Debates of Feb. 19th, 2007

International Trade

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on the motion to concur in the committee report.

I will begin by complimenting the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade for its fine report and for undertaking the study on this issue, which is critically important to the riding that I represent. I am proud to support this report. I hope the House of Commons will concur in it and send a clear message that it is not only the standing committee that shares these views, that the House of Commons has affirmed and ratified this same opinion. I hope we can do that today.

I cannot overstate how important the garment industry is to the riding that I represent. There are 43 garment manufacturers in the riding I represent, although that could have changed because they have been dropping like flies since this flood of Chinese imports began when China joined the WTO. There used to be many more garment manufacturers, but there are probably a few less even as we speak.

I would like to recognize the efforts that some of them have made, such as the Nygard manufacturing plants that produce TanJay, and Western Glove Works that produces some of the highest quality denim products in North America. All of these companies have hung on, but just by the skin of their teeth. Many of them employed 800 to 1,200 people but are now down to 300 and 400 employees. The job losses have been devastating.

Let me also say how important these jobs are to new Canadians. We view the garment industry in a sense as gateway jobs for a lot of new arrivals in Canada. A lot of people who come to Manitoba come to the inner city area of my riding. They end up working in the garment industry. These are good jobs. Let me state right from the start that these are not sweatshops. These are unionized jobs with decent wages and decent benefits.

Western Glove has one of the best daycare centres in the city, called Kid Gloves, where people can bring their children and know that they are cared for in the factory. These are good jobs. They are the kinds of jobs we should be fighting for to try to protect, but successive governments have shown no interest in trying to protect the garment industry. Other industries make representations, and justifiably so, whether it is the aerospace industry or the auto industry, and the government hears them and the government supports them, except for shipbuilding, for some mysterious reason.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

What about shipbuilding?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is often pointing out that there are deaf ears when it comes to shipbuilding, but there are also deaf ears when it comes to the garment sector. I am frustrated by this and I do not understand it, because in many ways, China's joining the WTO could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many of the manufacturers in my riding.

When China joined the WTO, China itself admitted and recognized that safeguards in the apparel industry may be necessary in some partner countries. China agreed to limit its flow to 7.5% per year to those countries that asked. A country had to ask; it was not automatic. Other countries were smart enough to ask. The United States, the entire European Union, Turkey, Argentina and Brazil all said, “You are a member of the club now and we are going to have to accept your imports tariff free, but let us phase it in so we do not destroy our domestic industry”. Canada did not avail itself of that opportunity. It was there on the table. All we had to do was sign on and we would not have had this devastating impact of the last couple of years.

It is not too late. Today the Government of Canada can stipulate itself to this agreement, but it chooses not to. I do not know what was going through the Liberal government's mind when it passed on this opportunity, other than the Liberals just wanted to be boy scouts. They wanted to be the international good guys; they did not believe in trades and tariffs. I see there is some acknowledgement of that. What they failed to do was stand up for Canada.

Regarding the Conservative government, the Conservative Party at least, I have a quote here from a colleague who was the official opposition critic for international trade. I do not know his correct title today, but here is a quote from him:

A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.

That is a noble and laudable concept and I am honoured to associate myself with those remarks, but we do not see any evidence of standing up for Canada in the garment sector. We are not asking for special handouts. We are not asking for anything other than to avail ourselves of what help is available to us.

I am frustrated by the staggering growth of Chinese imports into this country because it is killing what is left of the garment industry in the riding that I represent. This is all about fairness. It is not about special provisions. The surge in Chinese clothing imports is directly related to illegal and unfair subsidies given to the Chinese producers.

I will say, without hesitation and with no fear of insult to the nation of China, that it benefits from unfair labour practices. It will not allow workers to form unions so they cannot negotiate fair wages. It exploits its workers. There are terrible working conditions and that is the unfair competitive advantage that China enjoys.

China also provides free utilities because some of these are state owned and controlled operations. It gives breaks on shipping, no property taxes, no export tax rebates and it engages in currency manipulation. These are all things that China does, which fair employers, like we have in Canada, do not do. It is an unfair competitive advantage that is devastating. We should not tolerate it. This is not a level playing field. If we really wanted to stand up for Canada and Canadian workers, we would acknowledge that China is eating our lunch in a way that we cannot compete with.

I would put our Winnipeg garment manufacturers against any garment manufacturer in the world on a competitive basis on a level playing field and we would succeed. The evidence of that is that we are still surviving, although struggling, in the face of this unfair competitive advantage.

If we were given a level playing field I think we would clean up. However, we cannot compete against these unfair labour practices of denying basic human rights in terms of the right to organize, free collective bargaining, fair wages and working conditions. We cannot compete against that and we should not have to because that drags us all down to the bottom. It has been said that a rising tide raises all boats. It has not raised the boats of those people. My phrase is that a rising tide raises all yachts and leaves the rowboats behind.

I am proud to join in the debate today and appeal to the Conservative government to do what we must do to protect the Canadian garment industry. It should immediately engage in discussions with the WTO and undertake the second paragraph of this very brief report that states:

The Committee further calls on the Government of Canada to begin bilateral negociations with China, similar to those undertaken by the United States and the European Union, to reach an agreement on imports of clothing and textiles.

My wish and my appeal to the government is that it stand up for Canada, for the Canadian garment industry and for Canadian jobs and that it listen to the will of the House today.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for standing up for the workers and families of the communities that he represents.

He talked eloquently about the concerns of the textile industry but, as he knows very well, many other companies and manufacturers in this country are falling by the wayside as well. My hon. colleague knows very well the big trouble that the car manufacturing industry is in. We hear Chrysler saying that it will have its cars assembled in China.

He comes from the great province of Manitoba where pickerel can be caught in Lake Winnipeg, frozen, sent to China, processed, sent back to the Safeway store in Winnipeg and sold cheaper than if it were sold locally. Something is drastically wrong if white fish or pickerel are sent from Manitoba all the way to China and back. Even the box says that it is a product of Canada made in China. Colour me mistaken, but is there not something wrong with this picture?

We also have shipbuilding, the power tool manufacturers, the auto sector, textiles, one right after another. The present government and the previous one have basically abandoned the workers in this country, who helped built this country, for the so-called market aspect of China.

Does my colleague honestly believe that the present government can actually turn that around, work with other countries and tell China and others to bring up their labour and environmental standards and bring about fair trade, not necessarily capitulated trade?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when everything in the world is made in China, it makes me wonder where our kids will work. Why do we need to pay the same price for a brassiere or a piece of fish made in China for $1 an hour that we would need to pay in Canada for $20 an hour? There is no price advantage. Somehow we have been sucked into it.

It is this zealousness, a willingness on the part of Canada to be free traders, but without ensuring any kind of fair trade. We want to be the boy scouts of the world.

When we were told to eliminate our agricultural subsidies because we would all be doing it around the world, Canada said okay. We eliminated ours but nobody else did. Now we subsidize a tonne a wheat by $24 and America subsidizes a tonne of wheat by $124. Why are we so stupid, is the question that comes to mind.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate by my colleague from Winnipeg today and it made me think about personal experiences I have had in terms of looking for clothing that is made in Canada. One of my sons is very firm that he does not want to buy clothing that is made in the developing world where people are exploited for their labour. He said that if I am buying him or my granddaughter gifts, I should look for a made in Canada label. Well, I must tell everyone that it is darned hard to find clothing that is made in Canada.

When I was growing up, the clothes my parents bought for me were bought from Canadian manufacturers and made by Canadian workers.

Does my colleague from Winnipeg how much we have lost in terms of the clothing manufacturing and the textile industry in Canada? It seems to me that it was once a flourishing industry. What can we do to ensure that we have that again in Canada?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concern. The figures are staggering.

Not long ago, this industry, the sixth largest manufacturing industry in Canada, employed 100,000 people across Canada. Winnipeg was the fourth largest centre in North America after Los Angeles, New York and Montreal. By 2004, the number was down to 70,000. By April 2005, that number had dropped to 55,000, which amounts to 45,000 people in the course of about five years. In any other industry that would be deemed to be a crisis and an emergency.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the motion tabled by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster calling on the government to move concurrence in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

The report consists of three paragraphs, and I think it is pertinent to remind folks of this. The report states:

The Committee calls on the Government of Canada to stem the current market disruption, in specific categories, in the Canadian apparel industry, by immediately invoking Article 242 of China's accession protocol to the WTO and putting in place restrictions or safeguards on the growth of specific categories of apparel imports from China; and

The Committee further calls on the Government of Canada to begin bilateral negotiations with China, similar to those undertaken by the United States and the European Union, to reach an agreement on imports of clothing and textiles.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 39 to 41) is tabled.

I would like to emphasize that the new government is keenly aware that the Canadian apparel and textile industries are significant providers of earned incomes and economic activity in this country. The apparel industry is an important employer of new Canadians and is concentrated in key urban areas, such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The textile industry is a source of skilled employment and communities throughout Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes.

The government is equally aware that the Canadian apparel and textile industries have faced, and continue to face, a challenging global trade environment, one where markets are globally integrated. This challenge has encouraged the transformation of the textile and apparel industries from national to globally integrated industries.

Challenged by increasing competition from abroad, the Canadian apparel and textile industries have had to transform themselves over the past decade by focusing on higher value added activity, on innovative and attractive new products and by finding niche markets for their products.

There is no sign that these challenges will end any time soon. Apparel and textile markets continue to be global.

The complete elimination of global textile and apparel import quotas on January 1, 2005, pursuant to Canada's WTO commitments, has resulted in significantly increased competition for Canadian textile and apparel producers, particularly from low wage countries.

Although the need to adapt to increased competition is not unique to the apparel and textile industries, or even to the Canadian economy, changes in the global marketplace are, nevertheless, having a significant impact on the environment in which the textile and apparel industries have and continue to operate.

It is in the face of such challenges that the new government has demonstrated its continued commitment to the long term viability of both the apparel and textile industries in Canada, by working with them to confront these very challenges. To assist these two industries in their efforts to compete effectively in the changing world markets, we are: continuing to work with our U.S. and Mexican counterparts to facilitate the access of textile and apparel companies to world-class inputs; reviewing proposals for an outward processing program that could provide new market opportunities for the textile and apparel industries; continuing to protect against the illegal transshipment of imported apparel and textile products; working through the employment insurance program to meet the needs of workers adjusting to changes in the industry and to ensure, through ongoing support for human resource sector councils, that employees obtain the skills they need to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing labour market; and identifying and reducing tariffs on imported textile inputs used by the Canadian textile and apparel industries to improve the industry's cost competitiveness.

Those points demonstrate that Canada's new government is working with both industries to address the challenges of globalization and to ensure the continued viability of these domestic firms.

These measures are designed to further enhance industry competitiveness. They will help ensure the industries continue to innovate and make the most out of their key competitive advantages: an indepth understanding of niche consumer markets and close proximity to North American customers.

I am pleased to remind members that many of the items in our 2006 budget are largely designed to promote a more competitive and productive economy by helping Canadian businesses meet the commerce challenges of the 21st century. The 2006 budget delivered tax cuts for Canadian businesses, big and small. Accelerating the elimination of the federal capital tax, reducing the general corporate income tax and eliminating the corporate surtax will help attract and retain investments in Canada and improve the competitiveness of Canada's businesses.

Further, additional support for education and the skilled trades, including the creation of a new tax credit and cash grant for apprentices, as well as investments in research and development, will encourage productivity growth in these and other sectors.

In addition, on October 20, 2006, the Government of Canada announced the targeted initiative for older workers, a $70 million federal program designed to help older workers in vulnerable communities, in sectors such as forestry, fishing, mining and textiles, remain active and productive participants in the labour market. Under this initiative, funding will be available on a 70:30 cost shared basis with participating provinces and territories.

I have spoken in general terms about the many ways in which the new government is working with Canada's textile and apparel industries to help improve their competitiveness. I will now speak in more specific terms about the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, that being on the import of clothing and textiles from China.

The fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade unfortunately does not provide summaries of discussions, analysis or explanations for its recommendations and does not seem to reflect the differing views of stakeholders regarding safeguard actions against China.

In his testimony to the standing committee, Mr. Elliot Lifson, president of the Canadian Apparel Federation, which represents over 600 Canadian companies involved in the apparel industry in Canada, spoke quite strongly against the use of such safeguard measures. Specifically he stated:

Our view is that the scope for Canada to enact safeguards is limited, and safeguards are not likely to offer any tangible benefits to domestic producers...

Mr. Lifson went on to say:

—safeguards will hinder apparel companies that are blending domestic production with imports from China and cause unpredictable bottlenecks in the supply chain that would likely harm a wide range of firms.

In her testimony to the standing committee, Ms. Lina Aristeo, director of UNITE HERE in Quebec asked in relation to safeguards “Why is Canada not doing anything?” She said that we might wonder why Canada had not used the special China bilateral textile and apparel safeguard measure like the U.S. and the EU. The answer is simple. The situation in Canada is different from that in the EU and in the U.S.

Unlike the U.S. and the EU, Canada did not back end load its adjustment to the new global textile and clothing market. Canada had already liberalized its textile and apparel restraints to a considerable degree by the time the last quotas were eliminated. This reflects a distinctly different approach taken by Canada during the 10 year phase-out period. Canada phased out the impact of its existing quotas and eliminated quotas on products of considerable commercial significance during the planned phase-out period. As a result, Canadian adaptation to liberalization in this sector has been going on since 1995 and Canadian manufacturers have largely adapted to a more liberalized trading environment.

Yes, imports from China have risen, but according to Statistics Canada recently released study entitled “Trade liberalization and the Canadian clothing market”, the increase has mainly come at the expense of imports from other suppliers such as Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. The report also noted that as a result of trade liberalization, clothing prices had fallen steadily. Consumer prices were 5.8% lower in 2005 than they were in 2001, thus providing a benefit to all Canadian consumers.

Under the WTO, Canada retains the right to use safeguards, if necessary. Any request by industry for a safeguard investigation or action will be considered on its merits.

In 2005 UNITE HERE Canada petitioned the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to implement safeguards pursuant to the product specific safeguard provision. The CITT asked UNITE HERE Canada to establish that it had standing before the CITT by demonstrating that it had the support of the Canadian domestic industry before it could proceed with any inquiry.

The CITT reports that in response to its request for further data indicating domestic support, only two letters from small domestic producers were ever received. The CITT held the file in abeyance, pending the receipt of data showing broad producer support until October 6, 2006, when it ruled that UNITE HERE Canada did not have the required standing to petition for safeguard actions under the WTO China Product-specific safeguard.

To date, the Canadian textiles and the apparel industries have not sought government action under the China safeguard, as provided for under the terms of the WTO protocol of accession for China.

I wish to assure all members that the government is aware of the various challenges faced by the textile and apparel sectors and is committed to putting in place the right policies to assist these industries in meeting their challenges.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the falling prices of garments from China, which was a benefit to all Canadians. Did he say that to the garment workers who lost their jobs? Most of them shop now at Frenchys, the Salvation Army and thrift shops. Why are Frenchys stores across Nova Scotia, for example, booming in second hand business? Because people cannot afford the clothes in the first place.

When I was first elected in 1997, I bought a made in Canada suit from Moores Clothing for $195. When I went to get the same suit from Moores a few weeks ago, for roughly the same price, perhaps a few dollars difference, I noticed a sale on suits from China for $195. It was almost the same price I paid before for my made in Canada suit. Where is my saving?

Workers in Canada make at least minimum wage I hope, plus the health benefits, health care, the environment, all the other things that go along with the benefits. Yet the worker in China barely makes 35¢ or 50¢ an hour or whatever they make. I know fish plant workers in China make a hell of a lot less than that. He has said that it was a benefit to me, but where is my savings?

Try to buy shoes or good running shoes for under $100. We used to buy made in Canada shoes. Now they are all made in China, Indonesia and Malaysia and they all cost $100 or more. Try to find running shoes that have been made in Canada. Try to find a fish that has been processed in Canada. One of these days we will be trying to buy a car that is made in Canada, or power tools. When we go to Canadian Tire, Wal-Mart or Home Depot, all the power tools are made in China. What is next?

It is about time the government woke up and smelled the coffee. The reality is we will lose our manufacturing jobs. We are very quickly losing them now.

The textile workers were the canary in the coal mine per se. My mother-in-law worked in the textile industry in Montreal for well over 23 years. That was her entry job when she came to Canada. She was very proud to hunch over that table. Now she has a very sore back, but she was proud to do that work and then see those clothes for sale at a Bay or a Sears store down the road, Canadian stores.

Now we have American run department stores such as Wal-Mart, selling Chinese goods. Where is the benefit to Canadians in all of that? That is my question for my hon. colleague, for whom I have great respect.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a great deal of respect for my hon. colleague. I know he feels very passionately about this issue and some of the other issues important to the people he represents in his riding.

I might remind the hon. member of this. What I talked about in my speech was the fact that the industry itself did not bring enough support to bring forth the credibility for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to further process the challenge.

I refer to an issue that is ongoing and debated in the House many times, and that is the Canadian Wheat Board. The new Conservative government made a promise in the last election that it would provide farmers in western Canada the choice to market their commodities where they wished, where they could get the most profitability. The opposition members have been howling about the government making a decision to give farmers freedom.

If the same government had made a decision to arbitrarily pursue this challenge, I wonder what the opposition members would have been complaining about then. It is not our job to take that sort of issue forward without the industry's support, and we clearly did not have the support of the industry to further that challenge.

I do not think we want to get into a debate about the cost of suits. I think we all realize that the cost of all our clothing and the food we consume has certainly changed.

I invite the hon. member to attend some of our trade committee meetings. At the most recent meetings we have had, we have heard a lot of discussion about integrated trade strategies. We have talked about the textile industry and how it can compete by being able to import parts or pieces of what they are producing.

The integrated trade strategy is a forward looking way at providing another opportunity. I referred to many opportunities in my speech such as the tax reduction that was given to those companies so they could compete. So also can they compete if they look outward at how they can bring in some of the lower cost products to help them be more competitive with their exports.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily share the hon. member's opinion on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He is well aware of that. The fact remains that I have a great deal of respect for him.

The hon. member talked about integrated strategy, an issue that was discussed by the Conference Board of Canada.

The board said, and stressed, that the countries that are most successful in the context of international trade, globalization and free trade agreements are those which, in addition to opening their markets, are able to protect their workers and to have social programs to support those who lose their jobs.

The Conservative Party is making cuts to all social programs, it has a hard time putting in place a universal older worker support program for all affected workers, and it has no policy to support the industry when it comes to innovation and research. I would appreciate the hon. member's comments on this.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his fine work on the trade committee, which I think has provided both of us with a great opportunity to hear some of the forward looking ideas of folks like those at the Conference Board of Canada and the EDC, which we had come to talk to us about the way that we can provide the opportunity for Canadian companies to not live within a bubble, to be able to look at the opportunities and access those opportunities.

We also have talked about the older workers' program, as I have in my speech, so I take exception to that. I think we have addressed this. It is an issue. He and I probably are going to be getting to that age fairly soon ourselves, so I am glad we have looked at that.

There are many other opportunities, but I might remind the hon. member, looking outward at the opportunities, rather than looking inward and looking backward, that industries in his riding and in my riding and all across this country are going to have to compete on a global field.

We hear so much about what is happening in China and how China is so difficult to compete with because of its low cost of labour, but the last time I talked to someone in China it was outsourcing labour to Vietnam because it was lower there.

We need to also look at opportunities, at how we can provide opportunities and more jobs for our Canadians through looking at the opportunities and not looking at the way to wrap ourselves in protectionism.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam for a short question.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. One of the concerns that we on this side of the House have, of course, is that the exporting of jobs and exporting of industry seem to continue.

A comment made by the parliamentary secretary made me want to ask a question. He said that the clothing industry and the textile industry did not support taking this forward, but I want to ask him what the role of government is. Is the government not there for all Canadians, for Canadian industry and for Canadian workers, and why would his government not take this forward strongly to protect the Canadian industry and protect Canadian working people and their families?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the comment I made before. If we made an arbitrary decision to challenge this within our WTO bounds, and certainly we could do that, there would be howls from the opposition that the government is moving without the support of the industry. We have a large industry that could come forward and make a recommendation to the CITT. That has not happened.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I consider myself fortunate to be given this opportunity to speak on this very important subject matter.

I had the opportunity of hearing my colleague speak on this motion. I will read it aloud for the record and basically emphasize the areas I agree with and that are an important component of this motion. The motion states:

The Committee calls on the Government of Canada to stem the current market disruption,--

I will explain what that disruption is. The motion continues:

--in specific categories, in the Canadian apparel industry,--

Specifically, I would note the impact it has had on Quebec. The motion continues:

--by immediately invoking Article 242 of China's accession protocol to the WTO and putting in place restrictions or safeguards on the growth of specific categories of apparel imports from China;....

More important, even though I was not a member of the committee when this particular report was prepared, I was told by my colleagues on the committee that the Liberal members worked hard to put forward a second component of this motion, which is as follows:

The Committee further calls on the Government of Canada to begin bilateral negotiations with China, similar to those undertaken by the United States and the European Union, to reach an agreement on imports of clothing and textiles.

That is a very important component part of the discussion as well.

As we listen to members speak, we hear that the real issue is the lack of leadership on the part of the government. There is no doubt in my mind that this particular report reflects the Conservative government's failure to address job losses, job losses in the apparel industry, but more specifically job losses in general. Over the past few months we have heard about job losses in the auto sector and the service sector. We have heard about job losses at Nortel.

Every day as we read the business section of the newspaper, we see that job losses are taking place. There is a reason for this. I think the government does not truly appreciate or understand the importance of some of the sectors in our economy. We are focusing today on the apparel industry, and I will speak to that, but the issue and discussion today have to do with the Conservative government's failure on its China policy. We are drifting.

Let us look at the themes that have developed since the Conservative government has been in power. First, it has no plan. That has become very apparent on the international stage with respect to international trade. It definitely is drifting. Specifically, it has sold us out on the softwood lumber agreement. We are now beginning to see some of the problems with it. This is a separate discussion that we can have at a later time, but there are some major flaws with the softwood lumber agreement.

Then there are the negotiations with South Korea. It is very clear that there is the potential for the government to sell us out with respect to the auto industry. What we want to talk about is fair trade.

I was in committee with parliamentarians and representatives from EFTA, who clearly indicated that a deal is going to be signed in the near future. Again, I have the complete faith that the government will sell us out when it comes to shipbuilders as well, if we look at the government's track record.

With the Conservative government, there is a very consistent theme of selling us out. That is why this report is so important. That is why there seems to be unanimity among the other parties in the House with respect to this.

I recognize that we are a trading nation. One of every four jobs generated in Canada, which means millions of jobs, is attributed to exports. Forty per cent of our gross domestic product is attributed to exports. I understand the billions of dollars that are entailed in trading. We are a trading nation of 30 million people. We need to trade with other countries in order to maintain the quality of life we enjoy, but it does not mean that we cannot level the playing field. It is about fair trade.

I want to share some facts with respect to leveling the playing field for the Canadian apparel manufacturers. The World Trade Organization system of quotas regulating the global apparel and textiles industry, 40 years old, expired on January 1, 2005. For the first time there are no limits on the amount of goods that can be imported into Canada. The expiration of quotas has unleashed a crisis in the worldwide apparel industry, with profound ramifications for Canada as well as the developing countries around the world.

The Canadian clothing industry is in peril. The clothing industry is the tenth largest manufacturing sector. However, more than 30% of jobs in the sector have been lost since January 2004, with 51,719 jobs lost as of November 2006. This is an astounding number compared to the 75,562 jobs of January 2004. That is a major decline in jobs in the apparel industry.

Many other industrialized and developing countries, including the United States and the European Union, consistent with what we had brought forth as our amendment to the report, acted quickly and now have negotiated agreements to safeguard their domestic industry by limiting the growth of Chinese clothing imports.

The Canadian government needs to do the same to ensure a level playing field for Canadian apparel manufacturers and workers. We do not need to lecture them or look down on them or give them a public display where we just rant and rave. We need to show leadership on this specific topic. We need to develop diplomacy and a proper dialogue so that we can actually do some meaningful work, develop a plan and sign a bilateral agreement.

Speaking of Canadian job losses, as I indicated, the Canadian industry has been in a steady decline since January 2002 when the phase-out of import quotas began with the removal of quotas from certain product categories. Since January 2002, more Canadian jobs have disappeared, and 50,000 of them remain today. If we look at specifically what I was alluding to earlier with respect to my remarks about Quebec, since January 2002 almost 24,000 jobs have disappeared. They have vanished. They are completely gone. That represents half of the total clothing manufacturing employment in the province. It is a substantial number and it is a substantial issue.

What concerns me in this House, and concerns other members as well, is that the Conservative government now has developed a theme of flip-flop. We would expect and hope that in this area it would do the same as well. I am going to quote the Conservative Party when it was in opposition. It was a vocal supporter of safeguards. It urged the former Liberal government to negotiate an agreement with China. I will quote the current parliamentary secretary, at that time the official opposition critic for international trade, who said.

A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.

That was a comment made by the member who currently is the parliamentary secretary for international trade.

The official opposition, the Conservatives, including Stephen Harper, even supported a motion in Parliament on February 8--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member knows that we do not refer to other members by their given names but by their titles or constituencies. We will try that again.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much for that correction, Mr. Speaker. As you can see I am a bit passionate about this issue and therefore made a small error in judgment.

I was alluding to the current Prime Minister while he was in opposition. He supported a motion in Parliament on February 8, 2005, calling on the federal government “to further elaborate 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 about levelling the playing field. It is about fair trade.

The question is: Is this only specific to Canada? I do not think so. We have an opportunity to look at other countries and the leadership role that they have shown to protect their jobs. There are many countries that we can look at and learn from their experiences.

Turkey has used the safeguard procedures and restricted imports from China on 42 product categories. Argentina has amended its legislation in order to allow for the use of safeguard procedures. Peru has used the product specific safeguard at the end of 2003 and putting place provisional safeguards for 200 days. The U.S., as I indicated before, used textile specific safeguards for three groups of products in 2003.

The EU, the European Union, started investigations at the end of April 2005 into the extent of the disruption for the EU market by imports of Chinese products in nine categories, followed by formal consultations with the Chinese government.

That is what leadership is about. That is where I believe the Conservative government has consistently, to put it bluntly, dropped the ball.

The leader of the official opposition supports this motion and understands the importance of this motion, and understands the implications it has on jobs in the apparel industry and understands the implications it has in Montreal, in other cities and other urban centres. Our leader understands this problem.

When it comes to leadership, and since we are talking about that, I believe that the Conservative government could take action. What bothers me is that not only has it shown a lack of leadership with respect to the apparel industry, with respect to having no plan, with respect to selling us out with the softwood lumber deal, as I indicated, and the potential to sell us out with the auto industry and the South Korea deal, it has cut millions and millions of dollars from international trade and commerce.

No wonder the Conservatives have difficulties in negotiating or having a dialogue with China. I do not believe they have the resources there. Cutting $485 million from international commerce and trade is not the way to solve these problems. We are a trading nation. We need to invest in trade. We need to invest in our resources abroad so we can take a leadership role. We can solve problems. We can fight for Canadians jobs.

What is even worse is we have lost our voice at the WTO. That is such an important multilateral instrument that we have, a means for us to be able to negotiate with other countries to address such issues with respect to the apparel industry and other industries that are currently experiencing job losses.

What bothers me even more is that recently it was announced that by the end of this month there will be four consulate offices closed that are very strategic to us: two in Japan, one in Russia and one in Italy. It just boggles the mind.

Today we are discussing the importance of jobs, of having a bilateral agreement with China, and the government is cutting and slashing funding to international trade. It is closing consulate offices. We are losing our voice abroad.

That is something that profoundly bothers me and my constituents. I represent the riding of Mississauga—Brampton South which has small and medium size enterprises located near the Pearson International Airport. That acts as a portal for trade. That is where many small and medium size enterprises trade and they are absolutely vital for the local economic prosperity of my riding.

When those businesses tell me that they hear about these closures of consular offices and they hear about the fact that we are cutting millions of dollars, they are very much concerned. It bothers me as well.

I think it was important for me to speak from a personal level about my experiences at the constituency level and to discuss the fact that these cuts have a profound impact on our reputation in the international community, a profound impact on how we conduct business domestically, and how we situate ourselves and how do we put ourselves in a competitive situation going forward.

How can I, as the member of Parliament for Mississauga--Brampton South, look at my constituents and tell them that the current government has no plan? It bothers me. It bothers me because we want to ensure we have high quality jobs not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren, and trade is the way to go about it.

It is about leveling the playing field. It is about investment, not cutting funding for international trade. It is about improving and increasing our role in the world in this ever-important global economy. It is a global village. Things are getting smaller and smaller. We need to have a strong voice abroad, and the closure of consulate offices is not the way to do it.

Going back to this motion, as I have indicated, our party understands the importance of the work that the committee has done. The committee did an extensive job in terms of speaking to the various stakeholders and making sure that we were able to put forth a plan, a report that would force the government to take action on this very important issue. The apparel industry is a very important industry, not only to the people in Quebec but also to many other Canadians across this country who rely on this industry for jobs.

As I indicated before, the only way we can solve this problem, the only way we can move forward in a meaningful way, is by making sure that the Government of Canada begins to have bilateral negotiations with China. That is something that is not unheard of. We have seen, for instance, the United States take a leadership role in that. The United States has done that for its citizens to protect jobs there. The European Union has done that and I have cited many other countries. I have mentioned them before and again I just want to highlight that Turkey has used the safeguard procedures, Argentina has amended its legislation as well as Peru, and the list goes on and on. This is not unheard of and again, the concern is that this is not new news.

The Conservative government, when it was in opposition, had indicated that it wanted to follow this practice. It indicated very clearly that it would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.

What concerns me now is that it has an opportunity to take on a leadership role and tackle this very important issue, but again it has stalled. It is empty rhetoric. It seems reluctant. I do not know why but it has flip-flopped on so many other issues: the environment, Quebec as a nation, and the list goes on. One would think that it would flip on this issue and support us, the opposition parties, on this very important report that has been put forth.

Again, this is something that is very important to all regions, but specifically to Quebec. As I indicated before, 24,000 jobs is a substantial number. It is not a small number of jobs that has disappeared, and that is half of the total clothing manufacturing employment in that province.

This is something that is very serious, on which the government needs to show leadership. This is a reflection of the policy that the Conservative government has when it comes to international trade. It is a theme that has developed. It has cut millions of dollars. It has no plan. It has sold us out in the past and right now, its inaction on this important subject matter is a reflection of a continued sellout.

I would urge the government to take on a leadership role. I would urge it to have constructive dialogue with China. I would urge it to meet with Chinese officials and start this process, and not use human rights as a cover. Yes, human rights are important and that is a discussion that will always take place, but that does not mean we compromise Canadian jobs. That does not mean that we will not stand up for Canadian jobs.

As I have indicated before, our leader, the leader of the official opposition, supports this motion, supports this report, and understands the importance of it and the implications it has for preserving very important jobs, jobs that help ordinary Canadians through the very tough transition that our country is going through in a very intense, competitive global market.

Therefore, I would urge the Conservative government to support this motion. I applaud the efforts of the other parties for supporting this motion. In committee, they all did good work and going forward, we need to continue to tackle issues of this nature that target jobs, that target specific sectors of the economy that need attention where the government has failed to act, and the apparel industry is one such area. It is a very important sector of our economy.

As the critic for international trade, I understand trade is important, and I have said that before, but that does not mean that we do not want to have a level playing field. We want to ensure we preserve Canada's interests and ensure we are competitive.

It is all about being competitive. It is ensuring that we have a strong productivity agenda and ensuring that we can compete. We cannot compete when the government is not looking out for the interests of Canadians, especially when there are precedents set by other countries. This is not counter-trade. It is just a matter of looking at what is in the best interests of Canadians, of people in the apparel sector.

I would like to thank my constituents who wrote to me and talked to me about this issue. Going forward, on their behalf I will continue to stand up for their concerns.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, every time Liberals get up and talk about what they will do in the future, I always think of that Arlo Guthrie song, Alice's Restaurant, when the sergeant says to Arlo, “Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?”

These problems of the trade agreements with China did not happen just the other day. These trade agreements happened a long time ago under the Liberal watch.

He is absolutely correct, though, that the Conservatives did say one thing in opposition and are now saying something completely different in government. They said the same thing to the widows of veterans in Cape Breton. The Prime Minister said, “Vote for us and we will immediately extend the VIP services for all widows of all veterans”.

He also wrote a letter to Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland, saying to vote for the Conservatives, and that if they form government, they would invoke custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It still has not happened.

My question for the hon. member is simple. We know the Liberals made some serious mistakes when they were in government. Now they are in opposition and they see, maybe, the error of their ways. However, does the hon. member have any confidence that the Conservatives themselves will honour anything that they said in previous discussions when they were in opposition?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question is really a reflection of built up frustration that the member feels. I understand that frustration very well.

The member has worked very hard with respect to an important subject matter. When it comes to shipbuilders, they might be exposed to some job losses or major job losses if we sign a NAFTA agreement without having a concrete strategy with respect to shipbuilders before we enter into that agreement.

I understand the frustration. This is not the first time the Conservatives have, as I said in my remarks, said one thing and did another. This will definitely not be the last time as well.

The concern that I have is that the remarks were not made by just any member. They were made by the current Prime Minister, at that time the leader of the official opposition. He said that he would stand up for Canadian jobs. The current parliamentary secretary, when he was international trade critic, said the same thing, so this is at the leadership level. They said one thing and now they have completely changed their minds.

I understand the frustration. The fact is we have a report and a motion that clearly articulates a strong action plan, a road map on how to resolve this issue. We come to the House to debate issues, but we also come to propose ideas and solutions, and this is about solutions.

This report clearly articulates that and the Liberal members in committee said that the way to do this is for the Government of Canada to be in bilateral negotiations with China. That is the only way to solve this issue and preserve jobs, and ensure we stand up for Canadians.

It is so important that the Conservative government take a leadership role. It should stop lecturing the Chinese and actually take some action to solve this very important problem.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, intentions are very credible and this problem is not something which has evolved yesterday. The member used to be chair of the human rights subcommittee and did good work there. He just said to stop challenging the Chinese on human rights issues, and start bilaterals and improve the situation. What is the member's position on challenging the Chinese on the human rights issue?

Second, is there a concrete plan? What does he suggest we talk about? Is there a possibility even of resolving the issue? The Chinese are not interested in resolving this particular issue. How does he propose we talk to them and what ideas does he have, concrete ideas, not just fluff?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has shown a keen interest on this subject. We are talking about a specific report and I am hoping that in the near future other reports will evolve and come to fruition and we will get an opportunity to discuss those matters as well.

Make no mistake about it, human rights is a very important part of our approach when it comes to diplomacy abroad, when it comes to diplomacy with China. I have the good fortune of being the chair of the subcommittee on human rights and this issue and human rights in general are very important issues not only domestically but abroad as well.

What concerns me is how we address those issues. Our former prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, said very clearly when he spoke about China and human rights that every time he had the opportunity to meet with Chinese delegations and officials, he brought up human rights and he had that dialogue and discussion. There is a way to approach this. What concerns me is that this challenge out in public really does not resolve much. We need to sit down with the officials and actually have a dialogue and discussion.

With respect to having a formal action plan, it is clearly articulated in the report and I hope the member will read it. It says:

The Committee further calls on the Government of Canada to begin bilateral negotiations with China, similar to those undertaken by the United States--

There is a framework that we can follow, one which the United States has pursued and has adopted, a framework that the European Union has pursued and has adopted. Not only that, if the member was listening, I clearly articulated other countries that followed a similar suit. I indicated Turkey had used the safeguard procedures. These are procedures that restrict imports from China on 42 product categories. Argentina has amended its legislation.

We have ample evidence, many examples of how we can pursue this. It is not about not having enough support out there and not understanding the problem. It is about actions and moving forward. I hope the member understands the importance of this. I hope that his government takes action on this very important issue.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the question again. The member opposite was asked what concrete things he believed could benefit the issue of human rights in China. Again he just gave fluff, which seems to be the record of the former prime ministers as well, the ones he claims had such success in this field, and yet there was nothing done.

The hon. member continues to put money against human rights, money against human lives. Would the hon. member actually answer the question that was asked? What concrete steps is he willing to put into place or that he believes would be an effective way to resolve this issue of human rights? That is part and parcel of the whole issue of trade.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member is asking a question about a subject that is not the focal point of our debate today. It is a subject that could be attributed to our discussion. We are talking about a committee report and members from the Conservative Party were also present at committee.

The committee is calling on the Government of Canada to stem current market disruption in specific categories in the Canadian apparel industry. We are talking about the apparel industry. We are talking about article 242 of the WTO. We are talking about limiting Chinese imports into Canada. That is the issue here.

We are talking about a way to do that. The way to do that is that the Government of Canada begin bilateral negotiations. That is the premise of our discussion. We are talking about Canadian jobs. We are talking about the fact that we want to use WTO, a multilateral organization that would allow us to make sure that we can protect and preserve Canadian interests. That is the issue here.

What concerns me is that members opposite want to divert this discussion to another subject. I have no problems speaking about human rights in China. We can do that any time. The member can come to committee and he can bring that up on numerous occasions, but today in the House the fifth report that we are discussing is with respect to the job losses in the apparel industry.

The government has not done anything. The Conservatives have been in power for I do not know how many months now and they have not moved a single iota on this specific issue. What concerns me is that they want to divert attention with empty rhetoric. They want to lecture people on human rights and that concerns me a great deal. It is about time they took action. I hope they take action.

I have given concrete examples of countries that have pursued action. The Conservatives can follow those examples and look at them to make sure they understand how to use multilateral organizations. Maybe that is something they are not used to. It is not my concern. They are the ones in government. Our job is to propose ideas and show them the road map and they need to make sure that they follow that road map.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst, Official Languages; and the hon. member for Windsor West, Infrastructure.