Mr. Speaker, once again this marks a sad moment in the life of a member of Parliament, to have to stand up in this House to speak on a bill with such devastating effects on the lives of our fellow citizens. We have said many times, and are forced to say again today, this is a sad day. People are not yet properly aware of the consequences, and that is what I find surprising. Unemployment insurance-let us call a spade a spade-is a tool of economic stabilization. It is something that is necessary and useful in most of our ridings. I do not think it is just a coincidence that it is a Canadian invention.
How can we make people understand? How can we ensure that the hon. members across the floor understand, when the time comes to vote on these motions, on this bill? What can we do to ensure that people will understand all of the importance of what is at stake. The hon. member across the way, in some bits of her speech on this group of motions, referred to a program that has not changed in 25 years. I may perhaps be in agreement with certain points. We ought perhaps to have started changing a few things, but changing unilaterally, and in the way that has been adopted, means that the only beneficiary of this reform will be the coffers of the government. It can hardly be a surprise that the opposition is making an outcry. It is hardly a surprise that there has been an outcry in certain ridings that have to live with serious unemployment. Their outcry comes as no surprise.
How is it that here, in this House of Commons, in this Parliament-and yet we have in front of us some educated people-we are unable to make them understand that?
I can hardly believe it, and I am not anxious to see the effect all this will have. We have unemployment insurance as it exists currently, and we have the problems. I would like to be told once again, but where do we see in this bill that people will really be sure to get a job? The government is only playing on words. It has only been window dressing, to introduce measures to reduce the amounts given to claimants and the length of time they will receive them.
As was said earlier, everyone will be affected. I come from a remote riding, the Gaspé Peninsula. Incidentally, I think that is the most beautiful part of Quebec and of Canada, the nicest riding. It is not only people who make their living from the fisheries and forestry who will be affected. People who work in construction, whether in Montreal or in Toronto, are also experiencing some fluctuation in their field, and they will be seriously affected.
I can give you an example in that regard. With this new bill, a person working in construction will find himself trying as much as possible to put together his work hours or work weeks in a given time, because if he is not careful, the amount of benefits he will receive when he is not working, that is, when he is on unemployment insurance, or employment insurance, will be reduced.
Consequently, people will only want to work during periods where it will be to their benefit, but not necessarily when the customer needs their services. A Montreal customer might need a door handle fixed on a Saturday morning in February, but it might unfortunately be more convenient for the worker to do it in May, because he could then add it to his hours of work during the summer. This is just one example.
I know that this group of motions refers to it without referring to it. I am trying to see where it is mentioned in the definitions. But the details on how to calculate the hours of work-for fishermen, for example-will be in the regulations. This is just to show you how obscure the process is at this time. It is easy to see why both the opposition and the people want as much time as possible to discuss and study this bill.
I was going to give some examples concerning fishermen, self-employed workers and lumberjacks. Under the current legislation, benefits are based on the number of weeks. The people in my region are used to quantifying their work. This is something tangible. A vat of fish is not the same as a given number of hours. That is how pay is determined and how benefits are claimed at the end of the year. As for lumberjacks, they chop 1, 10 or 20 cords of wood. Again, this is something tangible. How will this be converted to hours of work, after the bill takes effect?
The current definitions and regulations do not specify how this will be done. They say it is coming. It is coming so fast that we will get run over because we could not see it coming. The people have a right to know exactly how all this will be calculated, because it is their lives that will be affected.
Madam Speaker, I know that you, too, come from a region with many forestry workers. You know how hard these people work. I cannot see them walking around with notebooks in their hands, saying: "Hey, boss, I worked in this part of the forest for an hour". No. They will say: "I cut so much wood". Will there be a conversion? How will all this be calculated? I do not know. The vast majority of people do not know.
One thing that is becoming clear to them is the impact the cuts will have. We are told right away that there will be a dividing factor. The effect of this dividing factor will be to reduce the benefit amounts. What good does it do the public to get fleeced like that?
I would have expected a bill of this importance to rely on partnership with the public, to call upon the public's co-operation. From the outset, the public is told: "You will receive benefits over a shorter period, your benefits will be lower and, if you claim benefits too often, we will get on your case and impose another penalty on you".
All this is quite disheartening and does not leave much leeway to try to amend the bill. That is why, with the group of motions before us, we hope to review all the proposed definitions contained in the bill. There is nothing in there to make people feel secure and to give them an idea of what could be done to protect them. It is all going one way and one way only, straight in the government's pockets.
But the people cannot in turn dip into someone else's pockets when they go shopping after work, looking for a product that they need. They have worked, they have learned to live with the shortage of employment around them and to supplement their monthly income with unemployment benefits, but overnight all this will change, yet they are expected to believe that it will be good for them, while it has been made clear from the beginning that they will receive less money. That is beyond me.
I raised this point last week, but now that I have found the quotation again, I would like to read it once again. The person who used to sit in front of me, the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Tobin, broke his silence last week. He made a statement on May 1. He said to the Prime Minister: "No more cuts please". He is very polite, but he still asked that no more cuts be made. He said that, while his province collected a disproportionately high amount of money, because of its disproportionate reliance on federal transfer payments, it has reached its limit. The Prime Minister's best friend is giving him a warning while they are still friends: "Enough is enough". We are already hit hard because we lack jobs. Now, in addition to that, the victims of that job shortage will be targeted.
The one thing I deplore is: Why did the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte wait until he was gone? Why did he wait until he left Ottawa to make himself so clearly understood? He is now the premier of his province and he sees how the lack of jobs affects his population. He says: "What Ottawa is doing is not right".
But he is no longer here. Will I have to wait until others leave before saying these things? The damage will have been done. The government imposed time allocation. We are being gagged. This is what it means. We are forced to contain ourselves, to not speak longer about a bill that will deeply affect society in Canada and Quebec.
We are told: "Yvan, shut up, you said enough". But those who, not long ago, had the power to speak in this House and are now gone say: "What Ottawa is doing is not right. Enough is enough".
I hope that some members opposite will rise and will not wait until they leave Ottawa to say to the Prime Minister: "We cannot go ahead with this reform. We must find a partnership with the opposition and with interest groups to rebuild this system in a climate of confidence and dignity". Currently, given the bill before us, the government is only helping itself.
For these reasons, I cannot support this legislation and I will rise again, as soon as other motions allow me to do so, to voice my opposition.