Another thing that bothers me somewhat about all this analysis and about the whole issue of unemployment insurance, is when they limit or try to limit my right to stand up and express my views. I feel this has been done many times with regard to this bill. It was done right at the start when we skipped second reading to allow members to study the bill in committee and hear people before making recommendations. The aim of this process was to enhance the members' contribution. However, what did the government members do in committee? They gagged us so that we could not work at this bill, which is unacceptable.
Or course, the government did not want to see people like the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce come to every hearing and say that this is a bad bill for such and such a reason, with very specific cases. Obviously, the government did not want to hear that.
Nor did it want to hear Bloc members echo their constituents' views that women and young people will not benefit from this bill, and that the unemployed will get clobbered. The government did not want to listen. It introduced a gag motion, and it is doing so once again at report stage. It is turning a deaf ear to people's views.
The government's goal is quite specific. It wants to save money on the backs of the unemployed. So we can understand why the government is doing what it is doing.
The government and the minister just sound ludicrous when they say these amendments are good, because unemployment insurance will be replaced by employment insurance. When one looks at the outcome of these amendments, it would be more appropriate to call it poverty insurance, because the only sure thing with this bill is that the unemployed will have a hard time, and in more ways than one.
I have been trying to determine what this bill's goal is. With all the nice speeches we have heard day in and day out, would it be to create jobs? I think the evidence of expert witnesses in committee makes it clear that this bill will kill jobs. Nothing in this bill can create jobs. So that is not the goal.
Would it be to help the unemployed? How could it be, when the bill takes money right out of their pockets. Demonstrations and briefs to the committee leave no doubt. It is clearly not the goal. Would it be to improve the quality of life for women and young women? It is equally clear that this is not the goal. Even the true Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce just told the House that it was not.
I did look at the situation women are in, but since I am not that old, I looked even more closely at the situation our young people are in to see if this bill is going to be any help to them. Well, the answer is no. Nothing, whether it is in the rate or the premium calculation, is of any benefit to young workers.
So, why bother with this reform? It is easy to understand once you are aware of the financial situation of the government and of the calculation method used by the Minister of Finance. The main objective of the federal government is to grab $5 billion to pay off the debt. It is rather hard to see that the only way for the government to reduce the deficit is at the expense of the poor. It is shameful from a party that claimed to be close to the people and have social democratic leanings. It is disappointing to see that the only money the government has been able to grab was, again, at the expense of the poor.
The government is doing the very opposite of what Robin Hood did. It steals from the poor to be in a better position to help the rich. That is what this unemployment insurance reform is all about. Yet, in the red book and during the election campaign, the government did not, to my knowledge, say that it would pick on the unemployed, that it would grab them by the throat, as the Liberals love to say. I did not hear any such thing.
To do so, the government introduced Bill C-12. Look how thick it is, and the government wants us to pass it at full speed. The bill has over 100 clauses, and countless subclauses. There are many changes. We need go no further than clause 2, which is covered by some of the amendments we are considering today. In clause 2, the government gives a whole series of definitions, for things as simple as an affidavit. If you want to confuse the public, you might as well go all the way. Everybody knows what an affidavit is, but the government felt the need to define it.
There is also a definition of an interruption of earnings, a labour dispute and documents. There is a whole series of definitions whose objective and, maybe, only positive aspect is to make a living for lawyers. Since I am a lawyer, I may talk for them. Lawyers will use all those definitions to slow things down as much as they wish. The other side of the coin is that public servants will also use those definitions but not necessarily in the best interests of the unemployed, obviously.
The interpretation will be to the effect of restricting even more eligibility for unemployment insurance. We, the official opposition, cannot agree with that. That is why we are against clause 2 and asking that it be abolished. In any case, the legislator does not talk for the sake of talking. If a series of definitions is provided, they will have to be interpreted.
Even more important is the last point where the government says that this reform will help the unemployed as regards their employ
ability. In a clause which, again, goes against the pretensions of the government, it is clearly said that programs will raise the employability level of recipients.
Any decision by a public servant regarding the eligibility or non-eligibility of an unemployed person for a training program cannot be appealed. This is what this bill is all about. A public servant will make an arbitrary decision that the unemployed will not be able to appeal. Today, 75 per cent of appeals made by the unemployed are successful.
Why do you think the government has thought it necessary to put that in the bill? Simply because public servants will be instructed to crack down harder on the unemployed so that the government reaches its objective, which is to reap $5 billion. This is clear.
When the minister tells us that he will propose this or that amendment to improve the bill, this is hogwash because, ultimately, the $5 billion target remains. Let us reduce this $5 billion target, let us talk about a target of maybe $1 billion, and then the amendments might be significant. But ultimately, what good does it do to rob Peter to pay Paul?
The minister still has these $5 billion to artificially reduce the deficit, and to do it at the expense of the unemployed. This is the price we have to pay because the government does not care about the unemployed.