If I correctly understand what Mr. Lake said, we're now going to a public session.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To put the motion I introduced in this committee in context, I'll say that it is directly consistent with the position of the opposition parties regarding the $1 billion placed in trust, a measure that was taken this week by means of the government bill approved by the opposition parties. The opposition parties clearly indicated that that $1 billion was clearly not enough. In fact, that amount must not only provide assistance to two sectors, the manufacturing and forestry sectors, but it must also be spread over a three-year period. Furthermore, that $1 billion is being allocated without any consideration of how the crisis varies from region to region, in other words by province. Quebec, for example, bears 32% of the impact of the manufacturing crisis, among other things, within the industry as such. We see that a province like Prince Edward Island is receiving the same base amount of $10 million as the other provinces. And yet its population is 123,000 inhabitants, whereas that of Quebec has more than seven million inhabitants.
From the outset, we can see that the distribution is unfair, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the aspects that the opposition parties raised. My colleagues will also be able to speak and introduce amendments to this motion, if that can make them more comfortable and enable them to express their own positions.
I will reread the motion, Mr. Chairman, in order to put it in context again:
That the committee recommend to the government, in view of the serious crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that it implement without delay an improved assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including $1.5 billion in support measures for workers affected by the crisis, [...]
So we're targeting the workers affected by the crisis. One component concerns the industry directly. So it provides support for companies. I'll continue:
[...] including $60 million for an income support program for senior workers [...]
This is about the POWA, Mr. Chairman. Where does this $1.5 billion come from? The government has been racking up surpluses in the employment insurance fund for nearly 13 years. In 1997, that figure reached $7 billion. To date, the amount diverted from the employment insurance fund has totalled more than $55 billion.
In 2005, the Human Resources Committee unanimously voted in favour of eight of the 28 recommendations made to Parliament. They were the first eight, and this is the third. It states that this amount belongs to employers and workers. It was unanimously adopted at the time by those around this table. Our committee asked the government to return those amounts to the employment insurance fund.
As regards the amount in Canada's Consolidated Revenue Fund, that's part of a debate that I won't start here this morning. In view of the way things are still being done, a $1.44 billion surplus has been generated this year. An amount of $60 billion is therefore being allocated to income support for older workers, as well as a reserve of $1.44 billion.
That's this year's surplus, Mr. Chairman. So we don't have to take new money from other accounts, money for which we have to levy a tax. This money is in the fund and has been generated as a surplus. Instead of applying it against the debt, this $1.44 billion, as a result of the urgent need to act on the crisis, should be placed in a special fund “until an independent fund is created; and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.” That's instead of an argument while I'm reading.
What's being raised here this morning, and what is put before us, are the reports of the other committees that have had to consider a number of motions. I recall that the motions introduced in the other committees are not identical to this one. The only committee that used the provisions of the motion before us this morning is the Standing Committee on Finance. That committee only had to examine this aspect. Four other measures were provided for in the motion of the Standing Committee on Finance, which had to dispose of them together.
This morning, we are considering the appropriateness of this motion for this committee, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It reflects our responsibility, since our committee has authority over employment insurance as regards recommendations made to the House. That is why I think we should consider it and dispose of it regardless of who may have spoken in the other committees, since this wasn't the responsibility of the other committees. I'm not saying they shouldn't have considered the matter and given an opinion, but, if things had been done in the necessary order, it seems to me it should have been studied here first so that we could make our recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance. That was not the case. The fact of having proceeded in reverse order also created expectations on the Standing Committee on Finance. What's done is done and I blame no one, but we can see the dynamic that has developed here.
In short, I think our committee should adopt this motion. It can of course be amended, but I don't think there should be any amendment as to its substance, with regard to the surpluses generated in the employment insurance fund, for two reasons. First, our committee has previously stated the unanimous position that the money in the employment insurance fund must belong to workers and employers. Second, if there is one moment when the House of Commons should be called upon to take a position on its obligations to workers who lose their jobs, it is now, as a result of the urgent nature of the crisis.
Thank you.