Madam Speaker, I recently rose in this House to ask a question to the Speaker about the fact that in 1986 the auditor general recommended that the unemployment insurance account be integrated with the government's general funds.
My question was the following:
Last Tuesday, the auditor general criticized the size of the surplus in the employment insurance fund and indicated that it should not exceed a maximum of $15 billion, instead of the current $25 billion.
It is now about $28 billion.
I asked:
Will the government listen to the auditor general, as it did in 1986, and reduce the size of the surplus by increasing the number of unemployed who can qualify?
I was disappointed by the reply of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, who said:
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning we have continually lowered employment insurance contributions. In 1993, these contributions were at $3.07, while today they are at $2.40. This is progress and we will continue.
That is what the government said.
I find it regrettable, because the question had to do with the increase in the number of unemployed. In Canada, only 30% of women qualify for employment insurance.
Only 15% of young people qualify for employment insurance, and the government says this is to encourage them to find jobs.
Do you know what this means? It means that in my region, the Atlantic region, for example, in our fishing communities, the Liberal government is telling young people that they do cannot remain in Atlantic Canada and should move somewhere else in Canada. We are losing all our young people because of discrimination in the EI system. A young person who is a newcomer on the labour market must accumulate 910 hours of work to qualify, while someone who is already on the labour market only has to accumulate 420 hours.
The auditor general said that too much money already, or $15 billion, has been transferred from the employment insurance account to the general funds. I saw no one in Canada take to the streets because employment insurance contributions were too high. Thousands took to the streets, however, because they no longer qualified for EI.
Saturday evening, the Prime Minister of Canada admitted that he had gone too far with his cuts to employment insurance and that this was why he had lost the election in the Atlantic region.
I hope my colleague does not answer the same way his colleague did during question period.
Even the Liberal caucus of the Atlantic region made a proposal, during the Liberal convention held in Ottawa last week-end, to change employment insurance.
Does the government not recognize that it has hurt many Canadians throughout the country with the changes it has brought to employment insurance? The issue is not contributions to employment insurance, but rather the cuts to employment insurance that have hurt Canadians and, Canadian women in particular, with only 30% of women and 15% of young people qualifying for employment insurance. Those people contribute to the EI fund. They pay contributions, yet they are not eligible to benefits.
I would like to have the opinion of the government on that. I hope not to hear the same things I have been hearing for the past few months.