Mr. Speaker, as you have seen, this debate has injected some passion into our Liberal and Reform friends. We have seen the number of people who have risen to take part in the debate.
But, more seriously, it is with some surprise that we note that even with a debate as important as that on unemployment insurance reform, which, in several ridings represented by Liberal MPs, has led to very large demonstrations, these MPs, who were elected, let us not forget, to represent their constituents, nonetheless remain silent, probably to toe the party line yet again.
These MPs are remaining silent in the face of a bill that will hurt all, or many, of the inhabitants of their ridings, especially the MPs representing remote areas, those representing the Atlantic provinces, those who should be aware of what is going on and of the demonstrations that have taken place in their ridings.
I am very surprised to see how quiet these MPs are, but I would like to say "well done" to the members of the Bloc Quebecois, including the member for Mercier, who did an excellent job in bringing to the public's attention the hidden agenda, the effects of which would have been felt by the people of Canada and Quebec in a few weeks or months.
I think it is thanks to the work of the hon. members for Mercier, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup and Lévis, to name but a few, that we can now discuss here in the House, for one day or several, a bill the government tried to sneak by us. But thanks to the work of that committee, we have the opportunity to discuss it here.
To start off, I would like to quote from a brief submitted to the committee, a brief Liberal members most likely wanted to shelve quickly. It was written by Jean-Guy Ouellet and Georges Campeau, who are not professional agitators or bad separatists, but lawyers specializing in social law, respectively lecturer and professor in the legal sciences department of UQAM.
They say in this brief, and I quote: "The bill on employment insurance-already the name is somewhat strange, and I will explain what I mean by that later-is part of a policy aimed at
using the unemployment insurance fund to finance an increasing number of activities other than benefit payments. Not only is this policy to the detriment of the right to benefits of an increasing number of contributors to the system, but-and this is the most important thing-its constitutionality-as my colleague from Bellechasse was saying earlier-is far from being certain. By using unemployment insurance premiums, a surplus fund of $5 billion, to finance more than benefit payments, the federal legislation is de facto transforming these premiums into a regressive tax. Because of the capping of maximum yearly insurable earnings at $39,000, such a use of the unemployment insurance account is not only inequitable-the authors repeat-but its constitutionality is doubtful".
Further along in the text, we can read: "The federal Parliament's jurisdiction in the unemployment insurance sector is to collect premiums in order to compensate people in case they become unemployed". Not to meddle into all provincial programs. Not to try to reinvent programs sponsored by the Council for Canadian Unity. It is, I repeat, to collect contributions to cover those who are insured in the event of unemployment. This is the principle of fire insurance, of theft insurance. Not reinventing the wheel, not reinventing numerous programs.
The conclusion reads: "It is therefore appropriate to wonder if this new direction the plan is taking, with its discriminatory effects on certain disadvantaged groups such as young people and women, does not also run counter to the equal rights protected by the Constitution". First the authors question the constitutionality of Bill C-12, and second they question whether it does not infringe upon the equal rights protected by the Constitution.
In closing they say: "Instead of denouncing unemployment insurance fraud, the Minister of Human Resources Development would be well advised to check out the constitutionality and legitimacy of his bill before announcing it and passing it openly". I believe this article clearly demonstrates the immoral nature of the bill presented by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
A few years ago, the present Prime Minister himself condemned the unemployment insurance reform bill when it was introduced by the Conservative government of the day. Let us keep in mind that the bill in question was far more difficult and far more harmful to workers than the one introduced now by the Liberals. However, they call it employment insurance, but this is not the case. It is not employment insurance, it is still a piece of legislation that will mostly penalize seasonal workers, along with young people and women seeking first jobs. What should be done is to set a maximum percentage of unemployment that is acceptable, and that is not done here. In this bill we should specify pro-job creation measures, and that is not done here.
I will give you an example of the way it not only does not encourage jobs creation, but it contributes to increasing the number of people unemployed or on welfare and wastes public funds. As you will recall, not so long ago, six or eight months perhaps, the government decided to redistribute, reorganize employment centres across Canada. Only a few weeks before, not months but weeks, the Terrebonne employment centre, in my riding, had moved into brand new offices in order to meet federal standards. The federal government, through the Terrebonne employment centre, had to pay huge costs for moving, a ten-year lease, purchase of material and furniture. How much? Thousands or even millions of dollars? We do not know.
Even before the official opening of the employment centre people there received a letter saying: "Sorry, but we moved you a bit prematurely; the centre will be closing soon, but we do not know when exactly". You can imagine the atmosphere these people in my riding who want to help people find jobs must work in. Instead, their morale is undermined by a letter informing them that in six months, eight months or a year the centre will be closed and they might have to move to Sainte-Thérèse, Saint-Jérôme or God knows where. Many of them could even lose their jobs. This is the kind of motivation this government is giving to its civil servants, who are asked to help people.
I believe that if we want to help people find jobs, to reduce the unemployment rate, to find work for every Canadian, we should first make sure that government spending-I was about to say waste-is a little more effective and efficient.
A small business with an annual turnover of $100,000 is supposed to have a business plan, which means a government should have one too. I will never accept that a government which is wasting money to take an employment centre, move it elsewhere while telling the employees concerned that their centre is to be closed after hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on it-and ruining the atmosphere they work in-I will never accept that such a government introduce a bill that is harmful, dangerous and unfair for Canadians.
I say again for young people who, some day, will have to find a first job: if they unfortunately have to turn to unemployment insurance, the present system requires them to have worked 15 hours a week for 20 weeks to be eligible. The bill introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development requires that people work twenty-six 35-hour weeks.
In other words, a message similar to the one sent to officials of the Employment Centre of Terrebonne is being sent to a number of students. It tells them: "Go to school, get an education but, let us warn you right from the start, if you have difficulty finding a job after, do not count on the federal government to help you, you will
be on welfare. We will never help you with our new laws and our new standards". Given today's job insecurity, it is almost impossible for a student to work a minimum of 35 hours weekly for 26 weeks in his first job.
Therefore, on behalf of young people, of women, of people from the various regions, my colleagues in the Bloc and I oppose Bill C-12.