Mr. Speaker, I have seldom seen such a demagogic exercise as the one we have just witnessed.
In studies paid for by the department and conducted by an economist chosen by the department, to assess the 1994 reform, we find the following:
Just like workers in provinces or industries where unemployment is high, in particular the Atlantic provinces and to a certain extent the province of Quebec, primary industries and the construction sector are much more likely to lose jobs. Any worker chosen at random from these provinces or these industries could expect to lose a lot more weeks of benefits than a worker in any other region of Canada, under Bill C-17.
For instance, a fish plant worker and a forestry worker both received an average of 25 weeks of benefits before the new system came into force. Since the reform, that number has fallen to 20, which means that Bill C-17 has had a disproportionate impact on the provinces and the industries that need this insurance program the most.
The system the Liberals have set up was highly and vehemently criticized by none other that the current Prime Minister, a few months before the last general election.
What does the hon. member for Bourassa have to say to all these experts who state that the employment insurance reform acts more or less like a tunnel leading to social welfare?