Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the question I asked on December 8, 1998.
People sometimes wonder why those of us on this side of the House lose our voices. It is because we have to speak up loudly on certain issues. On the other side, they do not seem to understand the problem they have created for Canadians.
In 1994, after the Liberals were elected, 61% of the unemployed could qualify for benefits. That number has dropped to 38%. Even the United Nations blamed the Liberal government for its cuts in employment insurance.
I asked a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and got the following response from the parliamentary secretary:
The member refers to what is called the B/U rate and suggests that it is down around 40%.
What is referred to here is the number of people qualifying for employment insurance. I continue with the response:
The correct number is 78%.
The correct number is not 78%. It has gone down to less than 36%, because the 78% is 78% of 36%. That is the correct number.
I cannot understand how my colleague over there can stand up and state that 78% of Canadians can qualify for employment insurance, with all the cuts that have been made.
In order to receive maternity benefits, a woman has to have accumulated 700 hours. A person who becomes sick needs 700 hours, and a newcomer on the workforce 910 hours. That is what I tried to explain in the House, that the cuts in employment insurance have resulted in only 36% of people paying into employment insurance being able to draw benefits.
I have travelled across the country, province by province. I have even gone to Whitehorse in the Yukon. I have heard the horror stories resulting from the cuts that are affecting people throughout the country. It happens not only in the Atlantic region, but in Regina, Winnipeg, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Prince George, Whitehorse and Windsor, in the riding of the Deputy Prime Minister, where people working in the automotive industry are suffering from the cuts to employment insurance.
How is it that, on the other side of the House, the member can rise and say that 78% of Canadians qualify for benefits? She then turns around and says that these are people who have not worked. Does she think we are crazy or what? We know that people who have not worked do not qualify for employment insurance. These are not the people we are talking about. We are talking about those who have worked.