Debates of Dec. 14th, 2004

Textile Industry

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, the thrust of the hon. member's speech was that this is a 10 year program that expires at the end of this month and that somehow or another the government is to blame that this program is to expire.

Can she honestly say that there is not a person in this industry that did not know that this program was to expire at the end of this month? Is there a CEO of any of these industries who did not know that this program was to expire at the end of this month? Is there any union leader that did not know that this was to expire at the end of the this month?

It is curious to blame the government because this program was to expire at the end of this month. The taxpayers of Canada are effectively subsidizing an industry. A duty remission order is nothing other than the Government of Canada providing $26 million, in this case, to buy down the cost of the units that go into the production of apparels and textiles.

Similarly, the tariff protection of $75 million and $15 million is nothing other than protection for an industry which was scheduled to expire. The $30 million provided for adjustment programs is nothing other than money from the taxpayers of Canada to provide protection to the workers of this industry.

Would the member prefer that this program just continue on in perpetuity? Or would she prefer that these programs come to an end? I would like to know what she prefers. Would she prefer it to be scaled down over time or would she prefer the method that the previous government chose which was to simply end it and end it on a particular date?

Given the ideological views of her party, presumably she prefers something in the order of the taxpayers of Canada not supporting particular industries.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, everyone knew about this. Everyone knew the time was up. The problem is that members opposite are the government body. They are supposed to be the people taking care of Canadian industries. They knew for 10 years that they were supposed to govern properly and did not do so.

Do I think subsidizing industries like this should go on forever? Nobody does. The government had 10 years to solve this and it did not do it. It is called incompetence. The members opposite should learn how to do a business plan and how to take care of industries in Canada, and stop blaming everybody else. Everyone knew about it. Everybody knew the time was running out.

Why did the government not problem solve? Why did it not build the industry? Why did it not do something about it?

When we came into this session, the only thing we could ask for was to extend those subsidies because the government dithered so much that nothing was done. It was the ninth hour. I love that question because it shows how empty and vacant the government is in terms of its plans to build up industry here in Canada. It is shameful.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to this extremely important issue tonight. I congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for requesting this debate. This issue is really important.

Two weeks ago, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre introduced an emergency resolution about remission orders. He actually suggested a seven year extension to help the Canadian textile and clothing industries adjust. We did not have any discussions then. The government did not move. We held a debate, but in the end, no resolution was passed and no decision was made.

Today, as we know, in a very unfortunate turn of events, the Cleyn & Tinker company announced that it will close down its plant in Huntingdon, eliminating 800 jobs in a city where they are badly needed.

A moment ago, I was listening to the news, and a worker in the Cleyn & Tinker plant clearly said the government had done nothing. This is not me talking, but a worker who was venting his frustration because of the lack of government action.

Other members of the House in the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, have been saying clearly for years that we need transition measures to help the textile and clothing industries.

As this worker told it very clearly, the government did not do anything. All of a sudden, it is waking up today, and it is announcing measures for this industry after these jobs were lost in Huntingdon. Despite all the concern about the textile and clothing industries throughout Canada and in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto—we knew there was a problem—the government waited until now to announce all of a sudden, like the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup told us, that it will do something.

They are thus announcing three different things. First, the duties on imported fibres and thread, worth up to $15 million per year, and on textile inputs for the Canadian Apparel Industry, worth up to 75 million per year, will be cancelled as of January 1, 2005.

We all know that representatives of the Textile and Apparel Industry have been coming here for months, seeking help. The Standing Committee on Finance studied the question. The Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment talked about the importance of these measures. A resolution was even passed on that subject. Today, the government is finally making this announcement, at the very last minute.

Second, in the next five years, an additional $50 million will be given to improve the effectiveness of textile production and to encourage Canadian textile companies to choose higher valued products, to serve specific niches and to increase their productivity. We are talking about $50 million in the next five years.

There are 3,900 businesses across the country. If we share this amount equally between all of them, it only gives a few hundred dollars per month for each one of them over the next five years to help them serve specific niche, chose higher valued products and increase their productivity. We are talking a few hundred dollars for an industry that is hurting and that has been calling for help for months now. We are only giving them a few hundred dollars. It might be enough to buy a little more coffee or a few pens.

It is ridiculous to see the government rushing in to provide 3,900 businesses that are so sorely in need with a total of $50 million over the next five years. There are tens of thousands of jobs involved across the country, and the government comes up with $50 million over five years.

Recently, it was decided to extend the duty remission orders by five years. The advantages these provide to textile and apparel manufacturers will be phased out over the final three years of that period. The industry called for seven years. My colleague for Winnipeg Centre introduced a resolution several weeks ago, and it mentioned seven years.

At present, there is an extension of 24 months only, for an industry that is so much in need of support at this time. After that 24-month period, the remission orders will be phased out. That is very little.

There is not much said about these measures and they are, as my Conservative colleague has said, too little and too late. Now it is being rushed in, whereas the three other parties in this House have been calling for action to be taken, for weeks now, months even. It seems to have taken the closing of Cleyn & Tinker and the loss of 800 jobs, combined with the context of a party in a minority government position being subjected to pressures from the other three parties in this House to get the government to finally take some action.

We ought not to be surprised by this. Since the Liberal government has been in power, there have been 40,000 jobs lost in this industry. Now we are talking of an industry that is surviving with 75,000 or so workers, despite the fact that export figures are $3.5 billion.

The urgent action taken today is not a match for the challenges faced by the textile and apparel industry. There are still fears for jobs, not only in Huntingdon and Montreal, but also in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Toronto. We know enough to expect the same inaction from this government and we know that the other three parties in this House will have to put the same pressure on this minority government if we are to see any reaction, like we did with the health care system.

A hospital was closed in my riding. Child poverty is on the increase, as is homelessness. There are crises everywhere, worsening crises, and the government is doing nothing.

In my opinion, we will continue to work on this as we do on other measures. The voters will not, however, forget the lack of action by the government, and the very limited action it has taken in panic mode today, even though they have had plenty of warning, for months and even years.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, first I want to thank my colleague of the New Democratic Party for his excellent speech. I used to know him before we both became members of Parliament and I can say that he is very sensitive to workers, especially during times as difficult as the ones that workers in Huntingdon are going through right now.

He is right when he says that it is not only Huntingdon. There are other regions. I come from a region where there is a textile and clothing industry. About 1,500 people work in this sector. There used to be a lot more, but this government's inaction has caused all the problems that my colleague opposite so eloquently described.

I would like to ask him what he thinks about the statement of the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada, which said earlier that the government does not talk to unions. It only talks to employers, it seems. Is this not a symptom of this government's action or inaction to precisely ignore unions, for example, which is totally unacceptable? We heard him say this a few moments ago. I would really like to know what my colleague thinks of this.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question.

I certainly recognize that it shows the government has not consulted for a very long time. In fact, it consults only a few people; of course, it does not consult unions or people who are knowledgeable. It does not do that kind of consultation.

Moreover, as we know very well, it has difficulty in consulting generally. On all other issues, it will maybe hold bogus consultation, but that only shows the extent to which the government is ossified and incapable of acting and consulting the right people to be able to take the right actions it has become.

I totally agree with him. It is terrible.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would also like to congratulate my colleague from the NDP for his speech, which reflects our position perfectly.

I would like to tell him of a visitor who came to us a few years ago after Celanese and Cavalier Textiles closed down. We were visited by the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had come to tell the Chamber of Commerce and the manufacturers to forget about the textile and apparel industries, because of globalization, and move on to something else. According to him, we had to come up with specific measures. It was a lost cause, because he thought it was.

This is an example of this government's lack of action. Another proof of this, as I said earlier, is that when Denim Swift closed down, a strategic committee made recommendations to the then industry minister. We came out of that meeting very frustrated, because there was absolutely nothing on the table to try and save those jobs. The minister had promised to set up a committee, but what she gave us was a sham committee to make her look good. That committee was supposed to examine the textile situation a year ago, even if we all know it should have been done 10 years earlier. We never saw any report from this committee. This goes to show how this was, again, just window dressing.

I would now like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the bilateral agreements that the U.S. signed with Caribbean countries. The Government of Canada did not see fit to sign any such agreement in order to save our businesses.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond. I know that she and my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska are working very hard since the apparel and textile industry is so important for the Eastern Townships. I thus know that they recognize it and that they are fighting hard to continue protecting the interests of the workers in that industry.

When we talk about the government and all those international trade issues, everybody can see an obvious failure. It is not only with respect to the apparel and textile industry that the government is taking hasty measures and not doing the necessary negotiating or planning.

We only have to look at the softwood lumber industry, which is vital to my home province of British Columbia. For years we have been seeing inaction on the part of the government. The same is true with respect to agriculture. Today, several farming organizations made presentations to the subcommittee. It is the same problem.

The government is not acting. It is systematic. The government is ossified and, unfortunately, is unable to make decisions and plan ahead for the good of communities across the country.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues from all the parties for taking part in this important debate on the apparel and textile industry.

This evening I want to talk about the apparel and textile industry from the perspective of my riding of Brome—Missisquoi. I especially want to talk about a few companies located in my region, namely C.S. Brooks and Difco in Magog and Consoltex in Cowansville. There are many other companies in my riding as well. I want to pay special tribute to the workers in this industry, who do such extraordinary work.

The role of the MP is to be a liaison between the needs and concerns of the people from his riding and Ottawa. He must take these needs and express them here in Ottawa.

The textile industry as a whole is a sector with problems. It is in crisis. This entire industry in Canada employs roughly 150,000 workers, nearly 50,000 of which work in the textile sector proper, whereas the other 100,000 work in the apparel sector. My riding of Brome—Missisquoi has far more workers in textile than in apparel. This is important because each group has to be able to find its way in the current economic context.

In the apparel sector, last year I had the opportunity to visit, among others, an industry in Montreal called Peerless. In that one plant, 3,000 workers were spread out over three floors, thus 1,000 workers per floor. The work they do there is quite extraordinary. These people also need support. The textile industries in Brome—Missisquoi, like all the other regional businesses in Quebec, certainly need our support.

Earlier some of my colleagues mentioned the importance of consultations. I held consultations in Brome—Missisquoi. Just a few weeks ago, in Magog. I met with employers and employees from plants in that town as well as the mayor, Marc Poulin, the industrial relations counsellor and Ghislain Goulet from Magog's economic development office. Even though C.S. Brooks and Difco are both on strike right now, everyone was seated around the same table to talk about what could be achieved in a positive manner for our industry in the coming years.

Recently, I did the same thing in Cowansville with workers of Consoltex, in order to know what their needs were. We can say all we want here, but we are not those workers and employers. It is important to know what they want exactly in order to save their industry. I set up a meeting with, among others, the mayor of Cowansville, Arthur Fauteux, the workers as well as the managers of the two Consoltex plants of this town.

My colleagues from the Liberal Party representing ridings in Montreal, the Beauce region and Eastern Townships, our region, worked very hard on this. Last spring, the government announced some $60 million, half of which was for the apparel industry, and the other half for the textile industry.

This fall, in response to a question of the opposition asked two or three weeks ago, the finance minister said that he would shortly announce an improved program, a substantially improved government support program. That is what the minister answered to the opposition question.

When I heard that, I said to myself that what was important to know is what the Brome--Missisquoi textile industry needed in terms of this improved support, this substantially increased amount that will be made available, since the minister announced it.

Following the meetings I spoke of earlier, I set up, here in Ottawa, a meeting with representatives of four departments, that is Finance, Economic Development, International Trade and Industry, to which the mayors, unions, workers and employers were also invited.

There were about 30 people at that meeting. We wondered what we could say in the announcement so that the textile sector—the high priority sector in my riding—could get some benefit out of this and not only survive but become more dynamic in the marketplace.

And so we had an extraordinary meeting. I will briefly list the points raised by the people from the factories, not the MPs but the people who work in the factories and the owners as well.

First, they said that if we were going to present them with another government program, they wanted it to be flexible. That is what was delivered in today's announcement: flexibility. Why? Because they told us that one part of the money to help them would go to C.S. Brooks, whose needs were not the same as Difco's, while Difco does not need the same thing as Consoltex. One of them needs equipment, another needs marketing assistance, and another needs other things. They asked us for a program that is not “one size fits all”. It is a program in which each business can find what it needs.

In the announcement of the $50 million in additional funding, that is what we find. That announcement also says that up to $3 million will be available for equipment. There are all sorts of measures showing flexibility, exactly what the workers and owners asked for yesterday, here in Ottawa.

Secondly, there is POWA. We talked about that as well, and both employers and employees asked if there was some way of reviving this program to assist older workers. I understand that my Liberal colleagues are working right now to discover what kind of measures could provide something resembling POWA.

Moreover, the union people asked questions concerning the rescue measures and asked whether we might stretch the deadline a year or two past the 31st. All together, we discussed the rules of the international market. We agreed that the rescue measures were complicated, because of the argument that has to be made and the trade tribunal and so forth.

We also talked about LDCs, the least developed countries. There are 48 of them in the world. Two years ago, the government said to those least developed countries that they would be able to export their goods and services to Canada without having to pay taxes or customs duties, without being subjected to quotas, and so on. However, those involved in that industry do not want these least developed countries to serve as transit countries for products that come from elsewhere, transit through these countries and that finally arrive here, in Canada. So, these people asked us to work to tighten the rules of origin.

They also mentioned something else. Someone proposed to set up an export program for textile manufacturers. I listened to this suggestion very carefully, because I find it interesting to hear industry people and their proposals. As regards that textile export program, they suggested, among other things, that we consider the following facts.

Year in year out, Canada imports $5.6 billion worth of clothing. There is no Canadian content; these clothes are imported into Canada. If we put Canadian fabric in these clothes that come from abroad and imported them while looking at what could be done in terms of customs duties, taxes and so on, we could have some Canadian content in these imports that total $5.6 billion annually. We could even have a small label saying that these garments were made with Canadian fabric. This is a suggestion that was made to us yesterday by the management and the unions.

I will have to shorten my presentation, because I am told that my time is almost up. However, I want to say that these are truly exceptional transition measures. They can be of tremendous help to the industry, but we should not stop there. We must ensure that workers and employers contribute their ideas, because they are the ones who work in that industry. They must suggest to us approaches to ensure that we will not only maintain the textile industry in our country as we know it, but that we can also expand it. In my riding, these are jobs which, including fringe benefits, pay an average of $45,000 annually.

These are jobs that we must not lose in Canada. These are extraordinary workers.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will review the issues raised by the member for Brome—Missisquoi. I get a little annoyed listening to him talk about his proposals, consultations and meetings. He has been aware of this issue for 10 years, but consultation only took place yesterday. Today, the member will explain why, two weeks before the quota send, the government wakes up. This is not normal.

The government has had 10 year to get ready, to face the situation, to develop a plan to remedy the problem and, they decided, yesterday, to hold a consultation. Well, we have a major problem. Afterwards, they come to the House saying that, yesterday, they consulted and met with 30 stakeholders to have their opinions. Indeed, they have offered us a real deal today.

At the time of the consultation, they talked about the POWA program. For years, we heard that it is supposed to get back on track, that is since it was cancelled by this government. Today, because other people talk about this program during a consultation, they find it interesting. They want to have a POWA program for elders. We have been asking for this type of program since it was dropped many years ago.

I hope that they will put that program in place and that they will not be content to only talk about it today to try and reassure people. It must at least be put in place so there is some specific measure to give these older people protection if they lose their jobs due to this government's inertia. There is always talk about inertia in the textile sector.

And then, they talk of liaison. I feel that the liaison has been broken, because there is no communication at that level. On the other side of the House, they talk to each other when a really serious problem comes up. Then, they think there should be discussions and consultations. I use this word, “consultations“, because in the committee, we hear it. But it no longer exists. There is no consultation. When facing a fait accompli, yes, the government consults to assuage its conscience.

The parliamentary secretary was saying a while ago that the employer was not talking to them, that he was not doing anything. He tried to lay that at the employers' door. It is their fault.

I ask the member for Brome—Missisquoi whether he is willing to take part in the development of a POWA program and spend the energy to support it and be there-

[The Chair]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has the floor.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, we were talking about consultations. It did not start with yesterday's consultation. Today, I believe, the member from Shefford is waking up because it is the first time he has heard of these problems, even though his region has numerous textile companies. He has just landed from another planet. On the news, this morning, he heard that the plant in Huntingdon was shutting down and he realized he had to do something. Today, surprise, the member from Shefford is waking up. Enough!

I do not know if he listened to what I said, but I just mentioned that the meeting was not the first one we held. I attended meetings in Magog and Cowansville. Where did the member from Shefford hold his meetings? Can he say where? Where did he meet workers? Where did he meet business owners? Can he say where? The news this morning woke him up. This is what happened.

Coming back to the other subject he talked about , the POWA program, employees and employers mentioned this program and its importance. We are talking about the program to help older workers. I fully agree with those who are calling for these actions. He asked if I was going to continue working towards establishing a POWA, which I had also mentioned. My answer is yes because this is an important industry, not only for Brome—Missisquoi, but for the rest of Quebec and Canada. I will continue my consultations and my suggestion to the member is to start his own.

[The Chair]

There are only five minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Cambridge.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening to this issue. I have to say that listening to the hon. member on the other side of the House kind of reminds me of a reality show called “An MP Without a Clue”.

The government is bragging about going into consultations with this industry in the last 30 days with 30 people. How ridiculous is that? People are not interested in having a different piece of legislation for each situation that happens across the country. People wanted their jobs secured and the government had plenty of time to do that. The owners and managers of this industry wanted to plan for the next year, which is a simple thing, but the government leaves it to the 11th hour. What the people of Canada really want is a government that can solve problems, not legislation that creates more. In fact, that is what is happening here.

This is a band-aid solution to a problem that the government caused many years ago. It decided to give some $50 million to underdeveloped nations, which in itself is a good idea, but what that led to was a problem for our own jobs in Canada. The government is concerned about creating jobs. It is not concerned about the jobs we already have.

In one good idea, it tried to solve the problem and ended up with another problem. That is typical of the government. Whether it is the gun registry or dealing with aboriginal people, it does not think laterally. It comes up with knee-jerk solutions and we end up trying to solve the problem at the 11th hour.

People in Cambridge wanted to know. John Forsythe Shirt has been in existence for 100 years and is completely modern. It is not lagging behind on its technology. It has done everything to meet the demands of World Trade Organization contracts and the conflict with NATO. What it has been waiting for is the government to get out of its way so that it can get on with its business. What does the government do? Two weeks before the deadline it says that it has to fix the problem.

In the last two months since I have been in the House I have raised this issue on numerous occasions. I have e-mailed the minister, talked to him at events, have sent him notes in the House, most of which he has ignored, and I have asked him direct questions in the House, as have other members of the Conservative Party. The Bloc has been onside with this and the NDP has been battling the government. The minister himself admitted that he has been sitting on it for two months. That was just a few weeks ago.

The ministers stands in the House every day when he responds to questions on this issue and says that the Liberal caucus is on it. Guess what? It is not on it. It would not have done anything if it had not been for the opposition putting up a tremendous fight to force the government to fix the problems which it caused in the first place.

The government has now acknowledged that it has a problem and that it needs to remove the tariffs over the next few years. It should have done that in the first place. It brought in legislation that allows this industry to sell its remission orders. That is just silly. It should never have allowed that in the first place. It is no wonder we sit here for these types of emergency debates discussing problems that could have been solved in the first place.

It brings me back to the issue that this was an all committee decision. All of the parties got together and made a decision. The minister was given his marching orders but what did he do? He said that he would look into it and make his own decision. He said that he would consult with his bureaucrats. That is not his role. His role is to put in place the decisions made by the House that are brought forward by the committee. I have no idea where the minister gets off thinking that he can delay this as long as he wants and then claim credit.

The fact is that the $50 million that have been put forward is not even the cost of one of the Prime Minister's jets. It is ridiculous. People want jobs and the government is out of touch. I am happy the government brought this notice forward but it should have been done months ago, and in no way should the Liberal government be credited. This is thanks to the hard work of the opposition and it reflects our ability to make the government work despite the interference from that side.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, we heard the member for Brome—Missisquoi talk about other members of the opposition just waking up to the fact that this issue was before us and that we had to deal with it. My opinion is that on three of the four corners of the House we have been awake for some time and it is only the government that has finally awoken to the fact that immediate measures need to be taken.

We talked earlier about the $50 million that will be provided to the textile and clothing apparel industries over five years. This amount of money, divided among 3,900 different companies, basically means a few hundred dollars a month for each of those companies.

I want to ask the hon. member, given today's disaster in the industry, whether he thinks the last minute measures taken by the government are even remotely appropriate.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, the answer to the member's question is no, I do not think it is. However every long journey starts with a simple step and this is a move in the right direction. I was not surprised and I am not comforted that this announcement is the solution to the problem. It does not surprise me, as I have indicated before, because I do not believe the government is capable of finding a solution to this problem.

In reference to the first part of his question, the member is absolutely correct. I have seen no movement from the opposite side of the House on this issue. In fact, when this was brought to my attention through a petition sent to me by the employees of the John Forsythe Shirt industry, I was absolutely shocked that such a simple solution had not been solved by the previous Parliament. I believe it was on the same day that I wrote a letter to all the members in the House whose ridings would be affected by this. Half of those ridings, four of them were in Liberal ridings, received responses from every member except the Liberal members. In fact one member wrote to me saying that she had brought this up with the minister many weeks ago.

In answer to the question, it is my absolute knowledge that members of the opposition were on this issue the minute we knew about it, the minute Parliament returned. I also believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is the direct result of the opposition putting pressure on the government that this has at least opened the door to a solution.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have never heard more nonsense in my life than from the member for Cambridge, new as he is to the House. Maybe that is why he does not know. I would like to take this opportunity to bring the member up to date.

First, for years many Liberal members, myself included, have been staying on top of this issue year after year and have made great progress. Now this member has the audacity to say that nothing has been done.

I say to him that when we brought the textile and the garment people here to committee, he was nowhere to be found. That is the party that stands up week after week and month after month and talks about corporate welfare, that we cannot subsidize, that we cannot help and then has the audacity to stand and complain when we brought the industry before committee to talk to us and tell us what it was going to take. We asked the industry how we could help and what adjustments we could make.

Today the minister and all the members on this side feel they have made progress. They have sent the right kind of signal out by putting the money where their mouth is.

I encourage the member to do his homework. Maybe he should go back a couple of years and then he could congratulate the government for making a bold move, for supporting the industry and for sending the right kind of signal.

He comes from Cambridge which has the auto industry. The previous member who represented that riding, Janko Peric, proudly fought in the House continuously as the chair of the auto caucus to support that industry so those jobs could be maintained and sustained--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Cambridge.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is outrageous. The member himself just admitted that they were not able to solve this problem year after year. I did not know we were in an election campaign already, but I will say that if the member had been that effective, this would have been solved a long time ago and we would not be here tonight.

In response to the member, I have done my homework. The government has been on this issue for years, by its own admission, and I would offer that it has been solved thanks to the effectiveness of the members on this side.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the member for Brome—Missisquoi said that we had just woken up. Today, we heard about the situation in Huntingdon, and I will take part in this debate. I do so because the textile industry is very near and dear to my heart, and not because I just woke up and realized that this industry is in trouble.

As you know, when one spits into the wind, it blows back into one's face. The textile industry is nothing new to me. I want to say to the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi that I was in his riding, from 1996 to 1998, as a union representative in the clothing and textile industry and in other areas. Does he know what I am talking about? I do. If he has just understood, he has a problem. Since 1996, I have been familiar with the textile union and the problems of that industry.

When he says that I just woke up, he is way out in left field. Before talking, he should get some information and some feedback to know what is going on. When he talks about Consoltex in Cowansville, I can tell him that I was serving them well. I will not allow him to tell me that I know nothing about the issue and that we just realized what is going on.

It is important that the debate continue and that we find a tangible solution. We should not be here today trying to think up solutions; today, the solutions should already be in place, the programs should already be implemented and the meetings should already be set. That way, we are ready when we reach the deadline.

Today, nothing has been done. There is a shutdown in Huntingdon. Eight hundred jobs are being lost and the Liberal drawing boards are blank. We are not even ready. We are having this emergency debate tonight because they have not lifted a finger for the last 10 years. Today they try to blame everyone and his dog—the employers, the unions, the opposition parties.

That is not where the problem lies. The ball was in the Liberal court. They are now trying to pass the ball around, but we are here to tell them that the ball was in their court and that it is going to stay there. We will tell them what to do and how to do it if they do not understand.

Let them hold consultations with the opposition. I think that would help them realize how to improve the situation for the people in the textile industry.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a few comments about what some ministers and secretaries of State have said, as well as a question for my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

I wish to set the record straight. The people opposite are bragging about a program that saved several jobs. Maybe that was the case in the textile industry, and that is fine. I want to point out however that the program called CATIP, which has now been cancelled, did not apply to multinationals. To companies like Denim Swift, in Celanese, or Cavalier Textiles, in Drummondville, the program was useless. That is why I wanted to set the record straight.

The program was indeed helpful to some small businesses. I do not know why it does not exist anymore. The government cancels programs that work for some businesses and then, following consultations, it comes up with a handful of very timid measures at the eleventh hour to try and save face.

I would also like to point out that the American president of Swift Denim wrote the Minister of Finance twice. On the other side, this government is said to be very close to the situation and to management. But this was contradicted by the secretary of state responsible for financial institutions, who said that, if they did not speak with the unions, but only to management, and knew hardly anything about the situation, they could not intervene. I am sorry, but we have been talking about this for 10 years. It is the government's responsibility to implement specific measures to save textile enterprises in all our ridings across Canada.

I have a question for my hon. colleague concerning POWA, the program for older worker adjustment. I have received a letter from the coalition representing workers 45 and over who have lost their jobs at Denim Swift, in Drummondville. This letter says, “Did the government even bother to look into the situation? Does it have any alternatives to propose?”

This is a generation which includes people with little formal education. In our community, the vast majority of those affected have always worked in the textile industry. Will the government pay small organizations like this coalition, so that additional resources can be provided? This way, these people, real people, would be able to earn a living before retiring.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to please address the importance of and urgent need for an assistance program, probably an improved POWA, to support the workers who just lost their jobs in Huntingdon and in my riding, as well as those who are likely to lose their jobs because of this government's lack of action.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that program already existed, but this government has abolished it. Since then, the Bloc Québécois has been firmly asking that it be reinstated. Why? Because we believe in it.

At the time, only textile workers who were 55 years and older were eligible for POWA. Today, we are simply asking the government to reinstate it.

We know that the Liberals were the cause of the problem, and not the solution. The only way older workers can make a compensation claim is through POWA. This is why we are asking that it be reinstated.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for Shefford for his speech. It is important that we discuss this issue in the House today.

A while ago, I put a question to another member concerning the $50 million in measures over a five-year period that will actually give $200 of $300 a month to each business, everywhere in Canada. Here are the questions I wanted to ask my colleague for Shefford.

First, even if he is far removed from these issues, does he think that these funds can meet the needs of the textile and apparel industry?

In addition, in his riding of Shefford, what are the consequences of the government's disengagement for several years and of the fact that, today, it suddenly comes up with some measures?

What consequences and what repercussions does the member foresee in his riding in terms of job loss and business failures?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant question. My answer will continue along the same lines.

What happens when unemployed workers over 55 years old who have trouble finding a new job do not have access to POWA? What is the perverse effect of a situation where one is unable to find a new job at 55 because one is less employable?

These people have to spend the money they had saved throughout their lives because they find themselves jobless. They must sell their house because they lost their job and need to make ends meet. Those who own a cottage must get rid of it. They have to sell their car, rent an apartment and be welfare recipients for the rest of their lives. People who worked for 30 years in this industry will live on welfare, without any revenue, for the rest of their lives.

That is the perverse effect we will see if these people cannot get help from POWA, which the Liberal government is unwilling to restore.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Chair, it really is a pleasure for me to rise in this debate tonight on a subject that has been of interest to me ever since I came to this place. I have been working with the textile and apparel industry for a long time and have known the challenges faced by this industry as a result of free trade, of the initiatives taken by the government and of what is happening to the workers in this industry.

I would like to take the opportunity to offer some comments on a file that I have had occasion to work on for the last seven years. It is one that is increasingly challenging because of the global context in which this industry works, and the marketplace in which all nations now must compete.

My hon. colleagues are no doubt aware that this competition will even be fiercer in 2005 when all countries eliminate their quotas on the textile and apparel products, as agreed in 1994, further to negotiations held at the World Trade Organization. According to these obligations, Canada will have to eliminate all remaining quotas on textile and apparel products as of January 1, 2005.

To assist the Canadian textile and apparel producers in adjusting to this competitive trade environment, the government, as the minister announced in the House earlier, will remove tariffs on textile imports used in apparel production and on fibre and yarn imports.

Although this measure alone is expected to reduce input costs for both textile and apparel manufacturers by up to $90 million per year, it is important to note that duties will remain in force on products where domestically produced Canadian fibres, yarns and fabrics are available. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal will work in consultation with Canadian textile producers to identify the products that they manufacture.

May I say that they already have a list because there was a comment made by the opposition members that this will also be a long process but there is already a process that has begun and there is a list that has already been given actually to the international trade tribunal which will not take forever in order to establish a list.

Under this new framework, importers will have to pay transitional duties during the consultation process and until a final decision is reached on the imported inputs that will benefit from tariff relief. The importers will then be able to ask for a refund of duties paid after January 1, 2005.

Today's announcement will also provide an additional $50 million over five years to the textiles production efficiency initiative, CANtex, which was announced by the Minister of Industry.

CANtex was granted $26.7 million in February to assist Canadian textile manufacturing firms to become more competitive and take advantage of new market opportunities. The initiative builds on the $33 million Canadian apparel and textile industry program, which has funded in fact over 300 projects to assist apparel and textile companies in enhancing their productivity, lowering costs, improving efficiency and identifying new markets.

When hon. members in the opposition say that we have done nothing on this file, I would like to remind them that this is the type of money that has been invested by the government in that industry.

Currently, eligible projects under the CANtex program involve initiatives related to textile production activities, such as the implementation of textile production processes to increase productivity, the modification of existing production equipment, facilities to produce different textile products and the improvement of textile production capabilities to reduce costs.

Current eligible costs include: the studies undertaken to identify appropriate textile production efficiency initiatives and/or to assess market opportunities for new or different textile production capacity; studies directly related to the project; planning directly related to the project; consultant and professional fees directly related to the project; staff wages and salaries directly related to the project; and equipment installation, engineering, software and staff training costs directly related to the project.

An additional $50 million will help producers of textiles used in traditional garments adjust their production to other markets. This money will also help promote excellence in the production of technical, special and industrial textiles, and give them the flexibility they need to succeed in the increasingly integrated markets we have now. With the CANtex program, industries will be able to ask for refundable contributions of up to $3 million for various projects, including the procurement of equipment and material.

I have certain industries in my riding that I have visited. Now it is no longer the ladies or gentlemen at a sewing machine. It is very much less labour intensive than it used to be years ago, and more high tech. A lot of the owners tell me that those machines cost over a half a million U.S. dollars. This part of the initiative, where we will be also more flexible than in the old CANtex program, will be of assistance to those companies that want to go into buying equipment that makes them more competitive on the international level.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, duty remission orders were introduced in 1997-98 by the government as temporary measures to help textile and apparel firms adjust to a more competitive trade environment. Specifically, they gave certain companies in six textile and apparel subsectors the right to a remission of duties paid on certain imports. Benefits have averaged $30 million annually over the past three years to the industry. Again, I would like to remind the hon. members on the other side that this government was the one that put those duty remission orders in place.

Although the current orders were set to expire on December 31, today's announcement will extend those orders for another five years, but will now include a phase-out period over the final three years. Remission order benefits will decline to 75% of original levels in 2007, 50% in 2008 and 25% in 2009. They will expire entirely on December 31, 2009. This phase-out period will allow beneficiary firms the opportunity to adjust to the 2009 expiry date.

The measures announced today are in addition to the more than $70 million in federal assistance to the textile and apparel industries in the last few years.

Just one example of this targeted assistance will be the $10.9 million provided in June 2003 for the Canada Border Services Agency to counter the illegal transshipments of textile and apparel products, products that came after the LCD initiatives that this government introduced, and which I personally opposed because of the impact that it would have on the textile and apparel industry.

In February the government announced $26.7 million in tariff reductions to benefit the apparel industry.

Today's announcement on the elimination of tariffs on all imported fibre, yarn and textile imports that are not produced in Canada supercedes and, in my opinion, goes beyond the $26.7 million tariff relief initiative.

The finance minister, whom I would like to thank for taking into consideration various representations on both sides of the House, will ask the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to hold consultations with the textile industry in order to ascertain the kinds of fibre, threads and textiles made in Canada.

But this will not take a year, as was said in one press conference. There is already a list drawn up by the industry.

Because innovation and investment are key to the industry's future successes in the global trading environment and to its continuing contribution to the health of the Canadian economy, I would be remiss not to mention some of the steps the government has taken outside of the tariff framework that have contributed to the sector's dramatic rebirth as a competitive high tech innovator.

Given the mobility of investment capital globally, a competitive tax system is critical to fostering business investment in Canada. Investment supports economic growth and job creation. The Canadian textile and apparel industry has demonstrated clearly that with more and better equipment embodying the latest technology, workers are more productive. As I said earlier, I have seen that for myself.

Increased investment and higher labour productivity in turn lead to increased employment, higher wages and a higher standard of living. The importance of improving the competitiveness of the tax system has been underscored in recent years by reductions in corporate tax rates for many of our major trading partners, establishing a Canadian tax advantage for investments, jobs and growth.

As time is running out, without continuing on the subject of tax, which I think is an important component, I would like to say that I am a member of Parliament who represents a number of apparel and textile manufacturers. I have had the opportunity over the years to meet with the entrepreneurs in my riding to learn about the challenges they face. I believe that their concerns are legitimate. For this reason, I have been working along with my colleagues on the government benches, as well as the Prime Minister and all ministers concerned to ensure a viable future for this industry's entrepreneurs and workers. Today's announcement in my opinion will do just that.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the general assembly of the Textiles Human Resources Council, an organization dedicated to ensuring that employees of the textile industry attain and maintain world class skills. This is an industry that we have been supporting through CED and also Industry Canada. They are doing innovative training and education, ranging from CD-ROMs to fully interactive computer courses.

The Textiles Human Resources Council has made every effort to ensure the continuous upgrading of the industry's workforce, knowledge and skills. The outcome has seen the evolution of the oldest manufacturing industries in Canada into highly modernized capital intensive industries, selling to over 150 industrial sectors.

In closing, I am very encouraged by the fact that the government has moved on recommendations made by the finance committee. I also want to highlight the fact that I made an announcement today on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development regarding the two workers' initiatives that were put in my riding and in Laval.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am a little surprised to hear from the parliamentary secretary this evening at 8:20 p.m., because personally, I do not share her legendary optimism. She literally wears rose-coloured glasses. As if all were well; as if all were well.

When the people of Huntingdon are facing a crisis, she has the nerve to tell us that she herself has announced pilot projects in Ahuntsic. The reality is that the crisis is in Huntingdon, not Ahuntsic.

I am also surprised to see her show such optimism; she and I are members from Montreal. There are 110 companies in my riding, which employ 4,000 people, including two major companies with 900 and 1,000 employees each. When the member says that all is well in Montreal, I must remind her that, in 2003, a study was conducted by the CRDIM, which set job losses for Montreal's textile industry at 4,052. It is not true that all is well.

Pilot projects are being announced in the hon. member's riding, but the crisis in Huntingdon could very well occur in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Furthermore, the study in question indicates that:

—the transition process, it is also possible for Canada, or for any other country, to demand clauses setting out additional quota restrictions if national production activities are threatened... Between 1995 and 1998, these so-called “special safeguard” clauses were used 44 times, but never by Canada.

So, does this not demonstrate that the federal government has not used all means at its disposal to avoid the crisis facing Huntingdon and that could affect other ridings and other people in Quebec? When the member says there are pilot projects in her riding, she is not telling us that these projects are inadequate. Why not? Because there are no passive measures for workers in the pilot projects.

Could the government not have made an effort over the past 10 years to avoid this crisis, a situation that is totally unacceptable for the people of Huntingdon but that could spread throughout Quebec?