The discussion we are having at present would not have taken place if the employment insurance scheme had done its job. The primary purpose was to pay unemployed people properly when they are unemployed. If the employment insurance fund had done its job, the discussions we are having about the surplus and what it should be used for might not have taken place. We have to improve the scheme and ensure that the unemployed... That is what we will be starting to argue on the 13th. I will not argue to the contrary this morning.
We are going to file all the letters and discussions that took place among Mr. Duplessis, Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Bennett with the Supreme Court. Today, we have surpluses because the fund did not do its job. If there had been no surplus, we would not be talking about what is being done with it. They are stealing from the unemployed, they are putting money in the fund and they don't want to give them any. Then they wonder what to do with the surpluses. This is a question of philosophy. The fund has to be used for the unemployed. That is the purpose for which it was created. It isn't complicated. If we had no surplus, we would not be talking about it. The surpluses have had a perverse effect because the unemployed did not get what was coming to them when they needed it. That is the problem.