Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have heard a great many wild claims from the members of the Bloc Quebecois about the negative impacts of Bill C-12.
Members of the Bloc have made no secret of the fact that they do not like the legislation. It is rather disappointing to see a party allow its ideologically driven aspirations for a separate Quebec completely override a fact driven interpretation of the bill.
What seems very clear is that members of the Bloc cannot possibly support changes that will improve a federal program to help more Canadians get and keep jobs and that will, in fact, create up to 100,000 new jobs for workers, both in Quebec and across Canada. It would be an admission that Canada can be made to work better for all Quebecers and all Canadians.
They have not looked at this legislation on its merits. They simply make a series of outrageous claims which bear little or no relationship to the reality of the bill, claims which I believe must be responded to so that all Canadians, including Quebecers, understand the true nature of this very progressive and very necessary piece of legislation.
The member for Mercier, for example, said that the lower revenues of $900 million resulting from a reduction in the maximum insurable earnings will be made up by those: "who currently do not pay unemployment insurance contributions". The member for Louis-Hébert says: "Making part time workers, students and so on contribute will bring $900 million into the unemployment insurance fund and what makes that measure so pervasive is that it will allow the government to give the money to the richer workers".
What are the facts? Of the 500,000 workers who will have their work insured for the first time, 76 per cent or 380,000 will have their premiums refunded. The remaining 120,000 new premium payers will pay a total of $14 million and they will be eligible to claim benefits if they become unemployed.
That is not all. Nine hundred and twenty thousand low income individuals who are paying premiums today will have about $30 million in premiums refunded. Also, while more part time workers will be insured under EI, fewer of them will actually pay premiums. As a group they will pay $6 million less in premiums than they do today.
The biggest impact of moving to first dollar coverage in terms of premiums payments will be a lifting of the weekly maximum. This will mean that individuals with high weekly incomes will pay their fair share of premiums for the first time.
What is more, 350,000 low income claimants with families will now be eligible for a supplement which will increase their benefits to up to 80 per cent of weekly earnings from the standard 55 per cent rate. On average, this means an increase in income of some 12 per cent. In addition, they will be exempt from the intensity rule by which repeat users will see a modest reduction of benefits. As well, people will also be able to earn up to $50 per week while on claim without having their benefits reduced.
The facts are the opposite of what the Bloc members have been saying. Low income workers are not financing the reduction of the MIE. Low income workers will see their situation improve under this legislation.
The member for Mercier also claims that by reducing the MIE the government is giving a gift to major corporations and workers earning between $39,000 and $42,000. First, reducing the MIE to $39,000 means that it will be about 17 per cent above the average wage in the year 2000. Left alone it would have grown to about 47 per cent above the average.
While some high income earners and their employers will pay a bit less in premiums, which works out to about $150 a year, it also means high income workers will receive substantially less in benefits; nearly $2,340 less. As the House can see, what the member for Mercier is saying and what are the facts are two very different things. That can hardly be categorized as a gift to high income workers.
I want to bring a matter to the floor of the House. The member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans adds that women will not be able to meet the requirement as it will mean 910 hours of work a year. First, the 910 hours to qualify for EI benefits only applies to the first year in the labour market for a new entrant or a re-entrant in order to establish a reasonable attachment to the labour market before being eligible for insurance benefits. By the second year, provided the person has at least 490 hours of work in the first, they need only meet the variable entrance requirement of 420 to 700 hours. It does not go on year after year, as has been suggested by members opposite.
The reason for this change is very obvious. That low first time entry requirement can encourage young people to take temporary, unstable work rather than completing their education. The message to young people is clear. Do not drop out of school with a plan to work in a low wage job for a few months, then live off EI benefits. You will have to work longer to qualify and the new rules will also require you to do a lot more to find work.
Members opposite should also be aware that there are special provisions for women re-entering the labour force. They will be eligible for the new re-employment measures for up to five years after leaving the labour force rather than the three-year limit for regular claimants.
The member for Ahuntsic claims that the reform is an attack against seasonal workers. This is very close to my heart and to many people in this place and to part time workers. He states that eligibility requirements have been tightened. What the member does not say is that about 90,000 individuals who become unemployed today and cannot qualify for UI, will qualify for EI benefits. This includes 45,000 seasonal workers who have long hours of work but not enough insured weeks to qualify for benefits. It also includes about 45,000 part time workers and multiple job holders who have none or only certain weeks of their work insured today.
The member should also know that the amendments presented in the committee to address the issues of gaps in income of workers in seasonal jobs plus the new divisor rule will greatly help workers
in seasonal industries by providing them with a longer period to access eligibility for benefits.
When we look at the facts versus what is being said by members opposite it is obvious that this is very good legislation which will help a large number of people.
I want to use this opportunity to set the record straight on part II of Bill C-12. The member for Mercier criticized Bill C-12 for not contributing to getting the unemployed back to work. She said: "We claim, and we have every evidence to support our claim, that not only does the bill not guarantee a job, nor promote job creation, but also that it is anti-job". This is false and I want to set the record straight.
Employment insurance is a full employment system. It provides the framework for providing practical, proven measures which will help Canadians get back to work quickly and keep working. Of the $2 billion in savings achieved by EI, $800 million or 40 per cent will be reinvested in active re-employment measures. That will be added to the $1.9 billion the government already spends out of general revenues. A total of $2.7 billion will be going to address structural unemployment.
The active employment measures designed to help Canadians get back to work quickly include wage subsidies, income supplements, support for self-employment, community job partnerships and skills, loans and grants. They will help up to 400,000 Canadians to find work and get back to work. On top of that, a $300 million transitional job fund is being put in place to stimulate job creation in high unemployment areas.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that the Government of Canada is working closely with the provinces to better co-ordinate support programs for unemployed Canadians, the member for Quebec still claims that unemployment insurance is funded by the provinces and that it is the federal government that tells the provinces what kind of programs and what kind of measures must be implemented to help those who cannot find a job. That statement is wrong on two counts. First, it is employers and employees who fund the program through their premiums, not the provinces. Second, the bill sets out a framework for new federal-provincial agreements on labour market arrangements aimed at eliminating duplication and overlap.
The bill permits a variety of flexible delivery methods for employment measures. I want members opposite to realize that people in Quebec are not going to buy into the rhetoric. What they want are the facts. What I have laid before the House are the facts. I wish members opposite would take the time to read the bill.