Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-299, which was introduced by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois.
Bill C-299 would give the Employment Insurance Commission the sole authority to determine the rate of premiums for employers and workers.
The commission would be required to hold hearings every two years as the basis for establishing the rates and it would credit any surplus of premiums over benefits to the EI account and presumably leave that money there.
This proposal is seriously flawed, however, and would not at all serve the interests of workers or the general Canadian public. Let me explain why.
First of all, a totally independent commission would be accountable only to its constituents, in this case workers and employers. As it now stands, the commission makes recommendations to the government which is accountable to all Canadians.
It is precisely because the government is accountable to all Canadians that we have taken steps to ensure that employment insurance offers unemployed Canadians more than just income support.
Under the current system, EI provides for $2.1 billion a year in active employment measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find work.
Under the Bloc's proposed amendments to the act, there would be no assurance that such an active system would have been established or would be maintained by the proposed commission.
Further, neither Bill C-299 nor the later Bloc proposal states whether the proposed commission would be given responsibility for establishing EI benefit levels or for policy and regulation of benefits.
During a recession, increased numbers of unemployed could place greater demands on the fund, necessitating higher premium rates. This would happen at the very time when sound fiscal policy would keep premiums stable rather than raising them.
Surely only a single body responsible for both premiums and benefits and accountable to all Canadians could effectively deal with such a situation.
The fact is that the Employment Insurance Act is set up the way it is for very good reasons. The act sets out the process for determining premium rates and the existing commission is bound by that process.
The commission includes one representative for workers, one for employers and the deputy minister and associate deputy minister of Human Resources Development Canada. It sets premium rates which the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance recommend to the governor in council.
Since 1986 the EI account has been integrated with the accounts of Canada on the advice of the auditor general because it is, after all, the Government of Canada which establishes EI policy and legislation and it is the Government of Canada which makes up any deficit in the account.
Under the current system, accumulated surpluses are used temporarily by the government which credits interest to the account.
Also under the current system, premium rates are set at a level that responds to the needs of workers and employers, but they are also established with the broader perspective of the account's role as an economic stabilizer. In fact, our government has reduced premium rates in each of the past five years from $3.07 per $100 earned in 1994 to $2.55 in 1999.
Our intention is to continue to reduce rates at a gradual pace as long as economic conditions permit.
In the final analysis, the greatest flaw of Bill C-299 lies in what it does not address. The bill is largely beside the point in that it completely ignores the conditions that led up to redesigning the old unemployment insurance program in the first place.
The current employment insurance program is a response to the very different labour market we have today compared to when unemployment insurance was first introduced. Certainly we still need a sound income support program to assist people who find themselves temporarily out of work. However, nowadays we need much more than that.
Indeed, one of the objectives of the new employment insurance program is to reduce regular dependence on EI by giving people the tools they need to get back to work. In today's labour market very few people start a job straight out of high school and keep at it for a lifetime. They now change jobs quite often. Many work short term or on contract. Many are self-employed. Many young people juggle several part time or short term jobs to gain experience and the skills they need to get a job. Many people need different types of help: people with disabilities, young people trying to get their first job, aboriginal people and others trying to adjust to changing working conditions.
Giving people a little income support while keeping them on the economic sidelines will never make a real improvement in their lives. What we have to do is give them the tools they need to get and keep good jobs. That is the purpose of part II of the employment insurance regime, an array of active measures beyond mere income support. Those measures fit into a much broader plan of action.
As I mentioned earlier, through the EI system Canadians invest $2.1 billion a year in active measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find employment, be it through wage subsidies, job partnerships, self-employment assistance or earning supplements. Every year hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians benefit from these measures paid through the EI account to get the experience they need to get good jobs. Furthermore, much of these measures are delivered by the provinces and territories in an effort to ensure that they are tailored to meet the needs of Canadians wherever they live and work.
These are the ways in which we can really help the unemployed, ways that work and can address the problems of the unemployed. But it is unclear if such efforts could be maintained through the EI account if parliament adopted the legislation proposed by the hon. member across the way.
So far the new system seems to be working as it should. It is too soon to tell if further amendments to the EI program are required.
For all of the reasons I have just mentioned, the House should oppose the bill proposed by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.