Gerald Keddy

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

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

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

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

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

Henri Gaudin pointed out in the Montreal Gazette:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural riding with a big forestry base. The consequences for the communities and workers will be very positive. First, there will be stability in the marketplace. Second, there will be the ability to export into our largest marketplace, which is the United States of America. Third, this is a very good agreement, in particular for Quebec. There will be 32 border mills in Quebec that will be completely exempt from any border measures under this agreement.

There is also built in flexibility in this agreement. At the bottom of the cycle Quebec mills can choose to pay a 5% export tax if they control their exports. There is flexibility for B.C. There is flexibility for all the provinces if they want it. We do not have a homogeneous lumber market in Canada. It is different on the east coast from on the west coast. It is different in Quebec from in Ontario. This agreement reflects the differences.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to answer the member's three questions.

The first thing that hon. members should realize is this brings a minimum of eight to nine years of stability to this industry. This industry has struggled over the years. It has had its high points; it has had its low points.

The 15% export tax is at the bottom of the cycle. The member would know that at least 50% of the time, Canada's exports to the United States are at the top end of the cycle. When we are at the top end of the cycle, there is zero tax. What happens at the bottom end of the cycle is people feel they have to produce more in order to make the same amount of profit they were making. They will produce more and that will flood the United States market. Protectionism will rear its ugly head at the bottom of the cycle. We put the export tax in at the bottom of the cycle and when it comes up to where there is some real profit in the lumber industry, there is no export tax and there is free trade.

As to the 19% for not signing, the people who are not in agreement with this, why should they benefit? Why should they not have to pay their fair share and benefit from the agreement when all of the rest of the mills are willing to pay? The mills are willing to pay. There is no discussion among them. They want this behind them. They want stability in the marketplace. We need that eight to nine years of stability in the marketplace.

The idea that the Byrd amendment is going to be changed by going to court in the United States I do not think is correct. The Byrd amendment will only be changed by the American congressmen and senators. I believe it is only Congress that can change it. It is not going to be changed by us.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the softwood lumber agreement as negotiated by the new Conservative government and the Minister of International Trade.

I am not quite sure how the NDP member who just spoke and the question from the Liberal benches got on to the topic of the Wheat Board in discussion of the softwood lumber agreement. The member from the NDP said that the Wheat Board enabled farmers to get the highest price possible. I am certainly not the expert on the Wheat Board, but my understanding is that producers cannot sell their wheat outside of the Wheat Board. Therefore, they do not have the option of going for the highest price possible. As a matter of fact, they may have to sell their wheat for less money than they could have received if they had sold it independently.

This debate should stick to the facts. If we stick to the facts this is a clear debate and I think there would be unanimity from all parties. There would be nothing but massive support for the bill and for the positive change it will bring to the lumber industry in Canada.

There are a number of issues that I want to talk about. I want to deal directly with a number of statements made by my Atlantic Canadian colleagues in the Liberal Party and in the NDP who have criticized this agreement. This is a good agreement for Atlantic Canada. To spread false arguments based on no criteria except rhetoric, based on no facts, only rhetoric, and the belief that if they say something enough times people will believe them, is not credible. It diminishes the work we do in this chamber.

To begin my debate I would like to read a quote from the Minister of International Trade who spoke in the House yesterday. His opening statement was very cognizant of the issue. It spoke directly to the issue and it is worth repeating:

Softwood lumber for Canadian softwood lumber producers has been an industry that has been plagued by trade disputes--

I do not think anyone would disagree with that:

--border measures and various types of trade harassment for basically a quarter of a century.

After 24 years of nothing but harassment from our American neighbours on the softwood lumber file, we have finally put it to rest. We are talking about organized trade, about clear rules, about definite boundaries. We do not have a quota system in place. We have trade that flows north and south across the long border between us and the United States.

The minister went on to say:

The agreement will provide stability and a dispute-free market access to the United States market. It will provide stability for a period of at least eight to nine years...it will provide a trajectory for the evolution of the softwood lumber industry to a world of complete free trade.

Obviously, complete free trade is what everyone would prefer to have, but we cannot diminish the agreement that we have before us and somehow try to discredit it by telling falsehoods about it.

The member for Beauséjour spoke against this agreement. He has sawmills in his own riding. I asked him about the hypothetical agreement the former Liberal government supposedly was desperate to have signed prior to Christmas and prior to the election. What was it about that agreement that was supposedly better than this agreement? Put it on the table; table it. I did not get an answer to that question.

I would be very interested in comparing the two. As an Atlantic Canadian, the member for Beauséjour would know that the difference in the agreements is that the Liberals were willing, as unbelievable as this may sound, to give up Atlantic Canada's free trade with the United States. We were countervail free prior to this last trade action. We were anti-dumping free. We had free trade with the United States. The Liberals were willing to give that up in order to get a trade agreement with the United States. It is unbelievable.

There are a number of issues that we know are factual. The Americans are protectionists. Is that a big surprise? Nothing has changed. The Byrd amendment makes it almost impossible for our exporters to work on an equal footing. The idea that somehow the next court case would have changed it is absolutely fictitious. The next court case would not have changed it. As long as the Byrd amendment is in place in the United States and the American industry feels it is being treated unfairly, feels there is a subsidy in the Canadian marketplace, the American industry can bring that action to the American trade board and can claim countervail or anti-dumping duties. There is no next legal action that is going to prevent that. If the Byrd amendment, which should not be there, was not there, then the avenue of going to the courts to have it settled once and for all would be open.

This softwood lumber agreement is supported by Atlantic Canadian mills. I have had letters from the majority of mills in Atlantic Canada, from the Maritime Lumber Bureau.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the work that the Maritime Lumber Bureau has done on this file. When the previous government was not looking out for the interests of Atlantic Canada, Atlantic Canada looked out for its own interests. We saw over a period of time a shift from east-west trade in lumber that used to go to Europe to north-south trade with the United States. Some of that was market driven; some of that was driven by the American dollar which was extremely high, but it was driven by circumstance.

We in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, P.E.I. and New Brunswick, with the primary lumber producers being Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, got shut out of the European market. That billion dollars in trade, $900 million in softwood lumber trade that Nova Scotia used to do with Europe suddenly became trade with the United States. There was a dramatic shift. There was a dramatic shift in Europe because of non-tariff trade sanctions by the Europeans. The non-tariff trade barrier that the Europeans put in place was the pinewood nematode. They came up with an excuse that insects would somehow infest the pine forests of Europe.

Of course, after 500 years of trade with Europe and no insect infestations from pinewood nematode, we thought we had a scientific argument to actually prove that would not happen. However, we could not have that argument heard clearly by the Europeans and much of that market was lost, unless the lumber was pressure treated or kiln dried.

I want to continue for a while longer on my Atlantic Canadian colleagues' non-acceptance of this treaty. This is a good agreement with the United States. It is a great agreement for Atlantic Canada. More important, the members opposite yesterday were saying that we need to read the agreement. Unfortunately, they had not because the one small change that needed to be made to this agreement to ensure Atlantic Canada's continued exemption from countervail and anti-dumping duties actually was the fact that we have been exempt. That exemption had unfortunately been neglected in the bill and all of the Liberals who were stating that they had read it so closely obviously had not. The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley actually picked up on it, spoke directly to the minister and was able to have that exemption guaranteed.

It is a matter of dealing with the facts, not falsehoods, not fiction, not fantasy, but only the facts.

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the adoption of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement was supposed to give the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization some teeth. Yet, successive Liberal fisheries ministers failed to have the agreement implemented by NAFO and the result has been rampant overfishing. Enough is enough.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please tell Canadians how he is fighting overfishing and delivering actions, not words, after more than 10 years of empty Liberal promises?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member for Beauséjour and typical Liberal revisionist history.

I will try to make this fairly succinct with a couple of quick questions. In the little history lesson on Atlantic Canada's exemption on softwood lumber, the hon. member forgot to say that the exemption was started under a Conservative government. It was largely ignored for 13 years under a Liberal government and it was only, which he did mention, through the good work of the Maritime Lumber Bureau that it stayed in place at all. This is an industry driven group which really works by itself to maintain Atlantic Canada's exemption.

The hon. member for Beauséjour mentioned that exemption. He did not mention that the Liberals, prior to the election, were so eager, so desperate, to sign a deal on softwood lumber that they put Atlantic Canada's exemption on the table. They were willing to give up Atlantic Canada's exemption, which was not mentioned by the hon. member.

He did mention that somehow the Liberal deal was a better deal than the one we are debating today. I am happy to have the debate, but I ask the hon. member, what were the points? He should put them on the table, on paper. I ask him, what about that deal is better than this deal? I would like to see the facts.

[Atlantic Canada, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, at yesterday's historic vote on the softwood lumber agreement, I was shocked when members of the Liberal and NDP abandoned Atlantic Canada. We should expect no less in the future.

Look at the Liberal and the NDP record. Remember that the member for Halifax and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore voted against our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, thus supporting the human rights abuses of the Taliban and endangering our soldiers.

The same Liberal members who voted against softwood lumber yesterday were only a few months ago trying to sell a disastrous deal that would have caused Atlantic Canada to lose every gain we have made on softwood lumber in the past 30 years.

Continue to watch them when the fisheries capital gains exemption comes before the House. We will witness once again the Liberal and the NDP saying one thing and doing another.

[Softwood Lumber, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on the softwood lumber agreement. The member for Beauséjour has praised the deal stating “as an Atlantic Canadian, I'm certainly pleased that this agreement protects the rights we have fought hard to ensure are protected”. However, now he is indicating that he will be voting against the deal.

Can the Minister of International Trade please explain once again to the member opposite why this deal is good for Atlantic Canada, good for New Brunswickers and good for the member's very own constituents?

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments, but I am not quite certain that he truly understood what I was saying earlier.

My point was quite simple. I think we increase confidence in the House and increase support from all Canadians in the procedure and what goes on in the House when they can fully understand that they will have a greater opportunity to participate and that the governing party will have less opportunity to manipulate the most important part of our democratic state and our democratic process. Canadians have the ability to re-elect governments or to defeat governments and make them go back to the people to have a decision made. That is the most important part of our democracy. Canadians get to choose.

By having an election every four years on a fixed date at a period of time, more people will be able to go to the polls. Students will be at school where they will be able to vote. They will not be travelling or working at a summer job away from their home. By encouraging activism in our voting patterns, by getting above that 65% mark, by allowing people to have some respect and confidence in this chamber, by leading instead of following, we will win back the respect of this House.