Madam Speaker, the first thing I would ask the hon. member to consider is that if we adopted his motion it would not give due consideration to all the hard work that has gone into restructuring the system and the positive approach in helping unemployed Canadians that other members and myself were involved with in the last session.
When the government set out to redesign the way in which we helped unemployed workers get back to work, we made a dramatic shift from passive assistance to active measures that would act as an incentive for individuals to return to the workforce as soon as possible.
The new system is not yet 16 months old. Most reasonable people would agree that it is not long enough to determine how effective it is going to be.
I will now address some specific points in the hon. member's motion. He is asking the government to lower premium contributions. In 1994 the government took action to stop rates from increasing, setting the rate that year at $3.07 instead of the scheduled $3.30. Since 1995 premium rates have declined each year. They are now at $2.90 for every $100 of insurable earnings and the government is committed to bringing the rate down even further.
As for weekly maximum insurable earnings, we rolled them back to $750 and froze them at that level rather than allowing them to increase to $875 as they were scheduled to do. But we did not stop there.
Is the hon. member familiar with the new hires program? Under that program up to 900,000 employers are eligible to pay virtually no premiums for jobs they create this year.
Combine these three measures and the government is saving workers and employers $1.7 billion in payroll taxes in 1997. By anybody's arithmetic, those are substantial savings to both employers and employees.
The hon. member is asking the government to improve benefits for seasonal workers and new entrants and re-entrants. First let us consider seasonal workers.
When the old UI system was reformed, the government was determined to make the new system more flexible to accommodate changing conditions in the workplace. Those changes included improvements in the way benefits are calculated for seasonal workers.
With EI we have an hours based system. That hours based system enables an additional 45,000 workers in seasonal industries to qualify for benefits they would not have qualified for under the old system.
Because of the hours based system some 270,000 seasonal workers are eligible for an average of three additional weeks of EI benefits. For families with children whose incomes are under $26,000, the family income supplement assists them financially. By the year 2000 their EI benefits may be as high as 80% of their insured earnings.
Furthermore, an $800 million annual reinvestment in employment benefits by the year 2000 will help workers in seasonal industries extend their regular season or find work in the off season. Besides that, the government has a very active $300 million transitional jobs fund to help create sustainable employment in areas of high unemployment.
Let me give the House some statistics for those who are interested in the transitional jobs fund. So far more than 400 projects have been approved. We have spent $150 million on TJF. Some 20,000 new jobs have been created due to this program and some $1.3 billion has been leveraged by the private sector because of this fund.
Anyone who has been involved in this fund in high unemployment areas, such as my area of northern Ontario, can attest to the fact that this is a very creative program which will create sustainable employment. It is being used. The significance of this program is that it has also been agreed to by the provinces, by members of Parliament, by non-profit organizations, all working together in their regions to create sustainable employment.
At the same time the government recognized the issue of so-called small weeks, that is, weeks in which a worker earns less than $150. There was a disincentive, which we recognized, for some workers to accept these small weeks of work because it would lower their benefits.
A major objective of the new EI program is to encourage people to accept available employment. The government brought in adjustment projects which target 29 high unemployment regions across Canada, including the introduction of projects in the hon. member's province of Quebec. Over three years these projects will return an estimated $247 million in EI benefits to workers in the 29 regions.
We will continue to monitor the impact of the new system on seasonal workers so appropriate adjustments can be made, but it is far too early to start tinkering with the program.
As for new entrants and re-entrants, yes, the requirements are higher. There is a very good reason for that. Higher entrance requirements ensure that workers who qualify for benefits establish a solid attachment to the labour force before receiving benefits.
One of the big problems under the old system was that people became dependent on UI. Some people used it to supplement their income and there is evidence that some young people left school early so they could collect income benefits. I am sure the hon. member would not want to create that kind of incentive for young Canadians.
Under EI higher entrance requirements will reduce the chance of workers, especially young workers, from developing a dependency on the system early in their work life.
The government has a number of programs under the youth employment strategy to help young Canadians make a successful transition from school to work. As was announced in the Speech from the Throne, we intend to take further measures to reduce barriers to post-secondary education. As well, we will work with our provincial and private sector partners to ensure that young men and women develop the skills necessary to thrive in the emerging knowledge based economy.
At the same time, we are not unaware that more women than men are re-entrants to the workforce. We have implemented special measures to help ease the effect of higher entrance requirements on women.
Let us take the case of a woman re-entering the workforce who has collected maternity or parental benefits in the last five years. To mitigate the impact of higher entrance requirements, this individual has access to EI's active employment measures, measures that will help or make a more stable attachment to the labour market.
As I mentioned earlier with regard to seasonal workers, about 350,00 low income claimants, two-thirds of whom are women, are eligible for the family income supplement. And benefits for low income, single parent families headed by women will increase, as we all know, in these new changes by 13%.
Is it not fair that we have helped women who are at the low end of the income scale by increasing their benefits by 13%? Obviously, that is never mentioned by members opposite.
In closing, I would remind the hon. member that the transformation from UI to employment insurance was the most massive overhaul of the program in 25 years. Part of that overhaul was a commitment by the government to monitor and assess the impact of the changes.
That process is currently under way. As required under the Employment Insurance Act, early in 1998 the minister will report to Parliament on just how well the new system is working.
I believe the new EI system deserves a fair trial period. For that reason, I am opposed to the hon. member's motion and I think we should give change a chance to take place.