moves:
That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this motion before the House today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Its purpose is to remedy, at least to some extent, the injustice done to a particular group of workers, namely older workers.
The motion before us has four features, which I will outline here to the House. First, of course, I should discuss the rationale behind this motion. It is obviously because of the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization. This is something that the Bloc Québécois has studied in considerable depth over the last few months in order to make the government more aware of the need to prevent a situation caused by this new phenomenon.
The government should therefore develop a strategy for helping this particular group made up of older workers who have lost their jobs. This strategy should include a very specific measure to provide support when these people have the misfortune of losing their jobs.
Under its economic strategy, the Liberal government has cut employment insurance over the last few years. In doing this, it eliminated a program that was essential to the group of workers whom we are targeting today.
The social safety net used to provide an income through employment insurance for people who had the misfortune of losing their jobs in a climate of massive job losses, but it was abandoned in 1997. This has done a lot of harm to a particular segment of Canadian society, as well as to another segment that that I know a little better—the one in Quebec.
Originally, the component that we are discussing today was called the older workers assistance program. The definition of it was changed over the years and the name became the program for older worker adjustment or POWA. The nuances here are easy to see. By removing the idea of “assistance” for older workers, the government wanted to put more emphasis on these workers adapting and returning to work. We agree with that of course. But what we agree with much less is the government abandoning its support for people who cannot retrain.
It is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois that the federal government has done nothing for older workers, although they are in dire straits. The Bloc is calling for the implementation of an income support program for these workers. This program must be part of an overall strategy to assist older workers.
I will come back to this, since it has two major parts, as I indicated earlier: preparing older workers to re-enter the labour force, if possible, and the obvious need to support these workers and their families. Older people often have family and social responsibilities.
I want to provide some background information, a sort of review, to clearly show that we are not breaking new ground here. In existence from 1988 to 1997, the program for older worker adjustment was for people between the ages of 55 and 64 who met various criteria and had lost their jobs as a result of massive permanent layoffs.
So, in every group of workers affected by permanent massive layoffs, there were some older workers who were eligible for this particular program.
In a penny-pinching strategy still preferred by the Liberal Party until quite recently—which we will get to in a moment—the government, contrary to common sense, cut this program on March 31, 1997. Under federal-provincial agreements, including the Canada-Quebec agreement, the costs of this program were shared, 70% by the federal government and 30% by the provinces.
In 1996, the year before the program was eliminated, 11,700 people were still enrolled in the program as the result of 900 massive layoffs. After it disappeared, a new provision appeared. The program itself does not exist for these workers at present, but it has been amended numerous times by pilot projects that train workers for re-entry into the labour force. So, this income support, which was so essential, no longer exists.
It must also be pointed out that, statistically speaking, there are not that many unemployed older workers. In other words, proportionally, they are laid off less often than others. When they are laid off, however, they are unemployed longer. This is, of course, because when a worker is over 50, and even more so over 55, he has trouble getting back into the work force because employers are always looking to hire people who will be with them for a long time.
This trend has changed a little because of the shortage of jobs in certain fields, but the concrete reality for workers is unchanged.
The Employment Insurance Commission recently indicated that, even if older workers have benefited from a considerable increase in jobs in 2003-04, there is still an unemployment rate of 5.8%. When older workers lose their jobs, they have far greater difficulties in getting back into the work force. They are over-represented among the long-term unemployed, composing 21.3% of that group, yet only 12.5% of the work force. In other words, 12.5% of workers are over the age of 55, yet 21.3% of unemployed workers are over that age.
As I said, training programs for these workers are, without a doubt, good things. They do want to return to work, unless they have some health problem or other type of problem. The difficulty, however, lies with job openings. As a result, all this income assistance is now absent.
According to four union studies, the older workers are, the harder it is for them to access training. It is therefore harder on them if they lose their jobs because, on top of the lack of access to training, the skills they have acquired are out of phase with today's job requirements. The unions' studies have proven this.
The figures in this regard speak eloquently. Workers over 55 years of age account for only 3.5% of participants in the regular component of skills development, that is, training programs.
Of the critical mass of people taking training under existing programs, only 3.5% are older people.
The Employment Insurance Commission also notes that, as a general rule, older workers remain unemployed longer than do workers between the ages of 25 and 54. The figure is 33.6 weeks versus 23.3 weeks, and, in both cases, the workers involved are less well educated. In fact, 39.1% of older workers have not completed high school, as compared with 18.9% of workers between 25 and 54 years of age.
Workers have been calling for the reinstatement of the program for older worker adjustment since its abolition in 1997 by the Minister of Finance, the current Prime Minister.
I think there is some sort of consensus among all stakeholders concerned about employment to see that aging workers who have been laid off get some support when they lose their job.
It is important to say as well with respect to our motion today that it is a reminder about the form POWA took in 1993. Quebec and Ottawa renewed the 1988 agreement in January 1993. It addressed workers over the age of 55 who were included in massive layoffs and reduced from 15 to 13 the number of years of employment entitling them to take advantage of the program.
From this, a guide could be established for implementing the program.
Workers aged 55 to 60 could also draw, once their EI benefits had run out, a monthly benefit of between $760 and $1,000, determined by their income, on the condition, of course, that they remained available for work.
This contradicts the statements made on the other side of the House to the effect that older workers simply want an income while they wait for their old age pension, as it is popularly called.
That is totally wrong. The program we want to see ensures that the workers concerned, health and physical condition permitting, are available for work. When they are unable to find work, they could receive benefits.
For those aged 60 to 64, the benefits were set at $700 because the RRQ benefits could be tacked on to their income. Previously, these benefits varied between $750 and $1,200.
And this did not prevent recipients from working, on the contrary. Only 40% of employment income in excess of $300 could be deducted from the benefits under the program. This enabled order workers to re-enter the labour force on a temporary basis, part time or in what is termed today atypical jobs, while continuing to receive a portion of the POWA benefits to make up the difference, so they could have a decent income to live on.
That said, we want to reiterate that, more than ever, older workers need help. Since the beginning of this Parliament, the Bloc Québécois has called upon the government on three occasions to implement this program.
We were not the only ones to call upon the government. We were not the only ones to denounce its lack of action on the whole issue of globalization and the entry of products from China and India on the Canadian market.
On February 9—four months ago, that is pretty recent—the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, who was the Conservative member of Parliament for Newmarket—Aurora at the time, told the Speaker of the House of Commons the following, and I quote from the Official Report of the Proceedings of the House of Commons :
Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely shocking that the trade minister yesterday said he would not weep for Canadian jobs lost to cheap labour markets in China and India.
Essentially what the minister has said is that he does not care about the hard-working Canadian men and women who might lose their jobs because the government has not shown enough leadership to ensure that the jobs stay here in the first place. What is the minister going to do to keep jobs here in Canada and create new jobs here in Canada?
Today, I am asking her: What would be her answer to the question that she put four months ago? She is now in a position to answer it. If she thought it was outrageous four months ago, I want to know if the principles in which she takes pride still make her feel that it is outrageous, now that she has crossed the floor of the House. Is what was immoral four months ago now acceptable because she has since changed parties?
This calls for an answer, and we certainly hope that the new minister will answer today the question that she put to the minister on February 9.
The cost of an improved POWA for the federal government would be around $55 million for the first year, and $75 million for subsequent years. This estimate is confirmed by a number of economists. The caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada, of which the new minister is now a member, also expressed its support for restoring POWA. Here is an excerpt from the October 21, 2004 edition of the Trois-Rivières daily Le Nouvelliste , barely six months ago:
The Liberal caucus wants to restore the program for older worker adjustment.
Yesterday, the federal Liberals' Quebec caucus asked the Minister of Human Resources, Joe Volpe, to re-introduce the program for older worker adjustment.
The federal Liberals' Quebec caucus added:
This program will allow workers aged 55 and over, who have low skill levels and who lost their jobs, to bridge the gap between the time they find themselves unemployed and their retirement.
I have another interesting quote. I am directing my comments to people who pride themselves in having principles, to see if they also keep their word. This is from a famous character in this House, and I wonder if he keeps his word:
According to MP Denis Coderre, this program worked well at the time, but was abolished because of cuts.
This is definitely not helping the unemployed.
Mr. Coderre contends that the disruption, in terms of layoffs, caused by globalization in the primary clothing and textile industry, will require the government to look at the plight of older workers, as it did for seasonal workers.
On February 15, the standing committee, where all parties are represented, submitted a report in which recommendation N
o
13, is exactly along the same lines as our motion today. This is why I am asking all parliamentarians here to support this motion.
