Debates of June 9th, 2005

Supply

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member who has just finished his statement. Obviously, he said that the was supporting the Bloc Québecois motion. I would like to know whether the strategy to help older workers would provide income support for those older workers who lose their jobs? In other words, will those workers have access to income support measures when they cease to receive regular employment insurance benefits, namely after the 50 weeks set by the commission.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there must be a comprehensive strategy worked out for displaced workers.

If the hon. member's question is, and I am not sure it is, if a worker who is over 50 years of age gets laid off from any job anywhere in Canada is he or she entitled to a pension until the age of 65? The answer is no. I will not support that. Do I support a strategy? Yes.

We have a number of prongs in an existing strategy which can be improved and enhanced. We have the older workers pilot project initiative from which the members from Quebec have benefited. There have been 74 projects and some $24 million in the last five or six years. We have the EI program itself, which again is one prong. It is helpful. It does provide the first 45 weeks of benefits. It is not the total answer. We also have the skills training program.

To answer the hon. member's question, the strategy must be developed. It must be part of an overall workforce strategy for Canada.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a bit about pensions and the potential consequences. We know that organizations that have pension plans have periodic actuarial valuations to determine the health of the funding of a pension plan. Sometimes there is an actuarial surplus and one of the problems we have seen in the past is where an organization will withdraw funds from a pension plan because there is a determined actuarial surplus.

However, these things tend to vacillate from time to time and there is some concern whether or not the rules regarding pension surpluses are sound enough to ensure that they do not send the pendulum swinging too far the other way. The other consequence of an actuarial valuation would be to determine an actuarial deficit or shortfall in terms of funding benefits.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on whether or not there should be consideration to legislative changes to deal not only with the surpluses but also with deficits, particularly with regard to locking in funds, taking care of earned benefits, the vested benefits, that either current retirees already enjoy or that other employees may have earned through their period of employment.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, should there be better legislation dealing with pension protection? My answer is definitely yes. Although the member would appreciate that it is not a simple federal issue. There are federal components and provincial components.

However, situations have arisen where workers in Canada worked all their life and paid into a pension with the full expectation that the pension would be available when they retired and for some reason, outside their own conduct, that pension is not available or is not available to the level that was expected or agreed upon or contracted for. In those cases, we as legislators have failed those individuals.

The member is aware that the financial press is reporting that up to 50% of the larger pension plans in Canada are presently underfunded. I know the pendulum on stock market performance goes back and forth, but it is a very difficult issue. The actuarial evaluations that are done are very complex. This is something that I am hopeful that we as legislators will address, whether it is a pension or a pension withdrawal. But the point is that we cannot allow workers to lose their pensions.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard something that is of particular interest to me. A Liberal member is asking if we should do something to make employee pension funds safer. I find it quite strange to hear such a comment from this member. I do not think that there is one pension fund that can be considered as an employment insurance plan. However, there is one plan that can theoretically be used and that could be very useful for the POWA, the program that was created to help older workers who are laid off and who have a hard time finding new jobs. That is the subject before us today.

This plan is managed by the government. Would the government not agree to first make the employment insurance fund safer and then to create an independent fund? It is interesting that they want to get involved in private pension plans when there is a public plan in which the government has not invested a penny. It prefers to usurp the whole Employment Insurance fund, depriving workers of the benefits to which they are entitled. What do they think about that?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the EI fund is used not only for younger workers, middle aged workers, but older workers. Any worker who loses his or her job or is displaced from the workforce is, first of all, eligible for EI benefits. That is the first step in this process.

Second, we have the older worker pilot project that was initiated five years ago. The province of Quebec has taken advantage of this program. I believe that about half the funds that were spent on this have gone to the province of Quebec. It deals with specific closures where the workers are having unique problems getting re-employed. There is also the skills training initiative, but the employment insurance program is available for that purpose.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my allotted time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The Bloc Québécois has asked on three separate occasions in the House of Commons for a new program to assist older workers.

In my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, we have a number of workers who need such a program. Since December 2004, I have been making representation after representation to the successive ministers at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, giving them chapter and verse on the situation of the former employees of the Abitibi-Consolidated plant in La Baie. These employees lost their jobs after it was announced that the Port-Alfred plant was closing down for good on January 26, 2005.

I want to emphasize that the minister and member for Westmount—Ville-Marie was unresponsive to the situation of these workers. She never showed any interest in helping them. She wanted to brush the issue off by telling me over and over that Quebec was working on a new program, an improved social assistance program. This is the program that was put forward. Former employees will not be required to relinquish assets until March 2006.

But that is not what the workers and their families are asking for or what they need. They will have to relocate to quickly find work elsewhere. I hope that the new minister, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora, will stand by what she voted for when she was in the Conservative Party.

A plant closing is already bad enough, but in La Baie, the situation is even more critical. Let me explain.

The plant in La Baie is considered a mature plant because of the age of its workers: 265 are over 50, 208 between 45 and 50, 80 between 40 and 45, and only 14 under 40, for a total of 640 workers who have lost their jobs.

We can see from here how difficult the integration of these workers into the labour market will be. In its purpose and objectives, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment abolished in 1997 acknowledged the difficulties faced by older workers. In light of this current situation affecting the economy of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, it is fair to say that theirs is an extremely difficult situation.

The age of this generation of workers and the lack of federal and Quebec assistance programs are just two elements in this problem. There is a third one. The plant closure announcement severs the employment connection with the company and results in the loss of the right to a pension at age 58. If the plant had not closed down, most workers would have retired at age 58. But now, they have to wait until 65 to get a pension. A worker who is 50 has to wait 15 years instead of the normal 8 years before he can get his pension, even if he paid for that pension.

Even if the federal government is not responsible for this situation, it has to support these workers who feel they have been ripped off in every way.

The EI program is there for this kind of situation. POWA can be used to respond to this problem.

Obviously, this government suffers from amnesia. It forgot that the purpose of the EI program is to provide temporary financial assistance to the unemployed while they are looking for another job or are upgrading their skills.

I met with the union representatives of the Port-Alfred plant, and I talked with workers. It is easy to understand their feeling of unfairness. They have been betrayed by the company they worked for during many years. They have been duped by the Quebec government. And they were let down by the federal government, which is responsible for the EI program to which they contributed for years and from which they should now get benefits when they need them.

Former workers and their families do not want to live on EI benefits and even less on welfare payments. They want us to support them so they can upgrade their skills, start a business, or find a new job.

The Quebec caucus of the Liberal Party supports POWA. According to initial estimates, this program would cost $55 million the first year, and $75 million the second year. This is peanuts compared to the employment insurance surpluses, which total $47 billion. What are the Liberal Party's ministers from Quebec doing in Ottawa? What are they waiting for to demand a POWA?

The impact of the closure of that plant, both at an individual and collective level, is very serious. We want to support these workers and ensure that they do not leave the town of La Baie, or the region. So far, no measure has been taken to avoid a worsening of the situation. A program must be proposed to maximize the integration of workers in new jobs. We have to avoid the negative socio-economic consequences on the community. An improved POWA would allow us to meet the needs of these workers.

The Bloc Québécois' motion proposes a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs following a plant closure, and this strategy should also include income support measures. Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois proposes measures whereby the federal government would assist workers when their situation is very precarious.

The Bloc Québécois is asking for the setting up of an income support program for older workers. This program should be part of a global strategy to help these workers.

I also want to remind the House that, in the report tabled on February 15, 2005, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, recommendation No. 13 proposed income support measures to help workers, including the possibility of paying additional benefits beyond the maximum period of 50 weeks.

I will conclude by saying that I hope the minister and member for Newmarket—Aurora will act quickly to put in place a POWA program and help Port-Alfred plant workers. I hope she will correct this injustice and will be consistent with herself following the vote in which she took part not long ago, on this side of the House, when she was still a Conservative member, before joining the Liberal ranks.

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, for his speech as well as for the work he has done in the last months and in the last year.

It is not easy for my colleague. Indeed, he had to deal with factory closures in his own riding. It is not easy either for his colleagues, the members from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. They have experienced major disputes in the last years, particularly the softwood lumber dispute and the mad cow crisis. Today, these disputes are threatening all the industries in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region because of the whole context of globalization, which means producing more with less employees.

As you know, this government manages the employment insurance program. This program has generated surpluses of about $50 billion in the last 10 years. This is absurd, because we are not using these $50 billion to help those who really need it.

I would like to ask my colleague about this, because he met Port-Alfred workers who are affected by this situation. Entire families have found themselves without an income. Yet, in small communities such as La Baie, God knows how it is important to have a family income to ensure that these people can earn a living from their work. These people are not seeking handouts. They just want some assistance, for which Canadians pay every day by going to work and for which employers pay as well. The role of this government is simply to manage this money, and it does not do so appropriately.

I would like my colleague to tell us what really happened in Port-Alfred and how the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois today will make a difference in helping those who really need it.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Ville de La Baie, the Abitibi-Console plant was shut down, and 640 workers were permanently laid off in January 2005. As provided for by the employment insurance program, these 640 workers will receive benefits. However, as of the month of August, that is to say in a few weeks, this employment insurance will cease. Between the months of August and November, these people will gradually stop receiving benefits. After that period, if the government does not put into place a POWA program aimed at providing income support, these people will have but one choice, namely to go on improved social assistance.

I am referring to regular social assistance, but, in addition, people are exempted until March 2006, so that they do not have to dispose of their assets in order to survive. That is what these people are currently going through. Indeed, they will experience more uncertain times starting in August and up to November.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can empathize with the hon. member for Quebec, because in the New Brunswick forest sector and in fact in the forest sector across this country of ours we have tremendous problems of new technologies and older mills, with competition from countries around the world that will be supplying some of the products that Canadian industry has supplied in the past.

In New Brunswick a few years ago, when Frank McKenna was premier of our province, he had a program for older workers. It was called a 50-plus program and was for workers over 50 years of age. He instituted that program by coming to the federal government and working out a relationship by which older workers would be offered opportunities to work in various sectors, sometimes in the private sector. It was a program that worked very well for about 1,000 people in New Brunswick.

It has not been continued by our present New Brunswick government, but I can assure members that older workers certainly need opportunities. They need to feel that they are part of their communities, that they are contributing to their society, and I would suggest to the member that he should go to his own province, which might come to us, and look for an older workers program, whatever it might be.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, here is what I would like to respond to the honourable member. Plant closures, in this case, of a paper mill like the one we had in Ville de La Baie, are consequences of globalization. These specialized workers, after 20, 25 or 30 years of experience, can only work in the paper industry. They must be trained to work in other sectors. Moreover, jobs have to be found for them.

It is normal for the federal government to step in, as it is the one managing the employment insurance fund. Given the fact that workers, year in and year out, paid employment insurance premiums, it would only be fair that there be a program to help them.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a new program to help older workers who have lost their job and cannot find a new one in their field or that matches their knowledge and skills.

The proposed program would be based on an old program called Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA, but would be a version adapted to the new reality and in line with the vision and recommendations of qualified individuals in the labour sector who are members of a coalition of the four major labour federations in Quebec. But do not worry, they all or almost all have links with other labour federations in Canada, the United States and even Europe.

The new program would be called the income security program for older workers. Its terms and conditions were developed after extensive consultations held by my distinguished colleague from Chambly—Borduas. It would be a program aimed at workers 50 and older —but that could change according to agreements reached— who have been victim of mass layoffs or plant closures, regardless of industry or community. But I will let my distinguished colleague describe the program in greater detail.

This program is as vital today as it was in the late 1980s, in large part because of this government's lack of vision and, perhaps worse still, its lack of concern for the workers, whom it considered nothing more than a source of funds for this country. Its main concern was reserved for the big banks and corporations rather than for those who are the source of this government's great wealth.

It has neglected to consider the impact of technological change and changes in the market economy. The economy has been completely turned upside down by what they call globalization, but I call internationalization. In the process recognized by our governments, with their predilection for the financial establishment, not one environmental, social, commercial or ethical regulation, either tacit or explicit, has been included in the various agreements on free trade and international exchange.

As a result, we find the least scrupulous businesses closing down here in order to move their operations to these havens of lack of concern for humans or the environment, be it local or global. The ones that do not do so are exhausting most of their resources in a struggle to survive despite the government's thinly disguised pressures to commit hara-kiri.

In fact, by refusing these companies the financial assistance they need to fight the unfair competition from certain other countries advantaged by their financial and environmental complacency, this government is forcing them to close down in the end.

Unfortunately, our own government is actively involved in the disappearance of our businesses. One need look no further for an example than the transfer of the printing of our bank notes from a Montreal firm to a German one. What could be more intimately linked to a country's very being than its money? I find that shocking.

Then there is the softwood lumber sector. It would have been simple to provide these businesses with help, particularly when the government could have got its loans back readily because of the rulings in all the courts. But instead it let the situation deteriorate and paved the way for the American establishment to get its hands on our resources more readily. This same government, considered today by everyone to be the best possible example of corruption, with a leader whose legitimacy is questionable, has added to the already very substantial revenues of the oil and gas companies at the expense of the public purse and, worse yet, at the expense of the mining companies which were already begging for help.

Speaking of the leader of this government, is he not the perfect example of a saboteur in our country? He is the one who legalized capital evasion to tax havens for himself and his magnificent friends. Is he not the one who flies flags of convenience on his ships so as not to have to contribute to the economy of the very country he is leading, thereby allowing himself to violate basic environmental rules? Is he not also the one who fired his Canadian staff and replaced them with foreign workers, who he pays less than the minimum wage in this country?

Because he wanted to fight the fundamental right to form a union in this country, it is not surprising to see him disappear during votes on improving labour laws. We also know that he even orders his ministerial servants to vote against any labour improvement initiatives. It is unbelievable the appeal a limousine can have to some people and the price they are willing to pay. The price of government limousines, in terms of moral compromise, is quite high.

My riding and the entire region it is located in are beleaguered by the inaction of and delay tactics used by this government over the past decade or so, but especially since the current Prime Minister took his post as finance minister. He stifled the mining and forestry industries. He created astronomical unemployment rates that affect the entire regional economy and prompt the exodus of young people and specialized workers, denying the local industry and commerce of over $66 million a year since 1996. Let us not forget, that is when he replaced the Unemployment Insurance Act with the Employment Insurance Act, a stupid idea if ever there was one.

Yes, before 1996, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, a worker who lost his job knew that his benefits would be based on maximum insurable earnings of $47,900, and a benefit rate between 55% and 60%.

Nothing is too good for the working class. In the case of the Prime Minister, the trust legislation was retroactive. The difference is that it was meant to help friends of the Minister of Finance save money.

The maximum insurable earnings were lowered from $47,900 to $39,700, and, on top of that, the benefit rate dropped from 60% to 55%, and there was a penalty for each successive benefit period.

Today, we are talking to a young former Conservative who has certainly never experienced unemployment. She has no other political quality or merit except breaking ranks with her former party, and her only obligation now is that she should not think or decide for herself, even if her position was the complete opposite when she was a Conservative. She even trashes what she used to cherish. Talk about renewing trust in politicians.

Even if this government took $47 billion from the fund, it keeps taking more money illegally and without permission, and gives no thought at all to indexing benefits. They were already too low back in 1995, when we still had the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The current Prime Minister, then Minister of Finance, reduced by 82.88% the baseline used to calculate the benefit rate, and then reduced to 10% the benefit calculated according to this rate. This is serious. The Prime Minister has stifled the unemployed since 1996 by reducing a 1996 benefit by close to 20%. A similar benefit was used to help older workers until March 31, 1997. Since then, there is no more support program and many workers have had to rely on social assistance to make ends meet until they get their pension.

Most of those workers have been working since they were 13, 14, 15 or even 16 years old. When one of them is unlucky enough to lose his or her job, he or she has generally been working for some 40 years, with very few periods of unemployment, for the luckiest of them.

Many of those workers have worked for the same company all their life and they only know the type of work they have been doing all their life. The statistics are very revealing. These people only constitute 12.5% of the labour force, but they represent 21.3% of the long-term unemployed.

How bitter are these workers when they see their leaders blow all this money on sponsorship programs? This tragicomedy is disgusting.

I could go on like that for a long while, but I will now let the others have the floor.

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou on his explanations and remarks.

Like me, my colleague is from Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a region that has had its share of crises in various industries. It was hard hit by the mad cow crisis and the softwood lumber dispute.

In his remarks, he drew my attention to an important point. I am talking about the cornerstone of regional development. What is it? I am talking about young people, who are leaving the regions to train in the major centres because the governments are not putting adequate levers at their disposal so they can return or, at least, have an incentive to return. Finding a job in these regions is extremely difficult.

I can mention dozens of examples of people I met in the cities, such as Marc Therrien, an old friend, and Gino East, who is also from Abitibi. They want the government to stand up for once and provide real aid—particularly important levers such as EI—to the regions of Quebec.

There is $50 billion in this fund. Why not take this money and try to find pilot projects and ways to develop the regions?

Today, the government has an opportunity to help another category of workers, older workers, who have lost their jobs and whom we want to help re-enter the labour force.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Since he lives on a daily basis in the Abitibi region, I want him to explain just how important such levers are to this region and its development, and not just to older workers but to young Quebeckers as well.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, in regions outside the major urban centres, those who are no longer working or finding work in their fields are bound to migrate to these centres. This will have the effect of causing a population explosion in major urban centres and a workforce drain in the regions. The most competent leave the regions to get into fields that are familiar to them. As for older workers, who have always been employed in one business, they will try to find a cheaper place to live. That is disappointing for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague who shares in many ways the same region that I do.

When we have shutdowns in our mines in Kirkland Lake, we find our workforce going to Val-d'Or and Malarctic. Now with Sigma Mines shutting down, many of those families are now coming into my region to work because they are mining people and they have to move with the jobs.

We find moving more difficult for older workers. If they are of a mining background, people do not want to hire older workers. It is difficult for them to travel outside a region when the costs to move to cities are so much higher than they are to move to places like Malarctic, Timmins or Kirkland Lake.

In general, in regions in the north we are losing population and we are losing our young people at an alarming rate. Older families are now starting to move in with their children. I would like to ask the hon. member, how does he see the future vitality of his region? I am not talking in terms of just economics, but in terms of the vitality of a region. There is a continual loss of families, people and jobs out of these regions into either large urban centres or overseas to places like China and El Salvador.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is very much aware of the problems experienced in our region because he has experienced them as well, at certain times. When things start looking up in his riding, they are on the downturn in mine.

There is a major problem in all this. Indeed, when highly experienced and competent workers, in the mining industry for example, are laid off, potential employers considered them high-risk employees, particularly for disease and accidents, and therefore are very hesitant to hire them. Since mining is a declining industry, these workers will be unable to find work in their region. They will be replaced with younger ones, even in companies servicing the businesses that will continue to operate.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to this Bloc motion that is before the House. The motion reads:

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.

I am the former Conservative critic for international trade and now for emerging markets. I have gone around the world and have seen the impact of globalization, not only on Canada but across the world as economies open up. It creates a change in the economy. As we develop new opportunities for Canada, at the same time we will lose some ground. This is not only a unique feature to Canada but to every country due to globalization.

Canada is a trading nation. Close to over 42% of our GDP is tied to international trade. International trade becomes a critically important part of Canada's prosperity.

As many of my colleagues and people who have come before our committee have said, globalization has been extremely beneficial and has given unprecedented prosperity around the world, Nevertheless, it has some drawbacks. We lose workers and some factories close down. This is the case here.

When those factories close down, it becomes natural to retrain the younger workforce. We have many retraining programs in order to send these individuals back into the workforce. At the end of the day, it is beneficial for Canada to have more people at work.

Naturally, it is with those older workers, and that includes myself now, where we see a need and training becomes difficult. It is not because they do not want to be trained. Other factors come into play that make it difficult for them to be retrained. It is natural that we as a country should ensure that we support these workers. They have been out in the workforce and they have helped to build this country. When these unfortunate circumstances do take place, it does not mean that we close our eyes and walk away.

My party will be supporting the motion before us, as will other parties. We recognize the importance of having people in the workforce, irrespective of age.

As recently as this week, Ontario removed the retirement age of 65. We recognize that we need the expertise that is out there. We need older workers. Our economy is growing and we have a shortage of skilled labour as well.

We need these people to come back into the workforce as quickly as possible. This is a way to help them and ensure that they are employed. It is our responsibility to ensure that Canadians get the first choice in jobs. We want to help them in whatever capacity we can. This motion talks about bringing these people back into the workforce. It is a timely motion that I do not think anybody in their right mind would not support. It is a pleasure for us to support the motion.

Many people have talked about factory closures. The riding beside me has suffered textile closures due to globalization. On many occasions my colleague representing that riding has stood in the House and spoken about the plight of workers in his riding because of this globalization issue. We recognize that factory closures do take place and there is a need for us to address this issue. This issue of factory closures and globalization is being addressed all over the world.

Can the globalization march be stopped? No, it cannot be stopped. It is something that has brought a tremendous amount of prosperity to all.

As I have mentioned, we are a trading nation and we need these kinds of agreements to ensure that we have outside market access. We are a country of only 30 million people with a huge amount of resources. Who will we sell these resources to? It will not be to ourselves. We need to trade.

I and my party support the principles of the WTO because we need a rules based system where larger economies do not nudge us out because we do not have deep pockets, as does our neighbour to the south or the European Union. Naturally, from all aspects my party has supported the concept of the WTO and globalization because we believe that in the final analysis globalization is beneficial to Canada.

As I and many colleagues have stated before, we have pinpointed some negative aspects of that but, nevertheless, it impacts Canadians. It is a pleasure for me to support the motion to recognize that older people who may lose their jobs require support from us.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the privilege to stand once again in the House and talk about an issue that is important to Canadians.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are over the age of 50 or 55 who lose their jobs, especially in the current situation in this country when many of them find themselves unqualified for some of the new positions that might be available to people just out of university. Some of these older workers have been trained in older technology.

When I first started teaching many years ago I actually taught my math students to use a slide rule because computers had not yet been invented.

[An. hon. member]

What's that?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Some people here do not even know what a slide rule is. What we are dealing with here is the competition between young people and older people who have been trained in different technology.

[An hon. member]

What is a computer?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

One of my friends has asked what a computer is. He is about my age so he is a little bit behind the times too.

The real challenge is the number of people who need extra training. The motion today has to do with people who lose their jobs because of factory closure, which is an increasing factor nowadays because of globalization and the fact that a lot of our manufacturing jobs are leaving this country for other parts of the world where labour is a lot less expensive.

However there are many other reasons for people losing their jobs but for people who lose their job at age 50, 55 or older, it is very difficult for them to gain employment that is both meaningful and sufficient enough to help them pay their bills. There is no doubt in my mind that we should have a national strategy to deal with this.

I have done quite a bit of thinking over the years about income support for people whose time in the workplace has come to an end. I do not know if members will recall my unhappy experience in the 2000 election when some of the ideas I was putting forward with respect to retirement income were quite badly represented. However that was another issue. Today we are talking about people who are not quite old enough to retire. I am a little afraid to be thinking out loud here lest suddenly I be misinterpreted but I really do believe that we need to address the important questions.

One of the real important issues, and it is a basic fundamental issue that must be dealt with, is with respect to who should pay for employment insurance benefits or retirement benefits. Should it be the current taxpayers? Should the people currently earning money pay for the benefits for those who have lost their jobs or who, because they have reached retirement age, quit their jobs? Should their income come from the next generation or should part of the retired person's income come from his or her earnings over a lifetime?

I get very frustrated by the fact that we have two systems in this country. One system encourages individuals to look after themselves for retirement through the purchase of RRSPs. For people facing the possibility of unemployment, we have the idea of savings income. We also have the public fund where the money comes from current taxpayers and current earners. The EI program is one of those.

It is true that most people who are eligible for benefits in the EI program are those who have been paying into the fund. However, in most instances, people who receive benefits are usually eligible for benefits quite in excess of the sum of their contributions into the program over the years. That is what an insurance program is about.

Most of us who have car insurance go through life without ever having made a claim. I happen to be one of those. I have never had a claim where I was charged. I have had guys plough into me and then they had to pay or their insurance had to pay. I have paid faithfully into that fund but even now, if I were to have a major claim, one involving a public liability, it is possible that the claim would exceed the sum of what I have paid in, and so it is with EI. It is the same thing with the retirement benefits. Some people gain less in benefits compared to what they pay in and others pay more.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will resume the member's speech after question period with another four and a half minutes or so.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

Young Canadians Challenge

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

On Sunday, June 5, five Etobicoke students were among 105 young people nationally to receive the Duke of Edinburgh Award for their participation in the Young Canadians Challenge achievement program.

The overriding goal of the Young Canadians Challenge, which was first launched in 1963, has been to encourage the involvement of young people in their communities. I would like to extend my congratulations to Sonya Bikhit, Melinda Maggisano, Michael Stasyna, David Wiley and Mary Kathleen Wiley for their commitment to community service.

These five Etobicoke students are further proof that “kids these days” are good kids, and these Etobicoke five are a perfect example.

National Security

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the parliamentary border caucus, I greatly appreciated the sincerity of our ambassador to the United States. He reminded us that, almost four years after the events of September 11 and after more than 11 years under a Liberal government, we still have a security problem along our border.

According to the ambassador, large quantities of drugs and weapons are still being smuggled into Canada. Moreover, the Customs and Excise union keeps reminding us that its members must work without protection and in unsafe conditions.

Last year alone, over 1,600 vehicles crossed border points without stopping, and more than 200 roads remain unmonitored.

I am urging the Deputy Prime Minister to make national security a priority.