Debates of Feb. 8th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to the study on Electoral Reform, seven members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be authorized to travel to Wellington (New Zealand) and Canberra (Australia) from March 25 to April 3, 2005 and that the necessary do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to its study on Solicitation Laws, five members of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness be authorized to travel to Toronto, Montreal and Halifax from March 14 to 17, 2005 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to its study on Solicitation Laws, five members of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg from March 28 to April 1, 2005 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the fact that my colleague from Kitchener Centre used the words fiscal imbalance on numerous occasions. Does this indicate official recognition of fiscal imbalance by his government? I do not know if that is the case, but I hope it is.

We were discussing the Bloc Québécois motion on the clothing and textile industries. I have heard what the minister and my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable have had to say. They spoke of the steps taken by the government, ones I feel ought to have been taken far sooner. Everyone knew that there would be a crisis at some point.

There is talk of $50 million set aside by the government. But that is for all of Canada. Of course, once it is divided up, there is not much left for helping this industry of such importance to Quebec adapt.

I would ask my colleague to tell us a bit about the effectiveness of the programs in question, particularly those $50 million the government claims to have set aside. How was it used, and was the amount invested really effective?

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As we said earlier, there are certain weaknesses that can be seen in the programs. First, the program money has run out. That is an important problem. There were $100,000 ceilings. That has been said. Other programs were used simply to scatter the money around here and there, which did nothing to improve the situation.

As for the $50 million, I believe this morning there was an article in La Presse saying that the Canadian textile industry had been removed from the American market. The president of the Canadian Textiles Institute, Harvey Penner, has written to the Prime Minister asking for a plan B. With regard to the $50 million, he stated that this assistance did not match the needs of the industry. He had suggested many other things than this $50 million. He also explained that lifting the quotas and tariffs on textiles coming from China, India and Pakistan had damaged the industry a great deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member mentioned Mr. Penner, with whom we on this side of the House have been working for years. Mr. Penner does not only express his views through the media. We have also consulted him on measures taken by this government over the past number of years.

I simply want to go back to the hon. member's remarks, when he said, either during his speech, his comments, or in debate, that this government had not done anything. Considering all the programs that were in place before the month of December, I can say that these measures have helped that industry survive, they have helped several manufacturers in the textile industry survive.

On December 14, we announced that an amount of $46 million had been earmarked to make up for the elimination of custom duties on textile imports. That was the number one measure that the clothing industry had asked us to take.

I would like to ask a question to the Bloc Québécois member regarding the textile industry. The challenge is not merely about investing money. We agree on that, but there is something else.

This government will make sure to invest money in a human resource centre—the industry has already begun doing so—to help people and to help exports. There is also a whole slew of other measures.

Is the hon. member once again claiming that nothing is being done and that we have totally forgotten that industry? I do not accept these comments.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Indeed, I was saying that the government was doing too little too late. Obviously, at some point, the government has no choice but to get involved. However, if the proposed measures seek to help the textile and clothing industries, and if they reflect what the Bloc Québécois proposed, we will welcome them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell on a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose of presenting a report from a committee on changes of memberships to standing committees.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of certain committees.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House this day be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this the Bloc Québécois opposition day, it was highly relevant to address the situation of the clothing and textile industries, given everything that happened at the end of 2004, especially in Huntingdon. We know there were significant job losses and more to come.

The textile and clothing industries appear pretty straightforward usually. Certain things occur, however, in these industries, leading us to realize that, over the past few years, huge numbers of jobs have been lost.

As an example, in my riding, when Dominion Textile was in Sherbrooke, the Pacifique street mill employed over 2,000 people, including my father and my mother, as was mentioned by the member a while ago. Indeed, they spent their whole life working in the textiles. As you know, it was a relatively difficult industry at the time, as there were often labour disputes, because people in that line of work were under paid. Today, the situation has improved in this regard. However, the fact is that employment levels have gone down markedly.

Indeed, that very building, which is no longer occupied by the same company, now provides only some 125 jobs, as compared with the approximately 2,000 at that time.

The world is changing. At one time, of course, some measures were adopted in Quebec and Canada to protect the clothing and textile industry. Now, we have to face the fact that quotas were eliminated on January 1, 2005.

I remember very well what my colleague the international trade critic for my party said. At the end of November or the beginning of December, he asked the government what it intended to do since quotas were to be abolished on January 1, 2005. He was told that he got worked up for nothing. But the Liberal government had known for more than ten years what was to happen at that date. Obviously the programs that had been put in place, which the minister mentioned a minute ago, were not as successful as expected.

For a while, the Bloc had been making relevant recommendations inspired by the requests and expectations of the clothing and textile industries. Today's motion denounces the inadequacy of the assistance plan put in place by the government just after the announcement of the closure of several plants in Huntingdon. The Bloc Québécois asks the government to further elaborate its assistance plan by making it more efficient for the clothing and textile industries.

The recommendations included in the Bloc's motion comprise the three following elements:

—the use of safeguards provided for in trade agreements, the implementation of measures to encourage the use of Quebec- and Canadian-made textiles and the creation of a program to assist older workers.

The Bloc Québécois also recommended adopting an international policy that would prevent offshoring. In addition, programs should be established to modernize the clothing and textile industries, as well as to stimulate research to create jobs and new businesses in these industries.

In a context of globalization, everyone wants to go global, of course. Foreign businesses want to globalize by getting established here, and vice versa for our domestic businesses. We are in a race against time to take advantage of certain unfair and inequitable situations in other parts of the world where social, environmental and labour standards are too weak and, as a result, people as well as the environment are being exploited.

In this frantic race, we can see that there are countries where workers are not necessarily paid very much at all, which allows the kind of mass production against which, technically, we in industrialized countries can hardly compete because our labour standards are different. Basically, we are not exactly in the same ballpark.

Obviously, with respect to the clothing and apparel industry, people often do not talk in terms of globalization. Nevertheless, it has to be brought up, because that is the context in which this is taking place.Many other factors are contributing to the serious difficulties faced by the textile and apparel industry.

My hon. colleague mentioned earlier that the Canadian textile industry had been driven out of American market. He also mentioned that Harvey Penner had expressed the need for a plan B to restore our access to the American market. I was surprised to hear the expression “plan B” used, seeing that we are generally talking about a government with a great deal of experience with plan Bs, which, unfortunately, are not always the greatest. For instance, the plan put forward in December was indeed inadequate.

Therefore, it was in that context that, a moment ago, I put my question to the minister in the wake of the testimony given by members of the textile industry. Now, they pointed at the weakness of that program in terms of implementation. In addition, they also pointed at its weakness in terms of the amounts available to the industry. Fifty million dollars over five years, that is $10 million for the whole of Canada. Canadian or Quebec businesses may suffer from a serious lack of funds, given the fact that we must proceed rapidly.

In the context of globalization, innovation and invention are a must. Therefore, to make up for a labour force that is, from a practical point of view, poorly paid in other countries, we have to do better with respect to production techniques. On the other hand, we must innovate with regard to production techniques and products. Therefore, we must look for production niches, specialized products and markets, so that our existing techniques make up for the mass production of specialized products flooding world markets.

Witnesses from the apparel and textile industries said that the modernization program must be straightforward. The modernization programs must be straightforward so that they can be implemented as quickly as possible. People need time to diversify production.

They also mentioned the fact that the exchange rate was unfavourable to exports. Businesses have had less liquidity lately, and subsidy and aid programs have been insufficient.

The evidence is clear: for the past ten years, the government, although it put in place a few programs, has never understood the extent of the problem and still does not. Therefore, we urge it to update its aid package to make it really efficient.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to you at the outset that I will be splitting my time with my most esteemed colleague from the constituency of Windsor West.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate on such an important question for the Canadian society. This is a very important policy for my riding, but also for Canadian workers in general.

Let me begin by telling the members that I appreciate the work the Bloc Québécois is doing in the House. By and large, I agree with the resolution. It is a simple and straight-forward motion that gives a precise orientation to the government. It asks the House to acknowledge the inadequacy of the assistance plan for the clothing and textile industries which was announced by the federal government following the closure of six plants in Huntingdon.

It is quite simple. The assistance announced by the minister on behalf of the Liberals on December 14 is not sufficient to solve the problem that exists in Canada now.

There is something else being proposed in this motion. It is that the government further elaborates with regard to the following elements: the use of safeguards provided for in trade agreements, the implementation of measures to encourage the use of Quebec and Canadian made textiles and the creation of a program to assist older workers. It is very simple.

The one thing that I did not appreciate however is the distinction that was made between the Canadian and the Quebec textile industry workers. As far as we are concerned, we are all Canadians. Therefore, this is a Canadian problem. So, except for this reservation, we agree with the resolution and we will support the motion.

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to express my frustration with the process and the strategy as outlined by the government with respect to this issue today. This is a matter that has been before the House for a good long time. It goes back many years. We heard today about the government's announced plan of February 2004 and how we must be patient and wait for this strategy to unfold before we can actually take further action.

First, we have heard that so often from the Liberals that it is hard to stomach. We heard that initially with respect to the made in China lapel pins, the flag pins. The first response from the Minister of Public Works was to say that this was all about the trade deals and that we had to look at who can give us the best deal and all the rest. With a little political pressure and embarrassment in the media, the government was able to change its tune in the space of 24 hours and suddenly find it within the realm of possibility to have these Canadian flag lapel pins made in Canada.

I would think that when it comes to something as important as the textile industry in this country, the government could act a bit more swiftly and with more courage. What it is going to take is for the government to stand up for an industrial strategy for a made in Canada textile industry that is vital to the future of our communities.

I know that in Winnipeg there are some 40 to 50 apparel outfits in my community that are very dependent upon what kind of actions we take in this place and through the government. We are talking about thousands and thousands of jobs, jobs that are very meaningful in terms of people being able to contribute their skills, make a decent living and support their families.

In the case of Winnipeg North and certainly in the case of my neighbouring constituency, that of Winnipeg Centre, many of these industries got their start because many workers came from places like the Philippines and settled in Canada in those communities and worked from the ground up in the garment industry. We owe them a debt of gratitude. At this point in the history of our country, we should not be taking away jobs, pulling the rug out from under them and leaving them without any hope of being able to access security in their old age or to provide for their families down the road. This is a vital industry that needs some action.

The other point I want to make is that the finance committee, of which I am a proud member, has worked long and hard on this issue and presented a report to the House last March. Of course, no action was taken, which is true to form for the government. When the new Parliament was reconvened after the election we submitted another report to Parliament with the full blessing of the finance committee. That report is now gathering dust.

We made some very reasoned decisions that if in fact they had formed the basis for government action we might not be in the predicament we are today. I would refer specifically to the recommendation for the federal government to immediately extend for a further seven years the duty remission orders covering the apparel sector that were set to expire on December 31, 2004.

If only the government had acted more expeditiously we would not have seen the turmoil in the industry and the frenzied action for the government to step in and provide some assistance.

Finally, in December we saw very limited response by the government with a small amount of money to assist the industry. By all accounts, it was insufficient and is certainly being questioned by representatives and the workers of the industry from one end of the country to the other.

Today we are before the House asking for more prompt and meaningful action on the part of the federal government that we think is reasonable and vital to the future of the country and jobs for the future.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on, when we were listening to the minister responsible for economic development in Quebec, he indicated very clearly the importance of modernizing the garment industry and its technology, and of it being very specialized.

We have a company in Winnipeg that specializes in military garments and it has done a very good job of modernizing and specializing in that industry and is now one of the best in the world.

Could the member comment on that in terms of the importance of modernizing our technology and of specializing in certain fields? She probably recognizes the company to which I am referring. It is actually one of the best in the world.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the company and I do recognize the uniqueness of this particular outfit which is filling a niche market.

What we are calling for today in the House by no means denies the unique situation of such a company in Winnipeg. What we are calling for today are some changes in attitude and in policy that will help deal with the need for modernization to occur across the board in many of these companies and ensure that the industry has a competitive footing vis-à-vis this industry around the world.

What we are asking today is what do we have to compare in terms of the limited amount that the Liberals are willing to put into the textile sector to prevent a wholesale loss of the Canadian textile industry compared to the awakening giants, like China and India, that are set to overwhelm world markets? Where will investors go for a long term stable return? What real protection is the government offering Canadian workers? These are the issues at hand today.

Through a more proactive set of recommendations and actions by the government, I think we can help companies that want to modernize and be at the top of their game around the world, but it would also ensure that we have a viable industry in Canada right across the board.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I love my job is that the House of Commons is an amazing place to learn things. I heard the question about the military garments, and I guess this is a case where we can treat this particular company in a uniform fashion.

I heard the member say that there were 60 or 70 apparel firms in the Winnipeg area. I am actually quite conversant with apparel firms in Montreal and Toronto but not so with Winnipeg so I was delighted to learn this extra fact.

I wonder if she could briefly describe those 60 or 70 companies and the extent to which they depend on the international market, the provincial market and the national market. I heard the case involving the uniforms. I can well imagine that it deals all across the country but does it sell military apparel overseas? This is a question of national, provincial, international--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am not sure if that is uniform but I think we will soldier on. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are calling for is a uniform policy across the board to ensure that the textile industry is alive and well in this country and able to compete with international forces where labour may be considerably cheaper.

The issue of the lapel pins was really a symbol for us in terms of what we need to do to grapple with this issue. My colleague from Windsor West will address this, but we understand that the hats that were worn by the Turner delegation to Ukraine for the election observation task were made in China. I guess that tells it all in terms of what we need to do in this country.

Manitoba has a rich diversity of apparel businesses that cater to a wide variety of markets. We have high end fashion outlets and world renowned jean manufacturers. I do not know much about the military uniforms but, as members can see, there are a whole range of textile industries in Winnipeg, as there are in Quebec and in other parts of Canada, that want to compete here and internationally but want to do so on the basis of maintaining good jobs, good working conditions and good products. That is the challenge we are facing, and that is the issue the government must address today.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to this important motion. It is becoming a pattern that we have seen in our manufacturing industries and textiles is the latest to get debated here in the House of Commons. Others in the past have been the auto industry and the aerospace industry. It is important to recognize this motion and the spirit of it and what has been recently happening.

What we have happening is a pattern of behaviour where we have to go from crisis to crisis in our manufacturing sectors across the country.

It is not that the introduction of these programs was not a good first step. It is the fact that they always come at the 11th hour and they always come without any real sustainability for the entire industry. The issue just kind of drifts off the table and then we do not see anything again until another crisis erupts.

What is troubling about what is happening today in our manufacturing sectors across Canada is that they are facing all these challenges. As I mentioned in my starting remarks, the auto sector is one of those industries that has been drifting and we still have seen no action from the government. What ends up happening is that the government, even when it is pushed into taking a position on something, will create a report or a report will come through at committee and the recommendations will be set and then they will just be discarded or put on a shelf to gather dust.

For the auto sector, that was recently done with the Canadian Auto Parts Council. Three years ago it was asked to come up with recommendations. The government came across as being very sincere when it said that it knew the auto sector was in trouble, that it knew the sector had problems with overseas and production issues related to other countries, that it knew technology was changing, and that it knew there were challenges in infrastructure, so it wanted the auto sector to come up with some solutions.

What has ended up happening, after two years of meetings with some of the biggest players in the industry and a report at the end of the day, is that the government, months later, has yet to move on the recommendations in the report. It is shameful.

A lot of those same issues face the textile industry.

We have a report on vested interest partners, absolutions, and nothing has come to fruition.

I was glad to see the minister respond, to a certain degree, in The Montreal Gazette when he said that this did not mean this industry was on the brink of extinction.

Although he said that the industry was not on the brink of extinction right now, the government will be investing haphazardly in terms of a one shot element. That is not good enough for the vested interest partners, for the people who have their jobs in this industry, nor for this nation that has to compete with other issues relating to this around the world.

Today I had the opportunity to meet with Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. They have a 20-20 vision about building a vision for our future. They are talking a lot about the same issues that we are discussing here today. I want to read from the preamble of the submission they made. I think it is important because it ties in very significantly to the issues that we are debating here. I just want to read the first two paragraphs. It states:

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters embarked on our Manufacturing 20/20 initiative to create a blueprint that ensures the future prosperity of Canada's largest business sector. Entering into this landmark consultation, we were overwhelmed with the support of Canadian industry. After 98 meetings involving 2,500 manufacturers and stakeholders in communities across Canada, we heard virtually the same message from Newfoundland to British Columbia--business as usual is not an option.

Change is reshaping our industry, not only in Canada but around the globe at an unprecedented pace. The result is the emergence of a new paradigm of manufacturing where innovation instead of volume drives growth; where global business systems instead of production systems are employed; where companies do business not only across the country, but around the world and where competition is not among companies but in supply chains.

Welcome to the 21st century and the new age of manufacturing of global business. Welcome to the future

I think that is a good document because it actually highlights some of the things that we need, one being a national industrial strategy.

I know the Canadian Labour Congress has been pushing that issue. We had representations at a meeting here in Ottawa about four months ago that actually included members of all the opposition. However the government did not send a member. There was good representations among all political parties. We heard from the union and the labour organizations that put forth the challenges that we face.

When I met with manufacturers today, I heard a lot of the same stuff. In fact one of the delegates used the term “fairer trade”, something that we as New Democrats have pushed for a long time. They cannot compete with low cost wages that exploit workers, or in situations where safety issues go uninvestigated that put workers at risk or in environmental actions where post end products of waste management are not addressed. That is used as a subsidy to trump the Canadian workers.

That is wrong for a number of reasons. It is wrong for Canadians who are put on the streets or have to rely on a government supporting agency for a cheque, not because of their skill, not because of their dedication but because other people are manipulated, taken advantage of or work in deplorable conditions and do not receive a fair wage.

We are not helping those individuals either in the textile industry by allowing sweat shops in the world to go unchallenged to the degree that they have. We are not helping those individuals. Everyone around the world deserves a fair wage, not just the people in Canada.

We have to turn this around for our country. My colleague brought forward the issue of national pride related to the flag pins because there was a symbol involved. It does not matter if it is a pin or the Turner delegation. We had an emergency debate on the Ukraine. Two days later a delegation went to Ukraine bringing the face of Canada on hats made in China with the Canadian flag on the front. That says something is wrong about our symbolism. The made in Canada issue is something of which we need to be proud.

I know auto workers have run campaigns to buy domestic. At times people criticize them for that. They want to ensure that people understand that wages they receive in the procurement of those products pay for schools, health care and all kinds of initiatives.

The textile industry is one that deserves greater support. The things it can do are fantastic, not only in terms of places for people to work. It also brings pride to the manufacturing sector for all Canadians.

One recommendation on new technology is interesting and it has been talked about previously. It would be a step forward in helping the industry compete with other cross-subsidizations elsewhere. The recommendation is the tax treatment of businesses that provides an investment environment second to none in North America by implementing accelerated depreciation allowances for machinery, equipment and automated processes used in manufacturing and tax credits for investments in new technologies.

There has been a great deal of debate in Canada about moving to higher end newer technologies, about being innovators and all those things. If that is going to be our strategy, if we are going to put all of our eggs in the same basket, then there has to be recognition of the systemic way to ensure that newer technologies move through the R and D element and are on the shop floors at a quicker pace with higher turnovers to ensure that the jobs will be flexible and can adapt.

These are the types of things we can do to provide some flexibility. It is important for the government to take notice, not only of this debate but that of all manufacturing in Canada. This provides yet another example of a reason for a national industrial strategy, something that New Democrats support. We would like to see the government bring it forward so we have strong workers, a strong economy and there is a pattern dealing with success, not crises. We are seeking a national industrial strategy.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit puzzled about what my colleague said. He likely knows more about the automobile sector than anybody else in the House and he stressed that in his remarks. I understood the link between it and the debate we are having today. I am not objecting to his having talked about the auto sector.

It is never possible for a government to do enough. It is my understanding that in the last year Ontario has become the major auto jurisdiction of North America. It produces more auto products than any other jurisdiction or any state in the United States. On top of that Ontario is still in the running for another Toyota plant.

My colleague rightly stressed the need to change technology. If we are to keep jobs, we have to stay at the very forefront of technology. It is my understanding that over the last two or three years the main auto producers in the United States and other overseas locations have started moving R and D capacity back into the province of Ontario for the first time in 20 or 30 years. I think that is in response to the new R and D tax credit environment which is a part of the five year $100 billion tax reduction, and is part of the federal government's policy. We can see a real reflection of that.

I agree with my colleague that in the end we want jobs and we need to keep on top of R and D. Through the change in the R and D tax credit, the federal government has done that and has helped Ontario become the leading jurisdiction for auto products. We have a way to go yet to again become a centre for R and D in the auto industry.

Could he comment on that? Several thousand people in my riding of Peterborough work in the General Motors plant in Oshawa.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me a chance to discuss Ontario becoming the number one producer of finished vehicles this year. It overtook the state of Michigan, and that happened for a number of reasons.

Michigan recently lost several plants that suffered the same fate of having to leave or close, and this affected production quite significantly. Therefore, it has taken a step back. A couple of plants have been retooling. Because of that, production over the last year was reduced. However, in the future this will be good for Michigan because new vehicles and products will begin to roll off the assembly line.

Ontario taking the place of Michigan is a testament to our own auto workers in terms of the high degree of their productivity and the value they place on quality. Additional shifts have been added because of the experience, skills, commitment and pride that those auto workers have for their products.

The issue of the Toyota plant is potentially back on the table. However, Canada still does not have an auto policy so we have to shoot from the hip on individual plant procurement, which is the wrong way to go on a national auto strategy. Windsor lost a plant as a result of this and Liberals were quite critical of the situation.

A little more than a year ago DaimlerChrysler, which is with CAW, negotiated a potentially new plant in Windsor. The government was not interested in pursuing it very hotly. Later on the tide turned. The government became interested, but the automaker changed its mind and Windsor lost the plant. Even Liberals were critical of what happened. That is because we do not have a national auto policy.

The member was quite correct to point out the excellent work being done in research and development. The University of Windsor, the Ford Centre for Excellence and the St. Clair College in my constituency are great examples of investment in R and D, improving not only the knowledge base at the university but more important newer technology.

The important thing though is whether that new technology will be used for assembling and manufacturing in Canada to create Canadian jobs. We have seen with the textile industry and other industries in the past that we can invent new technology only to have it exported somewhere else. The company might benefit, but the workers do not. That is the catch with the national auto strategy. That is one reason why I would like to see a national strategy for the auto sector. That is why I believe the textile industry is linked to the debate today. It requires the same support in terms of a national industrial strategy which would benefit Canada.