Thank you very much.
Hello from me, as well. Every time the subject of employment insurance comes up, we meet again. I care very much about this file.
I would like to thank Ms. Deschamps for her presentation. Both you and Mr. Lessard of the Bloc Québécois have explained the importance of the employment insurance program, and your colleague praised your excellent work. I think we are on the same page here, since, for many years, we proposed bills or amendments to employment insurance, or initiatives to help workers directly.
I do not have much to say in praise of the Liberals, because they said they had to solve the EI deficit or the country's deficit. They did so on the backs of our workers. They are the ones who ruined employment insurance for our workers. When EI premiums rose to $3.07, there was a surplus of $7 billion. There were plenty of surpluses. The Liberal government of the day, when Paul Martin was finance minister, liked to pat itself on the back. It boasted that it had balanced the budget, had reached a zero deficit and had a $7 billion surplus. At the same time, look at what was in the consolidated revenue fund. There was $7 billion in the EI fund. They are saying themselves that this does not exist. Of course, they took it.
Now we are told there is a $2 billion surplus. The Minister of Human Resources said that this is minimal. Do you really believe that this is minimal, when there are people who still need EI benefits? The bill will cost some $1.7 billion to implement. I would say that that amount is minimal, if we want to help workers and families. Some 800,000 workers—the research officer can correct me if I'm wrong—pay EI premiums and yet are ineligible for benefits. And this is precisely why we have 1.2 billion hungry children in Canada. As you said, Madam, if these people are ineligible for employment insurance, they are forced to turn to social assistance and the burden falls to the provinces.
We now have a government... When in opposition, the Conservatives supported only eight of the 28 recommendations, including one for an independent fund—but I fear that, with them, this means privatization—and another involving lowering EI premiums. We now see that the surplus has been reduced from $7 billion to $2 billion. The premiums were cut back at the same time as the measures intended to help those men and women who get up and go to work every day, yet lose their jobs. Do you agree with me?