I will consider the motion moved, unless you want to move it again. I simply wanted to make a quick comment about the subject-matter of the motion.
It's important that each member of the committee listens to what I say.
First of all, as I see it, this motion merely goes over the same ground theMinister of Finance should have covered in his economic statement. The Minister of Finance should have committed himself to this initiative in the budget. ThePrime Minister had said that the creation of a $1 billion communities trust fund would be tied to the budget. We have just received confirmation today that he has changed his mind about this, and I applaud him for this decision. I think he did the right thing by reversing his position.
That being said, this motion involves the use of the current year's surplus. According to the economic statement, if $1 billion of the surplus is used for the trust, an additional $10.3 billion of the current year's surplus would still be available. Given the size of the surplus, there will still be money available, even after the funds mentioned in the motion have been allocated. There is nothing stopping the federal government from introducing a bill to allocate these surplus funds, as the motion is proposing. This is not technically impossible. The proof is the creation of the communities trust fund.
Mr. Del Mastro, you are wondering if this could potentially lead to problems with the United States. Canada has already acted and set up a trust. One billion will be allocated to that trust to assist the manufacturing and forestry sectors. All we're asking is that $1 billion be allocated to the forestry sector. It is merely a matter of dollars, since the initiative has already been carried out.
Two financial decisions which the committee has already endorsed are part of the motion: the decision to allocate $500 million for Technology Partnerships Canada and $1.5 billion in reimbursable contributions. These decisions were part of the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The committee adopted a motion respecting these recommendations. The Conservatives abstained from voting, but all of the other committee members endorsed the motion.
The same can be said for employment insurance. The Employment Insurance Act makes provision for pilot projects to be set up. At present, six pilot projects are under way. If the motion were adopted, if the government were to embrace it and if the political will existed, all the government would need to do is invoke this provision to create a $1.5 billion reserve fund through the pilot project that has already been funded.
With respect to senior workers, the difference in terms of the current amounts has to do with an income support program. This program is designed for persons who have done everything to find a job but still find themselves unemployed. It has been scientifically proven that 20% of all laid off workers 55 years of age and older will not find another job. Often, it is out of their hands. Employers are not interested in hiring them because of higher health and safety costs and so forth.
Therefore, this motion comes close to what the government should have proposed, but did not, in December in its economic statement. We're attempting to rectify this oversight. The government has already agreed to make amends in part by creating the $1 billion fund.
That, in essence, is the aim of my motion, one that I hope will be endorsed by the committee.