Madam Speaker, I liked the speech made by my colleague from Malpeque, because it really spurs me on. Being gagged can lead to yawning and dozing off, but the previous speaker really gets us cracking, because for someone who was disappointed by the arguments heard so far he really used some very poor counterarguments. Let us dwell a little on what he said.
First of all, I have been a member of the human resources development committee ever since the Liberal Party was elected, along with the hon. member for Mercier and also my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the last three speakers. Two years and a half ago, we travelled throughout the country and the hon. member for Malpeque says that he listened carefully to the views expressed during the last phase, that is consideration of the bill since it was introduced in the House. Let us see what he has to say. We ask for clause 3 to be deleted, because we think that it does not provide for a better role for the commission to play than it has now. So, we want clause 3 to be deleted.
Why? Here is the first argument about clause 3. What does the clause say?
(1)The Commission shall monitor and assess how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting-
We wanted to know the real impact of the legislation, not the way people are adjusting to it, because that is the whole issue here. The main hypothesis behind the reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development is that individuals should adjust to the cuts and the commission will assess how they are adjusting. But what we wanted to find out is the real impact these cuts have on the regional and local economy. This is outside the mandate of the commission.
The hon. member says he is disappointed by our amendments. For the member's information and others' as well, let me point out that, at report stage, the opposition cannot move amendments that can incur expenditures. This means that, under the parliamentary rules presently in force, this type of amendment must be proposed by the government in order to be admissible.
The best evidence of this is the fact that, in committee, three members proposed amendments; I do not remember the name of their ridings, but they proposed three amendments. Because they implied financial changes, these amendments could not be proposed during clause by clause consideration of the bill; they had to be submitted in this House, by the government.
One must be careful before criticizing the opposition's behaviour. One must understand the rules. The opposition respects the rules. This is why we did not propose amendments that would have had financial implications. If it had been possible for us to do so, we would have proposed several amendments of this type. For example, there is the $2 billion cut resulting from the reform. We would have seen to it that the reform had no impact at all, in other words that there would have been no $2 billion cut. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party did not understand that.
There is also the consequence of reducing maximum insurable earnings. There are people, employees as well as businesses, who will benefit from this $900 million gift, since there is, by lowering
insurable earnings from $42,430 to $39,000, a loss of $900 million to the government. It must be said, though, that the target group used to benefit in the past from $200 million in unemployment insurance benefits.
For the time I have left, I will dwell on a significant point raised by the hon. member. Speaking of rights of appeal, it is said that Part II on employment services has a collective rather than an individual scope. I believe this is misunderstanding the problem. It must be remembered that the unemployment insurance claimants who will be affected are individuals.
I will give you an example of what exists presently in employment services. We, in the opposition, have deplored it. We spoke at length about it in committee, and I believe the member was there. We said that in the program SEA, which helps people set up their own businesses, there is presently no right of appeal. I will give you a concrete example in my riding.
We have two employment centres in my riding, two centres which presently administer this program, which, by the way, was put in the new bill, under the same form. They changed its name, but it is essentially the same program. In the past, two people who knew each other decided to set up a business together. One went to one employment centre and the other went to the other for himself because the service is provided on an individual basis, even though they wanted to start a new company together. The first one's application was accepted while the other's was rejected. When the latter learned it, he mentioned to the employment service officer that his friend's application had been accepted, but the answer he got was that the decisions concerning that part of the program cannot be appealed.
The hon. member for Malpeque argues that it is collective and so on. Those are workers who, after losing their job, go to an employment centre to receive their benefits. After unsuccessfully looking for a job, they come to the conclusion that it is difficult for them because of their age or for other reasons. They then think of starting a company, so they devise a business plan that allows them to get benefits for a longer period.
After that, there is an assessment by a public servant or a committee but the decision cannot be appealed. In this specific case that occurred in my riding, the individuals could not even be heard. The decision was made by a committee without the individuals being able to argue before the committee.
If there is one thing I want as a Quebecer and I wish for all Canadians, it is that in all government programs, a person never be subjected to a decision made by one person or even by a committee without having the right to appeal. I think that by denying that right of appeal in Part II of the bill, the government is not showing the will to improve the system for the people.
Why are the appeal procedures important? According to the unemployment action groups, when a case goes to arbitration,
three out of four decisions are in favour of the recipient. Let me repeat something that can never be said often enough: this bill is intended to seek out UI cheaters. As the Minister of Human Resources Development told the committee the other day, "It is dreadful".
The figures the opposition has asked for and obtained tell us that, in 1991-92, 130,000 people were found guilty of defrauding the system in Canada, while the figure for 1995-96 was 116,000. That means there was a decrease of 14,000. This is not a growing problem, but a lessening one. What premise is the new unemployment insurance reform based on? Certqinly not on this.
Let us look at recovery. Of the $272 million recovered in 1995-1996, that is last year, only $93 million were recovered from individual cheaters. The remaining $179 million were due to honest mistakes on the part of claimants or of the Human Resources Development Department. Mistakes.
While it is still possible, we should change the spirit of the reform to make it not a hunt for so-called cheaters or potential cheaters, but a hunt for mistakes and delays.
This brings to mind the guaranteed income dupplement paid to some seniors. We know that there have been delays again this year. Last Friday, the minister apologized for the problems caused by this situation. Meanwhile, the government reduces the number of employment centres and increases the number of computer terminals.
Our goal should be to eliminate errors, to improve the system so that people do not get penalized. I also believe that we should go back five or six years and remedy to errors done by the Department of Human Resources Development in three cases out of four by giving refunds.