Debates of Oct. 5th, 2006

Decorum

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of my friend from across the way. Clearly, there are times in this place when sometimes perhaps, and I admit, I get a little bit carried away, and sometimes I find some of the comments coming from the opposition a little bit hard to take.

I will be very mindful of the reprimand that I have just received from my friend across the way.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my level of English is not good enough, but I am always listening. I would like to know if the minister is apologizing for what he did. He gave us a justification of his behaviour, but my question is very clear: does the minister apologize for this inappropriate and disgraceful behaviour, which is a violation of the decorum in this House? That is my question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

This is truly a question, and oral question period is now over.

A point of order is a different matter.

The hon. minister provided a reply. I will review it, along with the question raised by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord regarding the call to order. If necessary, I will get back to the House with a ruling on this issue.

I did not see any of what the hon. member described, but if a problem persists, the Chair will certainly make a ruling.

I will now hear the hon. member for Saint John, also on a point of order.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in his reply to my question, which I have posed in this House on at least three other occasions, said that it was the first time I had raised this particular question regarding harbour cleanup. I would not want viewers to think that I am not interested in this file, nor would I want the record in any way to reflect that.

I think all members of this House of Commons, regardless of party, are interested in this file. I know that the minister, in the heat of the exchange, would want to make sure that the record was accurate. I can think of three times where I might have already raised the subject of harbour cleanup and the failure of the government to come through with this commitment.

That is my point of order. I wanted this reflected on the record.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member has clarified the facts in a way that I am sure is satisfactory to all concerned.

The hon. member for Wascana has a point of order.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of this question period and others this week, there has been a controversy about certain remarks made by the President of the Treasury Board, which he persists in denying that he made. I have pointed out on occasion that there is both a written record and a verbal record on tape of those remarks. I was invited during question period to table that material.

With respect to the written record, I would simply refer to government news release number 2006-047, dated September 25, 2006, which uses the words “wasteful”, “trimming fat” and not “good value”, all in relation to the programs that we have referred to with respect to literacy. So, in the government's own official record with its news releases, the information is very clear.

Further, when the President of the Treasury Board was out canvassing for loonies on the street corner earlier this week, his remarks were in fact recorded. I have them with me. I am certainly prepared to table that recording of what he said, which perfectly verifies what has been alleged here in question period.

I would simply make two requests. First of all, I would like to get the tape recorder back when the Table is done with it, and secondly, in the spirit of fair play, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would table his BlackBerry, from which he quotes repeatedly in this House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Wascana have the unanimous consent of the House to table the tape recorder?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure it will be played somewhere else, transcribed and copies sent to whomever wants them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Older Workers Income Support

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we are about to go into the weekend, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all colleagues in this House a happy Thanksgiving and a very good week in their constituencies. I know that all of us have a lot to do back home. Sometimes people talk about the time we are not in the House as if it is time off, but all of us know that when we are not here there are plenty of things to do and a lot of people back in our ridings who are anxious to speak to us. That is a very important part of our work.

I am pleased to rise today and speak to this opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois in relation to programs for older workers. The Liberal Party certainly does support programs for older workers. We support the development of a pan-Canadian national older workers strategy. We think that strategy should incorporate a number of things, including, for instance, skills upgrading as well as flexible work environments, which are obviously important for older workers.

That strategy should also include community level partnerships, because if we want things to develop and work, whether they are programs for older workers in terms of retraining or trying to get them other employment, or whether they are related to economic development in nature, it is very important that they spring from the community. Those are the ones that work best in my experience. Having community level partnerships is an integral part of any successful program of that type.

We need also to recognize that older workers depend financially and psychologically on being able to continue working. In fact, psychologists tell us that all of us have a need to work. The need to feel productive and useful throughout our lives is an important part of our being, which works sometimes at home or in another kind of workplace. We have a variety of ways in which to fulfill that need, but it is a need we all need to fulfill. Therefore, these kinds of programs should include not only income support but also retraining and skills upgrading, which are of course very important.

It seems to me that on these issues all we have heard from the minority Conservative government so far is some lip service, but very little else. It seems to me that its actions so far have shown a lack of commitment to a national older worker strategy. For instance, we saw in May the end of the older worker pilot project initiative brought forward by the Liberal government, which existed for some six years. There has been no indication from the government of anything to replace it. That is disconcerting.

We have heard those members boast about measures for a limited range of workers in a few select regions when the rest of Canada is getting cuts to social programs in spite of the fact that the government came into office in the best fiscal situation of any government in the country's history and of course just recorded a $13 billion surplus for last year. I should point out that it was a Liberal surplus which the government inherited.

Let us look at the government's record. Let us look, for instance, at what Ellen Russell, an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said in today's papers. She said, “Since [the] Prime Minister...took power, he has been rapidly emptying the treasury”, chewing through a mountain of surplus cash that was left behind.

How is that possible? Very much like the Harris regime in Ontario, what we have seen here is tax cuts, particularly the GST tax cut. My colleagues opposite are very fond of this tax cut, but we know that studies done by the government's own finance department, when it consulted Canadians, found that Canadians would have preferred an income tax cut, not the GST tax cut. We also have heard, of course, from many economists across this country who have told us that this was counter-productive and not good for the economy, that it would have been better for us to have income tax cuts. Moreover, the government has choked off the supply of funding. It will deplete surpluses for years to come.

What does that mean? It means that the government will continue to cut programs for older workers. Let us not forget what the government did last week. It cut funding for literacy. It cut funding to women's programs. These are essential programs across this country. It struck me as alarming and surprising that this was done by a government that tried to paint itself as moderate during the last election, and since then generally, although not always clearly.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The mask is off.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The mask is off, as my hon. colleague from Beauséjour says.

In fact, we saw the government cut youth summer employment. The government has cut in half the program for students to have summer jobs. I can think of dozens and dozens of non-profit organizations and small businesses in my riding alone, let alone many across the country, that are going to be suffering because of this. These businesses will not be able to hire students next summer because this program will no longer exist.

The government is cutting that funding from $90 million a year to $45 million a year. On average, I understand, that means 70 students per riding for all 308 ridings in this country. Let us imagine the impact of that on all those students and their families across this country as they try to afford to go back to university or start university next fall.

We have seen a cut to museums. Museums are an important part of our education as a society, not only for children but for adults as well. They are one of the things that enriches us. We heard an important question today about the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which we are seeing no indication of support for from the government, but this is a cut to museums generally.

We have seen a cut to the efforts of volunteer organizations, which need this support. In fact, to me, one of the great programs, which the government has now cut, was this program for volunteer initiatives. This program really leveraged a lot of effort. There was a small amount going to a volunteer organization, which, because of that, was able to have many volunteers, dozens or hundreds of volunteers, involved in important activity in their community. That is gone because of this decision by the President of the Treasury Board and this government.

We had the program known as CAP, with the community access points, which provides, of course, for computer access in communities all across this country. We have seen it in libraries. I myself have had the pleasure of attending many openings of CAP sites across my province of Nova Scotia. I have seen the delight of people in local communities, who were perhaps without computers, at having the opportunity to go to a library or a local community centre, use a computer, go online and get the information they need. We know today how much information there is out there and how valuable it is to go on the Internet to obtain information about jobs or about research for their area of study if they are students or pupils in schools.

Since coming to power, the government has cut programs aimed at assisting workers. For example, the government cut the $3.5 billion labour market partnership agreements with a number of provinces.

There is also the $17 million cut affecting the Canadian workplace skills strategy. And the list goes on.

It is time that this government started focusing on the priorities of Canadians, such as helping older workers, and stopped focusing on measures that will help only its supporters to the exclusion of everyone else.

That is an example, for instance, of what I was talking about with literacy.

In fact, I would think that my colleagues opposite would be concerned about the future of productivity and the competitiveness of our economy and would recognize that people who are adults trying to learn and to read and write need assistance doing so. It makes no sense to cut the funding to programs such as that, to cut the funding to organizations that are organizing that activity across this country and developing the curriculum and the teachers for literacy across this country.

We have the President of the Treasury Board who was so fond of the so-called common sense revolution in Ontario. Apparently he wants to bring the same disaster to Ottawa as well and all of the country has to suffer from that. That is unfortunate.

As some of my colleagues said earlier today, the government needs a process to carefully look at income support measures in consultation with the provinces. We need to look at the real gap in income support measures, particularly for people between 55 and 65 years of age.

I was at the human resources committee this morning, where we heard about the coming skills shortage. In many areas, that is a real problem. We will see it much more in the future. It will change the way our economy works.

However, in many communities there are still older workers who are suffering because of the closure of an industry or a downturn in an industry and who need assistance of various kinds. There must be an overall strategy for them.

I would like to say more, but I know my time is coming to a close. It seems to me that the way the government can start to respond to those people is by implementing this motion as part of a pan-Canadian national older worker strategy for citizens between 55 and 65 years of age.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ably described some of the difficult cuts to literacy programs that, in our part of Canada, Atlantic Canada, in my province of New Brunswick and in the member's province of Nova Scotia, will have a great impact on adults really trying to help themselves and improve their literacy skills, which improves their productivity in the community and allows them different employment opportunities that may not have been available to them prior to improving their literacy skills.

The member referred to projects in his own constituency, in his own province, that will probably be affected by this kind of ideological and brutal cut. I am wondering if, in the time we have, he could expand and enlighten the House as to some specific projects. He talked about CAP sites, for example, in his own community of metropolitan Halifax that will be affected by these draconian measures.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that these are important issues and in my riding I am very concerned about the impact they will have. In the Halifax area there are many people who are using the services of literacy groups that are providing training.

Some of them of course are new Canadians who are getting those services, but there are many people who are anglophones as well, and some francophones. We have seen that this program has been important for a range of people, including aboriginals, people with disabilities and various people in our community who benefit from these programs, whether they are literacy or other programs, that have been cut.

What surprised me was that the government, which was trying to appear to be so moderate, did this so soon, that it unveiled its true colours so early. I would have thought that it would have waited in hopes of achieving a majority government at some point and then implement its true agenda. However, what we are seeing is that the Conservatives cannot help themselves. They cannot hold back and wait for that, or perhaps they have given up. Perhaps they know they have problems already politically and that they will not achieve a majority government and, therefore, decided to start trying to achieve their true objectives early. I think what Canadians are seeing is that their real agenda is becoming very clear.

When we look at this question of the summer placement program, which has been cut in half, we as a country are trying to build a stronger economy. As we were hearing this morning in our committee, there are many areas in which we need workers. For instance, we had someone from the biotechnology sector this morning in our committee who was talking about the shortage of trained workers his sector was facing. As members can imagine, biotechnology is a pretty high-skilled area that needs people with university educations. There are many others like that.

We have a new business in my riding, not a new business to Canada but new to us, called Research In Motion which makes the BlackBerries that members in this House and others across the country use so often. That company is another example of one that needs university graduates or people with applicable training, the kind that will help them do the work that they deal with.

If we are cutting support for students and removing the summer replacement program for students, this will make it harder for students to afford to attend university or community colleges which is counterproductive and not in the interest of our country, our economy or our future.

I, frankly, hope our colleagues across the way in the Conservative caucus will hear a lot about these cuts to literacy, to the Status of Women Canada and other organizations across the country, in the coming week when they are back in their ridings. I hope they will come back after that and start applying more and more pressure on the government that these cuts are wrong-headed, that they are going in the wrong direction, that it is not the answer for this country and that it is time to reverse them.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I am pleased that the hon. member for Halifax West will support the motion. Indeed, this situation is nothing new. When the Liberal Party was in office, the program was abolished and the problems increased over the years. However, today, we can rejoice in the fact that the Liberals are now sitting with us, on the opposition benches. I think this is a positive thing.

The cuts have a number of consequences. At some point, when their EI benefits run out, older workers find themselves without an income. This means that they inevitably end up on welfare.

Here is my question. I would like to know if, in the hon. member's province, these workers find themselves in the same situation and are forced to use up their savings before relying on social assistance, or to sell their assets in order to then be eligible for help.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question. I have the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and I appreciate his question today.

In Nova Scotia, there are only a few places—such as Halifax—where the economy is generally fairly strong, although there are still problems.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, I wish to announce that I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague, the member for Joliette, with whom I have had the pleasure of sitting for many years.

I did not think that today, October 5, already many months after the first Conservative budget, we would still be discussing the merits—and the possibility—of introducing an assistance program for workers aged 55 or over.

Before the budget was drafted, I took part in various discussions with the Minister of Finance, with the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and with other representatives of government. These discussions left me with the hope that an assistance program for older workers would be put in place in the weeks following the budget. We are in a national emergency situation in this regard. The factories are closing, there is no longer a soft sector, there are only sectors hit by foreign competition, hit by unfair competition and acts, as we have seen at the hands of the Americans in the softwood lumber sector.

Now, various industries are under attack: furniture, textiles, clothing, agri-food and soon the high-technology sectors will also be the victims of often unfair competition. I will come back a little later to unfair competition by the so-called emerging countries.

When one is a victim of this competition a few times—and the number of times has been increasing in the past three years—factories begin to shut down, early retirements take place or quite simply there are mass lay-offs of workers who have held their jobs for 30 to 35 years at the same place, in the same region and in the same sector.

Today is October 5, and I remember what we read in the budget, that is, that the government undertook to conduct a feasibility study with a view to setting up an assistance program for older workers. This program would be similar to the one that existed until 1997, before the Liberal Party—and the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was finance minister at the time—cut this program.

We are right back where we started, and there is talk of a possible one-year pilot project. But that is not what we asked for. We did not ask the government for statistics and assumptions. The introduction of this income support program for older workers was a condition of our support for the budget, as much as the issue of fiscal imbalance. We did not want a pilot project or a one-year program. What we wanted was a program similar to the one that was cancelled in 1997.

What did that program do? It enabled workers age 55 and older, victims of mass layoffs, to benefit from financial support, not generous but appropriate, from the time of that layoff to the time of their retirement.

The program enabled those workers—often couples working in single-industry areas—to maintain a decent lifestyle until their retirement, without being forced to apply for social assistance benefits, without having to abandon their dreams of a lifetime by selling off their home, car or cottage.

Since this program was abolished by the Liberals in 1997, every member of the Bloc Québécois has met working couples in his or her region where both spouses were laid off at the same time. These couples were forced to sell their homes and all the assets they had accumulated over many years of work, including registered retirement plans, etc. They had to give up their dream of a decent retirement, in dignity, because the federal government decided in 1997 to put an end to a program that cost nothing to keep dreams alive. At that time, it amounted to $60 million per year for these older workers. These were workers who often could not find new jobs because they had little education or because they lived in single-industry areas where the entire industry was hit at the same time.

These people were often left in great distress. I myself have known workers who killed themselves because the government had let them down by robbing them of their dignity. The government decided it was worth shattering the dreams of thousands of residents and older workers to save $60 million a year.

We did an evaluation. The government talks about a feasibility study, but all that is needed is a simple rule of three, it is not very complicated. It cost $60 million a year in 1997, given the layoffs at the time. After adjusting for these layoffs and taking a certain indexing into account until today, we arrive at a maximum of $100 million a year for a program like this to prevent broken dreams and loss of all dignity among working people 55 years of age or more. But this government is still dragging its feet. It wants a feasibility study and a pilot project.

The last fiscal year ended with a $13 billion surplus. The Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board appeared, as pedantic as can be, in front of a beautiful big fat cheque saying that more than $13 billion were being invested in paying down the debt.

Could not $100 million of these $13 billion have been used to help older workers?

They are turning their backs on workers, as we saw in the softwood lumber issue. How many times have we in the Bloc Québécois asked for loan guarantees to save jobs and plants all over the regions, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada? But the current government would not listen, just like the previous government.

How many times have we asked the government to investigate dumping, countervailing duties and unfair competition, which has been proven? In Europe, they are looking at unfair competition and just proved in a recent report that there was unfair competition and predatory practices on the part of countries like China, India and Brazil.

What are predatory practices? Countries like China or Vietnam have planned economies. They are not free markets. Real production costs and competition are the least of their concerns.

These countries engage in predatory practices, that is to say, they sell their products for less than the regular cost of production. They kill our industries, throw thousands of our citizens out of work, and when the industry is completely shattered, knocked flat, they seize the market and move in. These are predatory practices.

The Canadian government—be it Liberal or Conservative—is probably one of the governments in the world that conducts the fewest investigations into the unfair competition practised by its trading partners. There have been no investigations undertaken by the federal government into the unfair competition engaged by China or Brazil in the agri-food sector, for example. One might say that Canada is afraid to conduct such investigations. It was very proud to welcome China into the World Trade Organization. That is all very well, but China, like the other members of the WTO, is going to have to abide by the fair competition rules and abide by the most favoured nations rules. That is not the case at present.

The federal government sits idly by and calls this normal competition. It is not normal competition! When it is cheaper to bring bentwood in from China and make plywood out of it here, than using lumber from our forests in Quebec or Ontario or British Columbia, the situation has reached the disaster point.

I would like me to send the federal government this message: in my region in particular, working men and women have been laid off from Kimberly-Clark, for example, and from Olymel as well, because of competition in the pork industry, and from AirBoss in the textile and shoe manufacturing industry. Those companies, and the men and women who work there, are affected by competition and they need us. They need us to make things easier for them. Entrepreneurs need our help too, because often, when massive layoffs like this happen, younger workers are the first to go because they have no seniority. And then the older workers follow them.

If we brought back a program like POWA, which existed until 1997, entrepreneurs could keep their younger workers; as for older workers, it would up to them to decide to leave and make room for them, and companies could invest for the future in a qualified, younger workforce, for a number of years.

We talk about the workforce shortage we have today, but it will be even worse in the years to come.

This would be one way of encouraging training for younger people and allowing older workers to preserve their dignity until they retire.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's remarks. That is why I would like to make some remarks, because the member says that right now Quebec does have some real disastrous situations and crises. That is what we want to target. In other parts of the country right now we have the opposite problem; we have a labour shortage.

I would like to see us support the motion if we could clearly focus on older workers in vulnerable communities and especially those affected by downsizing or closures. Such a change would ensure that we target resources to maximize the support for those regions most in need, while making our first commitment toward retaining older workers.

We recognize the merits of today's motion. I sit on committee with the member who brought forward the motion. I understand that he is genuinely very concerned. The intent of his motion is more about helping the most vulnerable.

I ask the member if he would agree that we refocus today's motion so that it would be more about displaced workers and more about support measures because as members have said previously, many of these older workers do want to be back in the workforce. Maybe we can find tools to help them get back into the workforce. Would the member agree to this more prudent course of action?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am now starting to understand the Conservatives a little better. When it suits them, they act immediately. This is often a matter of ideology. They act immediately and they have no hesitation about spending billions of dollars for defence, for hiring new police officers, for law enforcement, and so on. But when it does not suit them, they talk about studies and they talk about refocusing the motion and the program.

You do not have to be an Einstein to understand what was there before the older worker adjustment program was abolished in 1997. The very simple idea was to provide assistance for workers who were 55 or over, to provide them with a bit of a hand up, particularly when they had been hit by a massive layoff, a plant closing, often in one-industry regions. Spouses lost their jobs at the same time. The couple then had to liquidate all their assets, everything they had managed to put away over 30 or 35 years of working for the same company.

That program cost $60 million a year. Today I heard that the government had incurred an $800 million penalty for fast-tracking its purchase of military aircraft to meet American security requirements. That represents eight years of assistance for older workers. It costs $100 million a year. That means that with the amount of that penalty, the government could give 57-year-old workers dignity for eight years, until their retirement. They would not be forced to sell everything.

Is $100 million a year too much to ask when the government has just invested billions and billions of dollars in military weapons? It is shameful to try and refocus a motion when couples are struggling and are asking us to act quickly to help them.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a fascinating subject, one which is perhaps the most underappreciated issue in Canada today. In many ways it really is the demographic time bomb to which my hon. colleague referred.

Way back when the mandatory age of retirement was put forth, the life expectancy was only in the fifties. Now for women it is 82 years and for men it is 79 years. If we project into the future, we will have a major demographic time bomb that will affect everything from health care to social programs and indeed to economics. If we look at the number of workers versus the number of retirees, that ratio will shrink so precipitously that it will have an enormous and profound impact. Legislators across our country are not dealing with it.

I would ask my hon. friend if he thinks that a couple of solutions might be, one, the abolition of the mandatory age of retirement and two, that we facilitate workers to continue to upgrade throughout their careers into the future. If we were to do those two things, it would enable us to have the economic base to supply our social programs and to continue with a vibrant and strong economy.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly answer my Liberal colleague. He is talking about a tool to help deal with a labour shortage. We are offering him a tool worth $100 million a year.

In many companies, especially in my riding, if older workers had had the opportunity to leave first when half the workforce was laid off, and the employer had kept the younger workers, some of the older workers could have worked part-time to train the younger workers and make them more productive. The older workers could simply have stopped working until their retirement.

Now we have a shortage of specialized labour. Why? Because we are not giving young people the opportunity to train. A program like this one would give them that opportunity. Older workers, not younger ones, would be the first to leave the company. The younger ones would stay and form a productive workforce for the future, until the company recovered after boosting its productivity and competitiveness.

This is an ideal tool, especially for the regions, and we need to use it. The Liberals did not understand this before the Conservatives came to power. We hope that the Conservatives will be more on the ball.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with ambiguous feelings, rather like the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I am actually a bit annoyed by the fact that my colleague from Chambly—Borduas was forced to propose a motion that should be self-evident, given that we have adopted it repeatedly in this House, sometimes unanimously.

I have not been a member for very long, since 2000, but if I recall correctly, this is at least the fourth or fifth time that the Bloc Québécois has proposed a motion concerning an assistance program for older workers. This time, it is in a context in which all parties, before the election, voted in favour of such a program. It is strange how democracy can get people thinking on the eve of an election—and we will soon have an election.

I feel a little as though I am in the movie Groundhog Day, that film where the weatherman meets the groundhog to find out whether it will see its shadow and how long the winter will last. The weatherman realizes at some point that he is reliving the same events day after day. In rising today to speak to this legitimate motion that should have already—and long ago—become reality, I get the feeling of being in that movie, and it is very annoying.

Nevertheless I am confident. In fact the current situation in several regions of Canada and Quebec means that such a program is a necessary tool. It is not the only one, that is very clear. Still, it is a necessary tool for ensuring that the whole territory is covered. It is true in Quebec and it must be true elsewhere in Canada.

All this obviously goes along with other measures to bring about economic diversification in monoindustrial regions. I will tell you about a monoindustrial situation in the riding of Joliette. I can assure you that, if the parties present do not vote in favour of this motion, it will be a pretty strong argument for re-electing a member from the Bloc Québécois in the riding of Joliette.

In the region of Saint-Michel-des-Saints, two factories have closed their doors. These factories belonged to Louisiana Pacific. We hope that these closures will be temporary, but we never know. All the workers at these two factories in Saint-Michel-des-Saints are now unemployed. In the waferboard factory, 218 jobs have been lost. At the sawmill, also in Saint-Michel-des-Saints, 104 jobs have been lost. That means that 322 people in this community have lost their jobs.

These direct job losses bring about indirect job losses. Everyone understands that. Subcontractors used to work for Louisiana Pacific, doing electrical maintenance, keeping the forest roads in shape, and hauling logs out of the forest. In all, 229 indirect jobs have been lost.

And what about the induced jobs? If we add the 322 persons who lost their jobs to the 229 others who also lost theirs, we realize that fewer people will eat at the local restaurant, fewer people will go to the local cinema and fewer people will buy things in general. That means that service activity in that community will be affected.

According to estimates, 87 jobs were lost since the closing, which was about a month or a month and a half ago. In all, 638 jobs were lost in that community in recent weeks. And what do all those jobs represent for a community like Saint-Michel-des-Saints? It means that about 30% of all the jobs have disappeared. Of course Saint-Michel-des-Saints, where some 1,275 people work, is not the only community affected. Saint-Zénon, another community not too far away, where 482 people work is also affected. Let us say that the numbers are total numbers.

If we took only Saint-Michel-des-Saints, that would mean that 50% of the workforce in unemployed because of the closing. But the other village is not far. Let us not fall into demagogy contrary to the hon. members opposite and let us add the working population of Saint-Zénon, which is comprised of 482 workers. So, of the 1,757 people who constitute the workforce of that community, 638 people lost their jobs. Thirty percent of the population is now unemployed.

Of course, other economic activities could appear, but that will not happen overnight. Right now, the community is working seriously on all aspects of tourism, but to start businesses of that kind, infrastructure is needed.

Speaking of infrastructure, there is one example that the government of Quebec and all the local stakeholders have been lobbying for but that the federal government has constantly refused. I am talking about the road between Saint-Michel-des-Saints and Manouane, which is an Attikamekw community of 2,000 inhabitants who are completely isolated because the federal government refuses to partner with the Quebec government to build that road.

It would be a way not only to relieve this community from isolation, but also to create recreational and tourism activities.

So, in that situation, 30% of the population is unemployed. There will be restructuring at Louisiana-Pacific because, even if it reopens its doors, it will have to do so on other bases. They closed the plant, not on a whim, but because it was no longer competitive for various reasons that we know well and which the Bloc Québécois has reminded the House of several times: the softwood lumber crisis—the federal government, be it the Liberals or the Conservatives, did nothing—the cost of fibre, the Canadian dollar, which is much too high because of the Bank of Canada's practices, and also energy costs.

So, when Louisiana-Pacific will reopen, there will be fewer jobs, because it will have to be more competitive.

As the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot was mentioning, in a situation where a company reopens a plant and re-hires people—but fewer then before—who must suffer? It is the young workers. So, instead of depriving youth of a job, could we not ensure that those who have already given a good part of their life to a company—we are talking about years and decades—and to a region and who contributed to the social, economic and cultural activity of that region, have the opportunity, in certain circumstances, to retire with dignity? Otherwise, what will be the option? Will we see youth leave the community and the region? Indeed, if they leave Saint-Michel, they will settle in Joliette or Montreal and never return.

Consequently, this measure is not only a measure of justice for older workers, in certain circumstances—and I will get back to this—but also a measure to ensure the stability of the region's population. Of course, I am aware that among the Conservatives—I hope not all of them—there are some who think that developing the regions is not important, that we could shut down some regions as simply as that.

The plant closes, everything closes, including the post office and other federal services. That is not the way I see it. I believe that we have to give something to the community. In the case of Saint-Michel-des-Saints, as I mentioned previously, we hope that the plant will reopen. However, if it should close it will take several years to turn around the economic activities in that region. Let us give that community a tool to help it get through this crisis.

But no, the Minister of Industry, with his views developed at the Institut économique de Montréal, believes that if there are no more jobs, the people just have to leave. They will go to Alberta. There are lots of jobs in Alberta. Is that being respectful of a community like Saint-Michel-des-Saints? No, we must provide the means for survival to this community, and as I have said, it is not the only means.

As a matter of fact, the committee worked on the criteria. I want to refer to them because, contrary to what the Liberal member said earlier, It does not apply to everyone, whatever the circumstance. First, it applies to someone who is 55 or older. That is the first thing. Second, it applies in the case of a mass layoff or the closing of a business. Those are themselves important criteria. In addition, an applicant must have been an active member of the labour market for at least 10 years during the previous 30 years. So, we are speaking of people who have contributed in terms of economic activity, who have paid for our collective tools with their taxes.

It is also important, as part of the range of tools that we have for evaluating the skills of different people, that we recognize the gap between acquired skills and the skills now required in the labour market. The situation is not at all like that during the crisis at the beginning of the 1980s or the 1990s, for example. There are new tools available. Emploi-Québec has new tools for helping people get new jobs, for facilitating access to training. It is being done right now in Saint-Michel-des-Saints. There are people who have lost their jobs and who are now completing health and safety courses to be able to work in construction during the time that the factory is closed.

People want to work, but some may not have had the chance to acquire the required skills. Personally, I witnessed the closure of Vickers in 1989, and I think that the member for Chambly—Borduas and I were both at the Confédération des syndicats nationaux at the time. There were people who had been working at Vickers since the age of 15, and they had been promised a job for life. In 1989, the plant closed. Some 35- or 40-year-old workers were completely illiterate, through no fault of their own. The system just came and grabbed them when they turned 15. They were told not to waste time in school since they were assured of a job for life. They found themselves in a fix.

Unfortunately for them, they were not 55 years old yet, because there was a program in those days ensuring that workers 55 and older who had been with Vickers for a number of years and did not have the skills required to find a new job on the labour market end their professional lives with dignity.

Workers between the ages of 35 and 40 can expect to have access to classes, receive core training and retrain as welders or mechanics. That is not true for everyone, however.

Out of respect for human dignity, I expect all members of this House to vote in favour of the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my two colleagues from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Joliette for their speeches. I think they shed some light on facts that illustrate both the problem and the solutions very well. My colleague from Joliette talked about the parameters that must guide us as we implement the income support program for older workers.

I would also like to emphasize another point and ask my colleague from Joliette about it. I would like to highlight the work done by my two aforementioned colleagues on the problem of foreign market invasion, lack of control, and lack of Canadian government measures to protect our industry. I know how hard they have worked over the past few years to avoid this catastrophe.

It seems that because the Canadian government failed to implement these measures, the catastrophe is now upon us. Of course, the main thing now is to protect the people who have lost their jobs.

I know that my colleague has seen the big picture in the ridings, particularly in Quebec ridings. My question is about his riding. What are the positive short-term effects that can already be seen in his riding with respect to economic renewal, for example? Earlier, he mentioned the shock caused by the closure of Louisiana-Pacific and the other business. What effect would reinstating POWA have on regional economic vitality?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, who has continued to lead this fight. He took over from other Bloc Québécois critics. We have really been working on this for a long time, as I said at the beginning of my speech. I hope he will be the last Bloc critic to have to lead this fight for a support program for older workers.

As he said, this proposal is not defensive but aimed instead at giving people and communities the tools they need to face foreign competition and new situations. In the case of Louisiana-Pacific, it concerns the forest industry crisis in Quebec. Louisiana-Pacific closed its two plants in Saint-Michel, and people are working on getting it started up again. It is clear, though, that when they try to re-start a company of this kind, it cannot have the same number of workers because savings will have to be made and the plant will need to become more productive.

Related activities will therefore have to be developed as well in order to maintain the labour pool, especially in the area of recreation and tourism. In order to do this, a minimum amount of economic activity will have to be maintained during the transition period and people who are unemployed or temporarily laid off will need the means to go and buy bread and butter in order to keep all the services going at a minimum level. If services start to close, one after the other, not only will Louisiana-Pacific be discouraged from re-opening its plant but the recreational and tourist activities developing around Taureau lake will be seriously affected. American or European tourists rarely want cross a ghost town to reach a magnificent nature reserve in north Lanaudière. This is what politicians and all those concerned about the public good should concentrate on.

It is the same in Maskinongé. I know that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé has certainly spoken about it.

The same goes for the furniture industry. When the free trade agreement was signed between Canada and Mexico 10 years ago, we were told that this industry would disappear. But no, it adjusted, although there were job losses. At the time, there was a program, POWA. We need this tool back for the good of all communities, especially the resource-based regions in Quebec, but all of Canada as well.