Madam Speaker, on this grouping of motions I listened again very intently, as I did the other day, to the human resources development critic for the Bloc party. I hoped to hear members opposite give some good, reasoned arguments for the amendments they are proposing in this section. Sadly their arguments were wanting.
We are reasonable people on this side of the House. We listen to reasonable arguments. As I said the other day, we listened to the reasonable arguments put forward at committee and as a result substantive changes were made to the bill. Several problem areas have been fixed. This bill is substantially improved and will meet much better the needs of seasonal workers and the needs of the regions of the country.
The member for Mercier in her remarks talked about cutting off entitlement. I want to refer to some of the numbers that were used by myself and others the other day. The fact is that more part time workers will be in the system: 500,000 more individuals will have their work insured. The 45,000 seasonal workers who, despite paying premiums, were not eligible for UI, will be eligible for EI. The hours based system is beneficial. In high unemployment areas somebody working a 45-hour week will now qualify with just over nine weeks of work.
This bill is actually improving the entitlement of people who are getting into the system. I want the member for Mercier to understand that.
The argument that puzzled me most was the member saying the bill supposedly gave a gift to corporations. Any of us who sat at committee, as did some of the members opposite, can recall what the representative groups from the big corporations, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and so on, were saying. They certainly did not see it as a gift. They were concerned that perhaps too many benefits in the system were going to the less well to do and to seasonal industries.
Let us look for a moment at the maximum insurable earnings that the member talked about. They are being reduced to bring the MIE into line with the average industrial wage. That makes sense. When the UI system first came in, the maximum insurable earnings were at the industrial wage level but they have gone out of line over the years. They have to be brought back into line. That is what this bill does.
The maximum insurable earnings have to be brought into line gradually with balance so that people are not unduly affected. Dropping them to $39,000 means that they will fall to about 17 per cent above the average wage in the year 2000 versus growing to about 47 per cent above.
When I talk to the people in my area, they cannot understand why some people cannot live on over $40,000 a year or slightly higher and why they need to draw unemployment insurance at that level.
This bill is trying to come to grips with that and better balance the system. We will admit that while this results in some high income earners and their employers paying less in premiums it also means that there are substantive savings on the expenditure side as such workers will receive substantially less in benefits.
Keep in mind that the benefits are less at the high income level, bringing better balance to the system. The people who need the system in the regional industries can continue to take advantage of it. I see that as a major improvement to the system, one about which people have come to me and asked be changed.
I hate to accuse members of the Bloc Quebecois of throwing a red herring into this debate but I have to. They say there is no appeal for training programs. They are trying to negate the bill on the basis of that point. Let me ask, is there an appeal process under the current system that they seem to accept without criticism? There is not.
Let us take a closer look at it. The appeal mechanism in place for EI claimants and part I benefits is a formal process to ensure that regulations spelled out in legislation governing the EI fund are being adhered to, and that individuals are not being denied the benefits to which they are entitled. That is under Part I.
There is an appeal process at that level. I do not like to see this kind of fearmongering going on, and people saying there is no appeal process. There is one under part I.
Part II is substantially different. Part II is based not on an individual entitlement but on a framework of benefits and measures that can be implemented with discretion and judgment according to local and regional needs and priorities. Decisions are made, not on objective criteria bound by strict rules and regula-
tions, but within guidelines and strategies developed to respond to labour market conditions and the needs of the local work force.
Individuals, groups, employers and others may all be recipients of program resources. It would not be appropriate or practical to introduce a formal appeal process to such a framework. It is not in the current system. This is what I find absolutely amazing. I have never heard that complaint about the current system.
Given the fiscal framework, it is not possible to meet the expectations of every group and individual. While exercising flexibility and discretion, local offices must at the same time ensure that decisions are made fairly, equitably and transparently within an overall strategic planning process. Officers are held accountable for results, including participation by priority groups.
I wanted to raise those points because there is some strange information and a little bit of fear mongering which is being put on the record by members opposite.
I will raise one last point. I believe the last speaker mentioned the zero to 15 hours as if moving to the hours based system was a problem. We had this debate previously. I must remind the member again that by moving to the hours based system we improve the system substantially.
We will be getting out of the 15 hour trap which mainly affects women and to a great extent people who work in fast food outlets. The new system allows multiple job holders to get into the system and to draw benefits if needed, which we hope they are not because we are working very strenuously on the side of employment. However, the hours based system will help people get into the system if they need to. The benefits to a great extent will help women who are presently not entitled to get into the system. That is an improvement.
At least once during the debate members opposite should recognize some of the improvements in the system.