Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Indeed the minister's statement is shameful. He is telling us that we are richer because the deficit has been eliminated.
We know now where the money that was used to eliminate the deficit came from. It came from the employment insurance fund, which is essential to help the unemployed find a job at a time when jobs are precarious and to give them a minimum income so they do not have to go on welfare.
One and a half million poor children in Canada is nothing to be thrilled about. One and a half million poor children also means poor parents. I do not know if the minister can see the relationship between poor children and poor parents.
Women are also very affected by this reform. We know now that, with the reform, a woman must accumulate twice as many hours to become eligible for maternity benefits and EI special benefits.
The minister's answer to that is that the fertility rate has dropped. Even though the fertility rate has dropped, do special benefits not also include parental, adoption and sickness benefits? There has been a substantial decrease in these benefits in 1997. Will the minister tell me that people are sick because the fertility rate is lower? I do not know what his answer will be. He will certainly come up with another farfetched answer.
We have spoken out against these kinds of things and will continue to do so. This will definitely not encourage young couples to have children. We know that the minister's reform is not adapted to the job market because young women have unstable part time jobs and do not have any strong ties to the job market. Those are the things that we denounce.
We hope the Minister of Human Resources Development will finally see the light and will be more human and more realistic in this reform that particularly affects the unemployed, women and young people.