Pierre Paquette

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the member for Richmond—Arthabaska sees in the government's approach to EI the same reluctance to develop safeguards as we saw in textile, apparel and furniture industries.

I know that the furniture manufacturers asked the government to order the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to investigate furniture imports from Asia.

Is it not always the same philosophy we see where the government lets the players in the economy, the workers, fend for themselves when they are faced with problems arising from market liberalization?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we could almost say that jobs were created in spite of the government. I find it surprising sometimes, given the cuts to federal transfers to the provinces. Take the roads. I thought our roads were bad in Quebec, but I went to Nova Scotia recently and the roads were absolutely awful. We cannot have road infrastructure in such bad shape and think we can continue to develop. We must invest in infrastructure.

Year after year, there is a coalition in Quebec for infrastructure investment. The cities come to see us and ask for money. For a long time, the government did not invest in infrastructure, and now it is slowly starting to use common sense. There is an infrastructure deficit that is much larger than the debt service of the past few years.

We are lucky we had this drop in interest rates, which is related more to world conditions--in particular the fact that our American neighbours have lowered their rates in spite of a major budgetary deficit--than to the actions of this government. I would be more than pleased if the government would remedy the situation, because I do not want to see unemployment in Quebec and Canada.

Quebec has the system which most resembles the one they have in Scandinavian countries to manage the labour market. We have a commission which is made up of the various stakeholders. Employers, representatives of the employees--their unions--and people from educational institutions sit at the same table. They examine the main tendencies in the development of special employment niches, and future training needs.

We have also set up local employment committees which do hands-on work in each of the RCMs to meet people's needs. A lot of things have been done. But at the federal level, I still recall the billion dollars that went unaccounted for in the Canada Jobs Fund. I do not think the Liberal or Parti Québécois governments of Quebec need any lesson from the federal government. Our mechanisms are there, and they have proven efficient.

I hope all members will support the motion of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, and that this will be the dawning of a new era where we will truly understand the foundations of prosperity.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with my close friend, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is with great pleasure that I speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Chambly—Borduas, who has done a tremendous job, as did his predecessors, with regard to employment insurance. I especially remember when the Bloc Québécois, in partnership with Quebec labour organizations, worked to prevent the Axworthy reform.

After reading the motion, I will remind hon. members of when the POWA was canceled in the 1990s and why it should be reinstated. But first, I will read the motion again:

That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.

That is the motion before us. Let me remind one thing to the hon. member who spoke of the currents of globalization and expansion of markets. Yes, maybe it is a current. As former Premier of Quebec Jacques Parizeau used to say, “globalization is like the tide; you cannot stop it, but you can contain it”.

It is statements such as those I have just heard that have led to extremes concerning free trade in recent decades. Perhaps it is time to swing the pendulum in the other direction and to understand that, if we really want globalization to serve all the people—and not simply one class of people or big international corporations—it will require measures such as the program for older worker adjustment.

Thus, if we want globalization to serve the interests of all the people, we must have measures such as POWA and many other measures as well. Let us start with this one.

I remind you that globalization does not guarantee that disparities will be reduced. Currently, while I am speaking in this debate, 1.4 billion workers across the planet earn a salary of less than $2 a day. This is 50% of all the manpower in the world. Not only are these people being exploited, but this situation allows businesses to practise social dumping on North American and European markets.

We have the right to protect ourselves against that, first by securing the jobs and income of Canadian workers, and also by signing the major conventions of the International Labour Organization. Unfortunately, Canada has not really signed these conventions—only about three out of seven. Thus, it is not in a good position to teach a lesson to China, India, Bangladesh or even the United States, where forced labour is used in contravention of the International Labour Organization conventions.

So, globalization without a regulatory framework will not guarantee that inequalities will be reduced. There is a danger of social dumping. Consequently, we need social protection measures.

Contrary to what the government has been saying since 1993, and to what the Conservatives were saying before it—because we must remember that it is the Conservatives who initiated the employment insurance reform—an opening of markets, an open economy, is not the same as an economy without social measures. This is a myth, a bias promoted by the Liberal Party of Canada, by certain Canadian right wingers and by a few business circles.

On the contrary. According to OECD data, the most open economies have the highest ratio of social spending to GDP. We are talking here about the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, Austria and Denmark. Those countries recognize, unlike what has happened in Canada in the last 15 or 20 years, that when one chooses to open up globally, everyone must bear the risks, not just a few individuals.

In the clothing and textile industries, for example, the clothing and textile workers must not be the only ones to suffer the effects of the 1995 decision to lift quotas in 2005. Canadians and Quebecers must all bear the consequences. We must first give these workers the means to face this new competition coming mainly from businesses employing low wage earners. I mentioned earlier that half of the workforce globally is not even earning $2 a day. We must therefore give our workers the means to face this competition.

Second, we have to provide to those who will be unfortunate enough to lose their job—especially older workers—some form of economic security. This is not incompatible.

Unfortunately, the government has always considered that workers' economic security was not compatible with productivity and the opening of markets.

This allows me to give a little history on the disappearance of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment.

During my time at the CSN, my colleague for Chambly--Borduas and I had to deal with massive layoffs in the early 1980s, in the iron and steel and mining sectors. On more than one occasion, we used the program which existed at the time, POWA, for occupational training and retraining, for those who could retrain for other jobs, or for income support measures until retirement, for those who, for all sorts of reasons, could not.

I remember, for example, Marine Industries, which laid off many workers and then switched production. We used POWA, at the time, to ensure that the conversion was socially responsible. We did the same thing in the asbestos sector. When the asbestos mines started to close down, we turned to POWA. It was a program which helped us face a recession or the opening of a sector subjected to greater competition. This tool was extremely useful to us.

However, in the early nineties, the Conservatives first, and then the Liberals, thought, based on the logic that I explained earlier, that the economic security of workers was incompatible with productivity and the opening of markets. So, they began sabotaging the employment insurance program. Some financial considerations also came into play. The current Prime Minister and then the Minister of Finance wanted to get his hands on some of that money to reduce the debt without having to hold a public debate.

Be that as it may, the government used some of the ideas of the Canadian and Quebec left wing, including unions, which did not want the government to provide only employment insurance, but also active measures for the labour force.

I remember, for example, a book written by Lise Poulin Simon and Diane Bellemare, entitled "Une politique de plein emploi: pourquoi et comment? . That book had been widely discussed in Quebec. At the time, the Conservatives had appropriated this title and contended that it was necessary to reduce employment insurance benefits, because these benefits did not provide jobs to people. Rather, they wanted to invest in training. They did invest in training, but that was not good enough. The fact is that when people lose their jobs, they still need to eat. They need to eat to be able to get job training.

So, the Conservatives started this movement. Later, when the Liberals took office, they continued that reform. Among others, the so-called Axworthy reform resulted in reduced accessibility to employment insurance. They also got rid of POWA while announcing new pilot projects. We have kept coming back to it for a number of years already.

Again, they present this totally false vision that, in order to be competitive, the labour force must be flexible, and in order to be flexible, it must be on its knees and forced to agree to any working conditions. It is in this context that the employment insurance reform was done. The unions fought against it. So did the Bloc Québécois. At the time, I was with the CSN union.

Now, it is very clear that the problems with unemployment are not related to a strong social protection, but to macroeconomic conditions. During the eighties and nineties, the one thing that really affected employment in Quebec and in Canada was the Bank of Canada's monetary policy, whereby interest rates were raised to unprecedented levels, simply to fight inflation. However, this had the effect of triggering recessions.

I would like to draw the members' attention to the following. It is important for people in the government to read these things and maybe clear their heads of these ancient prejudices and myths. In the first 2005 edition of Policy Analysis , in other words the most recent, there is an article by Jim Stanford. He is a well known labour market economist. He summarizes the 1980-90 period as follows:

—the relatively poorer performance of the labour market in Canada during this period was clearly a result of purely negative macroeconomic conditions and not of more interventionist, egalitarian labour market structures and policies. In the same way, the reduction in the disparity between the unemployment rates since 1996 is due to a recovery in macroeconomic conditions in Canada.

I add that because there may be some Liberals who think that the reduction in the unemployment rate is due to the cuts to employment insurance. It is not because they cut employment insurance but because of macroeconomic conditions, including reduced interest rates, that prosperity has finally returned to Canada and Quebec. We are very happy about that.

That being said, there are still some industrial sectors and regions that are weak. Tools are needed to ensure that these regions get through the difficult times and convert to other niches. The motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois and the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas should be the start of a new era in which Canadians will finally understand—I hope people already know this in Quebec—that better working conditions and social protections are the best guarantees that globalization will continue and everyone will benefit. I hope that this is the dawn of a new age, as a popular song from my youth said.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the hon. member's speech.

We are all aware of the obvious bad faith emanating from the Liberal side, from the member for Bourassa in particular. He was in Jonquière in 2000, and promised some union members, steelworkers if I remember correctly, that there would be changes made to EI but these were never forthcoming. Again this week, I am told, he did his utmost in committee to delay the study of a bill to improve one aspect of EI.

When it comes down to it, are not the federal Liberals nothing more than proponents of that neo-liberalism so unpopular everywhere in the world for its propensity to make working and living conditions worse for workers to turn them into more flexible tools for big business? When they are not able to earn a decent living, they are forced to accept just any job. One might therefore say that the Liberals are contributing to worsening working conditions everywhere in Canada.

This is my question for the hon. member. Are we not dealing here with neo-liberal politics, pure and simple?

[Société Alzheimer de Lanaudière, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 5, I will have the privilege of being the honorary chair of the Société Alzheimer de Lanaudière's memory walk.

A memory walk is held each year in various communities to raise money to help people suffering from this terrible disease and support programs, services and research.

I invite everyone to come out and walk with us on Sunday, June 5, in Joliette. I also want to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers of this organization, and I thank them on behalf of everyone suffering from this disease and their families.

Congratulations to Ms. Claudine Goulet, chair of the Société Alzheimer de Lanaudière board, and the organization's coordinator, Ms. Andrée Brousseau. Happy walking to all.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this amendment gives effect to my hon. colleague's desire to have an integrated plan. Notice as well that these proposals include a number of provisions to help the industry protect itself against certain threats that have already been identified in the past by the industry and the unions, especially at the Standing Committee on Finance.

I hope that all parties will support both the amendment and the main motion.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Motion M-164, which seeks to require the federal government to establish a true plan to support the textile and clothing industries, which are currently going through a very serious crisis. This situation was certainly predictable. However, because the government did not assume its responsibilities in this respect over the past decade, it is only right that additional efforts now be made to help companies and workers in the textile and clothing sectors. Indeed, we must allow them to adjust or change, while taking into consideration the new reality. I am referring more specifically to the lifting of quotas, on January 1—something we knew since 1995 would take place—and, of course, the emergence of China which, as we know, has experienced tremendous growth in recent years. For example, last year, that growth exceeded 9%.

This is why I am very pleased that the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup proposed this motion asking for an integrated plan. This is extremely important. Such a plan cannot include only a form of assistance to restructure the industry through more productive technology and better occupational training. Of course, such initiatives are necessary, but there must also be measures to allow this transition. The federal government has many options available. However, it has not even announced its intentions yet. It has not made any move.

I should point out that the United States and the European Community announced that they would begin looking at the possibility of initiating the process that would allow them to use safeguards. This is provided under the WTO agreement, more specifically the agreement on textile and clothing. This was also negotiated specifically with China, when it joined the WTO, in 2001. At the time, I put a question to the Minister of International Trade. I wanted to know if, should an uncontrolled invasion of Chinese or other imports in this sector—or, for that matter, in other sectors—occur, the federal Liberal government, the Government of Canada, would use the means available under international rules.

The only response I got from the Minister of International Trade was that it had gone up only 6% in two months. That was two months ago. Now it has gone up considerably in certain very specific sectors. Today we had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the unions and the industry, and were told that there had been some quite major increases in Chinese imports, in particular men's trousers, and undergarments and brassieres, where they exceeded 100%. These figures are for the first four months of 2005.

I would remind hon. members that, according to the clothing and textile sector human resources committee, there have been 4,000 jobs lost since January 1. That is huge. In comparison, the U.S. figure of 12,000 lost jobs is nothing compared to the 4,000 in Canada, given the American market. In the U.S., their government has initiated a process whereby there is a possibility of implementing some potential protective measures.

The European Union is looking at the situation. Some EU member states and some businesses are concerned. The administration of the EU has announced that they have set in motion a process that might lead to protective measures. What about Canada? No word of anything.

Fortunately certain members, such as the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, want more than just speeches. And goodness knows we have had plenty of those. I have heard plenty of talk from the Liberals, and now we need some very concrete action.

What the hon. member is proposing is a plan that would enable us to meet future challenges. We do not want to have protective measures for our markets indefinitely. I think everyone must agree on that . As we know, these are measures that can be used for three years, so we would give ourselves three years to achieve a proper transition to areas requiring more leading edge technology, while not abandoning a broad range of apparel product areas in which we have performed very well.

I would point out that, when we signed the free trade agreement with the United States and the North American free trade agreement, which Mexico signed, alarmists warned of catastrophes in the textile and clothing sectors. These industries did very well, on the contrary, and we were able to help them face new situations.

There is nothing at the moment, apart from a plan cobbled together after the closure of the six companies in Huntingdon. It was high time to return to the House to propose a plan to supplement the inadequate one cobbled together, which the government presented in December.

After discussion with my colleague for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, we would like to push our proposals a little further. With his consent, and seconded by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, I would like to move the following amendment:

That Motion M-164 be amended by inserting the following after the words “in particular”

by maintaining the tariffs on imported clothing and the types of textiles produced in Canada;

by establishing, as required, quotas on Chinese imports under the protocol on China's accession to the WTO;

by allowing clothing made with Canadian textiles but manufactured abroad to be imported without customs duties;

by imposing stricter rules of origin on less developed countries;

by negotiating Canada's adherence to the agreements concluded between the United States and Central American and Caribbean countries;

by adopting a local purchase policy, where allowed under international agreements;

by asking certain countries to increase their minimum labour standards and environmental standards in order to prevent offshoring to locations with lower costs;

by requiring detailed labels to allow consumers to identify the source of the products they purchase;

by increasing occupational training transfers to Quebec;

by creating an adjustment program for older workers;

by establishing a modernization assistance program for the clothing and textile sectors that would stimulate research and development as well as creation.

I therefore move this amendment, which, in my opinion, expresses in even more detail my colleague's desire for a real assistance plan and an integrated plan of support for the industry and the people working in it today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether I have any time left. I really wanted to make sure I could introduce my amendment.

[Softwood Lumber, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on May 23, a NAFTA panel reiterated that countervailing duties imposed by the United States on softwood lumber are illegal. As a result of the three earlier NAFTA panel decisions in this case, the U.S. Department of Commerce has reduced the original subsidy from 18.79% to 1.88%. However, the Americans continue to impose an unjustified 16.37% subsidy rate.

The Minister of International Trade announced aid for softwood lumber industry associations, but only for late 2005. This aid is insufficient and would only allow the industry to pay a small portion of its legal fees, which have exceeded $350 million to date.

The industry in Quebec and Canada needs a real assistance plan, right now, to survive the harassment by the American industry. The situation is all the more urgent since the industry must not only assume astronomical legal fees and over $4.5 billion in illegal duties, but deal with a slowdown in construction. The government must take its head out of the sand and act.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the argument made by the member for Honoré-Mercier concerning Bill C-9. As we already know, the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill not so much because of some aspects relative to job creation or regional development but mostly because it creates a new entity. Actually, while there was an agency, we are now creating a department in order to give the federal government more tools to intrude in the development of Quebec regions. This is why we cannot accept this bill.

That being said, how can we possibly find his argument consistent with the fact that, for instance concerning the summer career placement program on which we have worked during the past few weeks, most of the rural regions of Quebec have suffered substantial cuts, thus encouraging out-migration in rural areas? In my view, this is a contradiction that totally invalidates his argument.

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. For a long time, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a policy on shipbuilding.

We note that Canada Steamship Lines—owned by the Prime Minister's sons—has its ships built in Korea. In the current negotiations, in the free trade agreement with the Scandinavian countries, specifically Norway, there is no concern for keeping some shipbuilding here. There is cause for concern.

The same problems are to be found in the textile, clothing and aerospace industries. There are a number of industries here in Ottawa that do not seem to be in this government's good graces and are being left to their own devices.

I conclude by saying that assistance with legal costs, for example, in the matter of softwood lumber, is minimal and will not be available until the end of the year. In the meantime, a number of businesses will have time to go bankrupt.