Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to respond to the motion by the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst, who would like to see those workers who find themselves in areas of high unemployment—10% or more—receive EI benefits based on the best 12 weeks of their income from the previous year, instead of the best 14 weeks, as announced in February.
I salute the member. I know that he works very hard and is very passionate about this issue.
As my colleagues have said, over the next three years, we want to test whether this redesigned method of benefit rate calculation will encourage workers to accept available work that could otherwise lower their weekly EI benefit and they may otherwise refuse.
The concept of EI is simple. It is an insurance program that Canadians can rely on in times of temporary unemployment that provides benefits to eligible workers who, through no fault of their own, are without work but who are available for work. The underlying objective is to help unemployed Canadians prepare for, find and keep employment.
But while the basic concept is simple, the means of implementing it through the EI program are a little more complicated. The government must take into consideration many diverse interests and needs—sometimes conflicting—and find a balanced way to meet them. At the heart of the program is the need to make sure EI provides the support that unemployed Canadians need, while at the same time ensuring that the program's integrity and long-term viability are maintained.
Fortunately, the government has been consistently able to do that. Most objective observers would agree that EI is a Canadian success story.
Over the years, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers have been able to access the program in times of need and today the program remains stable.
A prudent approach to managing the EI program means the government has been able to consistently balance the program's objectives—that is, to provide temporary income support as well as assist people to find and keep work.
As outlined in the government response, the responsible course is to continue to pursue the balanced approach to the EI program, so it will continue to be there for Canadians when they need it. That does not mean the government should not make any changes to the program. On the contrary, it means the government must be able to adapt to changing circumstances and make adjustments to the program from time to time.
As a matter of fact, a look at the record will show that the government has clearly been willing to do just that. For example, in February of this year, in conjunction with budget 2005, the government announced approximately $300 million in new measures to enhance the EI program. These changes are expected to benefit more than 220,000 Canadian workers annually.
These new measures include three new pilot projects that take into account issues raised in the standing committee's report. These pilots will test the labour market impact of enhanced support in regions of “high” unemployment.
More specifically, the pilot projects will test the impact of the following three adjustments.
First, we want to enable individuals new to the labour market or returning after an extended absence to access EI benefits after 840 hours of work (rather than 910) when linked with EI employment programs.
Second, we suggest calculating EI benefits based on the best 14 weeks of earnings over the 52 weeks preceding a claim for benefits to better reflect the full-time weeks of work for individuals with sporadic work patterns.
In addition, we want to increase the working-while-on-claim threshold to allow individuals to earn the greater of $75 or 40% of benefits. This is designed to encourage people to take work without a reduction in their benefits.
These are important changes. They are in line with the recommendations of the standing committee. Now we have to study and evaluate their impact to see how they are working, before making any further changes.
Over the years, the government has demonstrated its willingness to make changes to the EI program to deal with specific issues that arise in the Canadian labour market.
Last year, for example, the government introduced a pilot project to test the impact of five additional weeks of benefits in regions of high unemployment. The government also modified, for EI purposes, the transitional boundaries in the economic regions of Madawaska—Charlotte, New Brunswick, and Lower St. Lawrence—North Shore, Quebec.
These measures had been introduced to meet special needs, and the government has decided they will be extended for another year.
In 1996, the government began monitoring and assessing the program on a continuing basis to make sure it would continue to meet the needs of Canadian workers.
As a result, each year the EI Commission produces its monitoring and assessment report on the program. Successive reports show that the program is working well for the majority of Canadians. They also show that the Canadian labour market is strong.
From time to time, however, a case is made for a change—either to respond to an unanticipated outcome of a particular measure or to strengthen the program in one way or another.
The elimination of the intensity rule is a good example. In 1996, the intensity rule was introduced to reduce reliance on EI and encourage work effort. When evidence indicated that the measure was not achieving its intended objective, the government intervened and eliminated it.
Similarly, when analysis showed that the clawback measure was having a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income claimants, the government moved to adjust it.
When the Government of Canada doubled the overall duration of maternity and parental benefits from six months to one full year beginning December 31, 2000, it carefully monitored the results. We were gratified to learn that, indeed, there had been a sharp increase in the following year of parents accessing parental benefits—up to 24.3%.
The government has a solid track record of adjusting and enhancing the EI program by following a prudent, balanced approach to change.
In making changes to EI, the government bases its decisions on a number of considerations: an ever-changing labour market; the program's annual monitoring and assessment report; and the recommendations initiated by stakeholders and bodies like the standing committee.
In the case of the standing committee's recommendations, as outlined earlier, the government has already acted in a number of positive ways. The government recognizes that certain EI clients continue to face challenges and it continues to work on examining the substance of issues raised by the standing committee.
I am confident that, if we continue to follow the kind of prudent, balanced approach to change that has served us so well in the past, the EI program will continue to be there for Canadians when they need it.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to express my thoughts on the matter and provide supporting arguments.