moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-12, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 39, on page 4, and lines 1 to 4, on page 5, with the following:
"7. Subsection 26(8) of the Unemployment Insurance Act is repealed."
Mr. Speaker, we have heard many speeches from the members opposite who, after agreeing to limit the debate, have decided to respond to our arguments because they see how this bill is indefensible.
I just heard that this bill will help people help themselves. The things we hear in this House. True, Part II of the bill provides for employment benefits under five programs. However, what members opposite are not saying is that, over five years, there will be only $200 million in new funds and that these provisions are designed mainly to allow money from the unemployment insurance fund to be used to pay for employment programs that are currently funded through the consolidated revenue fund. So such an interpretation is totally unacceptable. It is not true to the facts.
The facts are the unemployment insurance fund will pay for employment programs presently funded through the consolidated revenue fund and the government will be able to use the money saved to reduce the deficit. Yes, money from the unemployment insurance fund will be used for employment benefits, but this is not on top of but in replacement of what exists now. There will be only $200 million in new funds, and they will also come from the unemployment insurance fund.
The government says this bill will help people help themselves, but you cannot tell Canadians this kind of thing. You have to add that, right now, nobody is entitled to the training or so-called employment programs available because there is no possible recourse for people who are refused participation in such a training program. The government can refuse to help you and you do not even have the minimum right of appeal provided for in the legislation.
According to unemployment insurance umpires and the Federal Court of Appeal judges, that right of appeal is highly ineffective. For example, Ms. Reed, an UI umpire, said: "In fact, there is no doubt that umpires see only a tiny proportion of these errors because the majority of claimants will never take their complaint to a board of referees, much less before an umpire". What is difficult to accept, however, is that it is claimants who bear the burden of the board's errors.
In this case, at least, claimants have some recourse, described as ineffective by the umpire, because the umpires and courts cannot overturn a decision; they can only ask the board to review its decision, but at least they can have this decision reviewed, even if it is only minimal recourse. People who want training courses do not have this minimal recourse. This is the nature of the amendment we brought to the bill before us. It is not a question of being told that this modern bill should be amended. It is not a modern bill. It is a bill the purpose of which is to exclude more people from benefits, and an hon. member across the way, the member for Notre-Dame-de GrĂ¢ce, has admitted it. No, it is not a bill that is trying to give more people access to unemployment insurance.
When we hear that 90,000 more people will be covered, what does that mean? That means that the only thing these people can be certain of is that they will be paying premiums. That is all they can be sure of.
I also heard that this bill would be good for small and medium size businesses, which, as we know, create more jobs. Here again, they must not have scrutinized the bill very closely. On the contrary, small and medium size business are the ones which will have to open the till wider, while large businesses are being given a gift in the form of an exemption from paying premiums for workers earning between $39,000 and $42,400. There is a gift for workers who are now paying premiums up to $42,400. Henceforth, that will stop at $39,000. It is absurd. It makes no sense.
And who foots the bill for this present? Precisely those who work 0 to 15 hours, not now paying into the fund nor eligible for benefits, it is true. And their employers, who do not make contributions on their behalf, but now they will. These employers and employees will both pay for this, but the problem is that the majority of them will not really have access to unemployment insurance.
If the government had wanted to make the assistance of unemployment insurance benefits available to the people working 0 to 15 hours, if would not have tripled eligibility conditions for those returning to the work force and more than doubled the requirement for those already in the work force. They are taking advantage of the hour-based system, under the pretext that it will cover more people, whereas it will cut back the system's accessibility. Yes, they will be forced to pay. That is the only thing they can be sure of. As for offering them a bridge between two jobs. That is something else again.
There is another worrisome trend in this bill. It encourages people working 0 to 15 hours to hold down two jobs. Everyone, in fact, is encouraged to have two. Generally speaking, then, while there is a universal trend to cut back the length of the work week, to encourage people to job share, this bill is encouraging people to hold down two jobs, rewards people who have two jobs, rewards overtime.
But I must add something, something that many will find a dramatic revelation. People must know that, if someone holding two jobs and with insurable weeks behind him quits one of them, he immediately loses all the weeks of insurable work accumulated until then, even if he was on the verge of having enough weeks to be eligible for unemployment insurance, or on the verge of being eligible.
By quitting one of his own accord, he will lose eligibility on both and will have to start from scratch again. In 1990 and in 1993, the Liberals created an uproar because the Conservatives imposed total loss of eligibility when someone left a job voluntarily.
What are they doing today? Not only do they approve of what they had knocked then, they are taking it even further. Indeed, from now on, according to the double requirements of this bill, someone who has two jobs and quits one because he is no longer able to go on, will lose all his weeks of insurable earnings if he quits for reasons other that those specified in the bill because he will be considered to have left voluntarily. The fault will be theirs. This is a real scandal. I will stop here, but if I listened to my heart I could go on for a long time.