Eleni Bakopanos

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much care to the speech of the hon. member and she said that her party will be helping the provinces.

I wonder if she could elaborate a bit more on how the Conservative Party will help the provinces while at the same time give tax cuts to low and middle income families.

[Tsunami Relief, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on December 26, we witnessed the destruction caused by the tsunami and the despair it left in its wake in South Asia.

Once again, Canadians from coast to coast showed their compassion and readiness to help those who lost everything.

That is why I rise here today, to pay homage to two of my constituents for their exceptionally hard work to help their fellow Sri Lankans. It is Mrs. Malarvilyhi and Mr. Ratnasamy Thevasigamany, as well as two leading members of the Sri Lankan community in Montreal, Ramani and Perry Balendra.

On my behalf and on behalf of all the members, I want to thank them. I also want to thank them for their input and comments which helped us to understand the pressing needs in the affected areas.

I want to add also that we were deeply moved by this tragedy. Once again Canada has demonstrated that its humanitarian reputation is well deserved.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

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.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is along the lines of what has already been stated by the minister.

The minister has been working hard in order to ensure that there is regional development not just for this industry but for other industries also.

For the record, I have had a lot of association with the textile and apparel industry over the course of the many years I have been in the House. I can say that both sides, but especially the apparel side, were very satisfied with the announcement the government made in December. I have heard no criticism about it. In fact, the president of the Canadian Apparel Federation applauded the government's initiative and said that the proper measures were put in place to ensure that the industry has a future.

The government continues to work with the industry on the textile side. We have to look at researching new fibres. Canada has always been at the leading edge of helping industries become future industries. We cannot change the past with respect to lost jobs, but as the minister put on the record today, we have to look to the future and see what tools we can provide the industry. There are high tech industries in Quebec that are doing research into new fibres.

The minister gave some great examples earlier. I would like the minister to give us a few more examples of some of the initiatives that were taken in order to assist the industry. I would also like him to give us a few examples of initiatives that were taken in terms of the councils the government is working with.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

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.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since we are commending people, I also thank my colleague for his good offices. He too worked very hard and impressed upon the Minister of Finance that such a program was needed. As he indicated, we were in direct contact with the representatives of both industries. I have been working with them for ten years and was criticized for doing so by the members across the way. However, people do not remember that, they only remember what suits them.

This being said, I think that the apparel industry is quite satisfied. As for the textile industry, the challenges are greater. I get back once again to what I said in my speech. Various international factors have negative repercussions on this industry. I reiterate that, in its platform, the Bloc Québécois supports free trade. Today, the Bloc members must decide what side they are taking: are they in favour of opening our borders provided certain steps are taken to protect older workers? Personally, I would fully support such a measure.

A choice has to be made whether we open or close our borders. However, I do not believe that on this side of the House, we have ever advocated protectionism in free trade. Since we took power, this is the position that we have shown in all our programs and decisions.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify what I said earlier because the hon. member forgets the good parts. I never said that he forgets the past. However, we did things. They cannot say that we did nothing.

And that takes me back to the issue of older workers. I was among the government members who spoke to the minister at the time about the need for such a program. I can assure you that I still believe that older workers need that program. We will see what measures will be in the next budget. However, I recognize that there must be measures for workers. Indeed, on a personal note, since some members of my family are illiterate, I recognize that they may need some kind of support when their plant is shut down.

I will repeat that I believe that we, on this side of the House, have credibility in the area of job creation, because nobody wishes to depend on employment insurance. Everybody wants to work. Of course people over 50 years of age have greater challenges to face. I am aware of that and I am very sensitive to that. That is why I continue to support the implementation of measures for older workers. Maybe there will be such measures in the government's next budget.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak again on behalf of an industry that I and other colleagues in the House have over the years supported, and continue to support.

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre made remarks about my colleagues in his speech. I would like again to remind hon. members from the Bloc that the members for Beauce, Brome—Missisquoi, Saint Boniface, Winnipeg South Centre, Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Scarborough Centre have been on the issue for the last few years, of course with different challenges in each mandate.

As a member of Parliament who represents a constituency that had a number of apparel and textile manufacturers, I have had the opportunity over the years to take part in these debates. Let me pick up on something that was said by another member across the aisle. The government does not support people losing their jobs.

I think that all of us in the House would like to ensure that Canadians remain employed, and our record on that issue speaks for itself, as far as I am concerned. Let me also start by saying that the industry, both the textile and apparel, have worked with the government through certain committees and measures that we have put in place to try to find ways of assisting them to continue to create jobs or to keep the jobs that have been created by those industries.

I would like to remind you of the facts. Textiles and apparel make up the sixth largest industry in Canada. It is an industry that employs over 54,000 Canadians and generates more than $6.6 billion per year, a very significant figure.

To support this major industry, the Canadian government has participated in various programs over the years. I would also like to remind you of these programs, since there is a tendency on the other side of the House to forget the past and to simply make demands.

In 1974, the World Trade Organization implemented the Multifibre Arrangement, the MFA, as a temporary measure to protect the national textile sectors. Quotas were imposed on imports from poor countries that can produce apparel and textiles at far less cost than the developed countries.

The MFA was extended four times after 1974 and finally ended on December 31, 1994. I would like to publicly say that, at that time, I, along with other colleagues, was opposed to this agreement. I am still convinced that it is one of the measures that played a large part in the closure of a few textile mills, something that I also regret.

So that the quotas imposed by the MFA could be gradually lifted until they were fully phased out in 1995, the MFA was replaced by the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, the ATC. This agreement was designed to achieve progress in free trade in the world textile industry from 1995 to 2005. The ATC aimed to increase import quotas so that Canada and other countries could progressively profit from the liberalization of trade. More specifically, the ATC obliged countries to eliminate all quotas on textile-related imports, thus exposing Canadian textile and apparel firms to all-out competition from countries with low production costs. So I repeat that I was personally opposed to this measure. I would also like to quote from the Bloc Québécois election platform, where that party proposes to “liberalize trade in all types of textiles except those manufactured by Quebec companies”.

So is the Bloc Québécois in favour of total liberalization of international trade or of adding certain tariffs? You see, the Bloc supports free trade, but not when it does not suit its interests. However, it should decide if it wants to be part of the big bad world or to play both sides against each other.

In 1989, under the Multifibre Arrangement then in force, the Canadian government paid $40 million a year to Canadian textile manufacturers in compensation for tariffs paid by them on imported textiles. Those payments were called duty remissions, and according to 1989 import data they were divided among various sectors of the industry. Basically, if you imported textiles into Canada in 1989, the higher your import volumes, the higher the duty remissions you were paid.

This system of federal payments has not changed since 1989. In other words, the same manufacturers have been receiving the same share of Ottawa's $40 million since 1989. So when we hear from across the aisle that we have done nothing, that is not true. Although some of those manufacturers have completely stopped importing and thus stopped paying high import duties, they are still receiving their share of duty remission payments, as in 1989.

On December 14, 2004, the government announced certain measures designed to make Canadian textile manufacturers more competitive in anticipation of the cancellation of all textile import quotas worldwide. The measures announced were intended to act upon the conclusions of the report that was tabled, as we said earlier, by the Standing Committee on Finance, whose chair at the time was the hon. member for Etobicoke. Specifically, those measures called for the phasing out of customs duty remissions by the end of 2009.

The government has also committed itself to the following allocations: $90 million per year to eliminate customs duties on imported textiles; an additional $50 million over five years for the textile production efficiency component, CANtex, which will help Canadian textile firms become more competitive and take advantage of new market prospects; and $10.9 million for the Canada Border Services Agency so that it can combat the illegal transshipment of textiles and apparel.

Once again, these measures will be over and above the federal allocation of more than $70 million over the past two years in support of the textile and apparel industries. It is absolutely untrue for the other side to say we have done nothing. I have now repeated all of the highlights. Thanks to these measures, annual assistance to these industries will more than triple.

Over the course of the last few years the government has progressively brought in other measures. The importance of improving our competitiveness of the tax system has been underscored in recent years by reductions in corporate tax rates in many of our major trading partners.

Establishing a Canadian tax advantage for investment, jobs and growth was one element of the government's five year tax reduction plan. As of 2004, the general rate of corporate income tax was lowered to 21% from its 2000 level of 28%. In the 2003 budget it was lowered to 21%. We have eliminated for these firms over $50 million of taxable capital.

One area where the tax system has had an important impact on new investment, particularly in capital intensive sectors like the textile and apparel industry, is the treatment of capital assets. I have spoken to businessmen in my riding and also surrounding ridings in Montreal, and this was a very important component of the type of aid that they had asked the government to implement.

The capital cost allowance, or the CCA system, determines how much of the cost of a capital asset a business may deduct in a particular year. As a general principle, CCA rates should reflect the useful life of assets and thus provide adequate recognition of capital costs over time. The alignment of the CCA rates with the useful life of assets can enhance productivity. I will not go into the details, but I want to repeat that in the 2004 budget we increased the CCA rate that applies to computer equipment.

As we all know, the industry has become more high tech than it ever was. We do not walk into a factory anymore without seeing mostly knitting machines. For those who have not done so recently, I urge them to go. It is a high tech type of industry and we have given assistance for that industry to continue to become competitive.

Since my time has run out, I would like to sum up.

Our government recognizes that enhancing competitiveness is a serious obstacle for the Canadian textile and apparel industries. The hon. member opposite and all the hon. members can be assured that this government will continue to work with these industries. My colleagues and I on this side of the House will ensure that these industries are sustainable and that they will succeed on both the national and international stages.

[Points of Order, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove made a comment, malhonnête, which I believe you pointed out to the new member in this House. She should get the rules of the House early in her political career. She did not withdraw the comment. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask her to withdraw the comment that is unparliamentary language under the rules of the House.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, for the benefit of those listening, I want to say that we are very concerned about the situation in Huntingdon. This is not something we wanted to see. When jobs are lost, everyone is affected, not only the Bloc Québécois.

That party took the opportunity of this announcement to state its view. Nevertheless, when we hear a member of the Bloc Québécois say in his speech that we have done nothing for the industry, it shows that he is not aware of the measures implemented by the Liberals since 1994.

As a matter of fact, we have had remissions in place for seven years. We have been trying to support the industry with remissions for the last seven years. As I have already mentioned, a number of other programs have been implemented. Today, we announced two other pilot projects for workers.

However, we are well aware that this situation is affecting the industry worldwide. I believe that the announcement made today will help the industry to be more competitive and help it get modern equipment. In the case of the 900 jobs in Huntingdon, the minister mentioned during a press conference that the company can still benefit from the CANtex program and that those jobs will not be lost. I believe that if someone else wants to buy the plant, he will be able to take advantage of the programs announced today by the finance minister. I cannot agree with those who keep saying that those jobs are lost.

I know that the mayor of Huntingdon tried to organize a meeting with the Minister of Industry, who accepted the invitation.

Does the hon. member know that efforts have been made to ensure that this plant may nevertheless take advantage of the programs we have announced today?