Mr. Speaker, what a fine name for a riding. I rise today to speak to the debate on this motion and to congratulate the hon. member who presented it.
Reference was made to the report prepared by the Standing Committee on Finance in April 2004, in which a heartfelt cry was made to say that, in the apparel industry, as in the textile industry in Canada—but the report specifically talks about the apparel industry—there are some real structural changes that are the result of the GATT agreements. On December 31, the quotas will be eliminated and the tariffs will start to decrease. This industry will have to overcome an extraordinary and very difficult challenge, which it is already facing right now.
Knowing that these things are in place has an impact on investment choices. The apparel industry is the tenth largest manufacturing sector in Canada, with more than 93,000 employees working in 3,900 establishments. It accounts for 2% of Canada’s total manufacturing gross domestic product, 4% of manufacturing investment and 4.4% of total manufacturing employment.
This is an important field and also one where newcomers to the country often get their first job. People who work in this industry often have not had much formal schooling, but they develop expertise on the job, and now are likely to find themselves with no future.
The report asks whether, in preparation for the coming storm, certain measures could not be put in place. This is the outcome of consultations with the industry.
The first of these would be the remission of duties. It would be an exemption from customs duties, in whole or in part, from import charges or taxes on imported products.
Remission orders have been issued for a variety of products: tailored collar shirts; outerwear greige fabric; shirting fabrics; outerwear; blouses shirts and co-ordinates; apparel fabrics. All sorts of specific types of garments or fabrics have been allowed remissions in the past, particularly at the time agreements like the free trade agreement were adopted.
Now we have a new era, one that will start on December 31, 2004. The industry is asking for a least a chance to prepare so that it can come through this properly. Extending the remissions by several years so that it can continue to earn revenue on these products would help the industry out.
As my colleague has said, this is just part of a far more general program the government must take action on.
Today the House is going to send a message to the government that a far more structured intervention is required than there is at present, if only in connection with the third recommendation in the report.
The third recommendation states that the federal government must immediately undertake a study of temporary adaptation measures to enhance competitiveness as well as the benefits and costs of eliminating legislation on imports of fabric for use in the Canadian apparel sector. These are things that ought to have been done a long time ago, but we realize they were not done properly.
I am aware, particularly in my capacity as Industry critic, that there has been a kind of laissez-faire attitude in the Department of Industry on this, which is the source of the government's inaction.
The federal government, in its strategies for various international trade sectors, has made choices. It has accepted that some sectors must be sacrificed. The spirit which prevailed in the determination of these sectors is still active, but there are sectors that deserve to be specially supported.
The parliamentary secretary was telling the House about the CANtex program. Yes, it is interesting, but the amount of money involved in it is inadequate. In addition, there are concrete, short-term measures that should be taken, and that are not being taken, such as the measures in the report we have before us.
Would it not be appropriate for the members of this House to agree to ask the government to reply to the report? The parliamentary secretary had a question, namely, whether we were in favour of recommendation No. 2. Certainly, this is a field involving many complex choices. We must look at the consequences of our actions.
Nevertheless, the recommendation that has been made is logical in one way. It gives our garment industry access to textiles without it being penalized, while the rest of the world is given entry without tariffs into the Canadian market. The current situation is unacceptable. People producing garments in Canada cannot have the same advantages as people who produce garments outside the country. Something about that needs to be corrected.
Should we get into the specific details of the recommendation? With regard to imported textiles, we must be very clear that there is no question of their competing with textiles produced within the country. In my opinion, such things can be specified.
Nevertheless, today, the garment and textile industries are feeling abandoned by the federal government, which has engaged in a laissez-faire policy that is not properly applied to this sector and will have very negative consequences on the jobs involved.
Even in an economy like ours, which is working well at the moment—in North America and all over the planet, there is growth—there are sensitive sectors like this, which often have a major impact on communities.
It has become apparent that in the distribution of industries in the textile and apparel sectors, entire municipalities have been dependent to some extent on the continuity of employment by a business, and sectors in some big cities, such as Montreal, are also dependent. Thus, it is important that measures be taken by the federal government.
We have accepted the fact that there will be a free market. We have seen the benefits it can have for developing countries. We have accepted all that and that is what we want. We are prepared to work in that direction.
What we find unacceptable is that the federal government is making its own manufacturers less competitive than their foreign counterparts when it comes to selling products on Quebec and Canadian markets. That is what we find unacceptable.
The Bloc Québécois supports this report and wants it to be adopted by the House and to have the government respond to it as soon as possible. In any event, the federal government should—in this sector and in others—announce its industry strategy as soon as possible so that the industry knows what to expect—and not just piecemeal programs.
In my opinion, that is the message hon. members in this House must send by adopting this report.