Good morning to everyone. I want to tell you a secret: I am 50 today, I have lived 50 years as a woman. It is very difficult to be objective, because I get very emotional when I take stock of my life as a woman and of all that the women who have gone before me have done. I am really worried about the situation that confronts us.
In Canada, the programs, policies and measures are still very archaic and, in my opinion, very discriminatory to women. We say that we live in an evolved country. I am wondering to what extent the governments care about the welfare of women, listen to the work that we do here, to the reports that we have tabled and to all the witnesses that we meet. Studies by experts show that women are still victims of discrimination because of the government's tax system.
From the sociological perspective, we need to take a second look at the way we do things in order to rectify this injustice against women. Oh, how proud I am of being from Quebec! Quebec made choices and implemented new social programs that enabled young families to use early childhood education centres and take advantage of better parental leave than the rest of Canada. I look forward to the time when we have enough data to show that these choices have had positive results.
I come from a region that is completely losing its vitality and its young people. Will these programs bring the young people back to the region and will they encourage families to settle there? Has the parental leave program, for example, increased the birth rate? The birth rate is climbing in Quebec. Have these societal choices improved the quality of life of our families?
I apologize; we are talking about the employment insurance system at the moment. If we look at the system as it is presently, we can see that it has been distorted. We have not given any consideration to the big picture, the labour profile, which has really changed. We no longer live in a time of job security. I am sorry to have to say this, but many people are dependent on unstable work, seasonal work. Many of these people live in the regions, but some are in the large urban centres as well. I come from a region dependent on forestry, agrifood and tourism. Most of the people there are women who depend on seasonal work. In one-industry towns—those with only one industry—the situation is even more catastrophic. In the forestry sector, most work was done by men. The only job that a woman could have—and not by choice—was in the service sector or on a part-time basis. There is a great deal of poverty and, what is even more appalling, these are skilled people and they must now rely on welfare. They are disappearing from the employment insurance statistics and the provinces are now being told that they are responsible for them and must look after them. The last and only resort is welfare. There are always employment insurance or welfare cases where people will exaggerate, but being on welfare is a hard blow to one's dignity. How can you get out if you do not have the means to do so?
We are discussing the employment insurance system. This is an insurance plan paid for by employees and employers. The government does not invest one—I feel like swearing, but I will not—cent, not one red cent, in this program.
But why stubbornly refuse to update it, to make it better and to consider the changes that have occurred in employment profiles? We need to update the program and tailor it to the reality that people are experiencing today in their choices and their job opportunities.
I apologize if I took up so much time.