Thank you.
Mr. Chair, there are a few specific elements I want to address, in particular the whole issue of suitable versus unsuitable employment. We are discussing what constitutes unsuitable employment, and the definition that goes with that. I am specifically referring to the announcement that the minister made 10 or so days ago. At that time, she defined what constituted suitable employment. It is entirely relevant for us to discuss those issues specifically and the announcement she made, given what we're talking about here.
I won't go on forever, since I don't want to repeat what Mr. Brison has already pointed out. Like the employers in his riding, those in my riding are the most concerned right now. They are considering paying employees to do nothing for two or three months during the off-season, just to make sure they don't lose their expertise. That is a real problem.
There are two things in particular I want to address.
The first is commuting time, which is one of the criteria the minister will use to determine whether employment is suitable or not. We're talking about an hour of travel time. In a bit city with suburbs, that may not seem all that unreasonable. In my riding, it would mean an unemployed worker living in Rimouski could be forced to accept a job in Rivière-du-Loup or Matane. That would require the person to travel 80, 90 or even 100 kilometres, meaning that, in order to take the job and not lose their benefits, they would have to spend $75 to $80 a week on gas to get to work in a neighbouring city. As I see it, some of the minister's conditions pose a problem.
There is another thing that poses a problem. I believe it was mentioned that the announced changes would result in lower wages or a downward trend in wages. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who loses their job. To keep your benefits, you would be forced to accept a relatively similar position at 70% of what you were making previously. And then, if for some reason, you should lose that job, you would be forced to accept another at 70% of the 70% you were making originally. Impossible? No, in fact, very possible. It could happen to people with all kinds of skills and qualifications, especially seasonal workers.
Is that such an inconceivable scenario? Even the Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), Bernard Valcourt, said on a Rimouski radio station that, logically, it could happen, in his view. He also said that was the reason we have minimum wage legislation in the first place. When the government claims that this measure is intended to solve the labour shortage problem, I'd say they're taking Quebeckers and Canadians for fools.
Some regions do have a labour shortage. But the government's position on that issue is based on the assumption that those who are unemployed have the skills the available jobs require. I haven't seen any evidence that is the case, not a shred. The government hasn't even tried to prove it is true.
There is one last point I want to raise with respect to the proposed changes. Provisions that protect workers, the unemployed and, in a sense, employers are disappearing altogether. I am referring specifically to the definition of what constitutes unsuitable employment, which is left to the minister's discretion. The minister or the cabinet can single-handedly make all of these employment insurance decisions, without going through Parliament.
The government talks about flexibility, and yet it does not invest one cent in the program. Employers and employees alone contribute to the EI fund, and yet the government has the power to make virtually every possible decision on the EI system, without having to consult the members who represent employers and employees. So we have serious reservations over how this reform was presented. First it comes in the form of amendments, and second it was hastily announced by the minister, to counter the widespread criticism that it drew from the opposition and the public alike, criticism that is entirely legitimate. The government did not address those concerns, the concerns expressed by the people in my riding, be they employers or employees. The reality of rural life seems to have been lost on the government.