Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the reply given on March 26, 1998, by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to my question on employment insurance.
I had asked why the federal government was refusing to use the surplus in the employment insurance fund to help all the unemployed from coast to coast. Right now, fewer than 40% of unemployed workers are receiving EI benefits. This is all the more serious when one realizes that the surplus in the employment insurance fund is up around $15 billion.
Why is this government allowing the surplus in the employment insurance fund to mount up when people throughout the country are suffering because of the changes to EI eligibility criteria? It is often forgotten where this surplus comes from. It comes from the workers and employers of this country who pay EI premiums.
As the program's name indicates, this is insurance for the difficult times when one loses one's job. Everyone hopes not to have to turn to this insurance, but the nature of work being what it is today, it is sometimes unavoidable.
Does this government not acknowledge that more than 60% of unemployed people do not qualify for insurance? They are not entitled to their own money. Not because the government lacks money, either, as there is a surplus of $15 billion in the fund. It is hard to understand why the government refuses to act on this serious matter.
Yesterday, the National Council on Welfare announced that child poverty was at its highest in 17 years. Their report emphasized the direct link between increased poverty and the changes in employment insurance.
In the northeastern part of my province of New Brunswick, the unemployment rate is 23%. One person in four is trying to find a job, and finding nothing. There are thousands of families living in poverty.
It was even announced yesterday that the unemployment rate in New Brunswick was around the 13% mark. Often, the hon. members over there do not believe me when I say that people are suffering because of the changes to employment insurance. This National Council on Welfare report confirms this, in black and white.
The time to do something is now. This government must start working for the people of this country and must address the subjects of concern to all Canadians, such as the elimination of poverty, job creation, and a health system that meets everyone's needs.
Let us start on this right now by reviewing the employment insurance eligibility criteria. Canadians have suffered enough. With $15 billion, we can put contribution rates back to 60% and cover 70% of workers.
I did some calculations earlier. A person working 420 hours in a fish plant or who has a low paying seasonal job with a minimum salary of $7.50 an hour, for example, will receive $3,150 divided by 14 and multiplied by 55, the percentage under employment insurance. He will get $123.75 a week. Nobody can live on that. All the same, with the considerable surplus that is in the employment insurance fund, this is unacceptable.
What is the government waiting for? Do the Liberals want the poverty rate to climb? Let us change the employment insurance criteria in order to remedy—