Thank you, Mr. Chair.
By way of a preamble, I would say that, in politics, there are those who make political statements and those who have a political will.
Ms. Yelich asked me whether this replaced existing programs. It doesn't replace existing programs, but rather those that have been cancelled, in particular the $500 million Technology Partnerships Canada program, which was introduced by the previous government. That's what they've done during the crisis. They haven't put any programs in place, or consolidated any either; instead they've cancelled some. That's why we're in this situation today.
It's not because the question is being examined by the Finance Committee that it shouldn't be put before our committee. I don't accept that argument. The Finance Committee has to give its opinion on all financial commitments under its jurisdiction. Our committee must consider matters pertaining to human resources and social development, which includes the question of the safety net for workers who lose their jobs. The issue today is about all those individuals who have become vulnerable as a result of the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We have to discuss this to determine what measures we should recommend to the House, and to the Finance Committee, because it must have an overview and advise the House. However, it wouldn't be surprising at all if it were the Finance Committee that awaited our opinion. It's like the chicken and the egg. Which will come first? Them or us? We have to give an opinion, and we are responsible for protecting these people by protecting programs that can help them when they lose their jobs.
I'm very sensitive to Ms. Sgro's argument that there is an urgent need to talk about poverty. The committee has decided to discuss that subject. Our colleague Mr. Martin wants to do that, and I think we should pay tribute to him for all the work he has done in that area. This isn't a question of political parties. When people defend these kinds of issues so fervently, particularly when the need is so great, we must recognize that. However, I would remind our colleague Ms. Sgro that we're talking about a measure to protect poor people or people who are going to become poor.
Poverty is not an abstract thing that we can be happy to philosophize about and adopt nice positions on in a cyclical manner, as we did in 1990 and 1993, and then do nothing about. Child poverty has increased, not decreased, whereas we said we would reduce it by 50% before the year 2000. These are social measures. The employment insurance fund already has surpluses. The present government isn't in a poor financial position either, because it has generated significant surpluses, which even the previous government will recognize. This year once again, the government has generated a major surplus of $11.5 billion. It wants to attach that to the next budget. However, this doesn't even concern the next budget.
We've examined the positions of the other parties. The Liberal Party feels that the total cost of all measures targeted at the manufacturing sector is between $2.5 and $3.6 billion, depending on the measures adopted. We come to roughly the same figures. So that means that we agree on the measures that should be taken and the needs recognized. We're identifying the right needs, but we're not necessarily going about meeting them in the same way.
Will we refuse to take this path, saying that someone else should decide for us? This is our responsibility, not that of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee has to have an overview in order to determine what it is possible to allocate to the various budget items. That's how we have to look at it. Otherwise we'd never need to talk amongst ourselves when it came to finances relating to our responsibilities.
Out of a budget of $235 or $234 billion—you'll spare me $1 billion—we've generated a surplus of $11.5 billion. It's the Finance Committee that has to examine that question as a whole.
The introduction of these measures in no way requires us to reduce the funding of certain programs. The idea is simply to determine whether we have the political will to take this initiative. If we do, is it the right one? I understood that my opposition colleagues were prepared to take measures. I understood that my government colleagues also agreed, but that they were not ready to take measures. That's the difference between us. Are we going to take these measures?
I'll conclude by recalling that the money is there. So it's not a question of money. It remains for us to determine whether we will act on the political will we've shown. That way, we'll know who's speaking the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.