Debates of June 9th, 2005

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, June 14, 2004.

[The Speaker]

It would then take place at midnight.

Does the parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to present this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

There is no agreement. There will no doubt be further discussions.

Supply

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

moves:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this motion before the House today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Its purpose is to remedy, at least to some extent, the injustice done to a particular group of workers, namely older workers.

The motion before us has four features, which I will outline here to the House. First, of course, I should discuss the rationale behind this motion. It is obviously because of the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization. This is something that the Bloc Québécois has studied in considerable depth over the last few months in order to make the government more aware of the need to prevent a situation caused by this new phenomenon.

The government should therefore develop a strategy for helping this particular group made up of older workers who have lost their jobs. This strategy should include a very specific measure to provide support when these people have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

Under its economic strategy, the Liberal government has cut employment insurance over the last few years. In doing this, it eliminated a program that was essential to the group of workers whom we are targeting today.

The social safety net used to provide an income through employment insurance for people who had the misfortune of losing their jobs in a climate of massive job losses, but it was abandoned in 1997. This has done a lot of harm to a particular segment of Canadian society, as well as to another segment that that I know a little better—the one in Quebec.

Originally, the component that we are discussing today was called the older workers assistance program. The definition of it was changed over the years and the name became the program for older worker adjustment or POWA. The nuances here are easy to see. By removing the idea of “assistance” for older workers, the government wanted to put more emphasis on these workers adapting and returning to work. We agree with that of course. But what we agree with much less is the government abandoning its support for people who cannot retrain.

It is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois that the federal government has done nothing for older workers, although they are in dire straits. The Bloc is calling for the implementation of an income support program for these workers. This program must be part of an overall strategy to assist older workers.

I will come back to this, since it has two major parts, as I indicated earlier: preparing older workers to re-enter the labour force, if possible, and the obvious need to support these workers and their families. Older people often have family and social responsibilities.

I want to provide some background information, a sort of review, to clearly show that we are not breaking new ground here. In existence from 1988 to 1997, the program for older worker adjustment was for people between the ages of 55 and 64 who met various criteria and had lost their jobs as a result of massive permanent layoffs.

So, in every group of workers affected by permanent massive layoffs, there were some older workers who were eligible for this particular program.

In a penny-pinching strategy still preferred by the Liberal Party until quite recently—which we will get to in a moment—the government, contrary to common sense, cut this program on March 31, 1997. Under federal-provincial agreements, including the Canada-Quebec agreement, the costs of this program were shared, 70% by the federal government and 30% by the provinces.

In 1996, the year before the program was eliminated, 11,700 people were still enrolled in the program as the result of 900 massive layoffs. After it disappeared, a new provision appeared. The program itself does not exist for these workers at present, but it has been amended numerous times by pilot projects that train workers for re-entry into the labour force. So, this income support, which was so essential, no longer exists.

It must also be pointed out that, statistically speaking, there are not that many unemployed older workers. In other words, proportionally, they are laid off less often than others. When they are laid off, however, they are unemployed longer. This is, of course, because when a worker is over 50, and even more so over 55, he has trouble getting back into the work force because employers are always looking to hire people who will be with them for a long time.

This trend has changed a little because of the shortage of jobs in certain fields, but the concrete reality for workers is unchanged.

The Employment Insurance Commission recently indicated that, even if older workers have benefited from a considerable increase in jobs in 2003-04, there is still an unemployment rate of 5.8%. When older workers lose their jobs, they have far greater difficulties in getting back into the work force. They are over-represented among the long-term unemployed, composing 21.3% of that group, yet only 12.5% of the work force. In other words, 12.5% of workers are over the age of 55, yet 21.3% of unemployed workers are over that age.

As I said, training programs for these workers are, without a doubt, good things. They do want to return to work, unless they have some health problem or other type of problem. The difficulty, however, lies with job openings. As a result, all this income assistance is now absent.

According to four union studies, the older workers are, the harder it is for them to access training. It is therefore harder on them if they lose their jobs because, on top of the lack of access to training, the skills they have acquired are out of phase with today's job requirements. The unions' studies have proven this.

The figures in this regard speak eloquently. Workers over 55 years of age account for only 3.5% of participants in the regular component of skills development, that is, training programs.

Of the critical mass of people taking training under existing programs, only 3.5% are older people.

The Employment Insurance Commission also notes that, as a general rule, older workers remain unemployed longer than do workers between the ages of 25 and 54. The figure is 33.6 weeks versus 23.3 weeks, and, in both cases, the workers involved are less well educated. In fact, 39.1% of older workers have not completed high school, as compared with 18.9% of workers between 25 and 54 years of age.

Workers have been calling for the reinstatement of the program for older worker adjustment since its abolition in 1997 by the Minister of Finance, the current Prime Minister.

I think there is some sort of consensus among all stakeholders concerned about employment to see that aging workers who have been laid off get some support when they lose their job.

It is important to say as well with respect to our motion today that it is a reminder about the form POWA took in 1993. Quebec and Ottawa renewed the 1988 agreement in January 1993. It addressed workers over the age of 55 who were included in massive layoffs and reduced from 15 to 13 the number of years of employment entitling them to take advantage of the program.

From this, a guide could be established for implementing the program.

Workers aged 55 to 60 could also draw, once their EI benefits had run out, a monthly benefit of between $760 and $1,000, determined by their income, on the condition, of course, that they remained available for work.

This contradicts the statements made on the other side of the House to the effect that older workers simply want an income while they wait for their old age pension, as it is popularly called.

That is totally wrong. The program we want to see ensures that the workers concerned, health and physical condition permitting, are available for work. When they are unable to find work, they could receive benefits.

For those aged 60 to 64, the benefits were set at $700 because the RRQ benefits could be tacked on to their income. Previously, these benefits varied between $750 and $1,200.

And this did not prevent recipients from working, on the contrary. Only 40% of employment income in excess of $300 could be deducted from the benefits under the program. This enabled order workers to re-enter the labour force on a temporary basis, part time or in what is termed today atypical jobs, while continuing to receive a portion of the POWA benefits to make up the difference, so they could have a decent income to live on.

That said, we want to reiterate that, more than ever, older workers need help. Since the beginning of this Parliament, the Bloc Québécois has called upon the government on three occasions to implement this program.

We were not the only ones to call upon the government. We were not the only ones to denounce its lack of action on the whole issue of globalization and the entry of products from China and India on the Canadian market.

On February 9—four months ago, that is pretty recent—the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, who was the Conservative member of Parliament for Newmarket—Aurora at the time, told the Speaker of the House of Commons the following, and I quote from the Official Report of the Proceedings of the House of Commons :

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely shocking that the trade minister yesterday said he would not weep for Canadian jobs lost to cheap labour markets in China and India.

Essentially what the minister has said is that he does not care about the hard-working Canadian men and women who might lose their jobs because the government has not shown enough leadership to ensure that the jobs stay here in the first place. What is the minister going to do to keep jobs here in Canada and create new jobs here in Canada?

Today, I am asking her: What would be her answer to the question that she put four months ago? She is now in a position to answer it. If she thought it was outrageous four months ago, I want to know if the principles in which she takes pride still make her feel that it is outrageous, now that she has crossed the floor of the House. Is what was immoral four months ago now acceptable because she has since changed parties?

This calls for an answer, and we certainly hope that the new minister will answer today the question that she put to the minister on February 9.

The cost of an improved POWA for the federal government would be around $55 million for the first year, and $75 million for subsequent years. This estimate is confirmed by a number of economists. The caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada, of which the new minister is now a member, also expressed its support for restoring POWA. Here is an excerpt from the October 21, 2004 edition of the Trois-Rivières daily Le Nouvelliste , barely six months ago:

The Liberal caucus wants to restore the program for older worker adjustment.

Yesterday, the federal Liberals' Quebec caucus asked the Minister of Human Resources, Joe Volpe, to re-introduce the program for older worker adjustment.

The federal Liberals' Quebec caucus added:

This program will allow workers aged 55 and over, who have low skill levels and who lost their jobs, to bridge the gap between the time they find themselves unemployed and their retirement.

I have another interesting quote. I am directing my comments to people who pride themselves in having principles, to see if they also keep their word. This is from a famous character in this House, and I wonder if he keeps his word:

According to MP Denis Coderre, this program worked well at the time, but was abolished because of cuts.

This is definitely not helping the unemployed.

Mr. Coderre contends that the disruption, in terms of layoffs, caused by globalization in the primary clothing and textile industry, will require the government to look at the plight of older workers, as it did for seasonal workers.

On February 15, the standing committee, where all parties are represented, submitted a report in which recommendation N

o

13, is exactly along the same lines as our motion today. This is why I am asking all parliamentarians here to support this motion.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to get the consent of the House. There was a little bit of confusion earlier.

I repeat. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until 9:59 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2005.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest. I know his strong commitment to older workers. I share his feelings for those workers.

In the course of his speech, he said that the government wants workers of a certain age to say home. That is not the case at all. Quite the contrary, in fact it was our government that has created the most jobs, including in Quebec. We want people to work. We do not want them to stay home and cash cheques. We want to create opportunities for them. That is why we developed pilot projects for workers who lose their jobs.

In my riding of Ahuntsic, there are two organizations that work to create opportunities for people who have lost their jobs, including those in the textile and apparel industry. I have been defending people who lose their jobs since the first day I was elected to this place.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague. Would he admit that we want to create jobs, for example, in the high technology sector? Let us take the textile and apparel industry as an example. There are few jobs where sewing machines are used, but new technology has been introduced to the factories.

There are ways to train people who have always worked in the same sector and always done their job the same way. On the other hand, labour force training is the responsibility of Quebec and the other provinces. I should mention here that we are about to sign an agreement on the subject with Ontario. Cooperation is necessary between the provinces, including Quebec, and the federal government.

Would the hon. member admit that such cooperation is needed to ensure training of those workers so they can find new jobs?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank the parliamentary secretary for her question. She is quite right about the need to continue the job training and adjustment programs.

I would like to hear what my colleague says about the income needed by people who lose their jobs and are entitled to employment insurance benefits—when they are entitled to them, because let us remember that only 38% of people who contribute to employment insurance can expect to receive benefits.

However, from the time their EI benefits end until the time they receive their income security cheque, if they are not lucky enough to find another job, must I understand that the position of the member's party is to leave a void and leave these people without any income?

In response to her question, we are taking the following option: we must first recognize that they have no income from the time their EI benefits end. Second, do they receive any income or not? Also, have there been experiences in the past?

Yes, and this was done at the Canadian government level through the employment insurance program. This was a program that produced very positive results and was inexpensive. When this program was terminated in March 1997, it was costing $21 million out of a budget of approximately $17 billion. Today, this program would cost between $50 million and $60 million, if we were to start this year or later, out of a budget that totalled $16.3 billion last year.

That is how we respond to the question that was asked. I will conclude my answer by asking another question. Does the Liberal Party agree with us that we must help these people? If it says no, the answer must not stop there. It must tell us why it would abandon these people, when the money is available and the needs are there. There are people now in cabinet who agreed with this only four months ago.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for bringing forth a resolution such as this for debate. It is an issue that should be debated in the House. There are many older people, who have contributed to this country for years, being displaced from their jobs not only because of globalization. There are other factors as well.

We have, because of pressures today from China in particular, seen even in the fishing industry companies not being able to compete in the marketplace. This means a displacement of workers in textiles, the fishery and paper mills in our own province because of globalization to a point but also because of other factors. There are major industries closing down and displacing many older workers.

Young people are usually not a problem. They can be retrained. They can pack up and go somewhere else. However, people at a certain age who have invested everything where they live, who knew they had a job at home years ago did not worry too much about education, and who are now 55 to 60 years of age and have absolutely nowhere to go, have been neglected. I think that is terrible.

In light of displaced workers there is one little catch which a lot of people had problems with in a similar program some years ago. It just went on age alone. There was a minimum of so many working years and a certain age. We had people who had worked perhaps 35 years in a factory, but because they had started very young they were not 55 or 60 years of age, or whatever the cutoff was, and got nothing. Whereas other people who worked for 3 or 4 years got benefits until they received their old age pension. I do not think that is fair. I would like the member's opinion on that.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his most relevant question.

Age was not mentioned. If the House passes our motion and establishes a committee to develop a strategy and agree on a mechanism, then we will have to set the parameters.

To reassure my colleague, there are some very specific indicators. First, there was the age of 55 years which was established in the former program and which did not generate outlandish costs, as I mentioned earlier.

In its recommendations, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities proposes 50 years. The point raised by our colleague is the following. For a person, for instance, who started to work at a very early age, who has paid EI premiums all his or her life and who will soon turn 45, 47, 48 or 49 years of age, could there be a mechanism allowing that person to receive that benefit nonetheless?

Obviously, that person will be in a better position to return to the labour market if he or she is 45 or 50 years old. We do not want that mechanism to be in place today. However, it is already clear that there are very specific indicators that can tell us what kind of rules should be put in place in that regard.

For instance, if the age was set at 50 years, which means 5 years younger, people in that age bracket are more likely to go back to work than those who are over 55 years old. The cost is thus much lower and not a lot of additional costs are generated.

I share your view that one has to take into account the situation of those people who have spent 30 or 35 years of their life in the labour market and who find themselves in a financial dead end today.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, I am pleased to participate in this discussion. The motion presented by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas talks about establishing a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs and a strategy that should include income support measures. The Government of Canada has already begun helping older workers to meet the challenges they face following loss of their employment.

Today's labour market is changing like never before and it is no stretch to say that globalization is one of the main factors spurring on such an evolution. Obviously, living in a global village has also opened the door to a wide world of opportunities. Such opportunities have allowed all of us, from governments to business and individual citizens, to build a better society in order to enhance our understanding of the world around us and to participate in the building of a country whose economy is thriving and prosperous.

However, globalization does have it challenges. An aggressive global marketplace means that productivity and competitiveness are crucial. Canadians are very successful in this global marketplace. Just take a look at our unemployment rate. In fact, during this period of intensifying global competitiveness, our unemployment rate has dropped from 12.1% in 1992 to 6.8% today.

The Government of Canada knows that globalization also means change. We cannot ignore the fact that certain communities, certain sectors and some Canadians face real challenges. Nor can we ignore the fact that our labour force which began to slow in the 1980s will slow even more as older baby boomers begin to retire. In the next 10 years retirement will create more job openings and growth in our economy. In fact, by 2013 retirements are expected to rise to 470,000 and by that same year should account for 75% of all new job openings.

Mindful of such statistics and factors, the Government of Canada has created tools and programs to help Canadians. Whenever Canadians are affected by major labour market adjustments, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, in partnership with other departments and with provincial and territorial governments, is there to respond quickly and effectively.

The Government of Canada is aware that supports for workers who experience unemployment are critical to maintain the quality of life for themselves and their families, to allow time for them to adjust, gain new skills if necessary, and to move on to new employment and to help stabilize the economies of communities that are affected by a downturn in employment. To this end more than $9 billion has already been provided in EI income benefits to people who lost their jobs last year and this does not include the over $4 billion paid in special benefits. Nearly $1.2 billion went to workers aged 55 and over. Overall, 186,000 older workers received help.

As my colleagues in the House already know, employment insurance provides temporary income support to insured people in Canada who involuntarily lose their jobs. It is specifically designed to be responsive to changes in labour markets by adjusting entrance requirements and the duration of entitlement to regular benefits when regional unemployment rates change. Whenever Canadian communities are faced with economic hardship, HRSDC is quick to get involved to ensure that those workers who are affected receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

For example, officials from a local HRSDC office will usually get in touch with the affected companies and immediately offer their assistance. This often includes helping employees make their claims for EI benefits and processing those claims as quickly as possible. Rapid processing of EI claims is important and not just for financial support purposes. The sooner workers receive compensation, the sooner they become eligible for active employment measures.

The Government of Canada knows that income support is not enough. That is why we provided $2.2 billion in active measures to help Canadians prepare for new jobs. We know what workers want most is to re-enter the workforce quickly. Losing a job is not the equivalent of losing the desire to work. Given our globalized economy and demographic challenges, we need the skills and the experience that our older workers bring to the workplace.

What are we doing about it? As I said, we spent $2.2 billion in collaboration with the provinces and the territories. These funds support a wide range of programs across Canada that are tailored to meet the needs of the local communities. For example, unemployed workers can receive up to three years of training if they need skills upgrading in order to find new and lasting employment. If they choose to start a new business, they can receive income support for up to one year, or longer if disabled.

Programs are also in place for people who just need new or additional work experience to improve their chances of finding permanent employment, but more than ever, we know that the world has changed since our most experienced workers entered the workplace.

Today, the small things matter. Writing a resumé, preparing for an interview, and understanding job search strategies all play a big role in finding a new job. We are there working in partnership with the provinces and the territories, employers and communities to meet these challenges.

Let me talk a little bit about the older workers pilot project initiative. In addition to EI measures we have been working in close collaboration with the provinces and the territories to test new and innovative approaches to help older workers to find and retain employment.

Over the past six years the government has invested over $50 million in the older workers pilot project initiative. I am pleased to inform the House that the initiative was recently extended to May 2006 and has been enriched by $5 million. The provinces that participated in the initiative are Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.

I would like to present two examples of these projects. First, an agriculture awareness community service program on the Bay de Verde Peninsula that saw 12 unemployed workers between the ages of 55 and 64 learn nursery skills and the use of related modern technologies. Second, the creation and delivery of a broad training initiative that prepared 40 workers, aged over 50, unemployed due to fish plant closures, to re-enter the workforce in Nova Scotia's Guysborough County.

There are many more projects under way and many more Canadians are re-entering the workplace, thanks to the older workers pilot project initiative.

There is also the workplace skills strategy. Our approach to help working Canadians does not end there. The Government of Canada wants to support all Canadian workers to help them to keep working. In today's economy, the best way for them to stay employed is to upgrade and refine old skills and to develop new ones so they can better adapt to the changing circumstances of our workplaces.

Because our country's future competitiveness rests largely on the shoulders of productive, high performance workplaces that support skills development, the Government of Canada announced in the last Speech from the Throne a workplace skills strategy. It will ensure that the Canadian workforce is highly skilled, adaptable and resilient, that will add to a flexible and efficient labour market, and will respond to the needs of employers to ensure that our workplaces are productive, innovative and competitive.

Budget 2005 set aside $125 million over three years to begin implementing our plan to strengthen the skills of Canadian workers. This strategy is based on extensive research conducted in recent years as well as advice we have received from stakeholders like the provinces, employers, unions and learning institutions.

Sector councils have provided valuable advice on how to best develop and utilize the skills and abilities of Canadians. They have led the way in anticipating and planning for workforce adjustments. Across Canada, some 30 national sector councils bring together business, labour, educational stakeholders and key industries to identify and address common human resources and skills issues, and to find solutions that benefit each of those particular sectors.

These councils are instrumental in giving Canadians a cutting edge lead into the 21st century workplace by ensuring that current workers and those seeking employment are well prepared for the challenges of this rapidly evolving labour market. The textile and apparel sectors in Quebec offer perfect examples of these industries trying to adapt to an increasingly globalized world.

Recently we invested $5.9 million in the Textiles Human Resources Council and $3.4 million in the Apparel Human Resources Council. We recognize the significant place their industries occupy in this economy. Few sectors can boast a better investment record than the textile industry. As a direct consequence of its position at the forefront of innovation, firms have become globally competitive players carrying out new international markets. Yet despite its very progressive place in the world market, the textile industry is still adapting.

Likewise, the apparel industry, with a workforce of 65,000 people and exports of $3.5 billion in goods annually, is at the cutting edge of this global economy. However, with the entry of China into the WTO and the lifting of all import quotas, the apparel industry is going through an intense restructuring phase. However, this sector is responding to the adjustment challenges by taking steps to attract young people, recruit skilled workers, as well as to retain the current workforce.

Both the Textiles Human Resources Council and the Apparel Human Resources Council have set themselves at the forefront of these issues affecting their respective industries. They are providing investments in people that yield significant returns for individuals, industry, the economy and society at large, and the other 28 sector councils are doing the same.

Employment among older workers has grown steadily since the mid-1990s and has generally outpaced growth among workers aged between 25 and 54, as well as youth aged between 15 and 24. In fact the unemployment rate for workers aged 45 and over currently stands at 5.4% while the unemployment rate for Canadians aged between 55 and 64 is currently holding steady at 5.9%. Both figures are slightly lower than the national unemployment rate at 6.8%.

These numbers are a clear indication that Canada's older workers still have a valuable place in our labour market, so we should be doing even more to promote greater awareness of older workers, not less. For example, we can make it easier for older adults to access training. We can advance the recruitment of older adults. We can increase recognition of credentials within Canada to facilitate the labour movement. Each of these strategies will help us to enhance opportunities for older workers rather than to limit them.

Recognizing that the government of Canada already provides substantial income support to older workers through the EI program and is actively engaged with the provinces and with the territories in assessing ways to improve our already significant active re-employment measure, I am pleased to support this motion which calls for an older worker strategy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister about long term strategies for dealing with older workers. I thank our colleagues from the Bloc for having brought this to the fore, because dealing with an aging workforce is a major issue.

However, what I feel needs to be discussed is broadening this issue out into the big picture. We are moving toward the perfect storm for pensions. We have a number of issues that are all coming to the fore. First, we have an aging workforce. Second are the issues of globalization, outsourcing of our jobs and having to go up against countries like China in numerous sectors. Third, the fundamental issue that has to be put into the equation is we have had an agenda in corporate Canada for the last generation where we have moved from having employees paying into pensions toward contract workers.

In my generation, I could probably count on one hand people I know who pay into pensions on a regular basis. Most people in my generation have been working on contract with various jobs. They move from here to there. Some years they make some money and they put it aside, but when the times are bad they lose those savings. In my age group, mid-forties, I find that many people have not paid any significant amounts into pensions.

What is the long term strategy of the government for dealing with the fact that fewer and fewer people pay steadily into a pension fund?

We have an aging workforce and we are having to deal with the factors of globalization. The issue will start to hit very seriously in the next few years. We see a crisis now in segments with older workers. What is the long term vision to ensure that we have a pension fund for all Canadians that will be maintained well into this coming century?

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the goal at the end of the day is to provide a better quality of life for all Canadians. In particular, we are discussing older Canadians. I appreciate the member's comments and I will ensure that we take those comments into consideration when we look at the overall comprehensive strategy. I will be happy to discuss that in great detail with my colleagues to ensure we look at things in a comprehensive way.

The goal at the end of the day is to provide a better qualify of life for seniors and for older workers. We have done a number of things to address that, both as it relates to temporary income support program, which applies basically to all Canadians, and through active measures, in particular the pilot programs that are currently underway and which have been extended until May 2006.

The conclusion of those pilot programs should come out in November. They will form a great input or the basis for the strategy that we are to develop as we go forward.

The goal is a better quality of life and how can we enable more mature citizens to upgrade their skills to adapt to the changes in the workplace and in the increased competition through globalization and to ensure that their skills are relevant so at the end of the day they are able to use those skills to find a good quality job, if they wish to do so.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her explanation. I would, however, like her to reconsider her conclusion.

Did I understand correctly that the minister would support the Bloc motion? That is my first question. If so, we are very pleased. If applicable, I would like to know her understanding of the motion and her perspective on its application.

The second part of my question is an invitation to the minister. It supports her speech on the following principle: just because someone loses their job does not mean they lose the desire to work. Her colleagues applauded when she made that comment. I find that quite worrisome. This argument seems to based on prejudice. Older workers do not find new jobs, not because they do not want to work.

I do not know whether the minister fully realizes that there are two sides to helping older workers. First, professional training is needed to help the workers acquire new skills. We realize programs are already in place for this. Today's motion is to help older workers who do not manage to find work, yet have the desire to do so. Almost all of them want to work.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that we support the motion. As the workforce is aging, we believe we must take a look at this and do everything we possibly can. We have to find out how we can best enable more mature workers to continue working.

We support the motion. I welcome all ideas as we develop the strategy. We have done quite a bit of work already, recognizing that the conclusions out of the pilot project will come forward in November. They will form good input. They also will be the basis on which to build on that strategy.

I welcome good ideas on how we can better enable more mature workers to be contributors to the economy, to achieve economic freedom and independence and to build a better quality of life.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on her appointment. She has taken over one of the more difficult ministries. The whole workforce development is an extremely important issue for our Canadian economy and society. As we have seen over the last several weeks, she has a very thorough grasp of this file. It is my belief that the House, the government and all Canadians will benefit as a result.

I appreciated her speech and I am pleased to see that the minister has supported the resolution. However, I find it resolution rather specific. I agree with her it should be supported, but it deals with older workers. We also have disabled workers, workers from visible minorities, aboriginal workers and workers from the regions. We also are dealing with a demographic time bomb as we look into the future, as the minister is aware.

Although she did support the resolution, is this not part of an overall strategy to deal with the entire Canadian workforce?

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a principle, we are moving more toward a concept of lifelong learning. That means investing in our young people and those employees who currently have a job so they can upgrade their skills to meet the challenges of the workplace. It also means taking a look at older workers, how they can stay in the workplace, upgrade their skills and work with employers to ensure the investment is there as workers approach retirement years.

We are looking at it in a comprehensive way, and that would be lifelong learning. However, that lifelong learning will be incorporated into our workplace skills strategy, which we are currently refining and working on and which we should be able to release fairly soon.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech and I have a few observations.

It is a matter of money being paid to the regions to help people better develop their job-related skills, following technological changes, for example. I am completely in favour of that. This goes well with the Phase II employment insurance programs.

The Bloc motion also mentions plant closures. The reality in the regions, in my riding or in the Gaspé, is that fish plants are closing, leaving 50 or 55 year olds, who do not have a high school diploma, without work. There is a lot of catching up to do before those people can go back to work.

I would like the minister's opinion. The strategy is for older workers who have lost their job. Is the government really going to spend money on training people who are close to retirement age? That is one of the biggest problems in many of the regions where the unemployment rate is 20% or more. These are my examples. I would like to know the minister's thoughts on this.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, factory closures happen for a number of reasons. Broadly based, there is increased global competition. How will Canada compete in this global economy?

I strongly believe we must invest in people and build the human capital. That is more of a concept of lifelong learning. Everybody needs a good quality job at the end of the day. We have to invest in young people, ensure they get the right early start in life and have access to education. As they enter the workforce, we also have to ensure that they continuously upgrade their skills.

It is not just about identifying programs for workers who have lost their jobs. There are programs in place for that. This is looking at it in a more comprehensive way such as how people can continuously upgrade their skills in life as the demands of this global economy force us to do so, as competition increases and we have to be more productive. There are a number of ways to be more productive, but an important part of that is investing in people so people build the knowledge base and the skills base that allow them to compete for good quality jobs and so business has access to a highly qualified and skilled workforce to allow it to compete in the global marketplace.