Debates of Oct. 5th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Older Workers Income Support

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Joliette, who was the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade for quite some time. He is very familiar with the file concerning the Quebec bicycle industry, which has been having a very hard time.

The Minister of Industry and hon. member for Beauce, where there is a bicycle factory, refused to provide any assistance to help this industry get back on its feet, or to help the workers of this industry as they face the reality of globalization.

How does he think this Conservative ideology reconciles everything that is happening in the bicycle industry, while it is impossible for businesses to restructure themselves? At the very least, POWA must be put in place. This minister, the Minister of Industry, belongs to a government that is dragging its feet in the POWA file. I would like him to talk about the ideology behind this kind of decision.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My greatest concern is that the Conservatives and the ministers responsible for this file have an ideological vision, rather than a pragmatic vision based on the real needs of the people and the regional economies. Once again, this is true in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

We have reason to worry when, even despite the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ruling that dumping was taking place and hurting the industry, the government refuses the bicycle industry something that the World Trade Organization and Canadian legislation allows.

It is as though they are saying “Forget about it”, as though they would prefer to forget about entire regions that are having temporary difficulties adapting to a new reality.

Pro Cycle, which is in the Minister of Industry's riding, and Rallye have made tremendous efforts to deal with competition from China and Vietnam. They need time to adapt. I have seen robots install bicycle cables. It takes time to get there and this eliminates jobs. We need POWA, safeguards and a real support program for the manufacturing industry, which we do not have.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for the beautiful riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's.

I thank the member for Chambly—Borduas for raising this issue. I also reassure him that Canada's new government shares his concerns regarding the distinct challenges facing older workers.

Our government recognizes and appreciates the hardships faced by older workers who face unexpected changes to their work environment in communities and regions with limited employment alternatives. However, what the member opposite sees as simply challenges, we also see as an opportunity.

There are strong indications that people can and want to work longer, even if only on a part time basis. While all Canadian workers face new challenges to adapt to the fast-changing global economy, such challenges are often especially difficult for older workers, particularly following the unexpected loss of employment.

As statistical data has constantly found, when older workers lose their jobs, they tend to remain unemployed longer compared to their younger counterparts. Some older workers lack the education and skills needed for many of today's jobs. Others have skills that are not easily transferred to jobs found in the new knowledge-based economy. Moreover, some employers are reluctant to invest in retraining for workers who may be close to retirement.

Overcoming such realities represents a challenge for Canada. Losing the knowledge and experience of older workers would represent a loss we cannot afford in an era increasingly marked by labour shortages. However, what we identify as a challenge, can sometimes be an opportunity in disguise. Older workers provide a valuable contribution to the labour market, which is important to the economic well-being of the country. By ensuring the continued participation of older workers, we are not only helping to address labour market shortages but we also simultaneously ensure that the vast experience and expertise will be passed on to future generations.

We should continue to encourage older workers to share their skills and talents well into retirement age, as their participation in the workforce will play an important role in meeting the demands of the labour market. Indeed, in the context of an aging society, Canada's older workers are becoming an increasingly critical component of Canada's labour force.

As indicated by a recent OECD report, the labour market situation of older workers has improved considerably in recent years. Employment rates for older workers have increased rapidly over the decade, from 43% in 1995 to 55% in 2005. Older workers have a lower unemployment rate at 6% than the total workforce at 6.5% in 2006. At the same time, many employers in Canada, such as Alberta's oil patch, are experiencing skills shortages and lagging behind their potential due to a lack of workers.

As our population ages, older workers hold the key to ensuring continued growth and prosperity, and offer a means of helping address Canada's labour shortages. As Judy Cutler of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons recently stated:

There's a shortage of workers, and as more and more people retire, there will be a greater shortage....We have older workers who want to work. Why not embrace their expertise?

More specific, we need to find new ways to reintegrate older workers into Canada's labour force. We need to offer support to older workers who may be in danger of losing their jobs. With access to opportunity, we know these Canadians can keep contributing their enormous talent and experience to our economy.

That is why budget 2006 committed to conducting feasibility studies to look at measures to help displaced older workers. This wide-ranging study will examine the need for improved training and enhanced income support, including early retirement benefits as proposed in the motion of the hon. member.

We do recognize the challenges faced by older workers, particularly those in communities that are dependent upon single industries. Turning to the forestry sector, we are spending $400 million over the next two years to boost the competitiveness of this vital Canadian industry. This includes funding to support worker adjustment.

In the meantime, we are offering unemployed older workers practical assistance, such as skills development and new work experience. Through part II of employment insurance, we are helping older workers to access the tools, programs and services they need to upgrade their skills and successfully re-enter the job market.

Under these innovative measures, older workers across the country receive training, work experience and support to start their own businesses. At the same time, many are receiving income support while they participate in the program.

Across Canada more than 80,000 older workers are benefiting from these employment programs each year. In fact, nearly 230,000 displaced older workers receive $1.4 billion in income benefits each year.

We want to harness the skills, energy and leadership of older workers in jobs that benefit their communities. In short, the government wants to lend a hand to help older workers get back to work. We want to work with Canadian unions, employers and communities to find new ways to tap into the wisdom and experience of older workers. We want to find ways to empower older workers to continue their participation in the labour market, in our forests, our fisheries, offices and factories.

Our government's focus is on getting results on issues that matter most to Canadians. We want to do it in a way that will benefit all Canadians now and in the future.

As older workers represent the single largest pool of labour supply, carrying out an early retirement program, without fully assessing the labour market impacts of this initiative, would be irresponsible. That is why we need to take time to consider the results of our feasibility study and make an informed decision.

Additionally, we will build on lessons learned from our older workers pilot project initiative, conducted in partnership with provinces, to improve federal and provincial employment programing to better meet the needs of older workers. However, our government's first priority is to assist those older workers seeking employment to find and retain jobs.

That is why I cannot in good conscience support this motion.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments.

He must certainly recognize—just as his colleague who will speak after him, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's—the difficulties we are now having with the workforce in rural Nova Scotia. Indeed, there are problems with fishing, with the herring industry, the salted fish industry, which is suffering a setback. Some people have a hard time making a real career of it, working a full year. It is important for these people to have support, and we are talking about support here. Also, it is important for them to have a training opportunity, to have access to continuing education. If we take the tools away from them, such as support for literacy education, which is the key for retraining, reshaping and preparing for the new economy and new jobs, we are in fact reducing investments where they should be increased. Investments in vocational training are also reduced. In southern Nova Scotia, only three months of the fiscal year are recognized. There used to be more money allotted for the development of human resources, for getting these people in training programs.

But we get no response on that from the government. We see no investment and a setback of $1 billion in social programs. We should increase investments in public Internet access sites in communities such as Maitland Bridge, which the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's must know well and where we should be investing. Instead, we are telling them that we are not investing anymore.

Therefore, how will this government meet the needs and expectations of people in remote rural communities, in Atlantic provinces as well as in Quebec, in Ontario, in western Canada and in the north?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will discuss those issues with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

We certainly appreciate the hardships being faced by older workers who face unexpected changes in their employment, environment and communities. We are focused on providing the tools needed for retraining and helping them move on to other jobs.

We should not forget, though, that we need to encourage older workers. They all possess a set of skills, even life skills, that they can share with other workers. They can help us with labour shortages and with regional difficulties, as mentioned by the member.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, how could the Government of Canada improve the labour market flexibility to support adjustments in the labour market?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the efficient operation of labour markets will continue to be central to what the government will do to help in the area of market flexibility.

Canada has well functioning markets and, in particular, the labour markets. We have looked at what we need to do so we can be flexible so workers can move from one sector to another. The days of one job for one's life are perhaps gone. The flexibility needs to be there.

We are also exercising leadership to secure the efficient operation of the national labour market. The federal government is uniquely positioned to facilitate a cross-Canada approach. We must be able to look at this as the federal government from a pan-Canadian point of view, rather than simply looking at it in regional or community situations. We must, as the government, react as the Government of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he really understands the goal of the motion. Does he understand that the implementation of a program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, does not preclude the implementation of other measures to help certain workers go back to work? I hope he realizes that we are not asking for charity.

Of course, there is a category of workers who want nothing better that to be able to take classes and go back to work. The category of workers that this motion is aimed at is the hard to place workers. That does not mean that, during the period between end of employment—when they can benefit from POWA—and retirement, they could not go back to the labour market. These people could, of course, earn money for their work and it would be deducted from the POWA amount right up to their retirement date. One does not preclude the other.

Does the hon. member fully grasp the purpose of this measure? Does he understand that the workers are not asking for charity, but for an appropriate program, and that their reasons are motivated by the exception and not by the rule?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the purpose. The question is will it accomplish what the member would like it to accomplish, or are we looking at a cross-Canada approach to this, or trying to fix it in a way that may not fix it?

As I said in my remarks, the statistics tell us that as older workers are displaced from their jobs, they may be unemployed for a longer period of time. Support would certainly need to be there as one of the mechanisms. The true mechanisms are getting back to work. We have to look at the labour shortages from a pan-Canadian point of view as to what is the best solution.

We recognize that these workers share skills, mindsets and life skills that are so valuable to other employees out there. We certainly would like to put those to the best advantage.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Don Valley East, Firearms Registry.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in debate today. I listened very closely to the comments from my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. It was very clear that he had a good understanding of the issues that surround older workers getting back into the workforce.

This debate concerning older workers is not a debate that is about to go away in the short term, but is certainly one that our new Conservative government will grapple with and work at trying to find some real answers, not simply political posturing but real answers.

This is a very timely issue. At a time when the average age of workers in the Canadian labour force is increasing and according to demographic projections will continue to increase, we want to be sure we have the policies and programs in place that will support older workers.

This government understands the reasons why the opposition has brought forward today's motion. We share its concern for the well-being of Canada's older workers, but at the same time, with the Canadian economy facing skill and labour shortages, it is also important to recognize that many older unemployed workers still want to make a contribution to the Canadian economy and should be encouraged and able to do so, especially in the member's home province.

Henri Gaudin pointed out in the Montreal Gazette:

Workers' early retirement is one of the least-discussed problems facing the economy of the Montreal region and Quebec as a whole. The issue affects not only older workers but everyone, including young people.

That's because society's prosperity depends on a growing workforce. Quebec's workforce will start to shrink sooner than most of us assume. If current trends continue for births, immigration and retirement age, demographers at the Institut la statistique de Quebec say that the province's workforce will decline starting in 2013.

When we are asked to look at the issue of early retirement income support programs for older workers, such as the opposition motion prompts us to do, we need to bear such considerations in mind. Chiefly, we need to have appropriate support mechanisms in place which are capable of helping Canada's older workers to remain active labour market participants.

It should be noted that many of these workers are eligible for assistance under part II of the EI program. Under EI part II, unemployed individuals, including older workers, may qualify for active re-employment benefits to assist them in finding and maintaining new employment. These programs include training, work experience and support to become self-employed. As a matter of interest, over 40,000 older workers, defined as those aged 55 and over, participated in part II programming last year.

As I said earlier, this is a timely issue, but I should also mention that it is not a new one. The Government of Canada has had experience with income support measures for older workers for many years. In the context of today's debate, it might be useful to look at some of that experience.

In 1987, almost 20 years ago, the Conservative government of the day introduced a program to provide an income safety net for laid off older workers. It was called the program for older worker adjustment, commonly known as POWA. It was targeted to older workers of pre-retirement age, workers who had lost their jobs as part of a mass layoff. It was hoped that POWA would encourage an integrated and comprehensive approach to older worker adjustment, under which provincial governments and employers would contribute to the solution.

The program concluded after nearly a decade in operation as many observers realized the program was failing to meet the objectives. Indeed, actual experience with the program showed that it negatively influenced workers' decisions to return to work. It is not as simple as coming up with an alternative or some type of government program. The program also has to be tracked to ensure that it is actually able and capable of delivering what we want it to deliver.

POWA was discontinued in 1997 when the then Liberal government shifted away from the passive income support programs toward active labour market and re-employment measures under a reformed employment insurance program. As the former Liberal minister of human resources, the current hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, stated in defence of such actions, and I would agree, older workers want to continue working. They do not want to sit at home and get a cheque. They want to take advantage of active return to work measures.

Following the demise of POWA, an older worker pilot project initiative was introduced. It tested different approaches to supporting unemployed older workers. These pilot projects looked at how the unemployment benefit and support measures under part II of the EI program might be used to support the special needs of older unemployed workers. A key feature of these pilot programs was that the unemployed older worker did not need to qualify for EI in order to obtain support. The older worker pilot project initiative ran until May of this year.

While the experience of the pilot project is still being evaluated in detail, some preliminary conclusions may be made which I wish to underline here today. First, the best outcomes were achieved with approaches that include employment assistance services together with some combination of training, marketing and/or work experience. Second, approaches that include 100% wage subsidies were the least effective. Third, a project approach involving groups of older workers produced the best results. Finally, flexible programming and attention to individuals were key ingredients of the success.

Programs must provide sufficient time for older participants to learn new skills. Training must be practical and relevant, and a long term approach will allow for more effective use of funds. Clearly, we have learned some interesting lessons from these pilots, lessons that can guide us in the future.

We know that older workers face challenges in today's labour market, for instances, some do not have the education needed for many of today's jobs, some have skills that cannot be easily transferred to the kinds of jobs that are available in today's knowledge based economy, and employers may not be open to investing in workers who are close to retirement.

The bottom line is that the government is concerned about the needs of older workers and, as outlined above, it already provides support for older workers on a variety of levels.

On the specific issue of early retirement, budget 2006 has committed to carrying out a feasibility study to examine the long term needs of older workers. We welcome the interest of our colleagues in the House on this important issue. We are looking forward to working with them in the future, so that we can all achieve our shared objective which is to help older workers live and work to their full potential.

However, I cannot support the motion as it would clearly pre-empt the results of the feasibility study, which our government is about to announce, a study based on extensive research on the needs and the contributions of older workers.

Every region of the country is facing a labour shortage. In the east we are facing a labour shortage of younger workers who are migrating to western Canada. In Quebec we have an aging society, as we do in the rest of the country. We have to look at the entire problem, not just specific parts of it. We have to find some type of solution that we can apply from coast to coast to coast in this country.

In my own region, as the member for West Nova alluded to, we have an aging workforce in the fishery. The fishery is a unique issue because it requires decades of knowledge to become a capable and able fisherman. One does not just go out on a boat one day and learn all of the charts, learn where the fish are, understand the ocean, understand the habits of the fish that one is chasing, and become a competent fisherman.

The average age of a fisherman in Nova Scotia in the South Shore area in particular, but in all of southwest Nova Scotia, is 53 to 55 years of age. It is a very dangerous environment. It is very difficult on older workers. We are rapidly coming to a point where those fishermen will be looking to get out of the fishery and we are looking for younger fishermen to replace them. That is becoming a very serious issue that we are facing. That is just one example. There are hundreds of examples like that throughout the country.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague understands the situation quite well and he has pointed out a lot of solutions. I agree with him that income support alone is not the answer. We have to look at the community itself and at the support it is receiving to permit people to live and thrive there. There are instances where income support is necessary. We need to invest in the education and training of these people.

My colleague alluded to the fishery. I have been dealing with a gentleman who is about my age, 22 or 23. Things are difficult for him. He does not own his own vessel. He wants to get out of the fishery but he needs retraining. He has the perfect qualifications for assistance under existing programs at HRSDC, but there are no more funds. There are no more funds are available out of the Yarmouth office. Many people in my community are facing these same problems and they are calling my office looking for help. I am sure the member has many people in his community who are doing the same thing as well.

We have a lot of community organizations looking at literacy. It does not square the circle of what my colleague is saying and what the frontbenchers of his party are doing. The government cut the labour market agreement, cut money for ACOA, cut unemployment, cut the Status of Women, cut literacy training, and reduced funding for training for older workers.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the issue with older workers is a serious issue. It goes far beyond simple rhetoric and partisan comments that we are all quite capable of making from both sides of the House.

In budget 2006, we made a commitment to look at the crisis facing Canadian workers and the regions of this country. We need to study in detail the needs of older workers. We need to look at how we could enable them to stay in the workforce through a myriad of support programs, some of which will be education. The point was made earlier that in today's workforce very few people stay at the same job. They will probably have quite a few different jobs and continual retraining throughout their working career. That is the workforce we have today.

In areas like forestry, fishery and agriculture, as workers get older, they get injured, and their bodies start to break down. It is very difficult for older workers to stay in the active labour market.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We have enough time for a one minute question and a one minute response. The hon. member for Chambly--Borduas .

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of my colleague to the fragility of his argument. Is he aware that his remarks have no credibility for the following reason? His whole argument is based on the need to do a study in order to implement POWA.

No program has been more reviewed by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. In fact, there was a report on it in 2001. Last year, another report full of recommendations was released. The issue has been studied extensively.

How is it that, for a program that will cost approximately $50 million to $75 million per year, we ask for studies while they have been done and that, when it comes to armament, for instance, which costs $17 billion, we move forward without any study and wait until after the House adjourns? Furthermore, as my colleague pointed out earlier, there are cuts worth $1 billion to social programs.

Is my colleague aware of the vulnerability and lack of credibility of his argument?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of weak arguments, anytime the government spends taxpayers' hard earned dollars, it should know exactly how it is spending those dollars and where those dollars are going. If we are looking at a program that will cost $50 million or $60 million, we had better know where that money is being spent and what we are going to get in return for it.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.

First, I would like to acknowledge the worthwhile initiative of my party, the Bloc Québécois, in renewing the debate about the program for assistance to older workers who are victims of massive layoffs.

It was imperative that the Bloc Québécois ask for this debate because the Conservative government seems to want to put us to sleep with its nice promises and very limited action.

In the throne speech and even the last budget, the Conservative government announced that it would deal with this issue. However, it merely ordered a feasibility study of a possible program to support older workers about which we have yet to hear a thing.

And yet, all the requisite studies have been carried out, not once but twice. They are available. All the government has to do is read them and set up the program.

I would even say to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to open her ears. She would hear the repeated cries for help from groups, unions and laid-off workers.

Unfortunately, as we see every day, the Conservative government has no interest in social groups or the unemployed.

Conservatives believe that people who are unemployed are lazy or do not want to work. Thus, they believe that it is no use helping those who lose their jobs because, for the Conservatives, the dollar sign is more important than the dignity of an employer and an employee, especially given the huge surpluses they have posted year after year.

However, workers who are victims of mass layoffs, just like others who are unemployed, are entitled to their dignity. They also have the right to keep the fruits of their life-long labour and to preserve their hard-earned assets.

The Bloc Québécois feels it is unacceptable for the Conservative government to delay establishing an income support program for older workers given their unique situation. We are asking that appropriate action be taken to meet their specific needs.

The Bloc Québécois reiterates that such a program should be available to all older workers who are victims of massive layoffs and who cannot return to the workforce, without differentiation or discrimination

According to rumours, the Conservatives will set up a program, but it will be a pale shadow of POWA. They would like to implement the program only in certain regions and for specific sectors.

I do not see which objective criteria or which principles one could use to justify such discrimination. In my beautiful Eastern Townships of Quebec, 10,000 industrial jobs were lost in the last three years.

By prioritizing some sectors over others, the government would be saying to textile workers in Sherbrooke, Magog or Coaticook that their job was worth more to the Conservatives than the jobs at TPI Plastiques in Coaticook, the jobs in the furniture industry at Shermag in Scotstown or the jobs in the food industry at Olymel in Magog. That does not cut it.

We can't create artificial categories based on subjective factors, when workers in the furniture or the food industry have the same needs as those in the textile or the forest industry.

People really need an income support program for older workers. Older workers affected by massive layoffs urgently need such a program, because more and more plants are closing.

I have been to many of these plants since I was elected. Some have shut down, some are still open and make a profit, while others are in dire straits. It is for the workers in these plants that we must act now.

When I meet older workers in vulnerable industries, I can feel their uneasiness. They are worried, because workers age 55 to 65 are the main victims of massive layoffs.

Older workers often have little education. Many started working when they were 14 or 15 years old to help provide for the family at a time where life was much harder than it is today.

Some people even have serious difficulties with reading and writing. In the era of the Internet, the BlackBerry and the iPod, you will understand that this does not make things easy. My mother tore her hair out if she had to program a VCR. They are not all in the best situation for learning, either. It is not always realistic to ask them just to go back to the classroom.

Older workers also often have long experience in the company that is closing down. The possibility of finding a job after 25, 30, 35 or even 40 years at the same plant is slim, particularly when the job they worked at was very specialized and simply no longer exists in a labour market that is in a perpetual state of flux. Older workers are also victims of their age when it comes time for hiring.

Relocating is not always a solution. Relocating people means that money becomes short in the community; Rona closes down, the grocery store closes and the schools close. People start to wonder why their village is becoming a ghost town.

Employer-paid group insurance policies are often a barrier to hiring older workers, because costs are higher than for a young worker. I can even offer the example of my neighbour, who applied for a job. He was not selected, not because he was 57 years old, but because he was overqualified. This is another point.

What is the current situation for older workers? What signal are we sending them? We are telling them that we will offer them no assistance, no program that meets their needs. That is most unfortunate, and it is why the Bloc Québécois is urging the government to act. At this time, an older worker who has been unable to find a new job during his employment insurance benefit period is compelled to apply for social assistance. To quality for that, the worker must run through all his assets and is forced to draw on savings. He will get limited assistance if the value of his home or car or material possessions is over a certain figure, as if owning a home at the age of 60 were some sort of crime. You will all acknowledge, as I do, that this is ridiculous.

Older workers are asking for no more than a little assistance that is appropriate for their situation. They are asking for a program that will help them make the transition between when they stop working and when they retire.

I can still remember an older worker who had lost his job. He took 73 resumes around over a three-month period. He was called for only two interviews, and both times the answer was no. How discouraging! I remember this man; he was destroyed, economically and mentally. He felt useless and abandoned. Today, people like him are the people for whom the Bloc Québécois is fighting to reinstate POWA.

During the 38th Parliament, the Bloc Québécois had a motion unanimously passed that called on the government to implement a strategy for helping older workers who lose their employment. Despite this motion being passed unanimously, the Liberals did not do anything either. The party in power has changed, but the results are a long time coming. In spite of its nice promises and fine speeches, the Conservative government wants to ease its conscience by talking about studies—studies that were done years ago.

The government keeps putting off implementing an effective and inexpensive program that would help these men and women who have given so much, who have paid taxes for decades, who have raised their children and who are asking for so little in return.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, how would the hon. member define an older worker? How would an older worker be determined and why? When my colleague on the committee put this forward I understood that he wanted to ensure that the intent of the motion was directed toward those who were most vulnerable, those affected by downsizing or closures, and not simply age.

Does the member not think we should be focusing more on downsizing and vulnerable workers in order to ensure we target the resources toward those who need it most? In many parts of the country there is a labour shortage. What would she consider to be the appropriate age range that would need this real income support program? I would appreciate the member's comments.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I almost sensed a bit of emotion in that question, but perhaps the translator got it wrong.

They want to organize a Canada-wide activity in some of the oil-producing areas. There is no oil in my riding. However there are people losing their jobs because the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government were inactive vis-à-vis protectionism. There was talk about bicycles, about furniture, about agriculture, about everything.

I do not think it is a good idea to send families in motorhomes to other provinces so they can survive the shortage. I think it would be better to develop their village, have them stay there and basically develop what is there. People choose to settle in a location and it is not by ignoring them and sending them elsewhere that we are going to solve the lack of training problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech.

I will use the question of my Conservative colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to ask another question. She asks what would define an older worker eligible for income support.

Of course, it is someone of at least 55 years of age who has worked for the same company over 10 of the last 30 years. This is in order to allow a greater number of women to be eligible for this program, since we all know that women entering the labour market leave it on occasion. At last, this person will remain available for work. So, this is the profile of older workers eligible for this program.

I will add that I had the opportunity to travel to my colleague's riding, where we visited plants, and even plants in neighbouring ridings, including textile plants in Magog — to name only those. Based on the characteristics or criteria I just listed, could my colleague tell me if there is still time to help people in her riding and in the neighbouring riding, who often ask for her opinion?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, there is still time to help these people.

People who lose their jobs are not lazy or afraid of work; they are victims of their jobs in the textile sector. These people have worked all their lives, they have worked 40 years and it is unacceptable to ask them to lose everything they worked for all their lives, be it their assets or their house. They only need temporary relief until they find a second or third job, but we absolutely must help them. They are very important socially and from an environmental and economic stand point. If we do not help them, they could slip into utter poverty and that is unacceptable for any human being in Quebec or in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for agreeing to share her time with me. It was very important to me that I speak on this motion introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. He does remarkable work and I would like to pay tribute to him in this House on this file that should concern all members who represent their people. In fact, I was listening to my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, who gave a thoughtful speech that is totally in line with what the Bloc Québécois has been thinking for years.

I do not understand that some speeches from the members of the Conservative government are completely the opposite of what they were saying when they were in opposition. So, there is a serious problem of consistency between what the Conservative Party was saying when it was in opposition and what it says now that it is in power. What I also find funny is that the Conservatives have a slogan saying that it is a new government. This is an old marketing scheme used by food stores and shopping centres that label their products “new and improved”. However, in the case of the Conservatives, it is not “and improved”, unfortunately.

They call themselves “new”, like the old marketing trick, but that is only to lead us to believe that they are different from their Liberal predecessors. In this specific case, they are not different at all. They are waiting for studies, checking things out. They were in favour before, but now they are not so sure. Actually, considering the speeches we heard in the House today, it seems they are now totally opposed.

I would like someone to explain to me what happened between the time when that party was the official opposition and the time it came into power and why the government is turning its back so cowardly on the older workers who need help the most?

Allow me to reiterate to the House our position regarding the motion, which states:

That the House reiterate to the government the importance of implementing a real income support program for older workers that would apply to all older workers in all economic sectors, in all regions.

In each of our ridings, older workers face tough situations when plants close because of globalization. I cannot fathom how we can tell the people who come in our riding offices that we do not agree with this motion.

I would like to provide a brief explanation of the former POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which ran from 1988 to 1997 and was abolished by the Liberals, as we mentioned a little earlier in this House. The former finance minister simply decided to drop workers and older workers.

From 1993 to 1996, I was an assistant to a Bloc Québécois MP. In my riding, lots of people with specific needs came to our office asking for help after massive closures, business closures. Those people were unhappy then, just as people are unhappy now.

At the time, those workers could take advantage of an assistance program that was designed specifically to help them and, as I was saying earlier during questions and comments, was the exception to the rule. We should keep that in mind when talking about this kind of program. These people were not asking for handouts then, and they are not asking for handouts now. They are just asking for help getting through the transition from losing their jobs and having problems finding something else, to the moment when they can retire without having depleted all of their resources.

A Conservative member said earlier in this House that when someone loses a job, there may be a long period of unemployment and the person must find another job. Fine. But when someone does not find another job, what happens once EI benefits run out? In Quebec, it means going on welfare. To be entitled to welfare, you may not own a house, a car, RRSPs, and so on. You must therefore use up a large part of what you own in order to qualify for welfare. When you are approaching retirement, it is a fine thing to find yourself in that position, emptying your pockets, when you know very well that this kind of program does not cost much and can help a particular category of people.

At that time, workers aged 55 to 64 who were eligible because they had lost their jobs as a result of a major and permanent layoff were offered benefit payments. How did this work? As I have described, a bridge was put in place between employment insurance benefits—it was called unemployment insurance at the time and that was more appropriate, to my mind—and, eventually, the pension plan. As I said, this is not charity, it is an exception for workers for whom new jobs cannot be found.

Figures show that in 1996, 11,700 people received benefits under POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, following 900 closures.

Not everyone could decide to retire a few years early because they lost their job. That is not how it worked. There were very specific criteria. That is what we have been working on for several years. We worked together on it with the Conservative members and the NDP members. Unfortunately, today, the Conservatives have left us.

Since the program ended we have had only pilot projects. Under the Liberals, there was an incentive to return to work, among other things. Some people benefit from those measures, of course, and so much the better. I am convinced that the vast majority of people who lose their jobs want to find another one. In any event, I meet people who do. I have seen people who worked in the furniture industry, in the textile industry. At the Jeffrey mine, back home in Asbestos, people have lost their jobs, very often because of globalization, and they want to find another one. They do not come to see us to get benefits under a program because they want to retire rich at government expense. Quite the opposite.

Some people can benefit from these measures. We are quite pleased when, after taking a course, for example, they manage to find another form of employment. However, we must be aware that there is a category of workers for whom it is much more difficult to find a job very quickly.

As I was saying earlier, during the questions and comments period, some people can benefit from an income support program and work at the same time, just as it is possible when receiving employment insurance benefits. I have myself already been an employment insurance recipient. I had found a job which was not full time, but which allowed me to return to the labour market. I would declare my work hours for employment insurance purposes, which left me with less employment insurance benefits and more pay. I finally managed to find a permanent job. I was not 55 years old and I was able to find another form of employment. However, it is not as easy for some other people, and I think that we must be aware of that.

Under the Conservatives—my colleague from Compton—Stanstead touched up on the subject earlier—we are talking about a short-lived and restrictive support program which in no way meets the needs of older workers, since it excludes many sectors and many regions. A real program is called for not only by the Bloc Québécois, but also unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly. Earlier, my colleague from Chambly—Borduas spoke about what was done by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This committee approved the implementation of a program for all sectors and all regions. We are not asking for a discriminatory measure such as the one mentioned by the government.

Once again, it is the Bloc Québécois that has championed the rights of the most vulnerable in this House. The income support program for older workers was proposed by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. As I said at the beginning, he has been working tirelessly so that people in terrible straits will at last have the benefits they deserve.

I would remind the House that last June 9 there was a motion calling on the government to establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs. This strategy would include income support measures to deal with the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization. Before that, on April 6, the House unanimously passed the Bloc Québécois subamendment to the Speech from the Throne concerning a strategy for older workers that should include income support measures.

We have done the work and we are now asking the House to pass this motion so that we can move forward and give those older workers the right to retire with dignity.

How much would that cost? It was mentioned in this House. It would cost the federal government around $55 million the first year and $75 million after that. In fact, as was the case for POWA, which was in place from 1988 to 1997, it is estimated that the government should pay 70% of the bill. How much is this if it would allow workers to make it to retirement with dignity, given that we are announcing a surplus of more than $13 billion? We are spending more than $17 billion on armaments, and we just cut $1 billion in programs for those most in need, women’s groups, museums, literacy and the voluntary sector. I cannot believe that we are unable to put in place an income support program.

Back home, I was touched by the closure of Shermag, a furniture company, for which we talked about such an income support program.

That is what I have been asked to defend here in this House. I repeat my request and I ask the House to support this motion.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech. Like many speakers from the Bloc Québécois and our critic in this area, the member for Chambly—Borduas, my colleague talked about the need for the government to implement a financial support program. I agree wholeheartedly of course.

I would like to ask my colleague, since he referred to the matter, whether there is a similar absolute necessity for the government to enhance—not eliminate—the support it gives to groups and organizations that help workers find jobs.

I understand that our motion aims to implement a financial program, but I would really like to hear what my colleague has to say on this. In my riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, organizations such as Transition Plus, for people over the age of 50, get less and less support from the federal government.

Could my colleague tell us what he thinks on this very important issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question which is a very pertinent one.

In my riding, there is an organization called Accès au travail, whose principles are identical, that is to help older workers who lost their job. As I said earlier, we try to find them new jobs but, unfortunately, that is not always possible. That is why we must have an income support program for older workers.

In this case, what is ironic are the mean cuts that have just been announced and that my colleague mentioned. I too remember seeing the Conservative finance minister happily posing with a big smile in front of a huge cheque like those we see in local newspapers when a sponsor gives money. Most of the time, it is for a good cause. In the case of the minister, all the money went to the debt payment. We are not against the payment of the debt, but we must put our priorities in good order. The priorities of the government are not those of our organizations which suffered funding cuts but which exist to help the most in need. In the case of people who want to learn new skills to find a new job I fail to understand and I find unacceptable that the government would make those cuts and refuse to create an income support program for seniors.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. What would the member think if we suggested that it is about displaced older workers, not just older workers? Many older workers still participate in the labour force again.

Recently, an OECD report on aging and employment policies in Canada recommended that the participation of older job seekers in employment programs be increased and that changes to programs and services should build on lessons learned from previous programs.

How does the hon. member's motion take into account this OECD research, which recommends that unemployed older workers benefit from participation in employment programs?