We Canadians are currently faced with a rather unusual situation - we have a bit of money to throw around. I'd like to focus specifically on the current EI surplus, which is the hottest issue in federal politics not related to pepper spray.
Under current legislation, the government cannot lower premiums unless the EI fund can cover an economic downturn, and this is a prudent policy. We have far more than the formula requires, however, and our erstwhile finance minister wants to pump that money into health care. An important goal, especially to establish Martin's voter-friendliness for a run at the Liberal leadership, but it's not what EI money was intended for.
Every Canadian worker pays a tax of $2.70 per 100 dollars they earn, under the agreement that money be used to help them if they become unemployed. A large part of the current surplus came from scaling back benefits... thus, doesn't it make sense to restore some of those benefits? Lowering premiums, as suggested by the Reform Party, would certainly help stimulate some job growth, but that has to be a secondary goal here. First, we must restore benefits and availability to somewhere approaching their former levels.
This is not a group of so-called "Welfare bums" I'm talking about. For the most part, EI recipients have been working, and genuinely want to work again. By restoring benefits we restore their dignity, their ability to support families, and their ability to once again become productive members of society. We take the load off other government programs and private charities, as these people can more easily make ends meet and find a new job. Most importantly, we return a sense of fairness to EI - if you paid in for years, you should be looked after in your hour of need.
Funding health care is an admirable goal. So is lowering payroll taxes. But the most important goal is returning fairness and dignity to the unemployed, so we should and must use the EI surplus to that end.
Without a doubt, the most important concern when one talks of a surplus in Government is what should be done with it. The public is always interested in where their hard earned tax dollars go, especially if the concern is that it will be placed somewhere where it will do no good at all: Into the pockets of already well paid civil servants, into ineffective debt reducing measures or other "wastes" of collected taxes.
While a surplus exists in the Employment Insurance fund, some have said that it must be given directly to those who are already receiving benefits from the same fund. Increasing the money they receive will " . . . restore their dignity, their ability to support families, and their ability to once again become productive members of society." This, however, is not the case. While as a short term quick fix measure, this idea does have some good points, it lacks the long term planning that any Government agency must have. This surplus, rather than being used to raise benefits, or even extend benefits to cover more people, should be directed solely to the purpose of creating and maintaining jobs in Canada. This is not to suggest merely lowering premiums on those already contributing, but involves the direct creation of more jobs in both the private and public sectors. Loans to help people start small businesses, for example, would be one of many viable uses for this surplus.
By making jobs easier to find, and more plentiful for the average worker, their dignity is restored: They are now no longer under the social stigma that is associated with receiving E.I. benefits, their families are now supported by the wage earner, and not the government, and they are restored to their former status of productive members of society through their own merits and the creation of new employment. The simple act of raising the benefits may seem like a wonderful solution, but it is not. Put simply "Give a hungry man a fish, and you feed him for one day. Teach him to fish and feed him for life" Just so with E.I. recipients. Give them more money, and let them live better for a week. Create jobs for them, and let them live better for life.
This creates a two-fold benefit. Firstly, it increases the number of people in the work force, and reduces the number of people who collect E.I. Secondly, it increases the surplus in the E.I. fund, since less is paid out as there are more people working, and more is collected for the same reason. By maintaining the current levels of premiums, more money is then placed in the E.I. fund, and this again creates more surplus. This increasing surplus can then be used to aid other areas of government, from more job creation, to the increase in benefits to health care to the lowering of personal income taxes for those in the lower income levels. A short term plan is not what anyone needs now. Long term solutions and goals are what will, again and again, prove the best course of action, especially in this case.
