Mr. Speaker, I was much interested in what the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said about the relevance of changing the system based on a number of weeks to one based on a number of hours.
He gave us the example of people who will probably benefit from this. However, the problem with this reform does not necessarily lie in the fact that the number of hours is changed.
Saying that someone will have to work 910 hours to become entitled to UI benefits for the first time means that young people, those who return to the labour market, women who left it several years ago or who worked at home will now have to work for 26 weeks, 35 hours a week, to get UI benefits. The eligibility period has almost doubled.
There are aspects of the reform which are unacceptable and I hope the government will correct them. I will give another example which concerns the ridings of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I am talking about the fact that, under the new system, seasonal workers will lose part of their benefits. After three years, people who receive unemployment insurance every year, such as workers in the tourist or fishing industry, will see their benefits reduced from 55 per cent to 50 per cent of their weekly insurable earnings. They are going to be penalized because they work in seasonal industries.
Now that the reform has been tabled, could it not be possible for the government to bring forward amendments to correct these things which will have a devastating effect on regions such as eastern Quebec?
My question to the member is this: What does he think about the possibility of our young people leaving our regions because of the increase in the number of hours it takes to be eligible for unemployment insurance?
Will the requirement to work 910 hours, which is the equivalent of 26 weeks at 35 hours a week, result in our young people leaving the regions in greater numbers?
I have another question that I want to ask of the member, reminding him that, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec also endorsed the current position of the government of that province by a 96 to 0 vote. It was a unanimous decision.
I would like to ask him if he would be willing to table in the House a motion which would read as follows: "Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec". Would he be willing to table such a motion, which was adopted unanimously by the only parliament that represents Quebecers only, in order to settle the issue of manpower once and for all? Would he be prepared to ask the federal parliament to adopt such an attitude?