Debates of Oct. 5th, 2006

Opposition Motion—for Older workers Income Support

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Everyone supported the budget. You unanimously supported it.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I can read it clearly, Mr. Speaker. The government cut $17 million from workplace skills. It has also taken funds away from literacy programs that are needed. As the hon. member mentioned, 40% of older people have no skills in reading or writing because they did not go to school. The minority--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please.

The hon. member can sit down when I am standing. The hon. member has had a lot of time to put his question and it is time for the answer. The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this kind of demagoguery would be exhibited here, this morning.

We have to make a distinction between the budget and the cuts that were announced last week. None of those cuts was included in the budget. We are categorically opposed to the cuts announced last week. My colleague’s comment is entirely inappropriate and is not consistent with the truth.

I will not revisit the nature of our support for this transitional budget, which brings in changes concerning the fiscal imbalance. The government is going to have to deliver the goods. When it comes to the cuts announced last week, they were not in the throne speech.

I would have liked the member to tell us whether he will support the motion and whether he will urge his colleagues to take a different attitude from the one they took when they were in power, and whether he will join with us in calling on the government to implement an income support program for older workers as quickly as possible.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across with great interest and agree with much of what he said about support for displaced workers. It is something that needs to be done, but I have a question that flows from that support for displaced workers.

I am surprised that your political party is supporting the softwood deal with the U.S. that the Conservative government has put forward, because we all know that in my community and in communities across Quebec there will be lots of displaced workers due to that softwood agreement. Yet you are supporting that agreement, so I see an inherent--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member has twice used the second person. It is “his party”, not “your party”. I wonder if the hon. member could remember that rule.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

My question for the hon. member is, how can he support this agreement when it in turn will bring more and more displaced workers to every region of Canada, including Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts are the facts.

We did not negotiate the agreement. Once the agreement is negotiated, the stakeholders—the people in the industry—must tell us what they think of it. We must also determine what impact the difference will have on what they are entitled to. They are entitled to receive all amounts withheld by the American government. The Conservative government changed this entitlement in the agreement. We recognize that.

Just because the Conservative government changed this entitlement, should we throw the baby out with the bath water—that is, should we vote against this agreement and make things worse for the industry since what was negotiated was not right? A good number of companies have had to close their doors. For example, tens of thousands of sawmill workers were laid off. Is it their desire and ours to see that the remaining workers be laid off? The industry and the unions talked to us about this. My colleague and her party are very close to the unions. In Quebec and throughout the country, the people have said that we must support the agreement. We represent these citizens. The people, the unions and the companies have told us to vote in favour of the agreement, or it will be the end of them. Municipalities and municipal authorities also told us that without it they will have to shut down villages.

It does not bother us at all to vote for an imperfect agreement because it is in the best interests of the people we represent.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for presenting her position on the motion in such a clear manner.

I think the minister would agree that what we heard this morning is still rhetoric about training. Providing training and reintegrating these older workers in the labour market will contribute to the Canadian economy. I agree. We agree.

For people who are able to work and to retrain this is not a problem. We do not deny that. But we are talking about people who are unable to retrain or, for one reason or another, cannot work even if they have retrained.

We have to realize that in the country of Canada, and in the future country of Quebec, there is a stark reality: there are people over 55 who cannot find new employment.

I want to know if the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development recognizes that. If so, will she vote in favour of the motion?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

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

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

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

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks a good game, but she must be disappointed with the complete lack of support that she has been receiving from her cabinet colleagues. She must be disappointed that the tools she needs to accomplish what she professes have been eliminated, reduced and slashed.

She talks about the retraining of seasonally unemployed elderly workers, in most cases workers that are 55 to 65 years of age. Three months into the fiscal year in my riding there was no money for the retraining of those people. Some of them, we recognize, need basic skills before they can reintegrate into new professions or new jobs. Literacy programs, the most important and the basic fundamental building block to learning a trade, have been removed and slashed.

If the Conservatives want to do research in the rural part of this country, where most of the seasonally unemployed are, they cannot even go to a CAP site in the future because it has been eliminated. That is how people were able to do their own training. That is how they were able to do job searches. That is how they continued their education. No more now. They can go to the University of Calgary or somewhere else if they leave East Pubnico, but if they are going to be in western rural parts of the country, the minister should be ashamed of her cabinet colleagues. She should fight a lot harder for people who need the assistance of the government.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

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

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

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

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate in this House on the opposition member's motion on support measures for older workers that would apply to all older workers in all economic sectors, in all regions.

It is an honour for me to share my time with the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge her excellent work.

Allow me first to point out that Canada's new government holds older workers and their contribution to society in the highest regard. We are well aware that we owe them a great deal not just for their past contribution, but also for their current and future contribution to the labour market and to our well-being. Generations before us have shaped the Canada we know and love today and we are extremely grateful to them for that.

The contribution of all Canadians is essential to our collective well-being. As hon. members know, Canada, like all the industrialized countries, is facing an aging population. In fact, by 2020, the number of people between 55 and 64 will increase by 50%.

On the one hand, life expectancy is on the rise, and on the other, people are healthier and are remaining active. They can and want to continue contributing to society longer than before. More and more, Canadians are returning to work after retiring or are embarking on a new career after age 55. They still have a lot to give and dreams and goals to fulfil. What is more, they want to go on working in order to share their experience with other members of their community.

All this comes at a good time, because we need these people. We need their experience and their valuable advice. We need their expertise and their wisdom. They have enormous potential that is just waiting to be tapped. Older workers between 55 and 64 are the largest potential source of future growth in the available workforce. We must therefore work to increase their labour force participation.

If we want to maintain our standard of living, if we want to continue to prosper as a nation, we have to make the most of the potential of all Canadians. The growth in the labour force over the past few years can be attributed mainly to older workers. Since the end of 2002, these workers have accounted for half the growth in employment in Canada, and their increased participation in the labour force is now the main reason for the increase in Canada's overall participation rate. In other words, today, Canada simply cannot allow itself to retire workers who are considered redundant.

At the same time, we have to find solutions to the shortages of workers in a number of economic sectors. Tradespeople, for example, are a rare commodity in some parts of the country, including my own riding, Mégantic—L'Érable. And this situation will only get worse in years to come.

Yet we know that there are thousands of older workers who are losing their jobs—often the only job they have had in their life—because of plant closures or a slowdown in a particular industry. Unfortunately, remote areas and those that depend on a small number of industries are hit hardest.

We have seen compelling examples in Quebec in the textile, forestry and fishery sectors. We are aware of this situation and we firmly intend to continue our efforts to help older workers to reintegrate into the labour market.

However, we do not want to adopt temporary, off the cuff measures. No, first, we want to make an overall evaluation of the situation of older people with our partners in the provinces and territories in order to identify possible solutions. Older workers have special needs that call for specific answers. We do not want to bungle the job.

In the 2006 budget, our new government has made a commitment to help those Canadians who are most affected by the impacts of the global economy, including older workers. As is mentioned in the budget, we are going to conduct a feasibility study with the participation of the provinces and territories to evaluate the measures now available or that could be available to older workers who have been laid off to help them overcome these difficulties. It could involve improved training or increased income support, through early retirement benefits for example. Nothing has been decided or discarded at this time. Everything will be taken into account.

In the meantime, older workers have not been forgotten. They continue to benefit from numerous existing programs, such as Part II of the employment insurance plan. In that regard, each year more than 80,000 older workers, men and women age 50 or older, benefit from job programs funded through the employment insurance act. For instance they are eligible for training programs, can acquire work experience and obtain financial assistance for starting their own business.

Furthermore, almost 230,000 older workers each year receive some $1.4 billion under EI program.

What is more, our government is committed to spending $400 million during the next two years to improve the long-term competitiveness of the forestry sector.

Naturally, the other tax measures announced in the budget will help older workers as much as all other Canadians.

Finally, we are concerned about the welfare of all Canadians and of older workers in particular. Because they have specific needs, we will develop specific solutions. We will ensure that the programs we propose meet their needs and that they will be able to reintegrate into the labour market and continue to contribute to the development of our beautiful country, Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about people for whom new jobs cannot be found and my colleague is talking about people who are working. This is like talking about a street when someone else was talking about the bridge. We are talking about people who cannot find new jobs. Is my colleague aware that there are miners in his region who have lost their jobs? His predecessor, Marc Boulianne, was well aware of it. Those workers, who are over 55, have had to sacrifice their homes in order to get by. Does he know that in his riding textile workers have lost their jobs and are in the same situation as the miners? Does he know that in the woodworking industry—a furniture manufacturer—there are workers who have lost their jobs? Does he know this? Those workers are 55 or over and cannot find new jobs. Does he know this? Those are the people we are talking about. Once he is aware of this and sees that they cannot find new jobs, will he vote in favour of the motion?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, he has plainly failed to grasp the thrust of my speech.

What we are saying is that there a number of things that need to be done about this program. I have personally visited plants in my riding that are experiencing a workforce shortage. Those plants want to expand, but they cannot do that because they do not have the workers they need. Workers must be mobilized to fill that need.

There are industries that are more heavily hit and industries where people cannot find new jobs. Nowhere in my speech did I say that we disagreed with this.

What has to be done, instead of having improvised measures like my colleague tends to say, is to do feasibility studies, studies in the field to find a system that works as a whole, not a program that will be cut as the previous government did. We need a program that works, a viable program that will be effective for all older workers, and I do mean all older workers.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused and I do need some clarification from the member.

As the member is aware, this is not the first time this motion has been debated in the House. On June 9 of last year a very similar motion was put forward to the House by the Bloc Québécois, and members of the Conservative Party spoke eloquently and forcefully in support of the motion.

I listened to the member's speech and am not getting that same clarity today. He talks about an evaluation study. Of course at the end of the day on June 9, 2005, the Conservative Party supported the motion, as I did myself. I am not sensing that today. Do I take it that on June 9 the party very forcefully supported the motion and from your comments now you are not supporting the motion? If that is the case, which is very--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. Again, the hon. member is using the second person.

We have a lot of people who wish to speak. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

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

On the contrary, this party is committed to assisting older workers at this time. That is what was said in the budget and that is what is being done at this time. The government is in the process of implementing a functional system. Before that, an analysis must be done, studies must be done. Programs cannot be established helter-skelter.

If we look at the past we see that the previous government slashed assistance measures for older workers. We know that there is a huge problem in this area. At present, measures are in place but we know that they are not adequate. There is more than one kind of older worker, but what is being done is to try to put them all in the same box, as my colleague is doing. We are aiming for effectiveness. We want a program that will be viable and that will work for the people who most need the benefits. There is unanimous agreement in this House. We want to solve the problem as it relates to older workers.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at my colleague's answer. He said that he is looking for a solution, but POWA was one of the best and most appreciated solutions while it was running.

During that time, the program worked very well. For example, in my riding, the program was helpful when Marine Industrie, Beloit and Tioxide closed. It was also useful when small sewing workshops closed in the Saint-Ours, Yamaska and Pierreville regions.

Today, the possible closure of Norsk Hydro was announced. What am I supposed to tell those people when they ask me if there will be a program to assist workers over 55 who have no chance of finding another job? Of course, if they can go back to school, if they can change careers, we will encourage them to do so. However, it is clear that they have no opportunities and lack resources. What am I supposed to tell them when they ask me if there will be a program to assist them? Will I have to tell them what the member opposite just told us, that they are studying the matter? People do not want studies, they want action.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the government's foremost responsibility to have all of the necessary information before acting. That is what the (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development) said. Studies will help her determine the specific realities facing each region and each sector.

We want to implement a program without worrying about it being cut, which is what happened before. My colleague just listed some examples. We are familiar with these examples. We are out there and we know what is happening. Now we have to compile the information and create a program that will work and be viable.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I support the motion, however, when the government implements it, I want it to look at it as a comprehensive strategy involving other issues related to the matter. I assume the motion will pass because, as I indicated in a previous question, a very similar motion was debated by the House on June 9, 2005, and all parties unanimously supported it. I would be shocked and surprised if all members did not support the motion today.

However, there are two aspects about which I want to talk. We have to be very careful in implementing the motion. I suggest and urge the government not to add an additional disincentive to our support system, to a workforce attachment right now.

First, I urge the government, in its implementation process, to look carefully at the income support measures. This matter will require very close consultation with the provinces. I see a real gap in the income support measure for those people between 55 and 65 years of age.

I neglected to say, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for West Nova.

I believe the government, as part of this process, should look at the income support measures for those between 55 and 65 years of age. I see a very large gap there. Currently, when people attain the age of 65, they are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. It is not perfect. One does not live in any kind of luxury, but it is an awful lot better than the income support measures for those people between 55 and 65. A lot of them do not have pensions, they are not eligible for the Canada pension plan and they are unable to work for a whole host of reasons. It may be for health reasons or they may be unable to find a job. This is one issue that has to be looked at very closely as the motion is implemented.

Another issue has to be aligned with the motion, and that is a very comprehensive older worker strategy for Canada. We are looking at, and it has been referred to I believe by the minister, a demographic time bomb in Canada. We are looking at an acute worker shortage.

This whole debate has been turned upside down over the last 15 years. Fifteen years ago I would have been in Parliament urging people in public policy to implement programs to perhaps take some of our older workers out of the workforce to make way for the 21 and 22 year olds who were looking for jobs. That is not the case now, especially in the skilled worker sector.

All sector councils across Canada have the big issue of a skilled worker shortage. The construction industry is looking for 150,000 new workers over the next 10 years. The mining industry is looking for 81,000 new workers; trucking, 40,000; and tourism, 333,000. The manufacturing industry is also looking for new workers. The list goes on and on.

This is very serious issue for governments at all levels. It will cause problems with our productivity and for our industries. It will result in workforce instability and it will drive up wage costs. In turn that will drive up the costs of projects and manufacturing goods. That will aid in an element of inflation in our system if it is not there already. Once we have that, interest rates will rise. As everyone knows, that will have a very cumulative negative effect in our economy. It will be good in the short term, but in the long term it will have very severe and negative consequences for us as a society. We can see that going on right now in certain areas of Canada. If it is allowed to continue, it will have negative repercussions.

If a country wants to deal with this issue, there are only certain strategies. Immigration is one of those strategies. I believe the previous government was trying to increase the number of skilled workers coming to the country. There have been some successes, but again we are competing in a world where a lot of other countries, especially the European countries, are having the very same problems we are having. It is a very competitive field out there, looking for skilled and educated immigrants.

We could attempt to increase the participation rate, but again this country's participation rate is reasonably high in international comparison. The birth rate, as everyone here knows, is approximately 1.41%. That is considerably below the replacement rate, probably two-thirds of the replacement rate. Again, as the demographics suggest, at a certain point in time, I believe 2011, there will be no further increase in the local labour market and in the year 2016 we start to drop. Once it starts to drop, it will be a very serious drop year after year. This is something that those in public policy have to be aware of and have to plan for because it is very serious.

However, my point is there has to be attached to the motion an older worker strategy. We have to develop a strategy to encourage older workers to stay in the workplace, if they want. We certainly are not going to legislate that people work. However, if they want to, we have to make it more attractive. To give an example, in Sweden and Japan approximately 90% of their workers between the ages of 55 and 65 work. In Canada it is close to 50%. That gives us an idea of what we are faced with.

Some of the issues I would look at would be training for workers in that cohort. Elimination of any suggestion of mandatory retirement has to come. There have to be changes in our tax policy. We have to make it more beneficial and attractive for older workers, especially older workers of lower income, to stay in the workplace. Probably one of the most important public policy initiatives a government should look at is some of the benefit policies.

If I may give an example, right now probably many people over 65 years of age are receiving the guaranteed income supplement. They probably have no interest in working full time, but may be interested in working part time. They may be interested in working 10 hours a week and making $100 or $200. However, the way our system is, they would be almost penalized dollar for dollar, which is a very strong disincentive for them to work. That has to be looked at part of an older worker strategy.

Another area that has to be looked at is our collective agreements to accommodate certain older workers who want to get back into a unionized environment. Right now it does not lend itself to that shift.

Again, I mentioned about five or six different items and this has to form part of a strategy and it has to be a culture shift. It was not there 15 years ago, but it has to be here now. I should point that if it were successfully implemented, even that would only postpone a problem. It will not solve a problem because it would eventually catch up to us.

Some of the points I have raised are peripheral to the issue, but I support the motion. I believe and urge the government to implement the motion, but it should do so as part of the larger package involving income support for those citizens between 55 and 65 years of age. It should be a very comprehensive well thought out older worker strategy.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments and his support, both for income support for older workers and for some of the adjustment programs that need to be part and parcel of a larger package. I know the member was elected first in the year 2000. Did he advocated for those same programs at any time during the mandate of the Liberals when they had 13 years to do something about these issues?

The last time we had a program for older worker adjustment, where we did offer income support to older workers, was in 1987, when it was established. It was gutted by the Liberals in 1997. When the member was first elected, did he start advocating for those programs then? If you did, what was your government's response and its reasoning for not pursuing those programs and protecting older workers until now when you find yourself on the opposition benches urging the current government to correct your--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I would like to remind the hon. member, as I did for her colleague earlier and as I keep having to do day after day in this chamber, that we are not supposed to use the second person. I just remind the hon. member not to use the word “you” unless she is specifically referring to the Chair.

The hon. member for Charlottetown.