It is common knowledge that since 2002-2003, 35,000 people in the manufacturing sector lost their jobs in Quebec. There aren't enough jobs in this sector. It is true that the economy is doing well, but it is moving mainly to the west. I think you acknowledge that yourselves when you say that the labour shortage is substantially higher and persistent in western Canada. So that's basically an acknowledgement, particularly during the oil boom, etc. The fact remains that there are workers who don't have jobs and you can't get past that. This state of affairs isn't necessarily linked to workforce mobility or to anything in particular. There's just no work in their region and the situation is dragging on.
What surprises me is how you reached this conclusion. I'd like to understand. On page 4 of your document, you state that the unemployment rate which was 6.4% in April has almost reached its lowest level in three decades and that the long-term unemployment rate has continued to fall over the past decade, going from 18% to less than 10%.
How have you calculated the unemployment rate? Is it on the basis of the number of people looking for employment, those getting employment insurance benefits or those who want to work but are no longer looking because there is no work in the regions?
Also, if the two premises I put forward are true, this skews the data. We now know how the Canadian government uses the employment insurance program. In 1992, out of everyone paying into the employment insurance fund, 88% could hope to get benefits if they had the misfortune of losing their job. That figure has dropped to less than 40% today.
The United Nations strongly criticized the Canadian government last week over its restrictive employment insurance accessibility policy which contributes to making families poorer. I have trouble understanding how you can paint such a picture of unemployment, when we know full well how very dramatic the situation is. I'd like your opinion on that.