Mario Silva

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement we had in place with all provincial governments and the aboriginal community was so important. It was an initiative that would have alleviated much of the poverty and many of the concerns within the native community. Unfortunately, that project did not go through.

This was one of the reasons why I said I supported the minimum wage issue raised by the NDP. It affects very few people who are regulated by the federal government. However, if we want to deal with the issues of poverty, programs like the Kelowna accord and a child care program would have gone long way toward alleviating that. Unfortunately, they died because the NDP decided to side with the Conservatives and the Bloc to bring the government down.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in answering that question, I must also answer the question of the previous member from the same party, who again misled the public and the House, both on the national housing strategy and the national child care program.

Those members keep insisting that the Liberal government killed the national housing strategy, when in fact it was the Conservative government. They also keep misleading the public on who killed the national child care program.

The national child care program, which the Liberals, under Mr. Chrétien, tried to implement, was always a fifty-fifty cost sharing program with the provinces. There was no buy-in by a lot of provinces, including some NDP provinces.

However, the Liberal government under the member for LaSalle—Émard, with the leadership of also the member for York Centre, came up with a program, in consultation with the provinces. That took over a year of negotiations. It was a very successful implementation of a national child care program before the government came down.

This constant misleading of both the House and the public, that Liberals killed the program, is totally baseless. I wish the members would speak to the facts and not to innuendoes and lies.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is an argument that is raised many times by many members in the New Democratic Party. I do not know when these particular lies will stop.

First, the Liberal government did not, I repeat did not, abolish the national housing strategy. That was done under the Conservative government. That was done in 1993 or 1992.

On the wage policy, from 1986 to 1996, there were no changes. By that time it would have been too late to increase it, so the government decided to go with the provincial ones.

I must say, if the hon. member is indeed concerned about this issue, because it only affects 18,000 people out of 880,000--

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House today.

Let me begin by stating, unequivocally, that I fully support the objective of ensuring Canadians across the country enjoy the highest possible standards of living. I am also fully supportive of the noble concept that workers are compensated fairly for their work and that their wages are sufficient to sustain them and their families in a lifestyle all Canadians deserve.

I must confess that I am a little intrigued by the position of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to increase the federal minimum wage. While the principle is indeed worthy of support, it is important that we be fully apprised of the facts in this matter. If we are not clear, many of those who are listening to us would think that federally regulated workers are poorly compensated without such a minimum wage being in place.

As most members will know, the federal minimum wage was discontinued as a national figure in 1996. At that time, the minimum wage was set to correspond to the amount within the respective provinces and territories of Canada.

These facts are quite evident, and I am sure we are all aware of them. However, the members of the New Democratic Party are either being somewhat disingenuous when they criticize the former Liberal for eliminating the federal minimum wage or they are simply not aware of the facts.

Approximately 840,000 employees across Canada are covered by the federal statutes. Of the 840,000 federally regulated employees, how many of them are actually making minimum wage? The total is approximately 557. Additionally, if the federal minimum wage were raised to $10 across the country, regardless of the province in which the employees lived, there would be 18,000 or so employees affected by this change. The reality is the vast majority of federally regulated employees are making much more than minimum wage within the province they reside. Indeed, the vast majority are making much more than $10 an hour.

The very nature of so many of the jobs covered by the federal regulations results in a minimum wage much higher than $10 an hour. However, I support the concept outlined in the Federal Labour Standards Review undertaken by Professor Harry Arthurs. Professor Arthurs' excellent report speaks to the issue of minimum wage and recommends this amount be set at $10 an hour. This certainly seems reasonable in terms of ensuring a reasonable standard of living for employees who are federally regulated.

Many observers would argue that an increase in the federal minimum wage would have a negative impact on our economy. I am not one of those people. Professor Arthurs makes reference to a similar development in the United Kingdom. Despite protestation to the contrary, there was no measurable negative impact on the British economy when the minimum wage was raised to what was equivalent to about $11 an hour Canadian.

In view of the fact that most federally regulated employees are already earning in excess of $10 an hour, it would be safe to say that the objective of this resolution has, with few exceptions, already existed for some time.

However, I point out that should my colleagues in the New Democratic Party be so deeply concerned about the minimum wage, they may wish to speak to their counterparts like the NDP government in Manitoba where the minimum wage is $7.66 an hour, or the NDP government in Saskatchewan where it is $7.55 an hour, quite a bit shy of the $10 mark.

It is interesting that the motion was brought forward by the New Democratic Party in view of its decision in November 2005 to vote with our Conservative and Bloc colleagues to end the term of the previous Liberal government. Within today's NDP resolution is a reference to aboriginal people, for example. I am sure my hon. colleagues in the New Democratic Party will recall the Kelowna accord, which was negotiated by the provinces and the previous Liberal government.

In November 2005 the prime minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, signed a $5 billion agreement that was specifically designed to close the gap between first nations people and the rest of Canada. Upon assuming office, our colleagues in the Conservative government cancelled this agreement and in so doing ended the $5 billion commitment as well as the dream of aboriginal people.

As hon. members can imagine, I am quite surprised that the New Democratic Party motion refers to a prosperity gap, which the NDP members themselves helped to sustain by virtue of their decision to join with the Conservatives and the Bloc in defeating the former Liberal government.

I would also remind my colleagues in the House that in the November 2005 fiscal update by the former Liberal finance minister, the member for Wascana, there were a great deal of initiatives to assist those Canadians most in need of support. Among these initiatives was the working income tax benefit, which was designed to reduce barriers to work faced by low income Canadians. This was set to begin in 2008. This was accompanied by a $500 increase in the basic personal amount that Canadians could claim on their income tax returns. There were also reductions planned in the lowest personal income tax rates, which would take effect up to the year 2010.

Similarly, there was $2.2 billion over five years committed to help improve student financial assistance for Canadian students. This, of course, was also lost with the New Democratic Party decision to bring down the previous Liberal government.

I would also note that the defeat of the previous government in the House by the New Democratic Party-Conservative-Bloc alliance also ended the Liberal government's landmark national child care program, which I assume the motion before the House today speaks to in terms of the needs of children.

It would be fair to say that when we look back over the years, we can easily see that the greatest strides made for Canadians took place under the Liberal government. We understand the need to assist Canadians to have the best possible life and to take care of their families with decent living conditions and fair wages. Quite frankly, to use words from the New Democratic Party motion, the best possible national anti-poverty strategy for Canada would be to return the Liberal government to Canada.

[Quebec Federation of Labour, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, or FTQ, is celebrating its 50th anniversary this week.

Since its creation in 1957 under the impetus of Gustave Francq, it has been and remains today the largest labour union in Quebec. The FTQ has always defended the rights of individual workers fighting for social justice, in the interest of promoting the values that we are proud to share.

I am delighted to stand behind this progressive organization and its 500,000 members. Together, we will continue to defend the social, economic, cultural and political rights of workers in Quebec, who contribute to the prosperity and dynamic nature of our economy.

As the official labour critic, and on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party of Canada, I would like to congratulate the FTQ and its president, Henri Massé, on reaching this important milestone.

[Automobile Industry, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto industry became, for the first time, a net importer in 2006. International competition is racing ahead of us, and the government is content to sit idly by. Every day we see new headlines of job losses, but no plan, not even a response, from the government.

Where is the support for thousands of workers who are losing manufacturing jobs under the government?

[Automobile Industry, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto industry has a reputation for being among the best in the world. The previous Liberal government invested billions of dollars to keep it at the front of the global pack. However, in only one short year, Canadians are already seeing the effects of a careless attitude toward the auto sector, one that lacks a vision for economic development. As a result, Canadians are losing jobs, 2,000 of them today at Chrysler.

When will the government wake up and address the urgent need of Canada's manufacturing sector?

[Criminal Code, February 12th, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-400, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firefighters).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise today in the House to present a bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code, firefighters. The bill would make it an offence punishable by prison terms for those who assaulted or endangered the life of a firefighter while in the conduct of duty.

Everyday across the country firefighters put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens, often putting their own lives at great peril. The tragic events that took place recently in Winnipeg clearly demonstrate the sad reality. As citizens, we owe them a great deal of respect, dignity and honour for the work that they do on our behalf.

It is absolutely essential that firefighters know that we know the risks they take everyday on our behalf. It is also important they know that anyone who deliberately adds to the dangers firefighters face each day by virtue of criminal behaviour will be fully held to account.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code to this effect. If anyone chooses to commit a crime against a firefighter while they are in the course of their duty, they will face harsh penalties under the bill.

I invite my colleagues in the House to support the bill and, in so doing, to honour the hard work and dedication demonstrated each day by firefighters across this country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate my hon. colleague. He spoke quite eloquently about the safety concerns facing both our country and our nation, but these safety concerns have to also be balanced with our beliefs and rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When we brought in the Anti-terrorism Act, we specifically put in a sunset clause so it could apply to things like investigative hearings and preventive arrest. We did that because we saw a potential threat to our civil liberties.

The question I have is whether these measures been effective and the answer thus far has been, no, they have been not been effective. We have a situation where all are concerned. All of us in the Liberal Party and other members of the House are very much concerned about issues of safety both at home and abroad, but we have to balance that with our concern for civil liberties and if they are under threat.

I believe the sunset clause was put in the bill specifically to address that concern. We are not addressing do that however. That is the reason why all evidence has shown that the sunset period should in fact expire, as it has been proven that this law has not been effective. The issue of civil liberties and rights are very much of concern to us, which we strongly cherish. They are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Textile Industry, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House for the first time as the official opposition critic for labour. I look forward to working with members of all parties to ensure that Canada's labour market continues to grow in fairness and prosperity.

In that vein, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the motion put forward in relation to the protection of Canada's textile and clothing industries.

The textile and clothing industry is clearly in need of support. This motion helps to demonstrate that we in this House recognize this reality.

If we were to look back only 20 years ago, we would see that approximately 70% of the textile and clothing products consumed in this country were actually made in Canada.

However, by 2004, as reported by Statistics Canada, imported goods had come to supply the Canadian market with over 60% of the textiles and clothing consumed in this country. That is an astonishing shift in the marketplace and is a resounding call for action from the Government of Canada.

This is an important sector for Canada and for the major urban centres across the country that have textile and clothing industries as an integral part of their local economies. For example, in my city of Toronto, there are over 550 apparel manufacturers operating and they account for nearly $1.4 billion in wholesale shipments. This represents 16% of the domestic market in this country.

Perhaps more important than the dollar figures are the numbers of people in the city of Toronto who work in the textile and clothing sector. An estimated 50,000 people work in this sector, with more than half of them employed in the manufacturing side of this equation. These jobs include cutters, sewers, pressers, art directors and so forth. These are jobs that we need in Toronto and in cities across the country. They are jobs that need to be protected.

The Montreal textile and clothing sector is a very important player in the region's economy and is recognized internationally as a major pole of this sector of activity.

The reality, as already mentioned by many members, is that the international business environment has changed considerably over the years.

Beginning in the early 1970s and continuing until the middle of the 1990s, the trade in textiles and clothing was quite closely regulated via a system of import quotas put in place by major importers and exporters of these materials.

Countries such as China and India were the subject of agreements with Canada, and these quotas, known as the multi-fibre arrangement, continued until the member countries of the World Trade Organization voted to remove all these quotas at the Uruguay round of negotiations. This was to be undertaken in four separate stages from 1995 through 2005.

We must add to this the reality of the 1989 free trade agreement with the United States, which saw the importation of American products grow very rapidly. This continued until 1999, when there was a shift toward the importation of goods from China and, to a lesser extent, India.

This shift was a direct result of the removal of quotas on goods originating outside of Canada. Consequently, there was of course a significant impact upon Canada's textile and clothing industry and upon the companies that manufactured them, as well as the employees who worked for them.

In terms of numbers, the growth from China is quite dramatic. In the textile sector, China was exporting to Canada $800 million in goods by the year 2004. The clothing sector is even more dramatic, with China's share of the Canadian market moving from $571 million in 1992 to $2.3 billion in the year 2004.

These are significant numbers, especially when we consider the substantially reduced costs faced by Chinese manufacturers compared to their Canadian counterparts. This reality is particularly noteworthy in terms of labour costs.

China, of course, is the most important player in terms of the export to Canada of textiles and clothing, but there are other countries. India has already been mentioned. There has also been an impact on Canada's market due to imports from Mexico.

We must add to this the reality that the biggest trade partner of Canada's textile and clothing products, the United States, has followed Canadian suppliers in turning its attention abroad for cheaper products. This reduced share of the American market also significantly affects Canada's textile and clothing industry.

The previous Liberal government did take action in this matter, as indicated by my colleague, the former member for Ahuntsic, the honourable Eleni Bakopanos, during a debate on the issue. She spoke of the work accomplished by the Liberal government, mainly through public-private partnerships, to help these industries face the challenges of the new global economy.

A number of measures were considered, including lowering customs duties on imported textiles used by the Canadian clothing industry.

My Liberal colleagues from the Montreal area vigorously and effectively defended the textile and clothing industries in their respective ridings.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, home to many textile and clothing manufacturers, was a particularly energetic advocate for this industry.

The motion at hand calls for “a policy of assistance to the textile and clothing industries in order to enable the industries to compete throughout the world”. I am in full agreement with the spirit of supporting our textile and clothing sectors.

While we all recognize that there are new realities in terms of global economic development, it is essential that we as a country recognize through public policy the obligation of the Government of Canada to protect industries that provide a means of livelihood to so many Canadian workers.

I understand that there are many people within the industry who identify tariff policy as a means of protecting Canada's textile and clothing sector. Although these tariffs are among the highest in terms of other sectors, this is still very much worthy of review in regard to the unique nature of this industry and its importance to our national economy.

Similarly, I believe there is a great deal that the federal government and provincial governments across Canada can do to assist the textile and clothing sector, including training programs, export assistance and simple advocacy.

The member's motion also speaks specifically to the idea of allowing foreign made products made with Canadian textiles and clothing products to be imported without customs duties. This trade procedure is known as outward processing, and I believe that this indeed has the potential to be of great assistance to the textile and clothing industry in Canada.

In cooperation with the various partners within the Canadian textile and clothing industry, the government needs to move promptly in terms of outward processing, in conjunction with Canadian producers. It is my understanding that both the United States government and the European Union have already taken practical implementation steps in terms of outward processing on behalf of their textile and clothing sectors.

As members of the House are aware, during the last Parliament the members who now comprise the government voted against the original motion dealing with this matter. I would encourage these members to join with the other parties in the House in support of this important motion.

As noted at the beginning of my remarks, there are phenomenal pressures on Canada's textile and clothing industries. The textile and clothing sector is a significant player in our national economy and, like other governments across the world, we have an obligation to assist these Canadian businesses and workers to compete effectively in the new global economy.

Quite frankly, it is clear that no sector of our economy operates within a vacuum. Jobs lost in one sector will invariably affect another and the ripple will continue.

The textile and clothing sector has experienced considerable pressure over the last 25 years. When those Canadians employed in this industry look to their government for assistance, it is important that their voices do not go unanswered.

I intend to support the motion. I encourage all other members, regardless of their party affiliation, to vote with Canadian workers in the textile and clothing industry by voting in favour of the motion.