Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this adjournment motion in relation to a question I asked the minister on February 26, 1998 as to whether it was normal that employment insurance now allows no more than 40% of unemployed workers to receive benefits, compared to 83% in 1989.
This program is inappropriate, inefficient and unacceptable to Quebeckers and Canadians because fewer than 50% of the unemployed are entitled to benefits. This deprives the system of all credibility and integrity.
A very clear political message was sent during last year's federal election, and again just recently in the Nova Scotia election. This totally contradicts what the minister said, and I quote:
Canadians are perfectly happy that we had the courage to change the EI system.
What would take real courage would be to put the reform back on the table, to make it humane and acceptable, and to make sure that the program is really one which will give people a decent income when they are between jobs.
We have already managed to get the minister to admit that there were not as many cheats as former minister Young claimed. Today, the statistics indicate that no more than 3% are defrauding the system, which is more or less the figure for all systems.
What we want is a system for the 21st century, a system that will make people want to work, not one that leads systematically to welfare. Between 1990 and 1998, 200 000 Quebeckers and 750 000 Canadians were forced onto welfare by employment insurance reforms. That is not an incentive but a disincentive to work. It is an encouragement to get out of the work force, and the federal government has an important responsibility in the battle against poverty. It is encouraging an increase in poverty, rather than a decrease.
We want a 21st century system that will give people working for themselves access. The minister said:
—we are going to look into the matter and make the right decisions.
We have reached the point where it is urgent to take action. We are heading into the period of the year called the spring gap, in which people, with the new conditions of the system, lack an income for six, eight or ten weeks. These are people in the seasonal industries. These are people in fishing, agriculture and tourism. For a period of six, eight or ten weeks, the very survival of these people is threatened. They are penalized and often do not even qualify for social assistance.
Can we expect a decision from the government, despite the position taken last week in committee by the Liberals, who refused to report to the House on the first evaluation of the employment insurance reform? Is there no way to heighten their sense of responsibility and to get the government to act and change the employment insurance plan in keeping with the six bills, the constructive proposals of the members of the Bloc with the support of the NDP.