Christian Paradis

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

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.

[Natural Resources, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I am proud to say in this House today that the government has invested $2.1 million in research on semiconductor lighting.

Thanks to this research, we will be able to develop a light bulb that will last 20 years and consume 90% less energy than current standard light bulbs. This is the kind of technology the government will continue to support. Canadians want results, they want progress, and they want value for money. That is what we are delivering, not empty promises.

[Government Programs, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government's plan will be tabled shortly. The commissioner's conclusions will be taken into consideration.

The minister was clear this week when he said that the costs involved in assessment are too high. We want results, and we will have results.

[Forest Industry, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

First, this statement has to be set straight, because the commitments made by the Department of Natural Resources will be honoured, and this, on top of the $200 million announced in Budget 2006.

[National Forest Week, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the start of National Forest Week celebrations. This week is an opportunity for Canadians to think about the vital role forests play in our lives. This year's theme is “Canada's natural resources: connected to our people and our land”.

I would also like to draw hon. members' attention to the tabling in Parliament of the annual report entitled “The State of Canada's Forests”, which contains exhaustive, current information on the state of our forests and the forestry sector and their contribution to Canada's economy and environment and Canadians' quality of life.

Canada's forests, which form part of our natural resources, make a major contribution to our quality of life, both in their natural state and through forest products and the jobs forests generate.

Together, we will certainly continue to improve our use of this valuable resource, in order to boost our economy, create jobs and protect the environment. In the meantime, we invite everyone to take advantage of National Forest Week to get out and appreciate the beauty of our Canadian forests.

[Forest Industry, September 28th, 2006]

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

Unlike the previous government, the current government announced significant measures in the 2006 budget.

We are working with the provinces and the industry to develop a long-term strategy to make the industry as competitive as possible.

That is delivering the goods.

[September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. We arrived here in power as a new government and emissions are 35% over the previous government's target, and we are being asked to manage responsibly. In the meantime, while we are waiting for a new made in Canada solution to be implemented, the government is managing some 95 different programs that address climate change. These programs will continue in the current fiscal year and temporary financial assistance will be available, as is already the case. As I was saying earlier, the ministers concerned will make relevant announcements on specific programs.

From the beginning we realized that some programs were not achieving the desired results. My colleague referred to the One Tonne Challenge, for example, a marketing campaign run by the previous government. We do not want to adopt that approach. We want to use taxpayers' money in a way that will achieve the best results. We want to implement more effective and efficient programs to reduce emissions in a responsible manner.

We will continue to review current activities and support those that work. Furthermore, we are planning to add new activities that will help improve performance for all Canadians. We are committed to establishing a strategy that will ensure the quality of air, water, soil and energy.

[September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to the question asked by my hon. colleague, the member for Etobicoke North. The hon. member is concerned about the alleged cuts to programs. We know that programs such as EnerGuide or the one tonne challenge were deemed ineffective. That is why the current government is now looking into more effective programs.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the Minister of Finance made a $2 billion commitment to the environment and energy efficiency in the budget he brought down.

This is a significant investment. We think such an investment can be better used and provide better results than the money spent by the previous government.

Our government promised to pursue new directions in matters of climate change policy. We want a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a plan that takes into account the economic, social and environmental context of our country. We want to establish a plan that ensures clean air, water, soil and energy for Canadians—an effective and realistic way for Canada to address issues related to climate change.

It is not enough to do what the previous government did, which was to make an international commitment without developing a plan to honour that commitment and without determining what impact it might have on Canada. We have seen the results of that approach. Years after the Liberal government adopted programs and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on climate change initiatives, we are still far from achieving significant results and very far from meeting our commitments. The Liberals set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. Today, Canada's emissions are 35% above that target.

It is time to restructure our programs, and that is what we are doing. We have to find the best way of using this money for maximum impact on climate change.

Some of the current programs can be tailored to our strategy. In other cases, however, we will have to decide whether taxpayers' money might not be better used to support the new strategy. All the climate change initiatives are being reviewed, to make sure they produce real results for Canada.

My friend mentioned the EnerGuide program and the one tonne challenge. On re-evaluating these initiatives, the government concluded that taxpayers' money could be better used and spent on initiatives that will be more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The government is developing a new strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As my friend is aware, the various ministers with responsibility in this area will be announcing specific initiatives in the coming weeks. The House will then see the wisdom of investing in programs that will have a real impact on air, water, soil and energy quality for Canadians.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I too represent a riding in which there are several sawmills, particularly border sawmills.

In general, people are very pleased with the agreement. It is always possible to speculate of course. On one hand, the Liberals did nothing for 13 years, with the result that sawmills now have serious cashflow problems. On the other, my colleague in the Bloc Québécois indulges in speculations about what they could have done. That is to be expected, it is an agreement, it is an out-of-court settlement.

The government did the best it could. When we were in committee, Mr. Guy Chevrette raised some points that were met. Mr. Chevrette himself admitted that these points had been raised and he was pleased with the results. Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson even told us about the dangers of continuing, because under any procedure at all, the whole thing could collapse. The industry asked us to settle the problem, and we did. I cannot understand, therefore, what my hon. colleague was saying.

[Points of Order, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear. Such remarks are not worthy of this House. This relates to the House and has nothing to do with the hon. member herself. That is why I am demanding that the member apologize to this House.