Peter Julian

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for her question.

There were huge job losses in Quebec. I am talking about 10,000 jobs in the clothing industry and an additional 15,000 jobs in the textile industry.

Measures absolutely need to be implemented for these industries. I find the suggestion on purchasing locally made products to be very important and very interesting. This government does not even buy Canadian flags in Canada, as the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay pointed out in the House last week. Even the Canadian flags handed out in the Parliament of Canada are made in China.

The suggestion is very important. All the opposition parties in this House must continue to pressure this government to take action.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is very clearly what has happened. We had the industry people come here and say very clearly what kinds of things they needed. Given what we knew was going to happen on January 1, the government did absolutely nothing. It dithered and dithered and dithered some more.

Then we had the crisis in Huntingdon with the loss of hundreds of jobs and suddenly the government realized it would have to do something. What it did was too little, too late. I have outlined those three policies that were brought in--as I said in French, une catastrophe--at the last minute in mid-December. Very clearly the government did not know how to handle this crisis, as we have seen in so many other areas, from softwood lumber to the crisis of homelessness. I could go on, but unfortunately time does not permit that.

The hon. member is right. The government did not take action when it should have.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary's comments. I guess he does not travel to British Columbia often, because if he did he would be able to see the impact of the policies of Premier Gordon Campbell on British Columbia.

We had record deficits after the balanced budget that was handed over in the change of government in 2001. We have had record deficit levels. We had the closure of women's shelters virtually throughout the province of British Columbia. In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, we had the closure of St. Mary's Hospital, a very important hospital that actually provided vital health support in that community. Other communities have seen their hospitals closed down and their courthouses closed down, and all of this when faced with a record deficit brought about by what? Brought about by tax cuts for the wealthiest British Columbians. It is a wrong-headed policy and it means that we have lived through record deficits, rising homelessness and hospital closures.

That is why, when British Columbians are asked who they trust, two-thirds of them do not believe that the premier of British Columbia can be trusted to keep his promises. He said one thing when he went into the election in 2001, but he did a completely set of priorities. There was a priority for the wealthiest of British Columbians and it meant that most British Columbians have had to suffer over user fees increasing, payments for services increasing, record deficits and the closure of vital services.

If the parliamentary secretary travelled more often to British Columbia, he would of course see the rise in homelessness, the rise in food bank numbers and the rise in poverty in British Columbia.

He talked about the NDP stand on fiscal policy. A neutral and very credible study was done comparing the three major parties, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP, over a 20 year period when they were in government, using their actual fiscal period returns from 1981 to 2001.

Who had the worst record, not in terms of what they projected but in terms of what they actually did? The Liberals did. Eighty-five per cent of the time their budgets and fiscal period returns were in deficit. The Conservatives were a little better at two-thirds of the time for federal and provincial governments across the country in that 20 year period being in deficit.

The NDP had the best record. Most of the time when we project balanced budgets we achieve them, because we have an honest approach to fiscal period returns and to budgeting.

When Canadians compare the actual facts of the matter, not the rhetoric, not the verbosity and not the hot air, but the actual fiscal period returns, most of them will be pleased to know that the NDP has the best record of any federal or provincial political party.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely have to respond to the comments made by the parliamentary secretary earlier concerning the Canadian economy, because they are critical to our debate of this important motion. He told us that Canada was out in front in terms of its economic growth.

I want to cite a major report about the quality of jobs in Canada, released a few weeks ago. Prepared by Statistics Canada, this report clearly demonstrates that the quality of jobs in Canada is decreasing. First of all, young workers are being offered increasingly less-well-paid jobs. Second, there are more and more temporary jobs in the Canadian economy.

Furthermore, it is very important to stress the issue of pension plans. Fewer and fewer Canadian workers, less than 40%, have access to pension funds, whereas the figure was 50% ten years or so ago.

After 10 years of Liberals in power, it is clear that the quality of workers' jobs is worsening across the country. We also know that Canadian workers on average are earning 60¢ less than they did 15 years ago. In my view, this is a fact that is important to stress and present in the House of Commons, because it is a fact that the government does not recognize. It does not recognize that Canadian workers are earning less, are increasingly obliged to take short-term employment, and are afraid of reaching retirement age because they have ever less access to a pension fund. All of this is very important.

It should be noted in this debate that, where employment is concerned, this government is a total failure. It is in that context that I rise to speak about the opposition motion tabled by the hon. member for Joliette. This is a very important motion and one that is supported by us, the NDP caucus.

The first words of this motion read as follows:

That the House acknowledge the inadequacy of the assistance plan for the clothing and textile industries which was announced by the federal government following the closure of six plants in Huntingdon—

This is very important, because we know that for years the clothing and textile industry has been dreading the measures that were activated on January 1, 2005. The representatives of this industry have come many times to ask that measures be set up to protect these industries. And what has happened? Nothing.

Later I will speak of the proposals that have been made to the Standing Committee on Finance by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on behalf of our party. However, it must be said that this government did not act so long as the crisis was to any degree hidden. But last December it erupted fully and plainly throughout the country. And then all Canadians realized the lack of action by this government.

What we saw in Huntingdon was the closure of two mills that were key to the Quebec industry. We also saw the repercussions of those closures in other sectors in Winnipeg,Toronto and Vancouver. We saw the closure of the Cleyn & Tinker textile mills. We saw the closure of businesses in Huntingdon. Over 800 jobs have disappeared in a community of 2,600 people. It is plain as day that this catastrophe could have been avoided if the government had acted well beforehand and taken the appropriate measures.

But it did nothing. That evening I saw the announcements made on television.The workers knew very well that the government had not supported them. I remember very clearly a worker from Huntingdon who said that the government had done nothing. That is what happened. Since that is the reality, I am very happy to be able to speak to this motion, which is very important.

Industry representatives have been coming here for months, if not years. Other representatives from other companies have come as well. We had the president of Western Glove Works, who noted in his remarks that, one year ago, there were 1,290 employees here in Canada. He said that this number had fallen to fewer than 600 and, if the government did not take action, he thought that there would be only 121 employees by 12 to 18 months from now.

That was the situation last December. We had a debate in the House on the plant closings in Huntingdon, where hundreds of Canadians lost their jobs. We all heard the comments of the industry representatives. They were very clear that they needed action on the part of the government. Finally, pushed to the wall, the government reacted.

It took three measures after the crisis erupted. In view of the magnitude of the crisis, these three steps clearly did not suffice.

First, it eliminated the tariffs on fibre and yarn imports, a measure worth $15 million a year, and on imports of the textile inputs used by the apparel industry, worth about $75 million a year. This did not have much of an effect, it must be said, but at least the industry got a little help.

In my view, however, it was only because the government was in a minority situation that it felt forced to react. It is very clear that the other three parties in the House were very frustrated with the government's lack of action.

Second, the government allocated an additional $50 million over five years to textile production efficiency. This amounts to $10 million a year. We know now that we have about 4,000 textile and apparel companies in Canada. If this amount is distributed among the 3,900 companies, it makes a difference of perhaps $200 to $300 a month for each company. That is not very much for an industry in crisis, not very much for the hundreds of jobs that have been lost.

In Quebec, we have lost 10,000 jobs while this Liberal government has been in power. All across the country, 40,000 jobs have been lost. We know very well, then, that in view of the magnitude of this crisis, $200 to $300 a month per company is very little. It is not enough. As in other crises in this country, the government has done very little and too late.

The last measure taken in a rush, just before the House adjourned for the holidays, was to extend by five years the application of the orders in effect, but only for 24 months, after which the orders will be gradually eliminated over the final three years of this period. We are talking about a reprieve of 24 months for an industry in crisis.

What can be said for sure is that the problems have not been solved nor has the magnitude of the crisis in the industry been reduced by the few actions that the government has taken too late.

What are the other things that have been suggested? In December 2004, when we knew, in this corner of the House, that action needed to be taken, despite the fact that the Liberal government refused to acknowledge the size and scope of the crisis, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre moved a motion asking the federal government to immediately extend for a further seven years the duty remission orders covering the apparel sector that were set to expire on December 31, 2004. The motion received support from three of the four corners of the House. As we know, the debate was basically talked out and no decision was taken.

It is in that context, when a solution that would have significantly helped the industry, which the government talked out, that it was clear that the government did not acknowledge the size and scope of the crisis: the 40,000 jobs that were lost on its watch; 10,000 jobs in Quebec on its watch; lost jobs that have not been acknowledged and have not been dealt with.

The three measures that were taken were to eliminate tariffs on fibre and yarn imports and on imports of textile inputs used by the apparel industry; to provide $50 million, which is $200 to $300 per month for each of the 3,900 enterprises across the country in this sector; and, extend the duty remission orders for only two years and then phase them out the following three years.

It is in that context that we need to compare the actions of the government, which was too little too late, to the suggestions and positive policies being proposed from this corner of the House and the other two corners of the House. Clearly, the three opposition parties were demanding action.

The finance committee also brought forth recommendations in April 2004. I will review those three recommendations.

The first recommendation was that the federal government immediately extend for a further seven years the duty remissions orders covering the apparel sector that were set to expire on December 31, 2004, similar to the motion by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre which was a concrete action that should have been taken.

The second recommendation was that the federal government immediately end tariffs on inputs that are not produced domestically. Textile producers seeking continued tariff protection should be required to establish that they sell their products to Canadian apparel manufacturers.

The third recommendation from the finance committee was to show that there had been good work and lots of policy being produced and proposed in the other three corners of the House that the government could have taken up but chose not to. It chose instead to keep its head buried in the sand until it was too late.

The third recommendation was that the federal government immediately undertake a study of temporary adaptation measures to enhance competitiveness, as well as the benefits and costs of eliminating tariffs on imports of fabric for use in the Canadian apparel sector, the types and quantities of products produced by the Canadian textile industry, and the practice of tariff differentiation on fabrics based on their end use, and that the results of the study should be tabled in Parliament.

We had the recommendations from the finance committee and we had the motion by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre but what we saw was very little action taken too late.

I would like to address another issue concerning the small amount of money, $385,000, provided by the government to organizations that work with older workers and immigrants to help them retrain. We have been talking about job losses in the tens of thousands; 40,000 lost jobs on the Liberal watch. In December, of course, we saw the loss of hundreds of jobs in the space of a few days. The government provided $385,000.

Let us contrast that with other decisions taken by the Liberal government: $1 billion in tax cuts put forward for the largest and most profitable corporations; $125 million in the sponsorship scandal that was given to Liberal friendly ad firms.

When we contrast the huge amounts of money allocated by the government to its friends and funders to the $385,000 spread out among the hundreds and thousands of lost jobs to retrain older workers, we see who the government really believes it represents.

I have seen in British Columbia how the lack of action by the government is hurting workers in our softwood industry which has seen 20,000 lost jobs. The industry is now being faced with hundreds of millions of dollars in legal bills and countervailing duties that are taking billions of dollars out of the industry and the government has done virtually nothing, except to go cap in hand occasionally to Washington.

We have seen the lack of action on homelessness. We have seen the lack of action on child poverty, as the numbers continue to grow. Homelessness in my region on the lower mainland of British Columbia has more than tripled. We have seen the lack of action on child care and the lack of action of fighting back and maintaining a public health care system. We consistently see lack of action in every sector, and very clearly in the clothing and textile industry and the catastrophe that arrived at the end of 2004. The actions by the government have been too little taken too late.

The motion today is welcome and we will support it because the government has not been responsible in dealing with this crisis. The government has not been proactive in dealing with something that we knew months before was developing. When the industry was very proactive in coming here and telling us what it needed to maintain the jobs, the government dithered and dithered until it was too late and those jobs were lost.

The measures taken were too little too late. The dithering has sorely hurt an important sector that brings billions of dollars in export revenues to Canada. For that reason and the other reasons I have mentioned, we will be supporting the motion.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade, I would like to start by expressing my concern about the need for this division into two sectors.

In 1982 we integrated Canada's trade commissioner service into the then department of external affairs. At that time we had the integration of trade policy with our external affairs policy, foreign affairs, including our commitment to human rights. It took about 15 years under both the Conservative and Liberal regimes to actually get that integration working well. It did take some time but everyone does believe now, and comments from very qualified observers have indicated, that integrated relationship has now worked. Subsequent to finally getting it right, we are now looking at splitting them into two separate ministries. It does not make a whole lot of sense.

In the Speech from the Throne there was a comment from the Prime Minister, “Just as Canada's domestic and international policies must work in concert, so too must our defence, diplomacy, development and trade efforts work in concert”.

Subsequent to that there is Bill C-31 which will actually divide the two ministries. Therefore we are looking at less concert between those two divisions and those two important thrusts of Canadian foreign policy rather than more. Concerns have been raised from a variety of sources around this approach.

Bill Clark, a former ambassador in several senior postings, has said that many observers are wondering why this change is happening. He added that it is questionable whether a good open discussion was held before this bill was presented to the House. That was in the January/February 2005 issue of Diplomat & International Canada .

The Canadian Retired Heads of Mission Association, RHOMA, a group that could have provided very important information, a needed neutral perspective on this bill, has not been consulted. In fact the bill has come under criticism from that association as well.

This bill has been brought forward and those who should have been consulted are criticizing it. Many observers are wondering why this is happening at all because it does not make a lot of sense.

This is what is to be found in the bill and in the decision that is being proposed in the House of Commons. But this move is unjustified, because it contradicts what has been said in the throne speech.

It is hard to imagine why we should separate these two aspects of our foreign policy, international trade and foreign affairs.

Jeffrey Simpson wrote a column. I would like to read part of it into the record:

New governments like things that are, well, new. Newness and a political desire to be different often blind them to reality. Foreign affairs and international trade, joined together in one department in 1982, had their problems, but none had much to do with the fact of being together. Rather, their problems largely arose from a systematic dilution...of the assets needed to protect Canada's interests and project its values through diplomacy, defence and aid. Money, not structure, was the fundamental problem. New governments, however, are sometimes tempted to seek the wrong solution for the wrong problem, because it creates the impression of action, newness, fresh approaches. Empty action can sometimes camouflage a discouraging reality.

Mr. Simpson added that it is not possible, in the real world, to separate trade from foreign policy. When the trade minister complains about the lack of legal protection for investment, a trade matter, he is also raising a political question about how China views its obligations as a member of the international community. He concluded by saying:

Stripped of responsibility for trade, deprived of control over foreign aid, tussling with defence, bowing to other agencies for national security, helpless with immigration, and now subservient to central agencies for Canada-U.S. relations, Foreign Affairs is trying to determine what's left and how to do their job. So Foreign Affairs will soon announce another internal reorganization to do foreign policy better--which, of course, it cannot do now that international trade has gone away.

That was in the Globe and Mail just a couple of weeks ago.

This is the difficulty that we are encountering. We have a bill that is being put forward, that is being criticized by those who know best in the community. At the same time we do not see adequate justification for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at our next sitting.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, since the time provided for consideration of this bill is almost up, I will make only part of my remarks today. I should also mention that I will share my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. When we again consider this bill at some other time, I will finish my remarks, and my colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore will make his speech.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member of Saint-Jean's speech with great interest. I thought that the parallel that he drew was interesting. Indeed, the creation of a second department would mean further investments in limousines, instead of real treatment of the needs of the real people across this country, with respect to employment insurance, among other things.

For the last 15 years, we have been living under a free trade system. I would like to have the opinion of my colleague from Saint-Jean on the quality of jobs that were created during that period. Does he think that it is better than 15 years ago?

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we need to shift from what has been the focus over the past 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy and a Bay Street budget, to investing in our communities, in education, in the environment and in our children who are living a poorer quality of life than they were 10 years ago. This investment over the medium to long term is what Canadians need, what I strongly believe they want and the reason that they have chosen to return us to the House to fight for.

Investments, very clearly, are needed. It is taking a longer term strategy rather than just looking to Bay Street for making budgetary decisions. We will be fighting hard to make sure that those investments occur.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Not yet, but when we look at the provinces and compare the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals, the best record comes from the NDP.

Our philosophy is simple. When we are talking about paying down the debt, we do that as the GNP rises and grows. We do not invest all of our money in a Bay Street budget to pay down debt when hospitals are closing, when the number of homeless is doubling or tripling, when there are a million kids living in poverty, when food bank lineups are growing, when services are being cut back, and when key commitments like the child care commitment are broken indiscriminately.

When all those things are happening we do not sit back and say, “Let us pay down the debt”. We deal with the fundamental issues first. In this corner of the House, that is what we are fighting for.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that it was the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney that led us to record deficits in the 1980s, which was appalling financial mismanagement.

As a financial administrator myself--that is my background--I have always balanced budgets and paid down debt while maintaining services. That is a very important distinction.

It is important to note the real records of the three major parties in the House over a 20 year period across the country. A study that came out in spring 2004 actually compared the three parties, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, and their record of debt and deficits.

The reality is that the worst record, as we know very well, is that of the Liberal Party. In provincial governments and in the federal government, where it governed from 1981 to 2001, 85% of all Liberal government budgets across the country were in deficit.

The Conservative Party was a little better. For Conservative provincial and federal governments across the country over that 20 year period, 66% or two-thirds of the time the actual fiscal period returns were in deficit.

It is important to note that the best record was that of the New Democratic Party. Most of the time when we projected a surplus, we attained it. We have the best fiscal record, looking at the provinces where we have governed. We have not governed federally, of course.