Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, on October 3, I put a question to the Minister of Finance.
I asked him for an action plan to allow those who were affected by the events of September 11, those who lost their jobs and employees of small and medium size businesses, to be exempted, for example, from having to contribute for a month, in order to promote economic recovery by giving more money to small and medium size businesses and to workers so they could buy goods and services and get the economy going.
I also asked the minister to extend EI benefits by 10 weeks in the case of those workers who lost their jobs following the events of September 11.
That question was put on the day that U.S. President Bush made the same proposal to Americans, but with 13 weeks compared to the additional 10 weeks that we asked for.
The Minister of Finance replied the following about the surplus in the EI fund and I am quoting him because this is somewhat impressive:
—as the hon. member is well aware, the surplus in the EI fund is being used for health, for infrastructure programs, and for job creation.
The minister thus confirmed that, since workers only contribute to the employment insurance program up to an income of $39,000, those who earn more than that amount did not do their fair share for health, infrastructure programs and job creation.
The minister confirmed the unfair nature of the employment insurance program when seen as a payroll tax instead of what it should be, which is a true employment insurance program.
On October 3 we also asked the minister to bring down a budget. In the end, the government agreed with us on this score.
However, with regard to employment insurance, we had a real cold shower. The human resources development minister had in her hands the unanimous report of the human resources development committee containing 17 recommendations to improve the employment insurance plan and ensure it would act as a real social safety net.
The recommendations would have enabled people to enjoy reasonable living conditions while out of a job and have a decent income during an acceptable number of weeks. It would have been easier for young people to qualify and, at the end of the day, it would have ensured that older workers who lost their jobs and could not re-enter the workforce had access to a fund that would have allowed them a decent living while waiting for their old age security cheques or Quebec pensions. However, the minister said no and stated emphatically that the current plan was adequate.
I believe that today, as we are facing an economic downturn, we have the proof that this plan will not be an adequate social security net. A lot of people are all losing their jobs at the same time.
The minister said that when the economy is thriving, only one out of five people receives benefits during the maximum number of weeks they are entitled to. I am sure that in the current context, it will not be one out of five but two out of five.
While the number of unemployed workers is increasing, the government is sitting on a few hundreds of millions of dollars it could give the provinces for manpower training. The federal government has control over this money and will not put it in the system.
Could the government not be swayed by our arguments and at long last take concrete steps without delay? I hope it will do so in the budget. But there are things it could do right away, tomorrow morning, in view of the surplus that has been accumulating this year again in the employment insurance fund, even with the economic downturn, to the tune of $6 billion, which will be used for purposes other than what it was intended for.
I will conclude on that note and ask if in fact the government will accept our suggestions now that the downturn in the economy has unfortunately been confirmed.