Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I didn't have an opportunity to submit a written submission previously. I was invited a few weeks ago while I was in Europe to appear today. I'm sorry that I don't have anything prepared for you. I can certainly follow up.
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today. When the questions were put to us looking for recommendations for economic growth, I thought, comparing the mandate of our organization with that of other organizations, that it's a little like putting a round peg into a square hole. We basically provide information and advice and representation to individuals who are having difficulties with employment insurance and the Manitoba social assistance program. I want to make a couple of comments, though, and talk about how we align.
I struggled with what to do today and I kept coming back to a vision of a former prime minister many years ago, when I was a university student and had hair. I think many of us were inspired by the vision of that prime minister at the time when he talked about a just society. By a just society, he meant a just society for all, not a just society for some.
Employment insurance is the cornerstone of Canada's social program. It is central to the mandate and work of our organization. We have seen a program that has been gutted, beginning with amendments in 1990, that has made it increasingly difficult for workers to qualify for EI benefits, particularly those who are marginalized or have difficulty obtaining sufficient hours—women in particular, who are overly represented in part-time work—or people who are working multiple jobs and are still having difficulty. We see benefit duration periods that successively, over the last 35 years, have been shortened.
We see employers continuing to call for lower EI premiums, and—I must mention this—in 1990 when the federal government withdrew from contributing to the financing of the EI program, or UI as it was then called, and required the program to be self-financing, premiums for workers were $3.07 per every hundred dollars of earnings, with employers paying 1.4 times that. Those premiums have been reduced and reduced, and another reduction is going into effect, I believe, in January of this year. Those premium reductions have been accomplished because it has been so difficult for workers to access the program. We know that since the EI Act was proclaimed in 1996, fewer than 40% of the workers who are currently unemployed are in receipt of EI benefits today.
EI is an important cornerstone of Canada's social programs. The government has embarked, to its credit, on a number of current and recent consultations on EI reform. I won't go on about recommendations for EI, because we appeared before HUMA, we submitted a brief at that time, and we have some specific recommendations in that regard.
What concerns me is that when we look at EI and at the consultations that are under way or have been completed, we now see a consultation or—this is completed, and we've participated in this as well—consultations with Canadians in the employment insurance service quality review; we see consultations with Canadians on poverty reduction strategies; we see consultations on Canadians and flexible work arrangements; we see consultations on caregiver benefits—it's currently online—and we've seen maternity and parental benefit leaves.
I mention this because what I would ask the government to do, in preparation for the budget, is take a look at these consultations and realize the importance of developing a comprehensive labour force strategy that is fair, that is equitable, that is inclusive.
We see too much that the programs, particularly EI and some of these other programs, really drive a further wedge between those who qualify for EI, those who have supplementary unemployment benefits through their workplace, those who work for larger employers; and the people we represent, the faces I see in my office every day, people who can't get through to the Service Canada office.
This is not a problem of this government's doing. I applaud the government for putting additional resources in place to ensure that Service Canada offices are more accessible. We see unprecedented delays in processing applications; we see people whose benefits run out because they can't find other work. We know, in terms of Canada's labour market, that it's not that people are lazy, it's not that people don't want work, it's that there are six unemployed workers for every available job.
How do we integrate people who don't quality for EI into the labour force? How can we ensure that they, and not just EI-eligible recipients, can obtain the necessary skills and training to reintegrate into and participate fully in Canada's labour market?
I would encourage the government to roll all of these various initiatives together, and to realize the importance of developing economic plans that don't forget, but recognize and help to engage those who have been forgotten, those who are marginalized, and those who we want to fully participate.
We see in our clients a tremendous preponderance of individuals with mental health issues, so when we talk about Canada's economic growth, it's not just about growing the economy. It's also about recognizing the psychosocial consequences of those who cannot participate and the costs that are associated with that. There are studies that have been done for 30 or 40 years throughout the world and in Canada and the United States that talk about the high positive correlations of unemployment and health care use, unemployment and substance abuse, and unemployment and the difficulty people have in finding affordable housing and child care.
We have to develop an integrated strategy that recognizes those who have been marginalized and those who can participate, and that helps to reduce some of the costs of supporting them through innovative measures that allow them to fully participate and contribute to Canada's economy.