Neither do you, my hon. friend opposite. But when you speak, I listen to what you have to say.
This is a bad bill because it will make the number of welfare recipients swell in Quebec and perhaps in Canada as well. This bill does not take this reality into account. In fact, the President of the Treasury Board boasted that, when the Quebec government brought its budget down, the federal government would be able to say that
only the Canadian government can provide the required social safety net.
That is what makes me say that the number of welfare recipients in Quebec will swell as a result of this bill. Who will bear the brunt of this? The provinces of course, and Quebec in particular. Especially since cuts have been made in the Canada social transfer as well. Some may have forgotten, but I will repeat it for the benefit of those listening to what I have to say, cuts to the Canada social transfer will also reduce funding for welfare.
This is a bad bill because it will drive people down poverty lane even faster than before. It is a punitive bill, penalizing the unemployed. They are being made to pay for the fact that jobs are precarious. I will tell you why in a moment.
What a shame that I do not have more than ten minutes to speak on this bill, because many people will be penalized by a great many aspects of this bill.
At the same time, the bill gives presents to certain people: employers and those employees who hold a job and earn more than $39,000. These employees will no longer have to pay premiums, which would otherwise amount to $900 million. What impact will this measure have? Employees earning $39,000 will work overtime because no employer will want to hire part time or occasional employees for whom they would have to pay employer contributions to the UI fund. This is therefore a bad bill.
I am going to tell you why it is a bad bill. It is bad because 77 per cent of women have part time jobs and 31 per cent of these jobs are held by women working fewer than 15 hours. We know that, with this bill, those working fewer than 15 hours will have to pay premiums, but will not be able to qualify.
It is a well known fact that one way of governing is to go after the public for more money. It is therefore a bad bill because women earn $25,000 and less. It is a bad bill because they will double their hours of work and those working part time will not be able to qualify.
When women who have children or leave the labour market for a prolonged period want to return on a part time basis, they still have to put in much more time and will still not be able to qualify.
Although the Secretary of State for the Status of Women has told us that this is an equitable and inclusive bill, the tightening of criteria leads us to expect the contrary. Fewer people will qualify, and they will receive much less money and many fewer weeks of benefits.
A UN rapporteur said that violence is a social problem rooted in the inequality between the sexes. I bring this to your attention today because I know that the government has boasted that it has a strategic plan on equality between the sexes and that this plan will be implemented in all departments. I think that they have got off to a bad start. The Minister of Human Resources Development is passing a bill that will run counter to the economic interests of women.
I also wanted to point out that artists in my riding will suffer. In a letter addressed to this same Minister of Human Resources Development, the Conseil de la culture de Québec said that it was a bad bill because artists' work is seasonal and this will aggravate their economic conditions. There will therefore be an important loss of income for dancers, given the contractual and seasonal nature of their work.
Why? For three reasons: eligibility is based on the number of hours worked; the length of the benefit period is linked to the weeks immediately preceding the last week worked; and an intensity rule has been added. We know that when women and seasonal workers, including artists and people working in the tourist industry, apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance, because of the precarious nature of their employment, they will lose 1 per cent a year over five years.
If this is a good bill, why did 40,000 people sign a petition condemning it? Why did the Fédération des femmes du Québec and other groups representing women in Canada condemn this bill? Why did 75 per cent of those who submitted briefs to the committee with suggestions for this minister and the people who are going to pass this bill today say they were against it?
It is a pity, and I hope that this government will pay the price one day.