Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the antics of a clown are allowed sometimes in the House.
In reading the motion brought by the member for Mercier and listening to her remarks, I am reminded of the old line of Winston Churchill's that "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".
What we have seen today is the ultimate act of fanaticism. It showed a total lack of touch with reality, a total distortion of the facts and a total unwillingness to agree to an exchange of reasonable dialogue or exchange of views. It is a closed mind, a reactionary mind and in many cases a misinformed mind.
That is unfortunate when one begins to talk about one of the most important and significant changes addressed in this House. The hon. member for Mercier seems incapable of dealing with legislation on its merits, on its measures, on its proposals but instead relies on the old rhetoric, the old speeches, the old lines without being in touch of reality whatsoever.
An interesting judgment has to be made when listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Mercier. It is a line of thought that we have heard all too often in the remarks of Bloc Quebecois members over the last two years. They have become the party of exclusion. They keep people out. They have become the party which says it cannot bring people in or widen the boundaries but in fact wants to restrict.
The Bloc Quebecois talks about exclusion. In fact, this bill is inclusive and fairer. While 93 per cent of the work force was covered under the old UI system, 97 per cent will be included in the new system. Because of the inclusion of the new formula many people will automatically be covered by the new employment insurance system.
That is what is at the heart of this debate. To what extent do we provide good, effective coverage, real support for employment and a fair balancing of the need to create jobs and at the same time protect income?
Let me deal first with the most important result of this reform, which is the part time worker. We listened very carefully during the public consultations and recognized that the labour force has changed dramatically. More and more people now work on a part time basis. They deserve the same protection as everyone else. They deserve the same maternity benefits, sickness benefits, income support, help in getting back to a job and the same security that provides.
Under this program we are providing the formula that would allow half a million part time workers to gain eligibility and the Bloc is opposing it. They have taken a stand today against the rights and responsibilities of part time workers to have the full rights of every other Canadian. That is the basic position of the Bloc Quebecois. Keep half a million people out is the message from the member for Mercier. Half a million people will be denied benefits. Half a million people will not be given the right to gain
eligibility. It is incredible but understandable, considering the history of this party. It is an act of exclusion.
Let me give a very practical example. The one thing the hon. member for Mercier seems incapable of offering is actual working, practical examples of how the new regime would develop.
Today, under the existing regime, the basic rule is that if people work less than 15 hours a week they are excluded from the program. They have no opportunity to receive protection on income or maternity benefits. However, under the new regime, someone who works 14 hours a week over a normal work year period would amass a total of over 700 hours which would automatically bring that person into the scheme. It would automatically give that individual the right to maternity benefits, employment benefits and income security. The member for Mercier is opposed to those people being included. She is an exclusionist. She wants to keep people out.
Therefore, all those people who have faced what they call the glass barrier, who have had an artificial roof which stopped at 15 hours, under the prescription of this member, would be kept out. They would have no income security, no protection and no opportunity for re-employment. That is the reality and the truth of the hon. member. She is saying, time after time, "keep these people out, exclude them, keep the parameters and boundaries restricted". That is the true mind of the reactionary. That is the true mind of a person who cannot change. That is the true mind of the fanatic who is not prepared to give up her ideology for the sake of helping more people receive protection.
Let me give another working example, the people who now have several jobs over a period of time. Under the old regime they get credit for only the first job. They cannot make a multiple claim. Someone who works 10 weeks at 14 hours per week and then finds another job for 35 hours per week would not be included. They would not qualify. They would not get the same kind of protection.
Under our new proposal that person who has a series of multiple jobs, whether in construction or in the service industry or anywhere else, would be able to accumulate 700 hours because we are saying the key is every hour counts. As a result they would now be in the program.
Now we have an hon. member from the Bloc saying keep all those people out. Do not give them any protection. Do not give them any income security. This fixation and fanaticism we hear on the status quo, the end result is to be discriminatory.
The hon. member for Mercier is arguing for discrimination against a whole class of workers throughout Canada. As a result many people who are working part time, who do not have that opportunity, would not be given the rights to become eligible and to get the protection.
One thing the hon. member does not include is that under the new scheme if people do not get sufficient hours to qualify even though they have the right, they are entitled to a full rebate on their premiums. They do not pay it.
The hon. member is deliberately giving misinformation in the House because she refuses to recognize that all those people under that new coverage would have full rights to a full rebate of all premiums. It is a really serious charge. People in the Chamber have to ask about the veracity and credibility of a member of Parliament who makes a claim without being prepared to say what is the case.
That could only be a clear, deliberate, malicious, malevolent attempt at misinformation. Coming from that member, I am not surprised because she has been doing it for the last two years. That is the real example.
Over 1.3 million people with part time attachment would be subject to a full refund of all the premiums. That would include people now who pay into the system and get no refund. Over 900,000 Canadians who pay in and get no benefit would now be able to get a full refund of their premiums.
All the nonsense we hear from the opposition, Bloc and Reform, simply means they have not read the act. They do not know how it works and they are deliberately trying to misinform people.
There will be 32 per cent fewer people paying into the EI system than are paying now because of that refund program.
Let me talk for a moment about seasonal workers. Again the member is deliberately and maliciously trying to misinform Canadians because by going to an hour system, by allowing every single hour to count, means many seasonal workers can qualify earlier than they can now.
I was on a radio program yesterday and someone called from the construction industry. He said they work 50 or 60 hours a week. Right now under the old system all one does is get credit for a week. They get exactly the same credit as somebody who works 25 hours that week. The person does not get claim for all those hours.
Right now, if the person is working 60 hours a week, they could qualify under our program within eight, nine or 10 weeks to be eligible, and every single hour counts beyond that. Close to a quarter of a million seasonal workers will be able to extend their benefits several weeks longer as a result of the hour system than what they can do under the old system.
Once again the hon. member for Mercier is arguing for a program that would deny those workers the right to have their season extended, to get better benefits and to be given the full credit for the work they do simply because it is the ideology that gets in the way of good, sound reasoning and practical common sense.
That is clearly beyond the ken of the hon. member to understand. People should get full credit for the work they offer. They should be given the opportunity, the incentive, the reward and the credit when they work more hours to get full benefit as opposed to being denied that credit, as they are under the existing system.
Those quarter of a million seasonal workers who will be able to get extended benefits is another demonstration of how we are including people, not excluding people, as the hon. member has argued to keep people out and deny them their rightful due and their rightful reward.
May I also talk for a minute about the impact on families, women and children. It was interesting that the hon. member seems to have eliminated from her presentation one of the most important innovations of the program, the family benefit supplement. This ensures basic guarantee income protection for all those with families under UI. It is something that has never taken place before.
This will automatically include about 350,000 Canadian families, about 115,000 alone from Quebec. It means they will be able to achieve up to 80 per cent of their insurable earnings. It will mean that on average a single mother with two children who now is under the old UI system, under the new system will be able to receive on average 10 per cent higher benefits. Yet the hon. member condemns in a blanket statement the opportunity for us to provide better protection for low income Canadians under this program.
Furthermore, we have said in the new legislation this same worker could now work during her claim period on UI up to an additional $50 per week without having it in any way taxed back from the program. It means a person on claim can make another $50 and improve their income.
As I said, the real issue for people is income, how much money they can actually get for their families. By offering the incentive again and be able to work while on claim without have any deduction up to $50 can add another substantial portion of income to low income people.
The other exclusion put forward by the hon. member is that women who have taken maternity benefits under the old system to look after their children when they want to come back to work have no recourse. Under our new proposal they would be eligible for all the new employment benefits. They would be able to start their own business, have a training voucher, have a wage supplement, an income supplement, work on a job core program. It is a major
assistance for women coming back into the workforce to get those employment benefits which up to now they have not had any access to.
Yet the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to say: "No, we do not agree with that. We do not want to help women coming back to the workforce. We do not want to give them a chance to get back into employment. We do not want to provide them with the kind of support they need".
That again is another act of exclusion by the hon. member for Mercier; deny women the right to get back in the workforce, deny women the right to have extra income protection for their families, deny women the chance to have an extra ability to make money while on claim. All those measures designed to improve the income base of women coming back into the program the hon. member for Mercier simply denies, excludes, rejects and demonstrates once again that ideology and fanaticism are her major problems, not the real point in this legislation. That is the real issue here.