Skip to main content

HUMA Committee Report

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

PDF

            IV.    CONCLUSION

        Throughout our hearings, the Committee was constantly reminded of the important role that EI plays in the lives of Canadians. For many, this program is a lifeline that helps support their families during intermittent or frequent periods of unemployment. It also helps people adjust to changing labour market conditions by contributing to more durable matches between unemployed workers and available jobs as well as provide opportunities for those who need skills, job experience or help to create their own employment. EIs importance to workers is also strongly rooted, more so today then ever before, in the wage replacement support it provides to workers who are unable to work because they are sick, pregnant or caring for newborn or adoptive children.

We do believe that Canadians want a modern EI program that deals with the realities they face in todays working world. They want a program that deals with the evolution in working time and the distribution of work. They need a program that provides a better balance between work and family and that encourages workplace training and education. They want a program that deals honestly with the money they pay in and I could have a debate with the Conseil [Conseil du patronat du Québec] on that and that returns money to workers and the communities when they need it: a true insurance program, we would agree. (Ms. Nancy Riche, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress)[1]

 

                These are the core functions of Canadas EI system and it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that both employers and employees are well served under this system. Over the years, various governments have accepted this responsibility and this is reflected in the numerous changes that have been made to Canadas EI/UI system since its inception. In addition, with any policy instrument, particularly one as important as EI, fine-tuning is necessary and ongoing. This was recently evidenced by the proposals contained in Bill C-2. However, the task of fine-tuning EI is not finished, a message that was clearly registered during our study of Bill C-2. It is the Committees hope that the recommendations contained in this report contribute to this ongoing process and we thank all of those who shared their views with us regarding future changes to their EI system.*

 

[1]      HRDP, Evidence, Meeting No. 6 (11:30), 1 March 2001.

*      The Canadian Alliance wishes to reiterate that many of the report’s recommendations are sound and deserve to be implemented through new legislation. But we maintain that there are recommendations with such substantial potential to affect the very foundations of the EI system that complete actuarial and economic modelling must be carried out in full public view before they could possibly be implemented. In addition, the Canadian Alliance continues to believe that the entire employment insurance system requires a more complete study involving submission from all stakeholders. Any such study must include as one of its key witnesses the Chief Actuary of the Employment Insurance Fund.