Debates of Feb. 8th, 2005

Sponsorship Program

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last year when the Chrétien government's secret unity slush fund came to light, the Prime Minister expressed total shock at this, and his senior spokespeople referred to it as a secret slush fund and honey pot. Today Mr. Chrétien has told us the truth, that the finance minister was up to it hip deep. He said, “the Minister of Finance and I always agreed to set aside fifty million dollars a year for expenditures related to national unity”.

Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians about his involvement in and knowledge of the secret unity slush fund?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister responded--

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I know that members may have a lot of supplementaries they want to ask but we only have one question, then we have an answer. The member for Calgary Southeast will have a supplementary after the minister has given his answer. If members could contain themselves, we will hear the minister's answer, I hope. The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the floor.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister already responded to that question earlier. Beyond that, I find it absolutely shocking that the hon. member would talk about unity a day after it has been reported in the Globe and Mail that his leader has been dividing, not unifying, Canadians and pitting one minority group against another in a country like Canada that prides itself on our multicultural identity. It is absolutely appalling first, that the leader and that party would try to divide Canadians and second, that the hon. member would ask a question about unity.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that minister has a single issue obsession with the marriage issue, but Canadians have an obsession with the waste of their tax dollars by this government, and that is why they want answers.

They want to know this. Why did Prime Minister deny knowledge of the unity fund when his former boss and close partner, Mr. Chrétien, revealed in testimony today that the Prime Minister as finance minister approved and was responsible for the annual $50 million secret unity slush fund? Why did he cover it up?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member something about what most Canadians across the country, particularly Liberals, are unified on and believe in. If he wants to talk about single issues, we believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that Canada is well served by having an independent judiciary. We believe in our Constitution and defending that Constitution. That party and that individual attack the Charter of Rights on an ongoing basis, and frankly, they deny themselves the opportunity to ever form government in a country as moderate and tolerant as Canada.

The Environment

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last May the Government of Canada announced its commitment to work with the Province of Nova Scotia in its clean-up of the Sydney tar ponds. Today in Sydney the project description for this clean-up was released, marking the beginning of the next phase of this important remediation initiative.

My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Could the minister tell the House how long this phase will take and when will actual work begin?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very valuable work on this file.

Today we launched public consultations on the proposed clean-up for the Sydney tar ponds. Moving ahead on this important project is a priority for our government. Once the 30 day consultation period is complete, we will conduct an environmental assessment that meets all legal requirements, that is thorough in terms of its scope and that will be completed in a timely manner.

This spring work will begin on the removal of the cooling ponds, the realignment of the coke ovens and the relocation of the Whitney Pier's waterline.

We are proud as a government to work to clean up the Sydney tar ponds.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are starting to ask more questions about the economic cost of full compliance with Kyoto. When the government spends $3.7 billion with negative results, taxpayers tend to get a little upset.

This morning the finance minister told us that we needed a more robust plan. Before moving forward with more spending on Kyoto, will the minister come clean and tell Canadians what the cost will be in dollars and jobs in full compliance with Kyoto?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the enhanced plan will be released and at that time we will be very pleased to discuss it with the hon. member. I am sure he will conclude that not only will it improve the environment, not only will it help Canada to fulfill its international duty but it will strengthen the Canadian economy.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the persons appearing on the poster in honour of this year's Black History Month: the Hon. Alvin Curling, Speaker of the Ontario Provincial Legislature, Delores Lawrence and Denham Jolly.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker]

I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Simailak, Minister of Economic Development and Transportation of the Government of Nunavut.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Monday, December 13, 2004, by the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East concerning a reply to a question on the order paper.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill for their contributions on this issue.

In presenting his case the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East charged that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans deliberately misled the House in responding to Question No. 5 on the order paper on December 8, 2004. In part (i) of his question, the member asked what diseases or parasites had been found in salmon net pens along the coast of British Columbia for each of the years 2000 to 2003 and the location of each farm where they had been found. The reply of the government tabled in the House on December 8 was as follows.

This information is collected by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, whose veterinary services are responsible for aquaculture fish health surveillance and diagnosis.

As the hon. member noted in his submission, he had placed the question on the order paper “recognizing it was one that required detailed study by Department of Fisheries scientists because I wanted a scientifically accurate answer.”

The member stated that, following a request under the Access to Information Act, he had seen a draft of the reply to this part of Question No. 5, as well as internal departmental correspondence concerning the draft. The draft response explained at some length that the department did not compile this information. The internal departmental correspondence showed that the minister's office asked the department's officials to rewrite the response in a more positive way.

According to the member, the minister attempted to hide the truth and was therefore in contempt of the House.

Questions on the order paper are a very important tool in the hands of members. Their purpose should be to seek, through a precise, detailed formulation, precise, detailed information that will enable members to carry on their work.

There have been several occasions in the past where members have raised questions of privilege regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions. In none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. I refer hon. members to page 443 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , where it states:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions....The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.

I would also like to refer members to the guidelines for replies to written questions, which can be found at page 443 of Marleau and Montpetit. These read:

The guidelines that apply to the form and content of written questions are also applicable to the answers provided by the government. As such, no argument or opinion is to be given, and only the information needed to respond to the question is to be provided in an effort to maintain the process of written questions as an exchange of information rather than an opportunity for debate. It is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer.

From the discussion in the House and from the documentation provided to the Chair by the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East, I see no grounds to depart from the rulings given by my predecessors in dealing with comparable situations. It would appear that the government does not compile the specific information the member was seeking. In the reply to the question, the minister directed the member to the Government of British Columbia, where he might find the information he was looking for.

Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.

I therefore find that there is no prima facie question of privilege. I thank the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East as well as those who contributed to the discussion on this matter.

Is the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East rising again?

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may, just with a question. It seemed to me that the issue was not the response. The issue was the fact that the matter had been sent back for a more positive response, as the Speaker noted. In other words, there was an effort there to colour the answer in a way that may not be appropriate. That is what the issue was: not the substance of the answer but the fact that the government was prepared to manipulate the answer in a way that was going to be more favourable to it. That was my issue.

[The Speaker]

As I pointed out in my ruling, the answer the member got was the same answer as was originally prepared, except in a shorter form. It is not for the Speaker to judge whether it was more positive or more negative. The fact is that the information was not stated by the government in the answers, both the one he got under the Access to Information Act and the one provided in the House. It was gathered, in fact, by a provincial ministry and the hon. member should go there to get the information.

It is not for the Chair, as I indicated in my ruling, to decide whether one answer was more positive or more negative than the other. I know the hon. member feels that such is the case, but as I stated, that is a matter for debate, not a matter for the Chair to make a ruling on, and I have so indicated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I should inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond. Allow me to extend very sincere thanks to my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois who spoke earlier this morning. This is one more proof that the Bloc Québécois is the best when it comes to defending the interests of Quebeckers.

The fact of the matter is that our party has been talking for a long time of the foreseeable, catastrophic effects of removing quotas on textile and clothing imports, a measure that came into effect on January 1.

In 1994, Canada signed the agreement on textiles and clothing. Under this agreement, it did have 10 years to put transitional measures in place. The federal government had 10 years to develop a transitional strategy for the textile and apparel industry. What has it done?

Almost nothing, really, letting down hundreds of thousands of workers across Canada, with 55% of them in Quebec alone. I want to point out that, since 1998, in these industries, over 40,000 jobs were lost in Quebec, out of a total of 115,000. In addition, some analysts predict that nearly half of the 75,000 remaining jobs might also be lost.

The federal government ought to have noticed that these industries were bleeding out, but it did nothing. When the closures in Huntingdon were announced, it reacted, albeit in an ad hoc manner, in an attempt to save face.

The Bloc Québécois had been calling for a structured response by the federal government for many years, and it was not the only one doing so. This government failed to hear the cries of the Canadian Apparel Federation and the Canadian Textile Institute.

Was the advice of the finance subcommittee not appropriate? We must gather that it was not. What does the federal government's plan provide for? In this respect, I will not elaborate, as my hon. colleagues have already drawn an accurate picture of the situation. I can say, however, that the CATIP and CANtex programs have failed to prevent major closures and are likely to be even less successful in coping with what the future holds.

The bottom line is that this is a blatant lack of vision and political will by this government. What does the Bloc Québécois suggest? First, this government needs to take its responsibilities. It was the government that negotiated and signed the international trade agreements and it was the government that decided to open the borders. Then it is the government that should implement tools and a national aid policy to help the companies cope with the new realities. For example, it must ensure that import tariffs on clothing and textile products are maintained and a quota on Chinese imports imposed under China's WTO accession protocol.

Why could it not implement measures to encourage the use of Quebec and Canadian textiles by allowing clothing made abroad with Canadian textiles to enter duty free, by imposing stricter rules of origin on least developed countries, by negotiating Canada's entry in agreements reached between the United States and Latin America—which is unbelievable and an indirect form of protectionism that sustains the American industry—and, finally, by adopting a policy on buying locally that is compliant with international agreements. These were possible solutions and there is still time to act.

Canada also has a moral responsibility to adopt an international policy that would prevent offshoring. Enough with the fine speeches, now it is time for action. Why not ask certain countries to enhance their minimal work standards and environmental standards? Why not impose labelling that would tell consumers where the products they purchase come from? How many Canadians and Quebeckers know that Canada still has not signed the World Trade Organization conventions against forced labour and child labour?

As for company closures, it would be viable and humanly imperative for this government to conduct an overhaul of the employment insurance system, to increase transfers to the Government of Quebec for professional training and to show solidarity by reinstating the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA.

The federal government could also set up a real assistance program to modernize the garment and textile sectors and encourage not only development and design, but research as well. The amount of money added to the CANtex program in December—$50 million over five years—is insufficient. This program does not touch the garment industry which will also need to modernize to meet new challenges. Thus, this program must be given more financial resources, and it must also apply to the garment industry.

The textile and garment industries are facing enormous difficulties and challenges. We can and we must support these industrial sectors employing thousands of our fellow citizens. It is a difficult task but not impossible. In the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, which I represent, these two industries are still alive and well. As in other regions of Quebec, a factory in Maskinongé—Confections Thibault—has announced it will close. More than 50 men and women will lose their jobs and many of them are over 50 years old. A huge part of their personal universe is being turned upside down. They will need help.

Paradoxically, in Louiseville there is a model factory. It is the oldest manufacturer of shirts in Canada. My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette and the Bloc Québécois critic for foreign trade, globalization and international financial institutions, and I visited that factory last fall, to get a better understanding of the needs and challenges in this industrial sector. I would like to thank him once again for his great availability and sensitivity. The factory in question is Empire Shirt. This company is still holding its own in the face of fierce competition. It is concerned with training its employees and modernizing its equipment. Nevertheless, it will need much more solid support from the federal government in order to continue its operations as it hopes to do.

On behalf of the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, I call upon the federal government to develop a real strategy for the textile and garment sectors. And in terms of strategy, we know what it is capable of. We are seeing the level of intelligence it put into developing a real strategy for Canadian unity, beginning in 1995. Thus, it is capable of establishing a strategy that favours the unity of our communities, our families and the textile and garment industrial sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his presentation. In my opinion, he has very clearly demonstrated that the problems we are experiencing in the clothing and textile industry are due to the federal government's failure to act. The situation is the same in my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, particularly in L'Érable, where we are going through a similar situation with the asbestos industry.

My hon. colleague alluded to the existing program. On three specific points, namely the fact that the program funds have been used up, that there is a ceiling or simply that program money has been sprinkled here and there, which is not resolving anything while preventing plant development, would he agree to say that there is no shortage of solutions?

In fact, we in the Bloc Québécois, and our leader in particular, who travelled to the asbestos region, have proposed solutions. Obviously, all that is missing here is the federal government's will to act on bringing about positive solutions and meeting its commitments.

I would like to hear him on that.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, the additional funding in terms of the CANtex program for example has been inadequate. An amount of $50 million over five years was mentioned. But this program does not apply to the clothing industry, which also has to be modernized.

The lifting of quotas on China under WTO agreements is detrimental to the clothing industry. It would be possible to close borders to China as part of WTO negotiations, which could help our industries to at least change direction over the next few years. As I indicated, the Chemise Empire company in Louiseville operated a change in direction. It modernized its equipment and is now in a position to compete and keep certain markets in order to safeguard jobs, develop and export.

Special attention ought to be paid to the clothing and textile industry. I do not believe that this is an endangered industry, so long as we give it the importance and the funding it needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, to some extent, the question that I asked earlier in my speech regarding this debate.

In its platform, the Bloc Québécois says that “it proposes to liberalize trade for all types of textiles, except those made by our producers”.

I would like to know if the Bloc really supports free trade or not. This is the same wishful thinking by the same opposition party that will never be in office, but nevertheless keeps asking for all sorts of things. So, based on the questions raised during question period and the speech made by the hon. member, I would like to know if Bloc Québécois members support a protectionist free trade, or if they support globalization, because when their leader is travelling abroad he says something which, I hope, will never happen, namely that, some day, when Quebec is a free nation, it will engage in free trade with the rest of the world. However, in their platform, they say “—except those made by our producers”.

So, I would like to get some clarification here.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the following reply to the parliamentary secretary. We, Bloc Québécois members, are not opposed to globalization. Globalization is here and we must deal with it. We must make the shift to adjust to market globalization, and we must prepare for it. Therefore, we must give our textile and clothing industries the necessary tools to do that. It is with this objective in mind that we must work.

We are not against globalization in the clothing industry either, but here we are also talking about the thread in the textile industry, which is another issue.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to praise the initiative of the Bloc Québecois whereby it devoted one of its opposition days to the current situation in the textile industry, while underlining the insufficiency of the clothing and textile industries assistance plan made public by the government after the closing of six plants in Huntingdon.

What happened in December 2004 does not constitute an isolated case. A long time before that, as the member for Drummond, I had outlined in the House the concerns of the people living in my riding in the wake of the numerous job losses we had sustained in this important industrial sector.

I would like to give you the facts.

When Celanese shut down in March 2000, after a long agony, 5,000 people ended up unemployed.

Seven months later, Cavalier textile put an end to its operations: 97 people lost their jobs.

In December 2003, the management of Swift Denim announced it would cease its denim manufacturing operations in April 2004: as a result, 600 people were laid off.

At the time of each closing, I met with union representatives and we asked the government to put in place some measures, in particular to help older workers who lose their jobs. Those measures had been in existence until 1993, when they were abolished by the Liberals. They had promised an improved program. We know what a Liberal promise is worth!

In the case of Denim Swift, we created a strategy committee to try to prevent the loss of 600 jobs. Union representatives, the industrial commissioner of the city of Drummondville, representatives of the Quebec government and my colleague from the National Assembly sat around the same table. At my request, the then Minister of Industry agreed to delegate a representative from Canada Economic Development.

After a number of meetings, given the impasse and federal government's inaction, we asked to meet with the then minister. At this meeting, we were told that the government had commissioned studies, the results of which we are still waiting for. We can no longer expect anything from this minister, because she has changed departments. However, today, we are still waiting for studies, more studies, consultations and even more studies.

Although the textile sector in Canada was experiencing difficulties, the government had nothing to propose to support the companies facing threats from Asia or elsewhere.

The unfortunate occurred and hundreds of jobs were lost. What happened in Drummondville was a sign of things to come elsewhere. Many Quebec municipalities have seen their textile industries close.

The government was unresponsive to this industry's situation, to the extent that even the current Minister of Finance admitted in this House, in response to my questions, that he never had any knowledge of letters from the American president of Denim Swift. Those letters condemned the negative impact of the federal government's inaction with regard to the lifting of tariff barriers in January.

The government was slow to react and waited until the House adjourned in December to distribute what amounted to crumbs. The timid and tardy measures, announced noncommittally in the House, are insufficient.

However, the Bloc Québécois made a number of proposals to provide effective support to the textile industry: recourse to safeguards at the government's disposal without contravening international agreements; the introduction of incentives to promote the use of Quebec and Canadian textiles; the adoption of an international policy to prevent companies from relocating to areas with cheaper labour—we must remember that the Celanese plant closed in Drummondville and moved to Mexico; the establishment of assistance measures adapted to the needs of workers in companies closing their doors.

People cannot point the finger at us, because since 1997, not a week has gone by where we have not demanded, in this House, measures to support older workers losing their jobs.

There is also the creation of a program to help with the modernization of the clothing and textile sectors which would stimulate both R and D and creativity.

The question that comes to our minds, as well as those of the people in our ridings, is this: why did the federal government act this way, and in whose interest?

Basically, it is a matter of how we got to this state.

In a recent La Presse article, reported Tristan Péloquin listed the events and government decisions behind this crisis.

When, ten years ago, the government agreed along with the members of the World Trade Organization during the Uruguay round of negotiations to gradually phase out import quotas under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, what were its true intentions? What were its objectives?

We are forced to admit that the textile sector served as a bargaining chip. The reporter's investigation led him to the following conclusions:

The signature of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing did not come about without negotiations behind the scenes. The western countries, aware as they were that their own businesses would be hit hard by the elimination of import quotas, tied signature of the agreement to the adoption of an international agreement on intellectual property—TRIPS, trade-related intellectual property—which forces the developing countries to acknowledge the legislation on copyrights and industrial patents, ownership of protected brand names and so forth. This also included TRIMS—an agreement on trade-related investment measures—which allowed businesses to invest anywhere in the world in sectors traditionally closed to foreign investment.

This marked the beginning of the end for the textile and clothing industry. The government did not say much about this, except that the present Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated during a visit to our area that his government no longer believed in the future of the textile industry.

The textile and clothing industry is in the process of losing its shirt. Still today, as we have been doing for the past 10 years, the Bloc Québécois is making proposals we encourage the government to adopt in order to help out our industry. I invite the members of the present government to set aside their partisan views, to acknowledge with us the scope of the harm done by their inaction, and to try to save what is left of this industry.

I am fully aware that the measures taken will not bring back the jobs already lost in Drummondville or elsewhere in Quebec. But at least, we have to make sure that the plants that are still there today can survive. The government must strongly support the businesses involved in research and development projects on specialized products and those that have moved into export markets with specific products.

If the government does not do anything, we can expect significant job losses in the coming months. The federal government knows it quite well. A few weeks ago, several Quebec local development centres signed a letter to remind Ottawa of the need for quick action.

Apparently there are still about 76 000 people in Quebec who make a living in the textile and clothing industry. The government has to act responsibly and to seriously consider, in a non-partisan way, the recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois. We have to help businesses get through this crisis.

I urge the government and all the members to support the Bloc Québécois' motion that puts forward measures to save the textile industry and to help our older workers through a difficult time. They have lost their jobs and have no other alternative than to rely on social assistance. It is very hard for them and it deeply affects their dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond, who just spoke. I am well aware of the fact that she puts a lot of passion and energy into defending her riding and the town of Drummondville in particular. We hear her talk about her riding in the House of Commons on a regular basis, but not always for problems as serious as that affecting the textile industry.

In the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, in Causapscal especially, there is a company that is having difficulties because it is facing fierce competition. What is more, this company had its share of difficulties in the past when transportation subsidies were eliminated.

The main problem of this industry in Quebec is its aging workforce. These are people who have been working in this industry for many years. My colleague from Sherbrooke was saying that his father had worked in the textile industry for 40 years. His mother also worked in the industry, but not as long. These are just a few of many examples.

In my opinion, the industry's main problem is the federal government's unwillingness to intervene in order to help the industry adapt. Assistance programs were needed to help the workers who, as we all knew, were going to lose their jobs. The economy needed to be diversified. There is also the whole issue of workers in the textile industry who are older and the specific problems that come with being an older worker.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on this. She touched on it briefly, but it is hard to say much in just 10 minutes. It is that particular problem that concerns me.