I wasn't going to respond, but I think this relates to a view of how the government sees its role in the social infrastructure of Canada. In large part, they would just as soon abdicate that responsibility. They would rather say, “It's not our job”, because it's connected with what they refer to as social engineering. I think the federal government has a big role.
The premiums that go into this fund come from employers and employees. This is not money that comes from the general taxpayer. Rather, money that comes from employers and employees goes into the fund. It doesn't mean it's inappropriate to make changes to it, but I think we have to be careful in how we go about it.
Employment insurance changes can hurt places like Atlantic Canada. We saw it yesterday—a cut of $150 million in ACOA that the government hasn't publicly acknowledged yet. There are a lot of changes reflecting how this government views Atlantic Canada. This is different from how we view it or, I would suspect, how the other parties view it.
As to the amendment of Mr. Lessard, at a cost of $1.2 billion it's very expensive to go for 55% to 60%. This is an index of salaries. If you're looking at how to spend $1.2 billion, there are a lot of ways you could do it. Is this the most effective way? I would argue that it may well not be the most effective way, that there are other ways we can help, and that we should put money back into the pockets of workers' families.
I believe the best 12 weeks is worthy of support. That makes a lot of sense, and we'll support it. When we discussed this before, in the last bill, we supported 60%. The Bloc and the NDP supported the regional rates. So there's been a little moving around of position here. But from a responsible point of view, do we think $1.2 billion should go back into the pockets of working people? Yes, we do. Do we think this is the best way to do it? No, we don't.