Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member, with whom I have been working for over two years, but I respectfully submit that he is deluding himself.
Let us not kid ourselves. This bill will result in the loss of student jobs. Members of the Association des restaurateurs made it very clear when they came to my office. The government did not even deem appropriate to exempt students from having to pay contributions, at least those interested.
Students already face all kinds of cost increases. Now, they will have to pay UI premiums and will only be repaid the following year, when they file their income tax returns. My fellow Bloc members will get back to this issue.
This group includes the famous amendments to the first bill, which was so unacceptable that the government had to make changes as a result of the public outcry. At this point, I have something to tell members who keep saying that the opposition did not do its job because it did not move any amendments. Parliamentary procedure is such that a royal recommendation is required in order to make amendments affecting expenditures or revenues, whether in committee or in the House. So, do not tell us that we did not do our homework.
I also want to say that, in 1993, Liberal members were thoroughly upset and demanded that the legislation be withdrawn. So, if your memory is failing, try at least to remember as far back as 1993.
Let us take a look at the substance of these amendments, which are supposed to be beneficial not only for seasonal workers, but for all those who do not have stable jobs, jobs lasting the whole year. This includes those who work part time, who have odd jobs, who have contracts for a specific period, or who hold down one or two jobs.
You will remember that the government had imposed a time period. This measure was obviously so bad that there was strong public protest, which resulted in a number of amendments being proposed. However, we have to be honest here. Instead of solving the problem of the majority, the legislation before us will facilitate things for some.
A huge economic and social problem remains for most people. Why? Because the government continues to propose that earnings will be calculated over a period of only 26 weeks, out of 52. Worse still, the last version of the bill provides for a difference of two additional weeks in the length of unemployment period accepted, but it also provides that any week during which wages are earned will be included.
This means that this will create an inflexibility not yet found in the provinces, in the regions where there is a lot of seasonal employment. This means that, from a strictly economic point of view-I am not even talking about individuals-people will only take work that gives them the weeks, the divisor they need. They will not want to work short weeks, because short weeks would decrease their earnings, and people are not crazy.
What it means is that employers and workers will continue to act in an intelligent manner, in other words, they will work out agreements. And they will do this, however much you increase the penalties. You are upping the penalties, both in money and in time required for eligibility.
You are in the process of creating a mindless mishmash. It makes no sense. You talk about flexibility, but you create rigid conditions and put people in the terrible situation of having to accept zero earnings or place themselves in the position of being found guilty of fraud and other awful things.
We were told in committee that, with the amendments, workers would continue to accumulate hours in order to have decent weeks.
Essentially, this amendment does not resolve anything. Employers who want to have employees will have to agree with them so that a work week makes sense. This will continue to create rigidity and, worse, many people who were able to qualify will not be able
to do so any more, because the 26 weeks are not always sufficient. That is true for people who work in the tourism sector, and not only in the regions.
Indeed, there are many people in Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver and Victoria who are trying to get by and who can find term employment at the beginning of the year. If they do not qualify, they live from hand to mouth with their mother, their buddy or their girlfriend and then go look for another job. This provision does not make any sense.
The government should understand there is no rush to introduce this reform that will mean a reduction in premiums of $1 billion for this year. What is the rush to reduce insurable maximum earnings? What is the rush to reduce benefits from a maximum of $445 to $413 and to further reduce to $140 or $120 benefits for people who barely get by with $200 per week? What is the rush?
In the maritimes, the 1994 reform and the one presently on the table will mean $800 million less every year. Every year. Do not tell me the $300 million over three years will make up or compensate for that. That does not make any sense. This is not a policy that makes sense on the economic or the social level. I see many members smiling. People from the Gaspe Peninsula who came yesterday had despair written on their faces, and that is not funny.
For many years, these people have been living in difficult conditions and having a hard time. They live through difficult and sometimes extreme climate conditions and, for many years, they have been accused of cheating, of milking the system; they cannot take it any more. So, when proposals such as these are made, they say they have had it up to here; they cannot take it any more.
I wished their colourful accent alone would be sufficient to send us back to the drawing board. There is no rush to make a whole bunch of insecure by taking away from them the only pittance they can still count on, when it is feasible and possible.
I am far from talking only for Quebec. I have talked many times for Canadians as a whole.