Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will try to be as efficient as Lawrence. In fact, I will time myself mentally and make sure that I ask my questions before my time is up. I wish to congratulate Lawrence for his work in the area, as well as in committee. He was in the room earlier, when I said this, but is now sitting next to me.
This committee is made up of representatives from the four political parties. I have been a member of this committee for the last five years, and served as MP for the last nine years, if you also consider the time I was serving as an assistant. I can tell you that the level of teamwork here is great, something that cannot be found elsewhere, unfortunately. We may have political disagreements, but this isn't a problem. However, when we address crucial subjects such as the future of fisheries, we are all unanimous, regardless of whether we are discussing small craft harbours, the lobster industry, or the industry at large. Our group works very well together, in a spirit of collegiality. In fact, we are even capable of partying together.
The first question I wish to ask you concerns employment insurance. I represent the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and what drove me to enter federal politics was the unemployment insurance issue. I continue to talk about unemployment insurance because by using the term “employment insurance”, there's a whole aspect of the reality which is forgotten, the aspect of seasonal unemployment. Seasonal unemployment affects many of our communities. When people are unable to receive employment insurance, they must leave their hometowns, which they love very much. I know that members of the committee agree with me, but I do wish to add that money used for unemployment insurance goes back to the community. It is invested. People who receive unemployment insurance benefits spend money in convenience stores, supermarkets, and elsewhere. This is why, to my mind, this money is being very well invested. While waiting for full employment, be it in the wind energy sector, or other sectors, I believe that it is imperative to maintain unemployment insurance.
I, for one, must work on the famous seal issue, but as Lawrence pointed out, we also have to address other international issues such as subsidies that are considered prohibited subsidies by countries such as New Zealand, in particular, or even the United States. These countries always end up losing sight of common sense. To say that these funds, used to refurbish harbours or administer an employment support program are prohibited subsidies does not make any sense. The government must support communities such as ours, namely through the provision of such programs.
I'd like to better understand your suggestion. I know that there have been questions on unemployment insurance. As I understand it, the argument is the following: given the fact that 2008 income is considered as income for 2009, 2010 and 2011, it would be possible to allow people to become eligible, seeing as they would not be in 2009, 2010, 2011 because they would be earning less. Is this correct?