Debates of June 9th, 2005

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. This motion is asking that the government establish a special strategy which could include income support measures for older workers who lose their jobs following tragic events like plant closures.

This is not the first time that I rise in this House to call for the reinstatement of a program suited to the needs of older workers who lose their jobs.

Such a program existed between 1988 and 1997, and it gave meaningful results. My colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I believe it could be successful again, provided the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development approves this funding formula, one that has proven effective in the past.

We are asking that the minister consider the situation of those men and women who lose their jobs just a few years, often less than five years, from retirement, collect EI benefits for a few weeks and end up on welfare.

The program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, that was created in 1988, provided for the payment of benefits to eligible workers between the ages of 55 and 64 who had lost their jobs following massive permanent lay-offs. This program allowed workers to collect benefits over a longer period and bridge the gap until they qualified for their old age pension.

In the past, a number of massive lay-offs, including at Celanese, Denim Swift, Tripap, Fruit of the Loom, Norton, Fonderie Gaspé in Murdochville, etc., have demonstrated that a permanent support program such as POWA is essential for older workers who cannot retrain.

Since the program was abolished, in 1997, no other permanent initiative was implemented to replace it and help workers who have contributed to the employment insurance program all their lives, and who often no longer have the mobility and ability to adjust, in order to quickly find another job.

In my riding, there were many textile plants. I am using the past tense because almost all of them have disappeared. What was a vital part of the industry and of the economy has faded and disappeared.

When an industry is primarily located in Quebec, the federal government drags its feet and the Quebec federal Liberals remain silent. The textile and clothing industry is a case in point. About half of the industry is located in Quebec, where it provides close to 100,000 direct jobs. We are talking about the loss of almost 12,000 jobs over the past 12 years, just for the riding of Drummond, and particularly for the city of Drummondville. This attrition is still going on, yet no measures have been taken to counter these plant closures.

As we know, the textile and clothing industries are going through a crisis. They must adjust to a business environment that has changed drastically in recent times. On December 31, 2004, the agreement on textiles and clothing, which had been in effect since 1995, expired. This means that the borders of Canada and Quebec will now be more open to imports, including those from China, which are experiencing a strong growth. Needless to say, it is the federal government that is responsible for this reopening of our borders.

Celanese Canada had always been one of the largest employers in Drummondville. When it shut down permanently, in March 2000, a total of 5,000 workers had been laid off, over a period of 10 years.

Seven months later, Cavalier Textile stopped production and 97 people lost their jobs.

In December 2003, Denim Swift management announced that it was ceasing its denim production activities in April 2004, putting 600 people out of work.

In the case of Denim Swift, at the time of the shutdown, the average hourly rate of pay was $15.30. The employees had spent most of their working life there, specializing to meet the needs of the company. It is all very well to set up adjustment committees, but the fact is that these older workers are often unable to find employment at a comparable salary. This leads to a lowered quality of life, reduced financial capacity, weaker purchasing power and a deterioration of their personal situation. These are a few examples where an aid program, adapted to the situation of workers aged 55 and over, would have been useful.

Without a doubt, age constitutes a unique problem following a job loss because employers are more reluctant to hire older workers. Older workers remain unemployed for much longer periods. In its 2004 monitoring and assessment report, tabled in March 2005, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission indicated that, “Although older workers enjoyed considerable employment growth in 2003-04, it is widely acknowledged that once unemployed, older workers may face challenges becoming re-employed. Older workers are overrepresented among the long-term unemployed, representing 21.3% of this group and only 12.5% of the labour force”.

According the four main labour bodies, “studies have also shown that the older they are, the harder it is for workers to access information. So, a job loss is much more painful experience for older workers than for younger workers, because the skills of older workers, who have not had access to training, are increasingly out of sync with the skills required by the current labour market”.

Despite this finding, the Liberal government has continued to turn a deaf ear to our demands, even if the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for Papineau had told me that this cancellation was temporary and that his government would respond with a new and improved POWA. This promise was made in 1997, during the election campaign.

Must I remind the House that the Liberal Party has already made this promise when the current Prime Minister, during the last election campaign, promised to re-establish POWA, a commitment he has yet to honour.

All this government has done is set up pilot projects wherever it wants, the number of which are far from meeting the need. There will never be enough: it is unacceptable for the federal government not to help older workers, when they are in such dire straits. It is even worse since we know that the EI fund has accumulated a surplus of over $47 billion, thanks to premiums paid.

I have to smile when the other side calls it a virtual fund. But, for people paying EI premiums, that money comes out of their pay cheques. It is not virtual.

Stakeholders in Quebec are in favour of a new POWA: the workers, the unions, the members of the National Assembly. Let us keep in mind that here in this very House of Commons, last December, the majority of members supported a Bloc Québécois motion calling for a new POWA for older workers affected by the textile crisis. Those groups even came here to demand an assistance program.

What is the government waiting for before taking action and creating a real program like the one it abolished in 1997?

It is essential to have a bridge between EI and pension for those older workers who have trouble finding something new. A retraining program and assistance with retraining does not work. When someone aged 58 has been working for 40 years in a factory, he does not have much of an academic background.

They want these workers to go back to school and learn a new trade. Let us be logical: that is impossible at 58. What is more, employers are hesitant to hire older workers, and the only way they can manage is to go on welfare. That is indecent.

This morning, the minister indicated that she would be voting in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion. I would like, however, to be sure that what she has in mind, the program she will be putting in place, will be a source of income for these people. It must not be a pilot project, nor a training or retraining program. It must be a source of income to fill the gap between the time they lose their jobs and the time they can start receiving pension payments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member from the Bloc that I too voted in favour of the motion on POWA. I have worked a long time on this program, which I support. This is why we are voting in favour of today's motion.

Regarding the 28 recommendations tabled in December, I would remind her, as I did her colleague who spoke before her, that she is neglecting to say that the Liberals tabled a report containing eight recommendations, and these recommendations were identical to those in the committee's report. The government adopted these eight recommendations, which concern financing the EI fund, setting the rate for benefits and independence.

I would like to put the following question to her. Does she agree with voting in favour of the government's budget, because it contains measures whereby the principle of the independence of the employment insurance fund be adopted by this House?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating here concerns older workers. I will reread it so my colleague will understand:

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.

In the recommendations made by the committee the hon. member sits on, there was one to support older workers facing permanent plant closures. In the government's proposal, there is no significant measure to provide income support to help these older workers maintain a decent living between the time they lose their permanent job—after getting EI benefits—and the time they begin getting a government pension, which allows them to continue to enjoy a better quality of life.

That is what the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, the former POWA, did. It provided a monthly income to everyone who had lost their job. It saved them from having to beg for social assistance after they received EI benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you would feel if you were faced with a tragedy such as losing your job after 40 years and being forced to beg for social assistance after having paid for many years an insurance called employment insurance. It has stopped being an insurance in case of unemployment; it is now a windfall for the government which, year after year, steals billions of dollars from the EI fund. This money could be used to create real programs to ensure that people who lose their jobs still receive an income to help them get back on the labour market or look for a new job. Such programs would help our older workers to have a decent quality of life and a respectable income after having worked so hard for so long. While working, one pays taxes that contribute to society as a whole.

I would like the hon. member to take this into account while she rereads the motion before her.

I know the minister supports the passing of this motion. As parliamentary secretary, she could do more to raise the minister's awareness. What we want are real income support measures, similar to the Régie des rentes du Québec, because workers who lose their jobs are in a precarious situation. We must help them to hold on until they start receiving their RRQ benefits. That would assure them of a decent quality of life, after a lifetime of contribution to society as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Laval—Les Îles.

Indeed, I read the motion carefully, as opposed to what the member just said. I am very familiar with this issue. She forgot to say that I did support the motion regarding POWA. Several times, since my election, I have expressed my agreement with this idea. The Bloc Québécois is not the only party standing for the interests of workers. There are members on this side of the House who are also part of this. However, members across the floor are not as generous.

I will be pleased to speak in favour of this motion, as the minister has said, since it addresses the issues of how our government has responded--and those are the key words--and continues to respond to an aging workforce and to the profound economic transformation taking place not only in Canada but also around the world.

As I said earlier, it involves matters that are of great concern to all my colleagues, and on all sides of the House, I would like to say, especially those living in Quebec, where our population is aging more rapidly than in Canada as a whole and where we have seen a number of high profile layoffs in recent months in the apparel and textile industry.

Please allow me again to say that, as the member for Ahuntsic, a riding with many textile manufacturing and clothing companies, I have often had the opportunity to meet with the entrepreneurs behind these companies. In particular, I have met with the president of the Regroupement des marchands de la rue Chabanel, Mr. Perugini, and with Mr. Leclerc, from the Société de développement et de promotion de l'Innopôle. I do not have any lesson to learn regarding this industry, which I have stood for since 1993 in spite of the critics from the opposition.

I try to learn more about difficulties and obstacles facing these industries. Also, for a long time, I have been working hard, just as my colleague from the other side, to find ways to help these industries and their workers—mostly older people—and to ensure that our government's initiatives help them solve their problems.

While I am on the topic of the apparel and textile industries and, more specifically, their workers, who for the large part are older workers, let me remind hon. members that on May 2 of this year I announced in Montreal, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, funding of $5.9 million under the sector council program for four projects by the Textiles Human Resource Council, projects that will help support the promotion of skills development within the textile sector and which aim to improve our country's economic growth and competitiveness in this sector.

This was followed by another announcement again last month, which I made on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, of $3 million for three projects aimed at improving our country's economic growth and competitiveness in the apparel sector.

We must therefore look closely at the various aspects of this motion.

For starters, I support the goal of this motion. I have already said so and I say it again. I personally support it, in view of the fact that there are older workers in my riding of Ahuntsic. I support it along with my colleagues in this House and the government. We are very concerned. It is not only the Bloc that is concerned. In addition, we are doing things and taking active steps.

I would also like to assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada is working hard to provide all workers, including older workers, with the assistance they need to meet the challenges they face on our rapidly changing job markets.

Part of this involves fostering a strong economy and job creation, since the best social program is a job. I believe the hon. member from the Bloc who introduced the motion in fact said that he does not want to just give cheques to people. He wants seniors to feel that they are part of and can still contribute to the workforce.

We have heard two sides of the coin in the discussions in the House today. One member said to just give them some money so they can get up to their pensions, and another speaker said that we should give them a cheque but that at the same time they should be working. We have been working on both ends, but more in terms of making sure that, as I said earlier, the best social program is a job. I think our record speaks for itself in terms of the type of job creation we have done.

The most recent EI monitoring and assessment report suggests that we have been enjoying considerable success in this area during the last year. Almost 289,000 new jobs were added, of which 82,000 were full time.

Allow me to also give the House a broad figure before I go on. Between 1993 and 2004, overall employment growth in the country was almost 3.2 million jobs. During the same period, employment growth for older workers, those aged 55 years and over, totalled about 868,000 jobs, which represents a 71% increase over the period. We are dealing with annual averages here. I want to repeat that: over 55, 868,000 jobs, which represents a 71% increase over the period. The figures I just quoted were from 1993 to the present, which further goes to show how devoted the government is to helping Canadian workers in general, but especially our older workers, find employment and stay employed.

While employment growth is strong overall, some workers, including older workers, do face special challenges. We accept that, which is why we have developed a wide array of programs aimed at helping such workers respond to labour market changes.

One way involves using the EI temporary income supports to help workers make ends meet while they look for another job. For example, last year $13.8 billion was paid out in EI benefits, of which $3.8 billion went to workers 45 years of age and older.

Just providing income supports is not enough, as everyone has said, and as the mover of this motion said in his opening remarks. Many older workers have excellent skills that are invaluable to employers in our increasingly demanding knowledge based economy. We need to find ways of encouraging older workers to stay in the workforce so they can continue to contribute.

Active, not passive, employment insurance measures are another way of helping workers find opportunities for developing the skills they need to be able to return to work and continue working. Once again, we have had a lot of success thanks to these measures.

Last year, nearly 600,000 Canadians participated in these programs, and of this number, 160,000 were over 45 years of age. These programs helped them develop their skills and get counselling, as well as the assistance they needed to write their resumés and do their job searches to find new employment.

I could add that these programs are designed to be very flexible and to be carried out in various ways depending on local needs and circumstances.

In Quebec, for example, these programs are delivered through Emploi-Québec in accordance with the Canada-Quebec labour market agreement. Under this agreement, the Government of Canada provides nearly $600 million a year to the Government of Quebec. The question that arises, which I asked earlier, is the following: When the separatist government was in power, why did it not introduce the same measures in its area of jurisdiction to help older workers? I have not received an answer.

Helping older workers is not something that either EI or the Government of Canada can do alone. As I said earlier, everyone needs to get involved if we are to succeed. A number of different approaches are required.

That is why we are working closely with our provincial and territorial partners on other projects, such as older workers pilot project initiatives, aimed at exploring new ways of helping older workers find new jobs and stay employed.

Between 1995 and 2005, the Government of Canada invested $50 million in this work, of which almost $21.5 million went into some 74 projects aimed at helping Quebec workers, yes, 74 projects.

Last December, I also announced funding in Montreal on behalf of the Government of Canada—as I did as well in Ottawa—for Filière Employabilité Inc. in Ahuntsic and the Association Midi-Quarante Inc. in Laval. This funding will be used to complete two pilot projects under the Canada-Quebec agreement on pilot projects for older workers.

We recently announced another $5 million in which we extend the life of the initiative to May 2006, not this year but 2006, so that we and our provincial and territorial partners can continue to explore new ways of helping older workers identify key lessons that can be used to develop new policies and programs in support of older workers.

The important thing here is the collaboration between the federal and provincial governments. I know that my time is running out, but I would like to say that we will continue to improve. We are evaluating those programs. Once the evaluations are done, I am sure that we are going to have a very good program for older unemployed workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the member for Ahuntsic for her presentation. It sheds light on the current federal government policies in terms of continuity. What concerns us a great deal is that certain facts are not recognized.

Actually, one of the facts that is not recognized is that 28 recommendations were made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, on which I sit with my colleague.

My colleague argues, if I have understood correctly the statement she made a while ago, that the government has taken into account eight of these recommendations. In fact, we received the reply to this committee's report two weeks ago and none of the recommendations were accepted by the government. So I have trouble accepting this argument today.

Some partial solutions may have been announced in February. However, that has nothing to do with the recommendations. That is why, in that regard, I would like the member to explain the statement she made.

Second, regarding the measures that were introduced—I believe it was in February—she mentioned an amount of $600 million, whereas the government has always maintained it was around $300 million. We believe the actual amount is less. However, today, we are being told that it is $600 million, which has nothing to do with what was announced.

Third, my question has to do with Quebec's policies. Can the parliamentary secretary explain something to me? In other circumstances, I could easily have called her Madam Minister. I have trouble understand her remarks, namely why the Quebec government has not implemented a similar program. Are we to understand that she is willing to do what is needed to transfer to Quebec the amounts of money the federal government has already received and for which it has not assumed its responsibilities.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are several questions in the member's comments. It is true he and I are on the same committee. I was somewhat surprised to learn that the member knew the response to the report, even though the government has not yet tabled it. However, we may be able to deal with that issue again since, as the hon. member well knows, the minister will come before the committee next Tuesday. We will then have an opportunity to ask her questions.

I would like to come back to what I was saying about the 28 recommendations which were tabled. As a matter of fact, there may be two reports because, as members will recall, there was a report by the Liberal caucus. There also is the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

As a matter of fact, eight of the recommendations were tabled on December 16, 2004, before the other report. We probably are talking about two different reports. Eight recommendations dealt with employment insurance and governance. Therefore, it was in the budget and this is the reason why I have asked the question regarding the budget that is now before the House and which the Bloc opposes. There nevertheless has been a change regarding the chief actuary, who will be responsible for setting the premium rates to be paid by workers and employers.

That being said, I had an opportunity to discuss the implementation of such a program with representatives of the Government of Quebec. A part of the funds transferred to Quebec—I have already mentioned an amount of $600,000—can be used to implement a program for older workers. Finally, for workers in the textile and apparel industry, the minister supports the idea and has already taken steps to create a program to help them.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for kindly dividing her speaking time with me, and also to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Chambly—Borduas, with whom I have had many hours of discussion on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I can assure the House that the Government of Canada is acutely aware of our changing labour market and the consequences of factory closures for Canadian workers, older workers in particular. These closures are the result of a multitude of factors: globalization, international competition, demographic change. In Quebec in particular we have been hit hard by all those factors. The most affected people in a factory are, of course, the older workers, who may be getting to the end of their working lives, and find it difficult to adapt and to find new jobs.

We are therefore highly conscious of the impact of these changes for vulnerable groups. I would like to continue where my colleague from Ahuntsic left off and tell you about the number and quality of programs our government has put in place to meet these needs.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, working in partnership with the provinces and territories, has the tools ready to respond to these workers' needs.

The first tool available to these Canadians is temporary income support and assistance under the employment insurance program. These EI benefits, funded under Part I of the Employment Insurance Act, are designed especially to help insured Canadians, people who have made contributions and are temporarily unemployed and seeking to re-enter the workforce.

Last year, the Human Resources and Skills Development employment insurance program provided over $9 billion in income benefits to unemployed Canadians to assist them through this transition period. Of that amount, workers aged 55 or older last year received $1.2 billion in EI regular benefits.

This temporary support program is specifically designed to respond to changes in labour markets, local markets in particular. For example, when regional unemployment rates change, we adjust entrance requirements accordingly, as well as the length of time that workers are entitled to receive benefits, an extremely complicated process.

When I first came to this House and I worked as parliamentary secretary to the former Minister of Human Resources Development, as was the title at the time, I understood to what extent the Government of Canada took into account in its calculations the conditions specific to each region, specifically and individually, before setting the rate.

The second tool is a full array of active employment measures to assist unemployed workers of all ages. The Government of Canada worked in partnership with provinces and territories to deliver more than $2 billion in active measures last year alone.

Under these measures, unemployed workers can receive up to three years of training if they require new skills in order to find new and lasting employment. They can also receive income support for up to one year—or longer if they have a disability—while they start their own business.

There are also programs for people who simply need new or additional work experience. Participants in all of these programs receive the income support they need to ensure they are able to participate.

Moreover, EI active measures fund employment services right across the country to assist unemployed individuals with employment counselling and assessment, and job search skills.

Last year, almost 600,000 unemployed workers in Canada, including 160,000 people aged 45 or over, participated in one of these programs.

Of course, we recognize that some older workers who have been laid off experience special difficulties in their search for new work. I said so at the beginning of my remarks. Some lack the skills needed for many of today's jobs, especially those that cannot easily be transferred to the kinds of jobs available in our knowledge based economy.

We also know that many older workers can and want to work longer, much longer.

This is why the Government of Canada has been working in close collaboration with the provinces and territories, including Quebec, my home province, to test new approaches.

Between 1999 and 2005, we invested $50 million in the Older Workers Pilot Projects initiative. This initiative was recently extended until May 2006 and enriched by $5 million. It will also enable us to identify key lessons that can be used to develop future programs. To date, this initiative has supported almost 130 pilot projects across the country.

In addition, the Government of Canada's workplace skills strategy aims to assist Canadians already in the workplace, including older workers, to upgrade their existing skills and acquire new ones.

In the 2005 budget, the government invested $125 million over three years to support the strategy to meet three objectives: strengthening apprenticeship systems in Canada; testing new skills development programs that are demand-driven and aimed at developing the skills of employed people; and fostering dialogue on workplace skills issues through the workplace partners panel composed of business, labour and training leaders.

Above all, the workplace skills strategy is a collaborative effort. This is why the Government of Canada is working with business, unions, learning institutions, the provinces and territories and sector councils to develop this strategy.

To conclude, I can assure the hon. members that the Government of Canada will continue to work closely with its partners to develop joint strategies to improve the productivity of workers and their inclusion in the labour market.

I cited these programs not to show that all is well, everything is done, we can stop there and workers will have no more problems. On the contrary, it was to show that the Government of Canada is committed to helping unemployed workers, particularly older workers. We intend to continue. The programs we will establish will be the extension of existing programs, which have already had an impact on our economy.

For example, the statistics demonstrate that we are indeed on our way to achieving the goal of reducing unemployment. The current unemployment rate for workers aged 45 and over is 5.4%, considerably below the national overall unemployment rate of 6%. For workers aged 55 to 64, the unemployment rate is 5.9%, which is also significantly lower than the national rate.

I would like to thank the member for Chambly—Borduas once again for his motion, which allowed me this opportunity to describe the government's measures for assisting older workers. What we want, and I think everyone in this House wants it, is to help workers who are unemployed, specifically older workers.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this debate in a slightly different direction based upon the motion before us today. I did not hear the hon. member mention it in her discourse. Clearly it was an oversight because there is an aspect of globalization to the motion and to what happens to the elderly workers across the country as their economies shift.

As we live in an increasingly global economy and environment, one thing we would expect the Canadian government to do is protect the interests of Canada as companies merge with or acquire other companies.

However, through our research and understanding, over the last near on 15 years now there have been over 11,000 acquisitions of Canadian companies from foreign companies and interests. Some of them, like Minmetals, have been completely hidden from Canadian scrutiny. Through all those acquisitions, there has not been one rejection by the federal government. Not one time was the acquisition not seen in the best interest of Canada. This is an extraordinarily good streak of luck, which is impossible to believe.

Could she comment on her government's lack of will or interest to withhold and uphold Canada's interests as we operate in this global economy?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The facts are there, but I think the interpretation is mistaken. It might be true that there was no action by the Government of Canada. However, attributing the lack of action to a lack of interest is indeed mistaken, if not false. The Government of Canada is interested when foreign companies purchase Canadian companies. Nonetheless, up to now, the government has still not seen fit to intervene, for various reasons, and I will not give any details now.

We should not forget that we are operating in a global context where, in my view, markets unfortunately cannot remain local. They cannot even remain only national markets; they have become international.

We cannot swim against the current or try to stop it; instead, we should try to turn its power to our advantage, to expand our Canadian markets.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously will support the motion. It relates indirectly to the employment insurance fund. When I think of the employment insurance fund, I think of profound Liberal mismanagement, the way the Liberal government has run these massive surpluses and then just expropriated them from the payers of those taxes to general revenues.

It reminds us really of the situation we have where the Liberal government broke the law to give a contract to rent a building from a Liberal senator, which sat empty for 10 months while taxpayers had to pick up the bill. Today we have learned that there is a second building, which the same Liberal senator's company is in the process of acquiring, which will rent to the government, once again in violation of the ethics rules.

I am concerned that this same thing is happening all over again. The government will pay rent to the company of a Liberal senator, in violation of the ethics rules--

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What relevance does this have to the motion before the House? We know the hon. member's interest in throwing mud, but that is not what we are now discussing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. At the start of the hon. member's remarks, he did talk about how he related it. The member will have to wrap up though because we are out of time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am calling on the government to return to sound ethical practices and not to award these kinds of rental contracts to Liberal members of the upper House in violation of the rules.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see a question. When we talk about ethical practices in the EI program, it has been very much looked after by all ombudsmen, by everybody from bottom to top. For the last three or four years we have worked very hard to make the EI payments as ethical as we can. I really do no know what he is talking about.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to say that, thanks to the economic climate, more jobs have been created. And this economic climate was brought about by the government. When we came to power, the country had a deficit. Obviously, job creation is not possible in a deficit situation. But with a balanced budget and lower interest rates, the proper climate can exist. This was not achieved because someone just yelled. Actions were taken, on this side of the House, by this government, with the help—I must say—of the provincial governments. This is the reason why jobs were created.

My question is more specific. The member may not have been in the House during my speech. I mentioned that $600 million were transferred. In fact, we do recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over manpower and employment.

Their brothers from the Parti Québecois were in power at the time. They do not like me calling them separatists. When they were in power, no program was created for older workers. Since 1993, we have taken a whole series of actions to help those who have lost their jobs.

As I mentioned in my speech, we have created jobs. The best economic and social program is job creation, and this is what we have done. They have created nothing. Now, they are coming back to demand the same thing. But they must admit that the proper climate exists precisely because, on this side of the House, action was taken to ensure that job creation would occur.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Joliette for agreeing to share his time with me. It was a close call.

I am happy to take part in today's debate, which we owe to my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. I thank him for moving his motion because my riding, like the ridings of many other members, is deeply affected when older workers are victims of mass layoffs. I think that no one here, no matter on which side of the House we sit, can remain unmoved by a mass layoff. We may not have the same approach to solutions but we all make efforts to find some.

The minister said that she supported my colleague's motion. Of course, that is good news. However, there is a glitch. Even though we are glad to have the support of the minister, we hope that she will be able to convince the Prime Minister to support it too. We must not forget that he is the one who abolished the Program for Older Worker Adjustment in 1997, when he was minister of Finance.

Let me read the motion quickly:

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.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very pleased that all parties support this motion. It is high time for the government to take concrete steps to help older workers who are laid off.

I also remind Liberals who support this motion, that they are well known for making promises and not keeping them. We want concrete measures. This strategy has to be put in place now.

We want an income support program for older workers. We want this POWA program to be part of a comprehensive support strategy for older workers. We do not want small pilot projects like the ones mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, the minister and her colleagues since the beginning of this debate. These initiatives are not only insufficient but also far from meeting the current needs of the older workers who have lost their jobs.

Why do we need a specific measure for older workers affected by a permanent major layoff? I will quote what the Canada Employment Insurance Commission had to say on that subject in the report it tabled last March. This report states among other things that:

Although older workers enjoyed considerable employment growth in 2003-04 (5.8% unemployment rate), it is widely acknowledged that once unemployed, older workers may face challenges becoming re-employed. Older workers are over-represented among the long-term unemployed, representing 21.3% of this group and only 12.5% of the labour force.

The Liberal government claims that it is helping older workers with the pilot projects I talked about. The main goal of those pilot projects, created to address massive layoffs, is to train laid-off older workers. However, experience has taught us that older workers are not very likely to pursue this type of training. These projects are therefore clearly inadequate.

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission went on to say that:

Older workers tended to remain unemployed longer—33.6 weeks compared to 23.3 weeks for workers aged 25 to 54. In general, older workers had lower education levels than workers aged 25 to 54 (39.1% of older workers had less than high school education, compared to 18.9% of workers aged 25 to 54)—

We must face the facts. Training is pointless for some older workers. They are in dire straits. We know that, if these older workers are unable to find another job before their benefits run out, they will be forced to apply for social assistance.

In order to get social assistance, they have to qualify for it. So, first they will have to get rid of their assets. These people have worked their entire lives for a house, land, a car and maybe even a cottage. However, before they get social assistance, their last resort, they will have to get rid of everything. It is humiliating for these people, who have often worked 20, 30 or 40 years even in same place and they have to apply for social assistance. This is not a solution.

POWA was an acceptable solution until 1997. Now, we want it reinstated.

We know that some sectors are harder hit than others as a result of globalization and competition from Asia. I am thinking of the textile and clothing industries, among others. Some of these industries are in my riding. I say “some” because there used to be many more. Unfortunately, as a result of competition from Asia and the federal Liberal government's lack of vision, many of them have had to shut their doors.

There is a crisis in the textile and clothing industries, that goes without saying. These industries have to adapt to a new trade environment. On December 31, 2004, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which had been in force since 1995, expired. The end of this agreement meant that the Canadian and Quebec borders were now open to imports, particularly from China, which are mushrooming. And it is the same for other countries.

To add fuel to the fire, the United States, the primary destination for our exports, concluded a series of agreements facilitating the import by that country of clothing manufactured abroad using American fabrics, which has decreased access for clothing manufactured using Quebec and Canadian fabrics.

Textile plants are often the main if not the only business of any size in a number of communities. Do I need to mention Huntingdon again? My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who sits near me in this House, has spoken considerably of it. He has fought tooth and nail for his people, and I congratulate him on it. The fight is not over. This community has not finished fighting for its survival. It is a tragic event when six businesses in the same sector close at the same time. We can imagine the terrible situation the people and their families are facing.

I would like to speak briefly, as well, about the furniture industry. Where I come from, in Victoriaville, the firm Shermag has just announced it is laying off 175 people in July, when the company will shut down completely. Competition from Asia is again the source of problems.

In this House, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development what she could do. I requested that a POWA be set up. She did not rise to answer. The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec responded, telling me that his department did not target this type of business. That is the answer I got. That is the answer our workers got from this government. I have not given up. I will continue to hammer the same message home. This response indicates an insensitivity that is totally unacceptable.

In addition to POWA, I proposed constructive solutions to help the furniture sector. I asked the government to ensure that Asian countries complied with WTO regulations. I called for more power for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in order to speed up the complaint process. If it takes two years to investigate unfair trade practices, workers can end up in the street long before a conclusion is reached.

I called for the creation of tax credits for innovation. Respect is due to the furniture sector, which is undertaking research and development. In many cases, this has not been accepted. I also asked for an accelerated write-off for manufacturing facilities, which would make other investments possible.

I made a quick aside to talk about Shermag, in my hometown of Victoriaville, because this is something that is very near and dear to my heart. I will now come back to POWA.

Still in my riding, and I always like to give local examples because there are plenty, a few years ago the workers of the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos were also hit by massive layoffs They could also have benefited from a program to help older workers. When I met them during the election campaign, they suggested an improved POWA. It is a proposition that the Bloc Québécois fully supports. We know that a coalition of labour unions, the CSD, the CSN, the CSD and the FTQ, have presented an improved POWA. It is important that we talk about it.

I will conclude by saying that this improved POWA would give older workers benefits allowing them to keep their assets. For the coalition, it is very important that older workers are not faced with an economic downfall forcing them to give up any asset acquired during their life. The support provided by this improved POWA should be equal to the income replacement rate under the EI program, and a minimum threshold should be established, as provided in the POWA since 1987.

I want to mention that the Bloc Québécois has seen a good number of its motions adopted in the House. For those who are wondering what the Bloc Québécois is doing here, I would remind them that not too long ago, we have had several of our motions adopted on issues such as the mad cow crisis, the textile industry, supply management, the judicial appointment process, and so on.

However, I would like this motion to be unanimously adopted in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, and as I have said before, I have some experience in the textile and apparel industry. I would invite the member to read my speech in order to see what measures I have taken personally, and with the government, in connection with those industries.

Our two sides have definite philosophical differences, and that we accept.

The EI fund is not intended to keep people unemployed. It is there to help them temporarily when they lose their jobs. That was the philosophy of the federal government. Now there are, however, other programs created to help people who have lost their jobs and who, we realize, are not going to be able to work.

At the same time, I repeat, these workers must also have the opportunity to access employment and training if they wish. Training remains under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec, and we acknowledge that. We have transferred $600 million to Quebec for worker assistance programs.

This is a question I have asked before and I am asking again. It is all very well to demand things, but the government is the one responsible for the actions. The Bloc can try to work with the Government of Quebec, even if it has not had as much success in lobbying it as it would like to have with its Quebec separatist brethren. What is it going to do to encourage the Government of Quebec to create programs for older workers?

I have had the opportunity to encourage the Liberal government of Quebec to put in place a program for these textile and garment workers, who are in need of it. They are not the only ones to have compassion for these workers. A number of members here in this House also feel for them.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will have to do her homework once again. I believe she is sincere when she says that she has asked her government for support measures for older workers. I know there are textile industries in her riding and that this is very important to her. However, there is work to be done.

We must be very careful. We are not against training programs for a certain category of workers who are laid off. On the contrary, it is for the better if most workers in an industry that closes its doors find another job after having received training. We are well aware that most workers still have many years to give society by working. We are not interested in putting them on leave.

However, we must also be aware—and the federal government is not, because it abolished the POWA in 1997—that there is a certain other category of workers who cannot find another job, despite two or three years of training. They will not be able to do so. They worked 30 or 40 years for the same business. Perhaps they are less educated than some other colleagues. We know that the best solution to ensure that these people live with dignity is for them to benefit from a program that will help them bridge the gap until the age of retirement.

It is not that complicated. This is not something that is impossible to achieve and that will cost an arm and a leg. We showed that this was possible. This is what we are asking the government.

We are asking the parliamentary secretary and her colleagues to support us on this.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

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

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

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be yes. That is exactly the problem with the government. We must constantly ask for emergency measures after the crisis has developed.

The government had all the time it needed to put safeguards in place. I am thinking of the textile industry crisis. That is a file the member for Joliette knows very well. We have had 10 years to put in place safeguard measures. Without going so far as closing our borders, we could have implemented some measures to help the textile industry to adapt. That industry could have become competitive with Asian countries and others that are conquering world markets with their textile and apparel.

During 10 years, nothing happened. Then, we realized that something should have been done.

That is the problem with this government: it does not have a vision.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Churchill.

I strongly support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas. It is a very important motion. It is also a current matter. We know very well that the Liberal government's record is terrible when it comes to job losses in the country. For instance, in the textile sector, 40,000 jobs were lost in Canada, and almost 10,000 in Quebec. Let us talk about the softwood lumber industry. More than 20,000 jobs were lost in British Columbia, and several thousands more throughout Canada. In the cattle industry, beef for example, we have seen tens of thousands of jobs lost.

When it comes to the number of jobs in Canada, we are talking about a crisis. In fact, the government did almost nothing. It did not establish an employment strategy nor did it try to help those workers who are losing their jobs. That is why the motion is so important. It is about a strategy to help older workers.

The issue is not only the number of jobs lost in Canada in recent years under the Liberal government but also the quality of those jobs. In real terms, Canadian workers as a whole are earning 60¢ less an hour than they did 10 years ago. In order to make both ends meet, they have to work an increased number of hours. Even if salaries have remained stable and have not increased, those workers have seen their hourly wage decrease over the last 10 years under the Liberal government. This is a loss of quality. It is an important issue which we must do something about.

There is all this talk about supporting older workers who lose their jobs, but we must recognize that the present crisis, in terms of quantity and quality of jobs, is generalized.

A few months ago, in December, we had a debate on the measures to be taken in response to the disaster which hit Huntingdon. Members of all parties will recall that several factories had closed down. The federal government did not act until other parties in this House forced it to do something and give answers to those workers. In many cases, those who lost their jobs in Huntingdon were older workers.

I referred earlier to 10,000 jobs lost in Quebec and 40,000 across Canada. There has been very little response. The government's support to the textile and apparel industries in Canada averaged between $200 and $300 per company. Since there are close to 4,000 such companies in Canada, the emergency assistance each of them received came to a few hundred dollars per month.

That is the problem. Considering the crises breaking out in several areas and the related job losses, the government is doing very little. The issue of jobs loss must be considered, but also training. As a matter of fact, training is the key to success in a global economy.

This is the issue that we have had in various industries, crisis after crisis and very little response from the Liberal government to address these various crises in various industries.

We talked about the textile and clothing industry a few moments ago. We have talked about the softwood industry and the loss of over 20,000 jobs in my province of British Columbia. We still have consistent dithering from the government not wanting to change its trade strategy, which is effectively a jobless trade strategy.

While we continue to provide privileged and preferential access to our energy resources in this country, we have done nothing to push forward a Canadian agenda that would allow us to deal with the BSE crisis, the softwood crisis, and these various crises that have led to the loss of jobs across the country.

What has the impact been? We are talking about more children in poverty. We are talking about longer food bank lineups. We are talking about a situation where Canadian families are earning less per hour over the last 10 years. It is 60¢ an hour less in real terms. They are having to work longer weeks to make ends meet.

We also know that the crisis in employment that is taking place in this country affects the quality of jobs. In fact, over the 15 years since the signing of the free trade agreement, it actually created half the number of full time jobs that were created in the 15 years previous. In other words, our trade strategy has been a jobless trade strategy. We have actually created fewer full time jobs. More and more Canadians are working in part time situations, temporary situations, and striving to get through to the end of the month.

Fewer and fewer Canadians, from the Statistics Canada report that came out in January, are working in jobs with pensions. Whereas in most cases, 10 years ago, jobs came with pensions and some income security for people's old age. Now fewer than 40% of jobs in Canada come with pensions or benefits.

We have seen a jobless trade strategy. We have seen massive loss of jobs in many industries and no action from the Liberal government. As a result, we need motions like this from the member for Chambly—Borduas, so that as we lose these jobs with factory closures, at least we have a strategy to help older workers.

It is important to note that some of the most competitive cities in North America are in Canada. They are here because, for example, our universal and public health care system is a major competitive edge for those companies that are based in Canada. I am ashamed to say that the corporate sector, rather than acknowledging that competitive advantage that our public programs like public health care provide, has been pushing constantly and with some echo of response from at least a couple of corners of the House for more corporate tax cuts.

That is not what we need. We do not need another $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts, even though a couple of parties in the House would certainly like to shovel off the back of a truck as much money as possible to the corporate sector.

We need a national job strategy. We need more research and development. We need more training. That is what the NDP agreement on the budget amendment, that forced investment in training and post-secondary education, achieved.

We need more investment in green economic initiatives. Certainly, our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has been the number one advocate in this country in that regard. We need more value added production. We need more investments in physical and social infrastructure because that is a major source of job creation. We need more sources of capital. We have been calling for a national investment fund.

We need less of the outsourcing for which the Liberal government has been pushing. We heard the Minister of International Trade, a few months ago, saying in the House that he would not shed a tear if companies outsourced more and if there were more lost jobs in this country. It is shameful that he would make such a statement.

We are outsourcing the Canadian flag. When I arrived in Washington for a trade mission, I was given a T-shirt made in Mexico and a lapel pin made in the People's Republic of China. I was told to talk to members of Congress and tell them about good Canadian quality products. It is very difficult when the federal Liberal government does not give us one article made in Canada. How many lost jobs resulted from that lapel pin outsourcing which my colleague, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, has decried in the House?

We need less outsourcing and less laissez-faire. We need more investment in Canadians and in training. That is why the members in this corner of the House are fully supportive of the motion. We are fully supportive of the creation of good quality Canadian jobs and we are fully supportive of a national job strategy that leads to better quality jobs, not less quality jobs.

It is important to note, when we talk about better quality jobs in the unionized sector, that studies from the United States have indicated unionized companies have a higher level of productivity, more than 20% higher than unorganized companies. Those workers can feel secure behind a collective agreement and they can work in good quality jobs to contribute to their community and their country.

We support the motion.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question, and that is the hilarity I see in the member from a socialist party waxing eloquent about saving jobs just days after attempting to cancel job saving tax relief in the finance committee and just days after threatening Canadian jobs.

We have seen over the past couple of weeks some turmoil in the auto industry. Regions of the entire country have been facing some rising unemployment. We have concerned Canadians who do not have job security. The companies they work for are competing in a very uncompetitive area because of excessive tax rates.

It is funny to hear that member over there. I truly believe he might be sincere in trying to urge support for saving some jobs in this industry. We know where his leader stands on competitiveness and jobs. He is very anti both. However, just a few days ago his party tried to kill those job saving tax reliefs, which our party has been so adamant about in order to provide families, working Canadians, with security in their industries and in their professions. It is just a comment I would like to make today.