Ms. Black:

Now we see the corporate sector doing the same thing to the East Coast. The Minister knows that for many women who work in the fishing industry, even finding 10 weeks of work is difficult, let alone 16 weeks to qualify for UI. Will the Minister reconsider her UI proposals and stop penalizing these women who have no alternatives?

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):

Mr. Speaker, this Government has destroyed the processing industry in British Columbia.

May 15, 1989

Oral Questions

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is also the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. In British Columbia, the Government's new fish landing regulations have threatened some 6,000 processing jobs. On the Atlantic Coast, corporate decisions to close facilities and lay off workers is now threatening the livelihood of several hundred workers. Considering that approximately 70 per cent of these workers are women, many of them visible minority women, who are currently receiving fair wages, how does the Minister expect these women to feed themselves and to feed their families now that her Government, through its actions, have destroyed these jobs?

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):

I would like to know if you find the letter as offensive-

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister who is responding today on behalf of employment and immigration. A woman in British Columbia, Rose Marie Roux, had left her job to move to B.C. to be with her fiance. She applied for unemployment insurance benefits and received a very inappropriate letter from the Canada Employment Centre.

To quote from the letter, it said: "Are you living common-law with your fiance? How long have you been living together? Have you set a date for your wedding? When was this date established? What is the date? Are there any children involved?"

I would like to ask the Government, how can it justify such a blatant invasion of a person's privacy?