Gerald Keddy

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one only had to look at the response from our colleague and the leader of the Bloc Québécois immediately following the Prime Minister's announcement in the House and his reaction to that announcement to understand that for certain the fox had been caught among the chickens, and was unable to wreak the havoc that was expected.

Again, I want to commend the Prime Minister on his leadership role on a question that has dogged previous prime ministers and Canadian parliamentarians for many years. He has taken the initiative and been forthright. He has shown the foresight to deal with the issue once and for all, and certainly to deal with it in the proper manner in the House as it should be dealt with and to the benefit of the country.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, most of our ancestors came to this country some time ago. My ancestors came here from Scotland in 1749. I am the fifth generation on the farm I live on in Nova Scotia, and I am the ninth generation in the province.

At the turn of the century in Nova Scotia, 80% of the population spoke Gaelic. School was taught in Gaelic. We had the first Gaelic newspaper outside of Ireland and Scotland, and for many years the only one.

Members would be hard pressed to find 1,000 or 2,000 Gaelic speakers in Nova Scotia today. Most of us can say “thank you” or “to your health”, a few words, a few greetings and a few other things, but the culture has died because it was overwhelmed by the majority that surrounded it, plain and simple.

I want to speak directly to the motion. The motion is partisan. The Bloc motion is problematic and mischievous. Quite frankly, it is meant to cause trouble to the Liberals during their leadership debate and the Prime Minister rose above all of that. He put the country first and introduced another motion that will unite all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this very important debate today, a debate that has been brought on by the Prime Minister of Canada, who made a very bold move but a very correct move at a time when leadership was demanded and leadership was found, and it was not found wanting.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, my colleague in the House.

There are a couple of points with which I want to start.

Let me very clear, today's debate, which the Bloc Québécois has brought to the House, has long been fueled by political actors for debatable and questionable purposes. In bringing this debate to the House, the members of the Bloc want, above all else, to refuse to acknowledge the truth. That truth is Canada is a federation that works. It works because of our heritage, the heritage of a decentralized country, the heritage of a federation that recognizes the realities and specificities of our provincial and federal partners.

All regions and provinces have benefited from the decentralized qualities of the Canadian federation. Those qualities have more generally contributed to the vitality and development of all Canadians, especially Quebecers. I am proud to take part in today's debate and to take the opportunity to remind the Bloc, once again, that it is wrong to depict the Canadian federation as a straitjacket that is thwarting Quebec's development.

Indeed, I do not understand why the Bloc is so stubbornly belabouring themes that do not even need to be questioned. It is obvious to everyone that Quebeckers live and flourish in a province that has its own specificity, allowing the francophone majority to affirm itself and have its exceptional identity respected. It is also obvious that this society, which is so rich and so special, allows for the presence and development of multi-ethnicity and plural identities.

What a great success story, but to what can such an accomplishment be attributed? If we buy into the Bloc's logic, we arrive at conclusions that disturb me. If we buy into the Bloc's credo, we reject all the achievements that make Canada a decentralized federation based on respect for differences as it was founded in 1867. If we share the Bloc's ideas, we are admitting that since then the exceptional quality of the language, culture and institutions of Quebeckers have never found their place within our federal system. In short, this means admitting that respect for differences and respect for the spirit of federalism are illusions that have nothing to do with Canada's evolution and Quebec's development. I soundly reject those theories.

Should we ignore the facts? Should we ignore history? We have such a striking reality before our eyes, but we still need to debate it. I ask again, for what reason?

It is clearly so difficult to sum up in a single word the diversity of Quebec society and Canadian society. Quebeckers have been marked throughout our history by a will constantly reaffirmed by generations of men and women to promote and defend their rights and preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage, and they have succeeded brilliantly within the federation of Canada.

Should we contradict that? Quebeckers also belong to a community that has strong tools for development, progress and prosperity. Should we contradict that? Yet let us recall the words of Mr. Landry, who admitted himself that Quebeckers had obtained a remarkable degree of development and vitality because they had the legal a financial tools similar to those of a nation.

I believe instead, and I am convinced of this and I emphasize it, that it is precisely the Canadian federal system that has allowed the vitality and development of Quebeckers and their cultural, linguistic and institutional richness. Our federation enjoys extensive flexibility so let us not deny the achievements of our history and our tradition. Let us not refute the intentions of the founders of the Canadian federation. They were aware of the need to recognize the diversity, differences and specificities of all partners of the federation. We owe much of that to the very presence of Quebeckers themselves.

Quebeckers fully participated in the founding of Canada, supported it, knowing full well that their specificity and their differences would be respected within it. That flexibility, which is particular to a federation, has served not only Quebeckers but it has also served all of Canada. Every province, every territory, and every region has been able to benefit from it and contribute to it through their own vitality and development.

Within a federal framework Quebeckers have been able to safeguard their economic development and affirm the specificity and vitality that has not been limited within their own borders, but has spread throughout the globe through the spirit of a unique culture and won the recognition and respect of the entire world.

I admit, and this is reflected in the government's decisions and actions, that our federation is also obviously a work in progress, as indeed any political system is, be it federal or unitary. It would be ridiculous to assert that a federal system is established so that it can no longer evolve.

Indeed, how can it not evolve in response to circumstances and the many changes that come our way? How can we not recognize the significance of new issues that emerge that may affect the quality and the life of Canadians and Quebeckers, issues that we must address in an increasingly competitive world? It is that inevitable evolution that the Canadian government wanted to respond to through the concept of federalism of openness.

We have already seen that new approach in action, based on respect for differences and the spirit of federalism as Canada's founders wanted. Just look, for example, at Quebec's participation at UNESCO, at the objective we have set to restore fiscal balance, and at our commitment to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Through this concept of federalism of openness we wanted to ensure that our heritage would be forever preserved. By adopting the federalism of openness, we have sought, and still seek, to ensure that the spirit of federalism remains, that it continues to serve the needs of a decentralized federation and that, accordingly, the full vitality and development of Quebeckers and Canadians is assured.

Through a federalism of openness, I wanted to respond to the will of Quebeckers and Canadians, to their will to strengthen our federation by working more closely with our partners, fully respecting the powers and jurisdictions of each. Such cooperation also means a profound respect for our partners and a will to draw on the experience and expertise of all for the common good.

The vast majority of Quebeckers are rightly proud of their Quebec identity and their Canadian identity. What they want above all, like the majority of all Canadians, is for their governments to work in the common interest of all of our fellow citizens and agree to forge a genuine partnership throughout the country based on solidarity and respect for diversity.

Canada can work harmoniously if it is based on consultation and cooperation by all orders of government. We can see that this whole debate that was fuelled by the Bloc has nothing to do with the words and intentions of the government and the citizens of Canada.

We should instead look more closely at the achievements of the Canadian federation and the spirit of federalism as an inclusive and evolving principle for the well-being and development of not only Quebeckers but of all Canadians.

Our government is keenly aware of the role that Quebeckers have played in the building of our country. They obviously continue to play a key role within the Canadian federation by drawing on their strengths and their many assets, by giving free rein to their creativity recognized worldwide, and by contributing to a Canadian political unity through their specificity and their enriching culture, and their contribution of all of these attributes to the development of Canada as a whole.

All Canadians and Quebeckers are connected through our past, through our present and for the future. If we work together for the common good of all, that future will be bright, for together we can do great things.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on its meeting of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development at the OECD in Paris, France, June 23, 2006, and the third part of the 2006 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, June 26 to 30, 2006.

[Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act, November 3rd, 2006]

They may try.

[Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the discussion in the chamber and to all the members of Parliament, I think most of us are in favour of the intent of the bill. The difficulty is to support the purpose of the bill.

I want to thank the member from Dauphin for bringing the bill forward. The hon. member on the Liberal side is missing an important point. Our hunting, fishing and trapping heritage is threatened. Even that protected under the Constitution for aboriginals it is threatened. It is threatened by a society that no longer involves itself in hunting, fishing and trapping.

Quite frankly, not only the aboriginal community needs protection of these rights, the entire community needs protection of these rights. If we do not stand together, we could fall separately.

I really think this is something that is not being considered. I thank the hon. member for bringing forward the bill. It is an important bill. Because of the jurisdictional problems, I will be unable to support the bill, but that is not the point.

The point is this should have been brought forward a long time ago. It is something that we should have a serious conversation about and discussion among the provinces, the federal government, the territories and all the various hunting, fishing and trapping groups in our country. We should move forward in a positive way. If we do not, this part of our heritage will be left behind.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

The motion.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate. I would like to add a point and hear my colleague's comment.

I have a constituent who was a member of the armed forces and was part of the negotiating team when the pension was changed. His comments to me were very direct. He said that this is the worst kind of political manipulation that there could possibly be. He said that they negotiated for a better pension. They had a pension where members could receive it sooner, take an earlier pension at a lower benefit and therefore get more in the long run.

I would appreciate hearing the hon. member's answer on the political manipulation.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, my question is a direct one. Quite simply, could the hon. parliamentary secretary more fully elaborate on the targeted initiative for older workers?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to take part in tonight's discussion in committee of the whole. I wish to thank the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development for coming here tonight. I appreciate the lucidity of her answers and I apologize for some of my opposition colleagues and their lack of constructive comments and contribution to this debate.

Tonight, I would like to focus my comments and remarks on the subject of older workers. Make no mistake, older workers are a key concern for Canada's new government.

Our new government recognizes and appreciates the hardship faced by older workers who face unexpected changes to their work environment, especially when they live in communities and regions with limited employment alternatives.

Furthermore, we believe that older workers are a valuable and untapped resource in addressing labour market shortages in all industries. We believe that we should continue to encourage them to share their skills and talents well into retirement age.

That is why Canada's new government recently launched a new program to assist older workers in selected communities throughout Canada. In designing this new initiative, we considered the large labour market picture and the important role played by older workers.

Canada is currently undergoing a period of labour shortages. Employers are crying out for skilled workers. We recognize that this situation will only worsen if we do not act now to find solutions, solutions for today. Older workers form a major part of that solution, especially in my home province.

According to recent Statistics Canada findings, Nova Scotia currently has the second oldest population in Canada, with an average age of 41. In addition, we also have the second highest proportion of people older than 65 in Canada at 14.6%.

At a time of labour shortage and a shrinking labour supply, older workers are becoming a critical source of future labour force growth, growth that is critical to our prosperity, not just of Nova Scotia but the entire country.

Indeed, Judy Cutler, director of CARP, Canada's association for the 50-plus, has asked, “We have older workers who want to work. Why not embrace their expertise?”

Clearly, it is essential that we keep older workers active in the labour market. As a recent editorial in the Halifax Daily News indicated, “Giving older workers incentives to postpone retirement, or work part-time while collecting pensions, would at least temporarily ease the coming worker shortage”.

Moreover, Canada's new government has confidence in the continued ability of older workers to contribute to our future prosperity, and we are not alone. A recent OECD study strongly indicated that more focus should be given to the strategies that retrain, retain, and reintegrate older workers into the labour market as they represent “tremendous potential value to businesses, the economy and society”.

I am happy to report such positive assessments of older workers' potential contribution to the labour market. More and more organizations are eager to reintegrate such workers looking for meaningful employment. According to Brad Donnelly, an employment services manager with Manpower Incorporated in Atlantic Canada, tapping into older workers is something companies are increasingly looking to focus on. He said:

They're the target audience we're trying our hardest to recruit. We're seeing a lot more early retirees re-entering the workforce. They're looking to expand their horizons, not just to fill the time, but to learn a new skill.

It may be that the Liberals and the NDP do not believe that older workers are retrainable and can continue to make a contribution to society, but that is not the opinion of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, this enthusiasm we have for retraining is not shared by the opposition parties and their assessment of the prospects of older workers is excessively bleak and negative.

The NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst believes attempting to retrain and reintegrate those 55 years of age older in the labour market is a waste of time. He said, “--at age 55. Are they supposed to finish grade 12 and then go to university? That makes no sense”.

We have to realize that many people retire at age 55. They have many years left ahead of them to contribute to the workforce. A few short years ago, in the age of our fathers and our grandfathers, and our mothers and our grandmothers, people routinely worked well up into their seventies and even into their early eighties. They expected to. They made a major contribution to society and to this country. There is no reason to think that someone 55 years of age cannot continue to contribute to society. I would say there are quite a few people in this chamber 55 years of age and older who continue to contribute to society.

Listen to the Bloc member for Drummond commenting on the usefulness of retraining older workers. She said:

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

I fundamentally disagree with that. We have many examples and many opportunities for potential employees, people who have left the workforce or need to be retrained, many of them, quite frankly, do not need to be retrained. They can continue to work in the field that they are already in. They have a lifetime of experience and expertise that they can share to retrain new workers to enter the workforce. They can assist younger Canadians, and in many instances new Canadians, to learn the skills and the trades that they need to become competent workers and successful members of society.

Make no mistake, Canada's new government does not share this negative assessment of older workers expressed by the NDP and Bloc members. On the contrary, older workers represent a key concern for our government. That is why we pay close attention to the insights gained following the conclusion of the older workers' pilot project initiative this past spring.

From this initiative, we learned that success stems from the approaches that include employment assistance services with some combination of training, job search techniques and work experience leading to new jobs. Flexibility in programming, attention to individual needs and learning new skills, practical and relevant to today's economy, were also deemed essential.

While this is true for workers across the country, we determined that older workers, particularly in communities with traditionally high unemployment, often have a harder time finding jobs. That is just the reality of the situation. We have to find ways to mitigate those realities.

That is why Canada's new government has now taken action based on evidence and lessons learned, as I mentioned earlier. We recently announced a new national cost-shared program with the provinces and territories for older workers in vulnerable communities.

To help meet the needs of workers aged 55 to 64 who have lost their jobs, we are investing $70 million in this program called targeted initiative for older workers. That is a substantial amount of money which we expect will help older workers to continue in the workforce.

This initiative will target communities that are experiencing ongoing high unemployment and/or communities that are reliant on a single employer or industry affected by significant downsizing. Under the initiative, older workers can receive income support while receiving various types of assistance such as skills assessment, counselling, skills upgrading and work experience for new jobs.

This initiative is in addition to the support provided through the employment insurance program, which currently provides $1.4 billion in income benefits for some 230,000 unemployed older workers annually. Moreover, through part II of the EI program, 80,000-plus workers aged 50 and over have received assistance in obtaining the skills necessary to get and maintain employment through training, work experience and aid to starting a business.

I would like to emphasize that given Canada's complex economic and demographic environment, it is critical that we fully access the longer term needs of all older workers and the potential effect on the labour market of any additional measures that we may undertake. That is why, as promised in budget 2006, Canada's new government will undertake a feasibility study of measures to better understand older workers' needs and potential measures to assist them.

It is clear that our government is attuned to the needs of older workers. We have programs in place now. We are working to address immediate needs and we are planning for the future.

We will continue to provide support to older workers. We will continue to work with our partners so that older workers, wherever they live across the country, know that this government has devoted its full efforts to finding the best long term approach. We will continue to meet the needs of older workers and, most importantly, we will continue to believe in older workers.

I will mention that the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont has been in the House all evening. If there is time for a question, he would certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask one.

As I conclude, I would ask the minister to further elaborate on the targeted initiative for older workers, understanding that older workers face challenges in the work environment in Canada regardless of where they work--