In the first one, the petitioners call upon the government to put the surplus accumulated in the employment insurance account back into the pockets of the unemployed by revoking the current eligibility rules for new entrants and using surpluses for training for the unemployed, thereby promoting direct employment.
It costs money to train the unemployed.
Petitioners want the government to use surpluses to pay for the training, ergo it must have a cost. I think the system is confused because it can't draw conclusions from context. 
( z1 cost :ARG1 ( z2 train :ARG2 ( z3 person :ARG1-of ( z4 employ :polarity - ) ) ) :ARG2 ( z5 money ) )