Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the passion displayed by the hon. member in his presentation and the quality of the arguments put forward, but I would have a brief comment to make.
I would have liked him to have displayed and to display the same passion on the UI entrance requirement issue. So, here is my question: if we are going to be this compassionate and supportive of plant workers confronted to the difficult situation of finding themselves jobless and unable to find a new job, how does he reconcile this position, these impassioned and perfectly justified remarks with the provisions concerning 50-year old workers?
How does he reconcile that with the changes made to the unemployment policy, changes which, as it is, will affect mainly the provinces he is particularly concerned for?
Let me give you an example. In the Magdalen Islands, last year, 43 per cent of UI recipients could barely meet the minimum 10-week requirement. With the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, many of these people will be forced onto the welfare rolls.
I was wondering if the hon. member would not see fit to make on their behalf representations similar to those he has just made to his government regarding the increase in the number of weeks of work required to qualify for unemployment insurance and the reduction of the benefit period. Could he not put the same arguments to his government, and particularly to the Minister of Human Resources Development, to be realistic and show compassion for the workers affected because fish plant workers seldom manage to find work for more than 10 weeks?
Would the hon. member be prepared to make representations to the Minister of Human Resources Development to at least restore the status quo with respect to UI benefits and the length of the benefit period?