Thank you, Chair.
Further to the conversation that Mr. Lessard started, Mr. Lessard makes impressive use of words both in passion and sheer volume. I listen carefully to what we says because in spite of the differences I have with the Bloc on many issues, I know they are profoundly democratic and believe in democracy. This is a democracy that we are here today taking part in, and he would know that we have every right to amend the motion. He may like it or he may not. We support, as I've indicated, the intent of it, but we don't believe that these specific measures he has here are appropriate, not by themselves. We don't think it makes sense to have them as part of the motion. So I will be amending that.
He mentions Mr. Dion and poverty, and he says we need more than words. Well, we've had more than words from Mr. Dion. He's not the Prime Minister of Canada yet, and when he is, I think people will say, okay, here's a guy who actually means what he says. It's pretty significant for a national party leader to talk about poverty, particularly one who has an opportunity to be the Prime Minister of Canada, because poverty is not a vote-getter. Everybody needs help, but the people who need our help the very most, the people who in Halifax spend the night at the Metro Turning Point Centre Shelter and go to Hope Cottage for breakfast and maybe take advantage of Phoenix youth programs for challenged young adults and who work for the National Coalition for the Homeless, they don't buy anything. They don't get the advantage of the GST. We sometimes hear from the government that the GST helps the poorest, and I think some of them believe that, but these people don't buy anything.
There's something else that all of these people who absolutely need our help have in common, and that is most of them don't vote. They don't even know or care about elections, but they are human beings who need help. There is very little political advantage in poverty, so when Stéphane Dion came forward and announced his 30/50 plan, that meant a lot to me, as somebody who thinks we should do more for those who need help the most. It is not political. It is entirely in keeping with what Stéphane Dion believes is the future of Canada, and I'm proud of that.
EI is a piece of it. I would be the first to suggest that we need to have a look at how EI works in Canada. Mr. Lessard mentioned the 2000 vote of this committee on EI. The government now would have been the opposition then, I suspect, and would have supported that motion. They have since changed their minds, in part because there is no EI surplus. There is every year more money that goes into EI than comes out, but there is no continuing surplus. The money goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government of Canada. Should we do something about EI? Absolutely. Every year there is more going in than coming out. Employers should get a piece of that. I think employees should get a piece of that.
I supported Bill C-269, the Bloc bill. That would have extended benefits on employment insurance. But we need to look at GIS, the child tax benefit, housing, education, literacy, and all these other things as well. That will be part of our plan.
I just want to make sure there isn't any questioning of our motives on this. We support this motion's intent. We do not believe it is an appropriate thing to put those specific dollar figures into it. I will amend in such a way as to take it out. If it doesn't come out, we will not support this motion. If it does, we will support the motion. We believe there's a lot the Government of Canada is not doing that they should do, and we'll vote accordingly--or I will.