Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this motion to adjourn, because I asked a question of the Minister of Finance on October 21. What he was asked, in connection with the $12 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, was how far he would go before he stopped reducing his deficit on the backs of workers and employers and the unemployed.
The minister replied, speaking about contributions “we will—lower them every year, but one has to look at all of the government's financial statements”. In recent years, employment insurance rates have been set in November. It is expected that, around mid-November, we will know whether the Minister of Finance is following up on the representations made by various stakeholders.
In this House, every possible point of view is heard. The Conservatives want a drastic reduction in employment insurance contributions, but without compensating seasonal workers or young people entering the labour market, preferring to let them fend for themselves under unacceptable conditions. The NDP does not want to lower contributions, but to improve working conditions. As for the Bloc Quebecois, whose position is somewhere in between, it believes that with a $12 billion surplus by December 31, 1997, and possibly a $15 billion surplus by March 31, 1998, the government could carry over a yearly surplus, so as to have a cushion of $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion for bad economic years, while splitting in two the balance in the employment insurance fund surplus, that is by significantly lowering contributions to put money back in the pockets of those contributing to the program—employers and employees—while also improving conditions for those affected by the employment insurance reform.
The minister told us he would consider the issue. The important thing however is to not go for a very minor lowering of contributions, as the government did the last time, since it does not change things significantly for employees and employers, or for job creation. Contributions must be reduced to the point where people will receive a sizeable amount of money that they can reinvest in the economy, thus helping it in a meaningful way.
So far, the minister seems to have been deaf to these requests, and I would like to know why exactly, at a time when a zero deficit—possibly a surplus—is in sight, the federal government does not see fit to give back to those who have contributed the most to the deficit reduction effort, that is to say, to employees and employers, a substantial part of this money, mainly through the employment insurance fund. In just two years, we have gone from a $6 billion deficit to a $12 billion surplus, which will soon grow to $13 billion. This means that more than $19 billion has been pumped into the EI fund.
Obviously, this is a wonderful money collecting tool for the federal government, but since those who are paying into this fund are individuals earning $39,000 or less, why is the government not announcing right now, or at least by November 15, a significant cut in EI premiums, combined with improved terms and conditions?