Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I'd like to thank you for your presentation, which served as a reminder to us of the way these two programs work.
I was hoping that we would be able to have an exchange on perceptions, opportunities, projects and a concrete contribution from the Employment Insurance Fund designed to help people who lose their job. I understand your answer, and you're right in saying that this is a political issue involving political decisions. I'm sure you'd agree, however, that this is all totally surreal.
Whilst we look for ways of improving employment insurance, this morning, we've heard an essay on the history of the Employment Insurance Fund which reminds us, at the end of the day, that over the past 12 years, every year, the premium rate has dropped. In no way has it been demonstrated to us that every year, the income support eligibility conditions for people who have lost their jobs have become more and more difficult to meet.
In my opinion, the government's main role is to assist these citizens, to regulate the way revenue is distributed and the means at each person's disposal. The Employment Insurance Fund formerly called the Unemployment Insurance Fund—the terminology is important—is insurance for those who lose their jobs.
I'm not blaming you, I understand you must honour the mandate which has been given to you, but in 1994, 88 per cent of people paid into the Employment Insurance Fund and 88% of people were assured they would receive an income should they lose their job. Today, this percentage has fallen to only 39%. How did this occur? Is it solely due to the way the actuary manages the Employment Insurance Fund? I believe that the fund is there for the people.
This is not only a perception, it is a reality borne out by the facts. The UN strongly criticized the way Canada manages its Employment Insurance Fund and notes that only 39% of the unemployed actually get employment insurance. This is not something to be proud of! This morning, we should have got an accurate description of the unemployment situation and increasingly impoverished families.
Mr. Chair, I would have liked to have asked concrete questions on what was said this morning. These are facts that we are quite well aware of. They serve as a good reminder. I appreciate this and I thank you for it, but when we're told that the Employment Insurance Commission is representative of the people who contribute to the fund, it's enough to make you laugh.
Whom do the employers' and employees' representatives and other government representatives appointed by the minister consult, exactly? The real consultation has gone on here over the past two years.
We produced a report containing 28 recommendations which were all brushed aside without any response worthy of the work and thinking behind the testimony of groups which appeared before us here. They took the trouble of coming all this way and they've asked if they'd be doing it all again for nothing. Regrettably, I'm compelled to tell them that that is indeed the case.
Some of those members who were here over the past two years agreed on these 28 recommendations and would have liked further light to be shed on what's at stake for the edification of our new committee members. And that is why you are here this morning.
Does the government and do your superiors intend to implement the 28 recommendations? If they don't intend to implement them all, which do they intend to implement? That is my question to you this morning. If I don't get an answer, I'll take it for granted that we need to vote on the 28 recommendations again, without waiting for the department's opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.