Mr. Speaker, on February 3, 1999, I asked a question to the House. I said that the employment insurance system is an insurance scheme and I asked the following:
Why is the government trying to cut more people off EI benefits and treat them like criminals?
When I toured around the country, I saw this is the way people feel. It is important that the minister be aware of that. People contribute to the employment insurance fund but each time they ask for benefits, they are treated like criminals, like people who are abusing the system. That is the way people feel all around the country.
As I went across the country and met with people they told me that when they apply for employment insurance the human resource people are looking at them as though they are criminals. Surely we do not want the government to treat Canadians that way. That is why I raised the question at that time.
What will the government do about this? It is not right that people across the country should be treated like this at the human resources offices.
I asked a question. But what answers we do get. This is what the minister answered:
The member treats EI as if it were an industry creating employment in the regions.
This is not so. An employment insurance system is not an industry to create employment, it is a system which pays benefits to people who are out of work.
I do not want to go back to the 1970s. What I am saying is that there is a program for which workers and employers are paying. People all around the country tell us that this program belongs to them, to the workers who lose their jobs.
It is unacceptable for the minister to rise in the House and say to me that I am going back to the 1970s. That is not true. I want to live in 1999, with a program built in such a way that when people lose their job, they can receive benefits to support their families, their children, get them something to eat and send them to school.
Canadians are not pleased to get such answers. On need only look at the report by the Minister of Human Resources Development which indicates that the percentage of women in Canada who no longer qualify for employment insurance has risen by 20%.
We must face up to reality. The program is no longer up to doing what it was intended for in the beginning. This is the reason I would like the minister to give us some answers in the coming days, about what he is going to do with the employment insurance program, because the people of Canada, the workers of Canada, are not satisfied.
The people of Windsor are not satisfied when they fill out their income tax returns and find that they have to again pay into employment insurance. They phone us and write us to say so. The situation is the same everywhere, not just in the Atlantic provinces, but in Regina and in Edmonton, Alberta, as well. I have said so on numerous occasions here in this House.
So, I hope the minister can tell us exactly what he is going to do with the employment insurance program.