Diane Finley

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are not planning any privatization of CMHC. I repeat, we are not planning any privatization of CMHC.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, reports about any privatization of CMHC are unfounded, baseless, and do not even merit discussion because they are not on the agenda.

CMHC will continue to provide over $2 billion in affordable housing assistance that will help 630,000 families right across this country.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest with the House that it never occurred to us to privatize CMHC. Reports to the contrary are simply untrue, false, erroneous, inaccurate and downright wrong.

[Literacy, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected this government because they wanted, for a change, a government that would respect taxpayers' dollars and deliver value for money on all its programs. That is why we have been reviewing our programs.

That is why we are focusing our efforts, our energies and our dollars on programs that deliver real results, real results for real Canadians, not support for advocates. On the literacy program, we are going to focus on books, more books, not more bureaucrats.

[Older Workers, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are about to launch a feasibility study that will help look at long term solutions. We are also evaluating alternatives for the short term in the meantime.

[Older Workers, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we as a government do value older workers in this country. That is why, unlike those others, we are trying to help them get back to work. We committed to conducting a feasibility study that would look at long term solutions for people affected wherever they are in this country if they are of a certain age.

We do, however, unlike the party opposite, believe that we need to try to take advantage of this tremendous talent pool. That is our primary objective.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to go back and review some of the facts because he is frankly quite wrong in much of what he said.

One of our early actions as a new government was to bring in the seasonal workers pilot project to help the very seasonal workers to whom he refers, five week pilot projects to enhance the benefits for the unemployed who work in seasonal jobs.

We are also spending over $2 billion in workplace skills development, over $80 million in literacy programs, as well as over $300 million to help new Canadians get the skills they need in this market, all of the things which the hon. member voted against.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that older workers who have been displaced really face many challenges, there is no doubt about that. That is why we are committed to our feasibility study because we do not want to rush in with some quick fix solution, some haphazard program that may or may not work. We want to take advantage of all of the lessons that have been learned and even develop some new ones, so that we can build programs that will work in the long term.

It is really important to note that Canada's demand for labour is just the opposite of what it was in the 1990s. In the 1990s, there were way too many people for way too few jobs. Today's market and going forward 10 years at least, we will be facing just the opposite where there will be way too few people in our country for too many jobs.

We have to take advantage of the people who are here to fill those jobs. Quite frankly, the older workforce, 55 plus, are the single best pool of talent and we have to tap into it. We cannot afford as a country to keep older workers out of the labour market. We must encourage their participation in every way possible.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I am very pleased to rise today to respond to the motion from the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

As the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, I know that Canadians can draw strength from the fact that Canada is near the top again this year in terms of job growth among G-7 and OECD countries. Our unemployment rate of 6.5% in August was one of the lowest in the last 30 years. Job gains have occurred in every region and across all age groups right across this country.

However, I do share the member's concern for the situation that older workers face when they are suddenly left without work, due to plant closures, downsizing or other economic circumstances beyond their control.

The hon. member's motion includes all economic sectors in all regions, but we know that the problem is especially acute for older workers in small communities that depend on a single industry for their livelihood. This particularly affects workers in sectors such as forestry, fishing, mining and textiles.

For older workers, the challenges that losing their job presents are especially tough. Throughout their working lives, these people have been self-reliant and independent. They have worked hard at their jobs day by day. They have been saving up for their retirement. Then, before their plans are in place, hard times hit their place of employment.

In many small towns, when the major employer lays off workers, the entire community is affected. Often, the older workers need a few more years of income before they can retire. What do they do now? Do they rely upon their retirement savings until their pension kicks in? Do they sell their house or take out a new mortgage, which is pretty tough to do when they don't have a job? Or do they try to find another line of work? But, then, how would they learn the new skills?

These are hard choices for people who have worked all their lives trying to build security for their families. We all share a concern for the plight of displaced older workers in situations like this.

In responding to the motion from the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, we must ask ourselves: What is the best solution? Is an early retirement program the answer; and if so, would that solution suit the needs of Canada's labour market, or even that of the local economy?

An income support program, such as the hon. member proposes, would essentially remove all older workers from the workforce now and in the future. This removal would be premature and detrimental to the workers, and to Canada's labour market.

Older workers have become the principal source of labour growth in recent years. Since late 2002, it accounted for over half the employment growth in Canada and increases in older worker participation have become the major driver of increases in the overall Canadian participation rate. As the Canadian population ages, encouraging older worker participation will play a very important role in meeting employment demand.

Simply put, Canada cannot at this time afford to pension off workers who are valuable and all too often an unrecognized asset. Rather, any intervention should be geared to providing those workers with the tools they need to remain employable and should not act as a disincentive to labour market participation, relocation or the pursuit of skills upgrading.

Canada's economy needs the skills, the experience and the expertise of all older workers. We need the perspective they bring from a lifetime in the workforce. This is especially true for smaller and medium-sized businesses that often have a hard time finding people, and these businesses are the engine of our Canadian economy.

Canada is not the only country that faces these challenges. In fact, the OECD has recently reviewed the situation facing older workers in the industrialized world. It points out that with the demographics of an aging society, economies need to keep older workers in the workforce to ensure growth and prosperity in a period like we are facing now, of shrinking labour supply. In fact, the OECD advises against early retirement programs and against any other type of program structure that would lead to and encourage early retirement.

In the budget last May, Canada's new government committed to examining ways to help displaced older workers. We promised to undertake a feasibility study to evaluate current and potential measures to assist older workers in the Canadian workforce. This study will examine a number of options and will involve consultations with provinces and territories, stakeholder groups and experts from across Canada.

The options examined may well include early retirement benefits which would be along the lines of the suggestions of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, but there are other options. There are other ways to help older workers while ensuring that they remain a vital force in the economy.

We have a very solid foundation to build on assisting older workers reintegrate into the workforce. The Government of Canada has the benefit of drawing from lessons learned from the older worker pilot project initiative that concluded in May of this year.

Let me share with the House some of the lessons that we learned from that. We found that the most successful pilot projects are those that combine employment assistance services with some form of training, marketing and work experience. As well, we found that it is important for the programs to be flexible. One size does not fit all. The best programs allow attention to individual situations and needs, including the skills of older workers, specific labour market conditions and the identification of opportunities that exist in specific cities, towns or regions.

Programs must provide enough time for displaced older workers to learn new skills. The training must be practical and relevant to the participants. There are indeed potential new careers for those displaced older workers, careers that take advantage of their lifetime experience and interests, careers that can help older workers take pride in the way that they continue to build the economy of their communities, and careers that provide self-reliance. It is important to identify the new careers that are most relevant and realistic for older workers on a case by case basis.

In the meantime, contrary to what the hon. member opposite would have us believe, we have many programs to help those who find themselves without work. Displaced older workers are taking advantage of our active employment benefits under part II of the employment insurance program. This helps them find and maintain new employment by increasing their skills, gaining work experience, getting job counselling and job placement services, and accessing labour market information.

Do members know that last year over 80,000 workers over 50 years of age participated in employment insurance part II programming? In addition, close to 230,000 workers received $1.4 billion in employment insurance part I programming. We are not saying that this is the only solution for these workers. In fact, we have committed to take the time and put in the effort required to identify the best solutions for displaced older workers in today's labour market.

Until the results of the feasibility study are known, we should not limit our range of options. That is why I cannot vote in favour of the hon. member's motion as it is written no matter how much I share his concerns. We need programs that keep older workers as active participants in the Canadian economy. We need programs that can be flexible enough to meet the needs of different individuals and communities. We need to take advantage of what we have learned about what kinds of programs work and which programs do not.

I urge hon. members to join me in voting down this motion as worded.

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the transitional measures for the employment insurance regional boundaries of Madawaska-Charlotte, in New Brunswick, and Lower St. Lawrence—North Shore, in Quebec, have been extended.

This extension will protect the workers in these regions while the government completes the five-year review required by law.