prayers go out to their families as well. After the Korean War, almost 7,000 additional Canadian soldiers served as peacekeepers in South Korea between 1953 and 1957.

Canada also participated in supervising South Korea's first elections in 1948 as part of the United Nations temporary commission on Korea. Aside from the United States, Canada is the only other state that has permanent military representation, with the United Nations Command, otherwise known as the UNC, in Korea. Canada continues to participate in the UNC Military Armistice Commission that supervises the armistice.

Last year, a delegation of Canadian veterans, led by the current Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness , the member for Lévis—Bellechasse , travelled to South Korea to mark the 60th anniversary of the Korean War armistice on July 27, 2013. Building on our proud and shared history, our bilateral relationship is further championed and advanced by our strong, growing, people-to-people ties. Canada is home to some 200,000 people who identify themselves as being of Korean origin. It is the fourth-largest Korean diaspora in the world.

Over 23,000 Canadians are currently residing in South Korea, including around 3,200 language teachers. Last year, our government designated the year 2013 the Year of Korea in Canada. It marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Korea and celebrated the contributions of the Korean diaspora to Canadian society.

(1050) The Year of Korea in Canada featured a number of cultural and artistic events. I am sure many members had the opportunity to take them in. There were great festivities across the country that gave Canadians the opportunity to learn more about Korean culture, tradition, and diversity. The Canada-Korea Interparliamentary Friendship Group is co-chaired by Senator Yonah Martin, Canada's first and only Korean senator, an incredible, hard-working individual.

She shares that responsibility with our acting Speaker, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock , who has held three successful Canada-Korea dialogue series on the Hill, the last of which was held in June this year. It was attended by more than 100 participants.

Senator Martin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade , and the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock also travelled to Seoul, Korea, in September to meet with senior government officials, Korean national assembly members, and business officials to discuss the wide-ranging benefits of the trade agreement to continue to move this agreement forward. Some Canadians were a bit disappointed with the NDP at committee recently when members tried to remove what I believe is one of the cornerstones of a modern trade agreement, the investor protection provisions.

The Liberals talked about this trade agreement in 2003, but it was our Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade who were actually able to get this over the goal line. The opposition had taken us virtually out of the game of international trade. It was not a priority for them, and I understand their reasons. However, our government wants to create jobs and open doors and opportunities to put Canadian workers and businesses first. The opposition put us at severe risk of falling behind in the era of global markets, but that has changed in a positive manner.

Fortunately for Canadians, our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Last month, during President Park's visit to Canada, our government announced its intent to develop a science, technology, and innovation agreement with South Korea, providing Canada with the opportunity to further strengthen the people-to-people ties and to build a lasting strategic framework with one of the world's most innovative economies and top funders of research and development.

The agreement would provide Canadian stakeholders with opportunities to create new partnerships and enhance business-to-business linkages through a mechanism that would directly support bilateral, industry-led research and development funding projects in strategic areas. As well, I am proud to say that our education ties are extensive and growing. I am sure members from all parties have constituents who have gone to South Korea. It is Canada's third-largest source of international students.

We have had constituents going there to teach, and we have had more than 19,000 young and talented students choose Canada as the destination of choice to pursue their education. Based on the average estimated expenditure by international students in Canada per year, that would translate to Korean students contributing over $500 million to the Canadian economy. Many high-calibre international students choose to stay in Canada post-graduation, leading to the enrichment of human capital in Canada. Those who go back to Korea are some of Canada's best ambassadors.

There are over 100 active agreements among institutions in Canada and South Korea facilitating the exchange of students, faculty, staff, and curricula and providing joint research and degree programs. That is very important. The Government of Canada has a number of memoranda of understanding with South Korea, including in the areas of industrial science, engineering and technology, research, co-operation, clean technologies, energy, and Arctic research and development. On tourism, over 140,000 Korean tourists visited Canada in 2013.

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

On September 22, the Prime Minister and Korean President Park witnessed the signing of an open-skies air transport agreement between Canada and Korea, another significant milestone moving forward. Ultimately our goal is to create jobs and growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and their families. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership.

(1055) Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. As members probably know, his riding borders mine, and we work together on a number of issues. I would just like to get a straight answer, if I can. We have brought up investor state rights, and I am hearing from the other side that wanting to have an amendment to this agreement to take out investor state rights is somehow contrary to trade or means wanting to block the agreement. I have been following the whole idea of investor state rights ever since NAFTA.

It seems ludicrous to me that any government would allow a foreign company to sue the government because it might feel that it was not treated fairly by certain environmental legislation or laws that were put in place by people at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. I would like clarification. Why is it so important to have these investor state rights, when we have a legal system in both of our countries that can do the job, that will give our tax dollars to foreign companies, should they choose to sue us, either to defend the federal government or to make a payout? To me it does not make any sense.

Why do we need to have this provision in an agreement between two civilized countries that would take our tax dollars to pay their corporations? Something is not quite right here, and I would like a definite explanation.

(1100) Hon. Ron Cannan : Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank my hon. colleague from the British Columbia Southern Interior . I know that he is not going to be running next year, so I wish him all the best in his retirement. We have had many opportunities to spend hours in the air together and chat as we have crossed back and forth to our ridings. Philosophically, the aspect the New Democrats need to understand is investor protection.

Our government believes that it is important that Canadians investing in another country are protected through a neutral third party, just as another country's investors who are investing in Canada would expect to be protected by the rule of law. What we would have is an independent third party that would protect the investments and look at them from an objective, neutral perspective. That is the challenge. Anyone doing business would expect to be treated fairly.

I do not think it is unreasonable to have the expectation, whether it is Canadian investors investing in another country or people from another country investing in Canada, that they will be treated with respect and objectively and with fairness. That is what we would have with the investor state provision. It has been around. It has been a cornerstone of trade agreements since NAFTA. It is an important cornerstone of modern trade agreements that we recognize around the world. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his comment, and I would like to ask a question. We in the Liberal Party support free trade. There is sometimes a focus on declaring victory as soon there is the free trade deal, as though that in itself is the end point. It is more complicated than that. In the end, does it turn out to be a good deal for Canada? Things like trade balances sometimes give us a bit of a clue as to whether it has been successful for Canada. On the issue of the trade balance, sometimes the figures are a bit discouraging.

I am not saying that they are all-important. In the end, if we increase our trade, even though we may still have a trade imbalance with the country we are dealing with, that is still a positive thing. The government talks about all the free trade deals it has negotiated. Has it analyzed whether, in the end, they are turning out to be a good deal for Canada, in terms of the deals that have been negotiated? I certainly hope they are. Have we negotiated hard enough that this would actually profit Canada as much as we would like it to? Hon. Ron Cannan : Mr.

Speaker, I too would like to thank my hon. colleague for his contributions prior to being in the House and in the House, as well as taking the opportunity to visit my riding and sample some of the fruits of the labour. We enjoy the fact that aspects of this agreement are going to benefit my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country as the export of ice wine is one of the great opportunities for Canadian vintners across the country. I was told that Korea has the highest price point for red wine in the world. The agricultural community has been screaming that we need to get this bill through as fast as possible.

It would absolutely be a big win for agriculture. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is also speaking out strongly in favour of it. The largest private sector employer in my riding is the aviation industry, Kelowna Flightcraft. Here is a quick quote from Jim Quick, who is the president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada: Our industry depends on exports and access to international markets to remain competitive and continue creating jobs and revenues here at home....

This agreement is imperative to restoring a level playing field for Canadian firms in the [southern] Korean market. This is especially important given the considerable growth in the aerospace industry we will see in the Asia-Pacific region in coming years. He continued: We congratulate the government on this achievement, and thank [its representatives] for their ongoing commitment to boosting Canadian competitiveness in international markets. That is 50 million-plus people to feed, opportunities galore, and a great win for Canada and Korea.

We look forward to implementing this agreement as soon as possible. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise once again in the House to speak to Bill C-41 on the free trade agreement with South Korea. I will share my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River .

I have been a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade for over a year, so I can say that I understand the issues raised by my Conservative colleagues, since the NDP has been trying for years to convince the government to adopt a fair and balanced approach to international trade negotiations. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have adopted a rather simplistic approach to international trade. First, they completely discarded the notion of multilateralism, which is extremely important in a globalized economy like ours.

They decided to adopt a bilateral approach and to sign free trade agreements with as many countries as possible. It almost seems as though we are in a time-limited relay race, as though the government has to sign as many free trade agreements with every country in the world before a certain date. However, free trade in and of itself is not harmful. It is an extremely important aspect of our global economy. Nevertheless, it is just as important to take a fair and balanced approach and to gauge the interests of our own industries versus Canada's competitiveness on the international scene.

The Conservatives must understand that their simplistic approach to international trade is harming our businesses, not making them more competitive. When so many bilateral free trade agreements are being signed with other countries, there has to be a complementary approach at the national level. We need to give our businesses the support they need to remain competitive and ensure that there is reciprocity between the two states. To summarize my opening comments, the free trade agreement with South Korea will be good for our economy and for all Canadians.

However, as is the case with any approach, if we do not provide the necessary support to our own industries, unfortunately, they will lose out in the long term. We saw that happen when thousands of jobs were lost in our auto sector and manufacturing industry. In my riding, the manufacturing industry has suffered a great deal because of lack of support from successive governments. Several hundreds, if not thousands, of manufacturing jobs have been lost in Quebec. It is wrong to think that signing dozens of free trade agreements can erase all that.

The government's role is to negotiate free trade agreements, of course, but it must also provide Canadian industries with the support and tools they need to remain competitive on the international scene. The NDP will be supporting the free trade agreement. It is really unfortunate that the government decided to vote against our amendments. We proposed three, as the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, and they were all rejected by the Conservative majority on the Standing Committee on International Trade. That situation is all too familiar for me.

This is not the first time we have tried to work with the Conservatives and had them leave us in the dark and reject all of our attempts to improve legislation that has been introduced in the House of Commons.

(1105) Yes, on the whole, the free trade agreement will be good for Canada. Since 1987, South Korea has become a democratic, multi-party democracy. It respects the fundamental values of democracy and human rights, and its labour rights standards are adequate. In terms of environmental protection, I would say that the Conservative government could learn a thing or two from South Korea. A few years ago, that country adopted a renewable energy and environmental protection policy that has made it a world leader in green energy.

It seems to me that the Conservatives could learn a few things from our friends in South Korea, who have made the environment a priority. South Korea's economy is extremely active and is very important to Canada. I believe that our exports to and imports from South Korea are comparable to our trade with European nations. It is therefore of strategic value to Canadians. Having studied all of these criteria, the NDP decided to support this bill. As my colleagues have mentioned a few times, our agriculture, automotive and aerospace industries will benefit significantly from this free trade agreement.

However, there is always a “but”: a free trade agreement will stimulate the economy, but only up to a point because our industries will now compete with other industries. If the government does not give them the tools and support they need, our industries could suffer in the long term, unfortunately.

A free trade agreement can be part of a strategy, but unfortunately, if we look at the big picture, the government has failed in its duty toward our Canadian industries, particularly the automobile and manufacturing industries, because it has not provided them with the support they need, nor has it implemented adequate industrial and economic stimulation policies for our industries, which are now suffering as a result. My riding in eastern Montreal, La Pointe-de-l'Île, is home to many manufacturing industries that would benefit greatly from some help from the federal government.

Unfortunately, they have been forgotten. Perhaps the government has won the race to see how many free trade agreements it could sign, but it has failed in its duty to protect Canadian jobs, including jobs in Quebec and in my riding in particular, La Pointe-de-l'Île. This brings me to my final point. The Conservatives like to point fingers at us. They are saying that it does not make sense that the NDP wants to get rid of the part on investor state dispute settlement.

I would like to remind all Canadians who are listening that their tax dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact—have been given to American companies because they challenged our regulations on the environment and on public health. These kinds of provisions do not need to be included in any free trade agreement, because unfortunately, our capacity and our sovereignty as a nation and as a House of Commons to make regulations to protect the environment and public health have been up for negotiation.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA has given us ample evidence of this. Indeed, Canada has had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money to American companies because they did not agree with our environmental protection measures.

(1110) It is all well and good to point fingers at the NDP, but unfortunately, the facts and figures show that these kinds of provisions are not good for Canadians. [ English ] Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the NDP will be supporting this trade agreement, because it is very important for the seafood sector. Of course, her home province of Quebec is a significant seafood producer. On a recent trip to South Korea, I learned that price point factors very significantly with consumers in Korea when purchasing goods.

Obviously, as a seafood producer without a trade agreement with Korea, we find our competitors enjoy much more sales in that marketplace than Canada does. Of course, one of those countries is the United States. What I did hear as well, loud and clear, is that Canadian seafood has a reputation for having the highest quality available anywhere in the world. Expanding our market is crucial to providing a better return to Canadian fishers. Some would have heard me say in the House earlier this year that Canadian lobster landings have increased by 93% in the last six or seven years.

The supply is growing faster than demand, which is contributing to depressed prices. Therefore, we know how important it is to expand these markets, because every new consumer we reach creates more demand for our delicious fish and seafood. I would like to ask the hon. member several questions. What is the size of the potential new market for Canadian fish and seafood? What are the current tariffs in the fish and seafood sector? Could she comment on what this deal means for Quebec fishermen? (1115) [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague.

This free trade agreement will benefit our seafood producers. We are on the same wavelength. I think that the tariffs are roughly 47% on Canadian seafood, which is a rather significant barrier. Obviously, eliminating these tariff barriers will help open the market to our seafood producers. I know that a number of associations, including the Lobster Council of Canada—my colleague mentioned this—and also the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia supported this bill. The same goes for the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. This bill must move forward in order to support our industries.

Nonetheless, I would remind my colleague, who is a minister, that she has to understand that the government has a responsibility to support our industries at the local level. It is good to open barriers and create new markets, but if our industries cannot remain competitive and do not get help from the federal government, then the free trade agreement serves no purpose. [ English ] Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Conservative speaker after speaker has gotten up in the House and talked about investment in research and technology and how Korea has invested over the years in science and technology. That is one of the reasons it has emerged as a tiger in Asia. They talk about investment in science and technology. Could the member tell me what the Conservative record is in regard to investing in science and technology? [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, my colleague put his finger on the problem, which is the principle.

The Conservatives think that signing free trade agreements will solve all the problems in our industries. As I said, this applies to any industry: agriculture, science and technology, the auto industry, and especially the aerospace industry. Montreal lost hundreds of jobs, even though Canada was a leader in the field. A free trade agreement is not an investment. The Canadian government must invest in its national industries and then sign free trade agreements. Then it must ensure that the health of our industries is reflected in all the other states. (1120) [ English ] Mr.

John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, the NDP will be supporting the bill at third reading. I am glad to see that my friend from Kitchener—Conestoga is happy about that. Mr. Harold Albrecht: Hear, hear! Mr. John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, when the NDP looks at trade deals, we use four very important criteria to assess these deals. Is the proposed partner one who respects democracy and human rights, and does it have adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner moving towards these goals?

Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? On this point, I might just comment on the minister's question for the previous speaker. Currently, seafood from both our coasts is subject, in some cases, to 47% tariffs. Under this deal, not all but most of those tariffs would disappear, which would certainly be good for fishers on both of our coasts. Therefore, on the question of this deal being of strategic value, in many areas it is, and a little later I will talk about the wood and forest industry.

Also, are the terms of the agreement satisfactory, and are they of net benefit to Canada? There are some issues, which I will talk about in a moment, but on balance, this trade agreement is with a democratic country that has high standards. It is a good deal, and so Canada can support it. Furthermore, South Korea is an established democracy that has high standards for labour rights, human rights, and environmental protections. It is a large market that offers significant opportunities for Canadian business to gain a foothold in the important Asian market area.

Of course, it is also an opportunity for Canada to diversify its trade. As the forestry critic for the official opposition, I will say a few words about forestry and wood products in this particular deal. Canada's forestry and wood products industry includes newsprint, wood pulp, wood panels, and other value-added products. Even with the downsizing and the loss of 48,000 jobs in the last few years, the forest industry still contributes over $20 billion to Canada's GDP, and it still employs 230,000 Canadians in primary and secondary manufacturing. Many of these jobs are for high-skilled trades.

Canadian exporters to Korea are really at a disadvantage by tariff lines on Canadian wood products, which are, in some cases, up to 10%. Now, 10% might not sound nearly as bad as up to 47% for some seafood products from Canada, but 10% in a very competitive business means a lot of money on the bottom line for Canadian forest companies. It is important to note that this free trade agreement would provide growth opportunities for value-added wood products, which would help develop good family-sustaining jobs in the value-added economy.

As we move forward, this would be good for the forest and wood products in my critic area. The Korean free trade agreement is different from the European and China agreements. I will highlight some of the differences, which might help to further explain why we are supporting this trade deal with Korea. Unlike the China deal, the terms in the South Korea free trade agreement are reciprocal. I think that is a very important element to keep in mind as we move forward in this debate.

(1125) The Korea free trade agreement would not apply to provincial, territorial, or municipal procurement or crown corporations, where most Canadian procurement is located. That is good for businesses like Bombardier in my riding, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, so that if the City of Toronto, for example, decides it needs new streetcars, Bombardier can bid competitively and keep its 800 to 1,200 high-paying, family-sustaining jobs in Thunder Bay. That is a good part of this deal that is missing from other trade deals.

The Korea free trade agreement would not apply to or negatively affect supply-managed agriculture products, something the NDP has always protected with the belief—and I know this belief is probably right through this place—that we cannot forget that farmers feed cities in this country and it is important that they be able to keep and work their farms and, hopefully, be able to retire with that income. The Korea free trade agreement does not contain any negative intellectual property provisions. When I say that, I am thinking of pharmaceutical and copyright, for example.

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

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

I am not entirely sure that it needs to be; so it needs to be looked at a little more closely. One would think, as I am speaking, that everything is rosy between the government and the official opposition on this particular bill, but the fact of the matter is that New Democrats proposed six amendments at committee and the government, true to form, dismissed them wholesale. It decided to dismiss these amendments out of hand without a proper discussion or looking at whether these amendments might improve the bill.

That is true to form, along with just about everything else that has happened for the last three and a half years in committees. It is unfortunate that the government has always been so heavy handed in terms of amendments. There are some things New Democrats would like the government to do after this bill passes. We want the government to make sure it supports our automotive industry. We support breaking down trade barriers, but we believe government should provide the support that Canadian industry needs to remain competitive in a more open world economy.

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

(1130) The New Democrats want a strategic trade policy where we restart multilateral negotiations and sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and with developing countries that are on progressive trajectories. These are countries like Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. The bottom line is that this is not the precise agreement that we would have negotiated. There are some problems, as I have outlined, but we will support this free trade agreement. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr.

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

Does the member think that circumstances will arise in the next few years where South Korea may take action against Canadian laws and companies that may want to invest in the country because they do not follow the same level of environmental standards that South Korea has? Mr. John Rafferty : Mr. Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. One never knows what could possibly happen as an offshoot of an agreement like this. It is entirely possible. I will give one possible scenario of a Korean company that finds itself exporting into Canada.

Finding that it has extra costs associated with the environmental rules and regulations that it may have in South Korea but that do not exist here and may not be as stringent, it could become a sticking point and something that would need to be negotiated. Alternatively, with the investor state mechanism, perhaps the Canadian government could even be sued over that kind of situation. It is a problem. Some might say that it is a good thing. Maybe a trade deal with South Korea would improve Canada's action on climate change. That remains to be seen. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. A certain document prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development shows that Canada dragged its feet on signing trade agreements with important markets that are of strategic interest to Canada. In fact, the government allegedly wasted many resources and a great deal of time negotiating agreements with far-right governments, small Latin American countries and other countries that are of no strategic interest to Canada but are friends of the Conservative government.

Unfortunately this has not helped our economic development or our trade. Could my colleague comment on this document from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development? [ English ] Mr. John Rafferty : Mr. Speaker, indeed, this free trade agreement has been almost nine years in the making. In that time, other players, like the European Union and the United States, made their own free trade agreements with South Korea. It has put us at a great disadvantage.

In fact, if we look at the other free trade agreements that the European Union and the United States have made, one might think they actually got better deals than we did in a number of areas. We have been playing catch-up. Nine years is a long time, while other countries or groups of countries get in to make their own deals.

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

(1135) Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that our hearts and prayers are with the family and friends of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in the final ceremonies honouring his life today. I am very thankful to the RCMP, our security staff on the Hill and especially Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers for their great work last Wednesday. I am certain that in those first few moments last Wednesday, there were many thousands of prayers offered by Canadians.

I want to thank God for his protection that the tragedy of last Wednesday was not much worse than it was. I am pleased to rise today to speak about the historic Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Willowdale . It is only our Conservative government that is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. By pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, our Conservative government has provided Canadian businesses with access to new opportunities in dynamic markets around the globe.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is a landmark achievement that will restore a level playing field for Canadian companies competing in the South Korean market. It is also Canada's first agreement with an Asian country. This is an important point to keep in mind. As chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I would like to focus some of my remarks on the environmental provisions contained in the agreement. I am proud of our government's action to protect our environment.

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

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

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

chapter obliges both countries to maintain high levels of environmental protection, as we intensify our trade relationship. It commits us to effectively enforce our environmental laws and to ensure that we do not weaken them in order to encourage trade or investment. In addition, we have agreed to obligations that address accountability and transparency, public awareness and engagement, all fundamental Canadian values.

This builds on a tradition of transparency and public engagement enshrined in all of our trade agreements beginning with our first environmental agreement, the North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation. We have a strong record of achievement in implementing our first and most comprehensive environment agreement with our North American partners. In fact, this year we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation. The Minister of the Environment had the privilege of hosting her American and Mexican counterparts in Canada's north this past July.

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

chapter also requires that each party provide appropriate and effective sanctions or remedies in the case of domestic law violations. Ensuring that our citizens have access to strong and robust legal systems is a priority for this government. In this regard, our government has enhanced enforcement of federal environmental legislation through the Environmental Enforcement Act. Once fully implemented, existing environmental laws will be further strengthened through the establishment of minimum fines and increasing maximum fines which will more accurately reflect the severity of environmental offences.

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

(1140) We also look forward to sharing Canada's achievements under the national conservation plan. Through this plan, Canada will invest $252 million over five years, with a focus on conserving our lands and waters, restoring our ecosystems, and connecting Canadians to nature. The environment

chapter of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will also provide for potential future co-operation to support the objectives of the agreement. Both Canada and Korea recognize the value of sharing expertise and best practices to help advance our shared commitment to sustainable development and environmental responsibility. Distinct dispute resolution mechanisms are also included in this

chapter to ensure that the obligations are respected. If a matter comes up, we would seek to resolve it through consultations and co-operation, including at the ministerial level. If the issue remains unresolved, we would seek advice from a panel of experts and work together to implement the panel's recommendations. Beyond the environmental chapter, the free trade agreement itself includes important trade-related environment provisions. These include provisions stipulating that nothing in this agreement shall prevent Canada and South Korea from taking measures necessary to protect the environment.

The agreement also includes commitments for both governments to encourage their respective enterprises operating abroad to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct, including respect to environment. We stand with Canadians incredibly disappointed that the NDP tried to completely gut the bill at the trade committee. It tabled amendments to remove the investor protection provisions that are cornerstones of modern trade and investment agreements. This is just as harmful as the neglect of international trade under the Liberals.

For 13 long years, they took Canada out of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets. Canada and South Korea have demonstrated through this agreement our commitment to protecting the environment. From Canada's perspective, it is a commitment that we see reflected across our agenda. For example, Canada is taking action on climate change both domestically and internationally. On the international stage, we continue to work with our international partners to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address climate change globally.

Canada continues to play an active role in the United Nations framework convention on climate change and is fully committed to establishing a fair and effective climate change agreement that includes all major emitters. We are also a founding partner and a major financial contributor, as well as an active participant, in the climate change and clean air coalition to marshal global efforts to tackle short-lived climate pollutants. This is in addition to action we are taking domestically through a strategic and pragmatic sector-by-sector regulatory approach.

We have already taken action on some of the largest sources of emissions in our country, the transportation and electricity generation sectors. As we announced last week at the United Nations climate change summit, we will build on our record by taking pre-emptive action to reduce and limit harmful hydrofluorocarbon, or HFC, emissions before they actually increase. We are proud that Canada's economy has grown substantially, while our greenhouse gas emissions have decreased, with per capita emissions now at their lowest level since we started recording in 1990.

We have demonstrated that we can protect the environment, while supporting a strong and robust economy. Our government values high-quality economic growth and is committed to sustainable development as we continue to cultivate new opportunities for Canadian businesses abroad. We believe that trade and environment can go hand-in-hand, and this agreement proves it. No government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families.

The farmers, food processors and manufacturers of Waterloo region are supportive of this agreement and are excited that they will reap the fruits of our labours. On this side of the House, we recognize that Canadian business can compete and excel around the world, given a level playing field. I do not understand why the opposition seems to be against our attempts to put Canadians on equal footing with our international competitors. I call for the speedy implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement.

(1145) Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have immense respect for my colleague here on the other side and my other colleagues. However, they have been telling the House that we were trying to kill the bill at committee and that we are not respecting the will of Canadians. This is a legislative process and the opposition has proposed valuable amendments that the Conservatives voted against. They keep telling us that we are trying to kill the bill. I spoke three times on the bill. We are not trying to kill the bill, we are trying to discuss it. I have immense respect for my colleague.

I am sure he has immense respect for the legislative process. How is proposing amendments to make a bill better trying to kill the bill? Mr. Harold Albrecht : Mr. Speaker, if I did say kill the bill, I misspoke. I certainly did not intend to say that. I do not believe I said that. I may have said to gut the bill because I believe very strongly in the important provision of investor protection. If we are to encourage Canadians to invest in Korea, it is important that we have these mechanisms in place to protect the equity Canadians would like to invest.

To acknowledge my colleague and her concern, I want to thank the New Democrats for their intention of supporting the bill. It is a great move forward. To finally see some support for responsible initiatives that would be good for Canadian families and businesses is a change that we welcome on this side. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague said something in his presentation that is kind of a half truth, which is that our per capita emissions are the lowest they have ever been. That is not how the world measures and has agreed to measure emissions of CO 2 .

Rather, it is by the actual amount of CO 2 emissions. My colleague would have to agree that since 1990 those have gone up and to try to change the statistics by using different formulas to present a case is disingenuous. We put forward a motion to prohibit the weakening of environmental standards to encourage investment. If my colleague is so concerned about the environment, why would his government and the Conservative Party vote against this amendment, which was designed to ensure that nothing would change our ability and our desire to improve environmental standards in both countries?

Why would the Conservatives reject this amendment? Was it rejected because they foresee that there may be times in the future when investment will ask for lower environmental standards? Mr. Harold Albrecht : Mr. Speaker, this gives me a great opportunity to set the record straight, because my colleague may remember that he is quoting statistics from 1990. Between that time and the time that our government took office, there were 13 years of Liberal inaction on climate change. The Liberals signed agreements but under those agreements the greenhouse gas emissions rose by 30%.

Since we took office, greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by over 5% during a time when the economy grew by over 10%. Therefore, I think members see that there is definite improvement on the environmental front under this government. I could go on about many of the other environmental initiatives that our government is working on, and my colleague often serves on the environment committee so he would be aware of them.

In our national conservation plan we are partnering with partners on the ground who are already actively doing work to protect our environment, and this would have the synergistic effect of doubling or tripling the effect to be had from investments we make. I am proud of our government's record on the environmental protection standards that we have implemented.

(1150) Mr. Chungsen Leung (Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to speak on the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. At the onset, I should indicate that prior to entering politics, I had an opportunity to do a significant amount of business in South Korea. As a matter of fact, one of the subway systems that is used in a suburb of Seoul is a system that I introduced to them back in the mid-1980s.

However, what I would like to address today is the broader implications of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement being the first of our many agreements, hopefully, in the Asia-Pacific region. Our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. The creation of jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and their families continues to be our focus. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership.

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

In the last Speech from the Throne, we committed to expanding trade in the Asia-Pacific region to benefit hard-working Canadians and businesses, especially, our crucial small and medium-size enterprises and industries across the country. In addition to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement that we are discussing today, Canada continues to pursue agreements with other Asia-Pacific nations. Earlier this month, we ratified a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China.

We are also participating in the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations with 11 other countries in the region, and are negotiating an economic partnership agreement with Japan. The tremendous economic momentum and potential of the Asia-Pacific has been accompanied by political and demographic shifts across the region. Amid this transformation, Canada has made our relations with Asia-Pacific a top foreign policy priority in order to contribute to regional and global security and prosperity.

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

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

Canada also provides bilateral development assistance to countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and the Philippines, as well as other countries across Southeast Asia. Furthermore, Canada provides development assistance through multilateral and global programs in Asia, as well as through partnerships between Canadian organizations and counterparts in Asia. In the fiscal year 2012-13, Canada provided approximately $1 billion in official development assistance to countries in Asia.

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

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

(1155) These milestones have facilitated and enhanced co-operation between Canada and Korea in a number of political and security dimensions such as arms control, disarmament, peacekeeping and development assistance. Canada and Korea are both active in multilateral fora and partners in promoting global peace and security. Both countries also co-operate on security issues in other fora, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Additionally, we share important alliances with the United States and the Asia-Pacific and beyond.

Canada supports efforts to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in that region, and takes seriously the threat posed by North Korea to regional and indeed global security. We stand with South Korea in its efforts to ensure peace on the peninsula. North and South Korea technically remain at war as hostilities were concluded with an armistice, not a peace treaty. Canada remains gravely concerned about North Korea's provocative and destabilizing actions such as nuclear and missile tests and related proliferation, as well as its egregious human rights abuses.

Canada strongly supports the six-party talks as a framework for credible negotiation on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Some of the great success stories of democratization in the last generation can be found in the Republic of Korea as well as Taiwan, Indonesia and Mongolia. Canada now has more diplomatic staff in Asia than anywhere else in the world. Canada places great value on our relationships with the Asia-Pacific region and with Asian countries. We increased our presence on the ground with over 10 new offices in China and India since 2006.

We will be establishing Canadian diplomatic presences in both Cambodia and Laos, and Canada is establishing a mission to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations headed by a new ambassador. While in Burma in September, the Minister of Foreign Affairs opened Canada's newest diplomatic mission. Establishing a trade commissioner service in Burma is an integral component of the embassy as Canadian companies will have an important role to play in fostering sustainable economic growth while providing opportunities for Canada's private sector.

No government in Canadian history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. Deepening Canada's trading relations in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to these efforts. Canada's network of missions across Asia will help us to promote Canadian values: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. People in the region seek a bright future, including freedom and opportunity. Canada is ready to help them and to invite Canada's private sector to expand our engagement.

Economic opportunity, in Canada and elsewhere, rests on free, transparent and open markets, the rule of law and democratic governance. As like-minded partners, Canada and Korea share a strong commitment to these values. Canadian foreign policy, including our trade policy, will not only promote peace and prosperity, but will contribute to the development of the wider Asia-Pacific region. In this context, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is an important achievement that would advance our bilateral relations with Korea as well as Canada's broader objectives in this region.

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

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

(1200) Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech very carefully. I have been listening to speeches by the Conservatives since this morning and one of the things they keep bringing up is the investment that South Korea makes in science and technology. Korea became one of the tigers in Asia because of its investment in science and technology, yet the record of the current government is that it has made cuts to scientists.

It has eliminated thousands of positions, and that is not a direction that we should be heading toward, having learned from what Korea has done over the years. Not only did the Conservatives cut scientists, they actually muzzled them to ensure that it is the Conservative spin that carries on. My question is very simple. What can the Conservatives learn from Korea in regard to investment in science and technology? Mr. Chungsen Leung : Mr. Speaker, the Korean scientific model was built very much on Korea's acceptance of trade.

When I went there in the 1980s and the 1990s, the first request was for us to help with scientific development. Scientific development in railroad technology and subway technology was a Canadian investment in the Korean marketplace. Understanding how that technology worked helped Korea to develop its railroad technology to where it is today. Canada's investment record in developing all these technologies, such as in urban transit, is second to none. We have advances in software development, agriculture, and in all of our technology. We are ready to go from innovation to commercialization.

The Canadian innovation record is excellent. Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I particularly endorse his point that opening up Canadian trade to Asia and opening up Asia to the Canadian economy is absolutely essential. As the House knows, the really big deal, which would cover 40% of the world's economy, is the TPP. I would be very interested in the member's views on how those talks are going.

If, as some observers fear, it looks as though they are getting bogged down, does the hon. member believe that Canada should be pursuing its bilateral talks with Japan more energetically? Mr. Chungsen Leung : Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership is like other agreements in which Canada participates through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and with APEC. The coastline spans the Pacific, covering more than half the world's population. It is possibly one of the greatest consumer markets as well, and one of the higher-income markets as we approach the next generation.

Canadian TPP negotiations are well under way. Unlike some countries, we are not the first to jump in. We are looking to see how the trade negotiations transpire. As a matter of fact, as we speak, the Minister of International Trade will be returning from his discussions on this matter. I have also participated in a number of briefing sessions on the TPP, especially in the greater Toronto area. I think we are advancing quite well in this area. Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise and speak today on the free trade agreement between Canada and South Korea. This trade agreement has been a very long journey. It started under a Liberal government, but the Liberals had a record of not doing much about trade. During the Liberals' tenure, they just talked about it. After 10 years, they had only three free trade agreements. There has been persistence by this government.

The Prime Minister , the Minister of International Trade , and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade have been consistent in trying to reach an agreement with South Korea. As a matter of fact, at this stage I would like to acknowledge others who have also been working extremely hard to come to a fruitful conclusion for this free trade agreement. They include my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock , Senator Yonah Martin, and colleagues who have been going to South Korea as part of the South Korea-Canada association.

Here I include myself: I have made four visits to Korea, the last one being a state visit with the Governor General. During this visit we again raised this issue. All of these officials consistently put pressure that both sides should continue to negotiate, because this free trade agreement is of immense benefit to both countries. When the Prime Minister met with the President of South Korea at Bali at a conference, both of them agreed that the agreement should be concluded very quickly.

When the President of South Korea visited Canada, we were able to say that the free trade negotiations begun in 2005 had finally reached a conclusion. That is what we are debating in Parliament today. It will be ratified as well by the South Korean parliament. When we look at the history of North and South Korea, we see that there has been tremendous advancement made by the people of South Korea in building their economy, which is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world today. It is a tribute to the people of South Korea.

We are very grateful that Canada has over 200,000 people from South Korea living in this country and contributing to our prosperity. In Canada, everyone knows about the Kia cars and the televisions being built in Korea. Korea's high technology is a tribute to that great country. It is natural for Canada, a country with a small population and vast natural resources, to look for markets overseas to continue to build on our prosperity by building free trade agreements bilaterally with other countries.

I am pleased to say that since 2006, when this government came into power, as has been mentioned many times, we have signed 36 agreements. Before that, the Conservative government signed two more, bringing the total under the Conservative government to 38 free trade agreements around the world. Let us just imagine the business that free trade agreements open up in the market for Canadian goods around the world. We have full confidence in Canadian businesses. We are one of the best in mining, engineering, and agriculture. We have a vast variety of businesses and products and we need markets where we can grow.

(1205) The NAFTA agreement we reached with the U.S.A. and Mexico is a clear example of why a free trade agreement is very beneficial. It has benefited all three countries. To say that a free trade agreement benefits one country over another is wrong. New Democrats have said at times that we are giving ground to other countries; we are not. What we are doing is opening markets for us as well as for them. It is mutually beneficial. That is why South Korea is now one of the strongest economies in Asia, and that is why Canada is also a strong economy.

Let us not kid about it: Canada is one of the strongest economies in the world and is able to share with others. Businesses need this market, and the market is growing. The Liberal critic talked about TPP. Indeed, we have TPP negotiations going on, and they are very extensive. These negotiations are going on. We see that the WTO talks have collapsed, but the problem is that we cannot wait for a global situation on a free trade agreement. Therefore, this government took upon itself a very robust agenda of free trade and went out, as I mentioned, to 36 countries.

Imagine the market we have opened up for our Canadian businesses to take advantage of. Of course, because we have the experience that comes with signing so many agreements, we know exactly how an agreement will impact the economy. We have taken into account every sector of the economy. We have talked to the provinces. We have talked to businesses. We have their input, and we have come up with a game plan or template on how free trade agreements should be done. We are currently in negotiations with India on this same template, but we have also successfully done negotiations with the European Union.

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

This agreement would be beneficial both for Korea and for Canada. There is no downsizing to this thing, contrary to what New Democrats will say, because experience has shown to us, as in NAFTA, that this is not a downsizing but an important and beneficial thing for Canada. Koreans have already signed free trade agreements with the U.S. and with the European Union, so these countries are far ahead of us. Because of that, we started losing ground in South Korea. Our exports have fallen, and if we do not sign this agreement, how will we catch up?

It had become an unlevel playing field, and the Europeans and Americans were far ahead of us. Now we are catching up, and we should be there. That is why it is important for the other side to understand that we live in a global world. Other people are signing free trade agreements, as I just mentioned. The European Union, the U.S., and other countries are in TPP negotiations. We are in negotiations with Japan, with India, and with other countries, but at the end of the day, other countries are doing the same thing.

If we are not up in the forefront in doing those things, we will lose ground, and we, with the smaller population, will suffer the financial consequences if we lose ground.

(1210) Let me expand on how provinces will benefit from this agreement. We have a vast country, from British Columbia all the way to P.E.I., and every region has its own strength in natural resources, which it can leverage on the world market. There is agriculture and potash; in the north there are diamonds, forestry, oil; and potatoes in P.E.I. We need this vast country, as I have stated, to move out and do it. The Canadian trade delegation, led by the Minister of International Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade , is robust.

I just came back from my visit to India, where the premier of British Columbia brought in a strong trade delegation to build up markets with India. I accompanied the Governor General to Brazil, which is an emerging market. It is a market where we can sell and expand our trade with Latin America. I was with the Governor General in Southeast Asia looking for markets to expand in. All countries are doing the same thing. There is a global competition. It is not as if Canada is doing something different from others. There is a global competition to enter into other markets.

Our good friends in Australia have successfully concluded a free trade agreement with Korea. They are good friends, but they are now our competition. They are there ahead of us. If we do not do these things, then we will lose ground. That is why I find it quite strange that New Democrats use any kind of excuse to say they do not want a free trade agreement and they feel we must live within our boundaries. They have never approved any free trade agreement. I have been here for a long time. New Democrats need to understand that Canada is a trading nation. We market goods; we sell goods to markets.

Think of the market in the U.S. that has over 300 million people, the market in the European Union that has 600 million people, the market in India that has 1.2 billion people, or the market in China that has 1 billion people. Canadian companies are robustly present in all of these areas. We have a global presence. Canada is recognized around the world. As I travel, I see that we have a global presence. We have a global presence because, as I have stated, we have a great reputation, but we are also traders.

When we trade around the world, we do it fairly and we have a good corporate socially responsible system here, contrary to what the NDP says. I will not mention the Liberals because with them there is only talk on trade and no action. I am delighted to say that I have been to Korea and it is a country that I thoroughly admire, as well as the people. This free trade agreement would be of benefit not only to the world but Canada and everyone else, and I ask my colleagues on the other side to support this great agreement.

(1215) Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too was part of the Governor General's delegation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Korea. As he would recall, I actually encouraged the government to speed up the agreement that we were going to sign with South Korea. Here is a memo from the parliamentary secretary's own department.

It says that the foreign affairs department shows that Canada has been slow to conclude trade deals with strategic partners and markets because resources and time were wasted securing agreements with extreme right-wing governments in tiny Latin American countries. We have been encouraging the government to negotiate good, fair trade agreements with our strategic partners, in markets where we sell a lot. South Asia is one of those markets where we sell a lot of goods, and we should be negotiating good trade agreements there that will be beneficial to Canadians. My question is this.

Why has the Conservative trade policy been so unfocused and erratic? Why do the Conservatives not have a focused policy where we negotiate with governments and markets into which we can expand our businesses?

(1220) Hon. Deepak Obhrai : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that I hear support from the NDP for our trade negotiations. I have been here for a long time, and I have never heard the NDP come and say that it is for trade. Rather, it puts all kinds of obstacles in the way to say that it does not want to sign this trade deal. The NDP should see its record, but I am glad that the member is on the record to say that he supports this thing. I hope that when we work, he will work for this free trade agreement. In answering his question, I am a little puzzled. We have negotiated, almost, with the European Union.

We are in negotiations with India. We are in negotiations with Korea, which we are talking about today. We are in negotiations with Japan. We are in negotiations for a trans-Pacific partnership. If these are the countries that he thinks are small countries, then he really needs to double-check his facts out there. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu : Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for another opportunity to ask a question for the parliamentary secretary . Honduras, a country that we negotiated with, has a terrible record, and it is a tiny country.

We need to negotiate with countries that have strategic value for Canada and where there is a lot of value for us to be able to negotiate with them. What I have seen from the Conservative government is that it has been wasting its time negotiating these tiny agreements just to get its numbers up, so it can say it has negotiated with 20 or 50 countries. What we should be focusing on is countries like Korea. It started negotiations back in 2003. There is the European Union. This is what the parliamentary secretary was saying about how we have been losing ground.

We have been losing ground to the European Union and the United States. The European Union and the United States started negotiating trade agreements with Korea after we did, yet they concluded their negotiations before we concluded ours. We have been losing ground. We have been losing ground because of the Conservative government. South Korea has been investing in science and technology for many years, and this investment is one of the reasons it has emerged as a tiger in Asia. What can the Conservatives learn from Korea? Hon. Deepak Obhrai : Mr.

Speaker, signing a free trade agreement with a country like Honduras and what the member is talking about is a good thing. Colombia and all these countries here widen the market, even if they are smaller. There are Canadian companies that are doing business in those parts of the world. For them, this is a great advantage. On the larger scale of things, I have already pointed out where we are going with our trade agreements. It is quite interesting now that the member opposite is talking about the slow pace of negotiations with this deal here.

I would remind him that there are two parties to a free trade agreement, not one party. We walk in with our template when we go to negotiate, which is what the Prime Minister and the President of South Korea did when they finally said, “Let us move on.” We did move on. It is this government that has moved on. To my colleague over here, I am pretty delighted to know that the NDP is now going to be a pro-trade party. We are delighted and looking forward to their supporting other trade agreements that will come forward over here. I will keep note of what he just said. (1225) [ Translation ] Mr.

Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as with any free trade agreement, we must ensure that Canadian markets benefit and, to a certain extent, that our businesses can compete internationally. This requires that we conduct studies and gather information. We have to consider these studies when we move forward with a free trade agreement. Otherwise, there can be very serious repercussions for some sectors of the Canadian economy. I would just like to ask my dear colleague if basic market research was done before this free trade agreement was negotiated. [ English ] Hon. Deepak Obhrai : Mr.

Speaker, as I stated, we have 36 signed free trade agreements around the world, or 38. We have a template, which comes after extensive negotiations and talks with our own people, provinces, businesses, and so forth in this country. We take that into account. It is not as if we are just signing one agreement that is different from another agreement. No, we use the examples we have had and the success rate we have had. This is why we say this is a successful template, which is why it takes a little longer for us to negotiate with other countries. Other countries have their own interests as well.

However, ultimately, things are moving forward. When Korea signed the deal with the U.S. and the European Union, they had a template as well, which they completed. We also came to a successful conclusion. However, extensive consultation takes place in Canada before we sign these agreements [ Translation ] Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague for his answer. It is not reassuring. He spoke about consultation and a template for free trade agreements used in the past.

I asked this question because there are people in my riding who could benefit from this free trade agreement, but who could also be adversely affected. I am thinking of pork producers, for example. What can he say to reassure my constituents who make a living in the agriculture industry and hog production? [ English ] Hon. Deepak Obhrai : Mr. Speaker, if the member looks at the agreement, he will note that it does ensure that the farmers' interests are well taken care of.

As a matter of fact, I would like to advise the member that, because we had not signed a free trade agreement with the Koreans, some agriculture sectors had lost the Korean market. However, I can assure him that the pork producers' interests are taken care of under this agreement. If he reads the agreement in depth, he will know that his farmers would have a lot of advantages through this agreement. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

I know that many of my constituents are very happy about this particular trade agreement. I have talked to a number of small businesses that already do some business in South Korea, and they will be delighted to finally see, after many years of negotiation, and to some degree neglect by the government, the conclusion of this agreement. It is not perfect, but this is something that will definitely benefit not only the people in my constituency but people across this country, because we are a trading nation.

Before I get to that, I had the opportunity, along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights to visit South Korea with the Governor General. At that point, the talks were sort of stalled because of a lack of resources provided by the Conservative government to negotiate this particular trade agreement. The government's priorities were somewhere else, as I spoke about earlier. The government's priorities were countries that have shady records and should be a low priority, for a number of a reasons.

The delegation encouraged speeding up those negotiations. I am very proud that I was part of that delegation encouraging the Korean government to come to the table to negotiate a trade agreement that is going to benefit both countries, Canada and Korea. Both countries will benefit from trade. Canada is a trading nation. We on this side of the House know that. We have been encouraging the government to negotiate trade agreements that are fair to Canadians. We are not going to get it 100% right, but overall, the majority of the trade agreement will be beneficial to Canadians and Koreans.

The NDP has always encouraged governments to negotiate trade agreements that are fair and that will benefit Canadians. I sat on the international trade committee. I have talked about what criteria we need to use to look at which countries we should be negotiating with and what sorts of things we should be negotiating to expand the markets our exporters need. In this House we have heard that there are jobs related to our exports. It is critical that we negotiate trade agreements to benefit people across this country. The Conservative government talks about having a template. I doubt that it has a template.

The only template it has is to make sure that it negotiates trade agreements with 50 countries or 40 countries. It just looks at numbers. The government's priorities are not consistent. I am going to talk about the criteria the NDP government in 2015 would look at in negotiating trade agreements. We will ensure that markets open up for all Canadians right across the country. Here is some of the framework we should be looking at. There are three important criteria I will talk about in detail.

First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges with these, is the partner on a positive trajectory towards these goals? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada?

(1230) The third criteria makes common sense. The Conservatives do not always talk common sense, but New Democrats do. Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory and of benefit to Canadians? Would it create good-paying local jobs here in Canada. Would it create secondary industry jobs and value-added jobs? Value-added jobs pay higher wages. Shipping our raw materials overseas does not create a lot of jobs. Creating value-added jobs in this country is what we on this side of the House, in the official opposition, have always advocated. We should be adding secondary jobs.

The Conservative government's record with regard to trade and the creation of secondary jobs is horrible. I would like to talk about that before I get into the details of the three criteria. Canada had a trade surplus when the Conservatives took office in 2006. That trade surplus has now turned into a huge trade deficit. That is not a good record for the government. The Conservatives say they are stewards of the economy and have negotiated many trade agreements. However, they have failed to look at these agreements to see if they have been positive or to make adjustments for future trade agreements.

The government continually fails to do its research with regard to trade agreements. I talked about negotiating trade agreements that will add value to the goods we produce in Canada and ship overseas. The government has gutted manufacturing here in Canada over the last few years. Hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared under the Conservative government. When I talk about the government's erratic policies when it comes to negotiating trade agreements, we can relate that to what has happened in our manufacturing industry.

Conservatives' do not have a coordinated policy plan when it comes to negotiating agreements with our strategic partners. I will talk to the House in detail about the criteria I just mentioned. First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environment and labour standards, and Canadian values? I had a chance to go with the Governor General to South Korea. After the dictatorship in 1987, South Korea transitioned into a vibrant, multi-party democracy with an active trade union movement and relatively high wages.

South Koreans have a high standard of living and freedom of expression. South Korea has emerged as a tiger in South Asia. It is the fourth-largest economy in South Asia and the 15th-largest economy in the emerging developed countries. South Korea has one of the highest post-secondary education rates of all OECD countries. In recent years, South Korea has invested billions of dollars in an ambitious green growth strategy aimed at improving energy efficiency and boosting renewable and green technology. This is something my friends across the aisle could learn from South Korea.

It has invested in green energy and green projects. It is looking at 20 years from now. In the last decade, this Conservative government has been looking back.

(1235) The parliamentary secretary was right. The members of the third party talk about negotiating trade agreements, but they actually just talk. They do not negotiate any trade agreements. Over the years, we have seen them dragging their feet with respect to making good agreements that make sense for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. On the first criterion, it is clear that South Korea is a country that respects environmental and labour law standards. It shares Canadian values on human rights and democracy.

On the environmental front, Korea has emerged as a leader in renewable energy and green technology. Canada can increase its trade in these important sectors. The second criterion is that the proposed partners be of strategic value to Canada. Coming from Surrey, British Columbia, and living on the west coast, I know how important the South Asia economies are to British Columbia, because all of our goods flow out of the ports in Vancouver or Prince Rupert. We have been doing quite a bit of trade with Korea. Not only that, some of the ports on the west coast are located strategically.

Goods shipped from Korea may be going to Ontario or the midwestern United States. The ports are actually able to cut down the time it takes the goods from Korea to get to Ontario or the central United States. We are strategically located, and we have been encouraging the government to negotiate good, fair trade agreements based on that criterion. Japan is another country we have been negotiating with for many years. However, we have not yet seen a successful conclusion. There has not been that concrete push from the Canadian government to ensure that a fair trade agreement can be concluded with Japan.

Japan is another strategic trading partner for Canada. There is already a large amount of trade between Korea and Canada. We started these negotiations with Korea back in 2003. It has taken up to now, close to 11 years, to successfully negotiate a trade agreement. Although sometimes it may take a long time, I agree that we should ensure that the trade deals we are negotiating are fair to our country. This is where I wonder what the government's priorities are. The European Union started negotiating with Korea after we started negotiating.

The United States started negotiating with Korea after we started negotiating the trade agreement. The current government has been busy negotiating with some countries that have very shady records, and I have spoken about that in the H