It's quite amusing: Ms. Sgro says that Mr. Savage said it all. She had to think about it, but, ultimately, did he say it all?
But enough joking around. Mr. Chairman, the committee's report was tabled on January 15, 2005. It's quite recent since the government didn't actually give a response to the report until 2006. So it was barely two years ago. So it's quite current. A number of people around this table attended the committee's proceedings, including our colleague Mr. Cuzner, who moreover chaired the committee or subcommittee at that time. Those proceedings went on for a number of months. Some staff members were there, and they did a remarkable job.
Mr. Chairman, I listened closely to my colleagues. I'll start with Mr. Savage's speech, which is very symptomatic of the situation. He's entirely right when he says that the poor, those who are the least well-off, are people who don't vote. That's understandable partly because they're excluded from society. So they increasingly lose interest in society. That probably explains this lack of will on the part of certain members to take a real interest in policies concerning the poor: it brings in few votes. I'm not saying that's our colleague Mr. Savage's intention, but it's simply the reality. That's why, when we as politicians make a commitment to fight poverty, most of us don't establish any monetary measures.
I believe our colleague Mr. Savage is entirely sincere as regards the substance of the issue. However, what he says clearly reflects the political dynamic. People will commit to and politically support what is politically profitable. That's what's happening here.
As for our colleague Mr. Lake, it's the same thing; it's sidestepping the issue. He simply said we were wasting our time. I understand why we're wasting our time: we're talking about poor people! We're not necessarily talking about those who are poor right now, but rather those who will be poor if we don't deal with them, because many will lose their jobs.
Let's immediately turn to employability. That's what we're talking about right now, unless I missed something, but I don't think so. When you talk about employability, you're talking about employment access conditions and employment retention. Our colleague Mr. Gourde clearly understood this. I don't share the conclusions of his remarks, but he acknowledges that there are job losses, that this is a new situation because it's occurring on a massive scale. He acknowledges that part of the labour force in these sectors is quite old. He says that we can return them to the labour market. If we don't return them here at home, we can send them out west, if they want. He's entirely right in saying that they are free to go there. However, do they have objective conditions in which to decide whether or not to go? I would ask our colleague to think about that.
Currently, an average of 20% of all those who lose their jobs are over 55 years of age. Every time 100 jobs are lost, at least 20 workers over 55 find themselves unemployed. In the manufacturing sector, 125,000 jobs have been lost. That means that 25,000 workers over 55 have been affected.
That's not a minor point, Mr. Chairman. Is there room for them in Alberta? Are employers interested in hiring workers over 55? Mr. Gourde even mentioned 60-year-olds. Mr. Chairman, they can no doubt be hired for short periods, but an entrepreneur who wants to fill career-track positions isn't interested in hiring these people because he'll have to invest in people who will only be working for a few more years.
The biggest problem is uprooting these people. Will 20,000 or 25,000 be going out west? That's not realistic, Mr. Chairman; it's not realistic. It's mainly young people who will be moving because their roots are new. A young couple will take some of their roots with them; they'll take their children and everything. For those over 55, their children and grandchildren are already settled, their living environment is settled, and they're quite a bit less motivated to go out west. It seems to me that suggesting the contrary is also a way of avoiding the issue, Mr. Chairman.
With all due respect to our colleague Mr. Gourde, who has conducted a quite accurate analysis of the situation, the conditions really are along the lines of a conservative policy. I'm not criticizing him for that; that's his political option. He has that right in a democracy. He especially has a right to express it, but it's a laissez-faire policy. Let's let people do what they want. Let's let the communities that can get people back to work do it, even if there aren't any jobs. One hundred and eleven or 123 municipalities—I'll spare you the figures—live solely off forestry. Neighbouring towns are quite remote; you don't go there by foot; you're in the forest.
Once again, these are loopholes in an attempt to justify a policy that doesn't hold up. It's a policy that should be called what it is, a laissez-faire policy, a conservative policy; it should be called that. Let people make do; it's inevitable. We'll invest a little; we'll make a symbolic gesture.
Mr. Chairman, I'll recall what $1 billion represents for two industries across Canada. For Quebec, that means $217 million divided by two. If we make a fair division, that means $108 million per sector: forestry and manufacturing. That amount must be divided again by three, because it's spread over three years. Let me tell you that doesn't do a lot to jump-start an industry? It cost more than that to conduct studies on the high-speed train, for example. With this amount, they want to jump-start two industries and support them.
There is unanimous agreement on one thing here: this is definitely inadequate; these measures do not meet the needs. I hope the final motion will at least reflect the opposition parties' intention. But perhaps someone on the Conservative side will have a burst of clear-sightedness. I won't say conscience, because I don't want to hurt them.
I'll close on a very personal note, Mr. Chairman. Our friend Mr. Lake has raised something. When I'm on Parliament Hill, I try to be friendly and easygoing with our colleagues because I recognize that there's work to be done. It's true that I'm more gloomy when I get here. That's because I witness attempts to sidestep the issue, and that depresses me. I heard that we were wasting our time, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't sad until I heard that. When I hear that kind of thing, I say to myself it's lamentable. So we're wasting our time talking about people who are dealing with a major crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors? It's scandalous to hear that, when they also say that we have to improve employability. That's highly contradictory but we're also talking about that.
