Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to speak on this bill that is before us. I think that the Bloc Quebecois has demonstrated much consistency from the very beginning, and what it is asking is that this bill be withdrawn and that the consultation process be started all over again on a new basis.
All of us had a previous life before becoming members of this House. As for me, I was an unionist at the CSN. The way consultation is carried out in this House and the way it is carried out inside a democratic labour confederation are often like night and day because, when it comes to bills, we often have specific groups come here to defend our idea.
This time, many groups have come, but the government only heard what it wanted to hear.
The bill before us is seriously flawed, the main flaw being that we need to have another consultation process to get broader input and to better hear what victims of this bill have to say.
There are many things I want to discuss. Since I have only ten minutes at my disposal, I brought with me notes on the main aspects that I think should be reviewed, especially manpower policy and job training.
I was at the CSN for a long time and I know that labour confederations, employers, all community groups, groups acting on behalf of welfare recipients and the unemployed have long been asking for the transfer of manpower training, that is, for the return to Quebec of a structure that we already know very well because Travail Quebec centres also have training programs.
Constituents are constantly coming to my office and are telling me this: "Mr. Bachand, we do not know whom to turn to when it comes to manpower training. There are some fifty programs on the federal side and as many on the provincial one". Of course, when it comes to manpower or occupational training, there is a large consensus in Quebec and we have difficulty understanding why the government always insists on remaining active in this area of jurisdiction.
I also had a quick look at the whole reform, and examined the numbers involved perhaps just a bit more carefully. We think the reform is very negative because it is unfair. It is unfair because, under the present system and depending on the regions where they live, some people must work 15 hours a week for 12 to 15 weeks, or between 180 and 300 hours, before becoming entitled to UI. From now on, they will have to work 35 hours a week for 12 to 20 weeks, that is to say between 420 and 700 hours.
It is understandable that in regions where there is more work, people are expected to work for longer periods. Nevertheless, the government is doubling the number of hours required to be eligible for unemployment insurance. The Minister of Finance, who is among us today, must be happy with the measure presented by his colleague. This measure will inject more money into the fund, which already receives quite a lot of money. The minister will no doubt use it to reduce the deficit.
Naturally, it is the unemployed and welfare recipients who will suffer most since, in today's context, which is the complete opposite of what the Liberals promised-that is jobs, jobs, jobs-when your unemployment insurance benefits run out, you become a welfare recipient. We often hear the federal ministers say that they have created thousands of jobs since they came to power.
What they do not say is that there were also job losses. When we look at the figures, we note that there are fewer jobs now than there were when this government came to power. This explains why the minister is presenting us a reform that, once more, will penalize the most disadvantaged.
We could also mention the people who are just starting to work. We all remember our first day at work. We were very happy to come back home with a paycheck and be able to say that finally we were contributing to society and were recognized as workers. Many young people have a job paid at minimum wage. From now on, they will have to pay employment insurance premiums and work 910 hours to become eligible. If you have a weekend job in a McDonald's and work only ten hours a week, it takes time to accumulate 910 hours. Therefore, this reform is unfair for new workers also.
This reform is also regressive because it causes a lot of distortion. The bill only succeeds in getting more money for the fund. However, it introduces a lot of negativism, and I have just described a part of that. But the fact that the maximum insurable earnings are being lowered from $42,000 to $39,000 means that a person earning more than $39,000 will not pay premiums anymore. So instead of hiring another employee, employers will ask their present workers to work overtime because over $39,000 the employer and the employee pay no more premiums. This measure is not conducive to job creation.
At the present time, society is thinking about job sharing. When one wants to stimulate job creation to give work to more people, this is exactly the kind of measure that is counterproductive because employers and employees will seize the opportunity to do overtime, thus avoiding paying unemployment insurance contributions since maximum insurable earnings are set at $39,000.
The measure will also create poverty because not only will people be told that there is less work, but their benefits will also be reduced. The shortening of the benefit period will throw more people on social assistance. We saw the impact of the changes implemented in 1994 on social assistance in Quebec. There was a major increase in the number of social assistance recipients and the provinces, not the federal government, have to foot the bill.
The federal government can argue that it makes transfers for social assistance programs, but we know that those transfers decrease steadily. Meanwhile, Quebec taxpayers have to pay through their Quebec taxes for the federal withdrawal from these jurisdictions. In the 1994 reform, there were $2.4 billion in cuts for all of Canada, including $735 million for Quebec. The new measures represent a further loss of $600 million for Quebec. So, since 1994, we lost about $1.3 billion for the unemployed.
This is a terrible blow for areas crippled by unemployment. As I said, this means that less federal funds will be made available and that more people will end up on welfare.
I also said that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry must be very happy.
If we consider the principles and duties of a government that is supposed to redistribute wealth, we wonder what the industry minister is doing. He goes around telling businesses like Bell and the financial institutions: "You should not lay people off. You should be careful. The good way to redistribute wealth and to create more jobs is to keep people at work".
On the other hand, the minister is a lot less in a hurry to introduce bills dealing with the banks which made profits of $5 billion and Bell which made $2 or $3 billion profit while continuing to lay people off. The government is quick to attack the disadvantaged, those who are jobless and desperate.
We have also seen that the government is quick to close debates. We are speaking on behalf of the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, 414,000 of whom are in Quebec. We are going to tell these people that we were not given enough time to defend ourselves. Who will defend these people if not the Bloc Quebecois? We do not defend Quebecers only, but Canadians as well. And the government has just told Canadians and Quebecers that it will not allow them to express their views any longer because it wants to ram its bill through and, in order to do that, it will impose time allocation to prevent us from acting as the government's conscience. That is our job here, but we are prevented from doing it.
So we will be more than happy to show Canadians what kind of government they are dealing with.