Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak during second reading of Bill C-406 to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
First, I want to set the record straight. Some people live in difficult circumstances, but overall, employment insurance works well. According to Statistics Canada, the labour force participation rate is now 67.5%. This figure is for March 2003 and nears the high for the past twelve months.
For adult women, the participation rate is 60.6%. Furthermore, the government pays over $2 billion each year to the provinces and territories so that they can take the necessary steps to help Canadians find and keep employment.
Since 1997, we have invested over $1 billion in the youth employment strategy, which helps young people gain valuable work experience through programs such as Youth Service Canada, Youth Internship Canada and Summer Career Placements, which have created 96,000 jobs each year just since 1997. Our goal is to promote labour force participation.
That said, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst knows just how important the employment insurance program has been, for the past 60 years, to Canada's safety net. The government wants this program to continue to help the workers who need it, and so it will to the best of its abilities.
The goal of the employment insurance program has evolved over the years to suit the changing needs of Canadian workers.
Employment insurance now provides temporary income support to Canadians who have no employment income for a particular period, due to job loss, illness, the birth of a child or because they must care for a seriously ill child or parent. Furthermore, employment insurance provides unemployed Canadians with guidance and training so they can reintegrate the labour market.
In 1996, following broad consultations of Canadians, the Canadian government replaced unemployment insurance with employment insurance so as to meet the new needs of the economy, the labour market and workers. Furthermore, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission committed to monitoring the impact of this system on individuals, communities and the economy.
Following up on the annual monitoring and assessment activities, the government has readjusted the program to respond better to needs. Since that time we have, as the member for Acadie—Bathurst has pointed out, improved parental benefits, adjusted the small weeks, eliminated the intensity rule, changed payback provisions, modified the rule on undeclared earnings, and provided a new six-week compassionate benefit for eligible workers who will be looking after a seriously ill parent, child or spouse once this comes into effect in January 2004.
As hon. members are already aware, the most recent annual report, the 6th annual Employment Insurance monitoring and assessment report, came out at the end of April.
It indicates that the EI program continues to work well and that the changes made allow it to serve clients and their families better.
I will provide some examples from 2001 and 2002. The program provided sufficient coverage. According to the figures, 88% of salaried workers would have been eligible for benefits had they lost their job.
More Canadians received assistance, 1.9 million people receiving a total of $11.5 billion in employment insurance benefits.
Active re-employment measures were also successful. Over that period, $2.1 billion was invested in employment benefits and support measures via such programs as employment assistance, and skills development, which enabled 570,000 individuals to improve their skills, and another 190,000 to get back into the work force quickly.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to that last figure. It is a clear indication that the best support we can give unemployed Canadians is not higher EI benefits, but employment. We are making some progress, because the employment rate rose 3.7% in 2002, the highest annual rise since 1987.
The employment insurance program clearly reflects the balanced approach adopted by this government, combining improved EI benefits and constantly decreasing premiums.
It is important to remember that the government must cover the costs of employment insurance under any circumstances, even when there is a deficit, as was the case during the recession at the beginning of the 1980s and the 1990s.
Bill C-406 proposes creating a separate unemployment insurance trust fund in addition to an independent commission to administer the act. This proposal would be incompatible with the government's limitless responsibility to pay employment insurance benefits. It would also go against the government's objective to consolidate its revenues and expenses, an objective recommended by the Auditor General in 1986.
I would remind the House that the process for setting EI premiums is currently being reviewed. This review will be guided by certain key principles: transparency is critical in setting the premiums; these premiums must be based on the advice of independent experts; revenue levels from premiums must correspond to the expected costs of programs; premiums should be set at levels that reduce the impact on economic cycles; and finally, the premiums should remain relatively stable.
The government has made every possible effort to reduce the cost of employment insurance for both workers and employers. In fact, we have reduced premiums every year since 1994. Employers have told us that these reductions have stimulated employment.
As for workers, they have the safety net of employment insurance without having to assume the financial burden. I do not think that Canadians would view any considerable increase in premiums very positively.
The employment insurance program is working well. We continue to monitor and assess it. We do not hesitate to make required changes when there are compelling reasons to do so.
I believe the approach proposed in this bill raises several questions. Why move backwards? Why give up on an accounting system that is open and transparent? Why spend billions of dollars more on a new system when we have one that meets the needs of workers?
This government is working toward the future, as our proposal for new EI benefits for compassionate care leave demonstrates. However, this bill seems to me to be a major step backwards.