Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to continue with my speech.
What is the intent of the private member's bill? Its intent is to remove an injustice, to remove a wrong. These people are ready, willing and able to work. They happen to be on unemployment insurance. They have been mandated by the state. They have been mandated by the government. They have been obliged by society to serve jury duty.
It is not their fault. It is not abuse as suggested by the previous speakers from the third party. They are following the duty imposed upon them by the Parliament of Canada. They are not at fault. These are good people. They do not want to violate the Unemployment Insurance Act, but they have benefits owing to them. They are obliged to serve on the jury but in the process they have to give up their benefits, their compensation.
In the name of fairness and justice surely we cannot ask them on one hand to serve on a jury and at the same time to give up their unemployment insurance compensation. It is wrong. It is an injustice. The intent of the bill is to remove that injustice, to correct that wrong.
Do we not have the compassion or the decency to show these people that we care for them? On one hand we want them to follow the law of the land and to serve on juries and at the same time we should not take away their unemployment insurance benefits, their compensation. If parliamentarians cannot understand this simple concept, this simple piece of justice then I do not understand what is going on.
In conclusion all I want to say is this piece of legislation is justified in the name of fairness. The arguments brought forward by the previous speakers are red herrings. This has been examined by the committee. There are no more questions. We should be settling this now in the name of justice.
I pay tribute to the member for Restigouche-Chaleur. He has done the right thing. In the name of justice and fairness and in the name of God let us pass this bill now.