Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 1997, I questioned the Minister of Human Resources Development about the fact that the matter of the use made of the surplus of billions of dollars in the employment insurance fund should be included on the agenda of the next federal provincial conference.
We must not forget that, last summer at St. Andrews, the premiers decided that there were two things the federal government had to do about employment insurance. It had to lower contributions and improve the living conditions of workers who are between jobs, that is unemployed people receiving benefits.
Since then, there has not been a peep out of the federal government. The minister told us that the agenda was not his responsibility, it was the Prime Minister's. Today, we have reached that point in the autumn when—and we can see it at the InfoCentres—in Shawinigan they are getting calls from all those who are dissatisfied with the employment insurance reform. Our riding offices are systematically flooded with calls from people who say they can no longer get through.
In this wonderful federal system, it used to be that each Canada employment centre could provide answers to those it served. Through some incredible coincidence, it was decided to centralize everything in Shawinigan, in the Prime Minister's riding, and nothing works any more. There is no one to answer the phone. People call and call, but the line is always busy. This is example of the contempt shown by the Liberal government, which did not heed the message sent by the public during the last federal election.
Several Liberal MPs from the maritimes lost their jobs here. They were replaced by New Democrats or Conservatives because the public sent a clear message to the government that the employment insurance issue had to be reconsidered.
People do not call it employment insurance. They still talk about unemployment insurance. They know that the new program is not a guarantee of employment, but a guarantee that they will have increasingly less money when they find themselves between jobs. They want to know whether the government is prepared to lower the requirement of 910 hours of work for first-time contributors, such as graduating students or women who re-enter the labour market. Would it be possible to lower this requirement to a more reasonable figure, so that people will not give up?
Would it be possible to change the fact that, at the end of every 20 weeks of collecting employment insurance, people will see their benefits diminish by 1%? It means that if someone is starting this fall at 55%, he or she will get 54% in 20 weeks. If that person needs to rely on employment insurance again next year, the same thing will happen. The clock is not set back to zero. This means that in three years, seasonal workers will find themselves with 50%, while a person who lives in another region and who does not have to rely on employment insurance on a regular basis will get 55%.
Is there any possibility that the federal government can promise to put this issue on the agenda at the first ministers' conference that will be held in December, as requested by the Quebec premier and the other provincial premiers last summer? That would tell us something about this government's ability to show compassion.