Here in Ottawa, were I to lose my job, I would have to prove that I was employed at a job that paid into the system for 700 hours, or about 4 ½ months of full-time work. If I could do that and show that I was not fired for taking money out of the till, I would be eligible for 41 weeks of EI benefits equating 55% of my “best 12 weeks” of work; it’s not lucrative, but I could get just over $400 per week. Now if I lived in rural Newfoundland, I would only need 420 hours of work (just over 10 weeks of full-time work) and would be eligible for up to 50 weeks of benefit payments.
The reason for the difference in qualifications is that unemployment rates vary, in Ottawa where help wanted signs are still posted on the side of the road, the unemployment rate is 5% while in rural Newfoundland the unemployment rate is 20.4%. One would assume it is easier to find a job in Ottawa that in Goose Bay and so the system adjusts each month based on local conditions.
What the opposition parties and the assorted commentators are calling for is EI to be enriched and expanded with what is called a national standard. Instead of different qualifications, the idea is that all Canadians will be eligible for EI after 360 hours of work, or 9 weeks of full time employment. In a vote on an opposition motion in the House of Commons in March, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP also supported getting rid of the two-week waiting period, allowing the self-employed to participate in the EI plan and expanding payments from 55% of your best work weeks to 60%.
What this would do in essence is give some Canadians 52 weeks of EI payments for 9 weeks of work. Someone who worked during July and August could get EI payments until the end of the next summer.
That would put things right back to where it was in the ’70s and ’80s. We had close to 15% unemployment here at the time. Oddly enough when it was difficult if not impossible to get EI, the unemployment rate went down to 8% or less.
Now how could that be?
Derek
The Obama flu, more precisely the dangerous MPCJ strain is spreading up north…3 new cases identified…All in Ottawa.
All needing immediat quarantine are: The Liberals, NDP and Bloc.
Note: MPCJ acronym: Money Printing Creates Jobs
Hey, what’s more conducive to leftarded government than 20% unemployment across the country and entire provinces reliant on Nanny-state federal handouts?
The leftards want to take Nuffie Lotto-10/42 and make it national lotto-9/52.
McShifty is certainly trying his best here in Ontario where our new biggest export is economic refugees.
Maybe Obama’s boarder halfwit was actually on to something when she said the boarders on both sides are equal.
Excellent point Derek.
And of course Iggy will ‘demand’ this is changed or he will bring the house down…
More fodder for a CPC campaign.
Lilley is to be commended for this info. The lazy PPG and Tom Clark are satisfied to shorten the info to ‘changes to EI’…cause they have decided that is all we need to know.
Should help populate the EI Ski Team in Whistler and the EI Surfing Team in Tofino.
dkite – the same thought occured to me.
In the 70s, for some people UI was a holiday plan, they worked for a few weeks in summer for a high wage and then went down to Mexico for the winter. The system was used and abused by some people and paid for by people who had full time jobs and two week holidays.
The Troika Coup Party (all opposition M.P.s) know that this is a bad idea for Canadians, they all voted FOR it – this shows contempt for their country and Canadians who pay them. This was cooked up, IMO, for the benefit (vote) of ‘Canadians of convenience’ who use this country for a passport and social/medical benefits.
I played the 10-52 lottery once when I was 20 back in 1983. It’s really not good. It’s a self esteem killer and makes you feel like you just about belong to the government. It would kill me to do that again.
It is about time that the EI program was enriched. For years too many people paid into the system and could not collect a dime. It was inherently unfair. The program also had a huge surplus of money. Times have changed, and facing the economic crisis of today; I fully support the changes proposed by the Bloc, NDP and Liberals. It is only a question whether or not Harpo is smart enough to compromise or will we be in an election, to which end Harpo will be gone.
There is one and only one reason for this Liberal proposal. Votes.
It is not about the well-being of Canadians whose taxes will go to pay people for not working.
It is not about the robustness of the economy which will transform into a nation of part-time workers funded by the taxpayer – and this taxpayer will be reduced to the civil service funded by the taxpayer funded by….
It’s about votes. That’s all.
We are in an economic recession. Ignatieff is deliberately going after the vote of those who have lost jobs, been reduced in salary, or are concerned about jobs. He’s offering them, effectively, a guaranteed income, paid by the Virtual Taxpayer, after only two months work. Any student, any part-time worker, anyone who rejects full-time work – will be interested in such a scheme.
The NDP and Bloc, who are fighting Ignatieff for this ‘mass of Canadians’ will approve it. After all, they want The Vote as well.
Remember Ignatieff’s equally cynical and malicious attempt to get the Quebec vote? Remember how he did it? He proposed the ‘Quebec is a nation’ idea. Well, naturally, that got him the Quebec admiration. Indeed, the Quebec Liberal Party HAD to adopt it.
This would have divided the country. But Ignatieff wanted the Quebec vote – and he knew Harper would stop it, while he, Ignatieff, would come out as the saviour, the King of Quebec..while Harper, working for Canadians, would lose Quebec.
And then, Duceppe, equally fearing that HE would lose votes to Ignatieff’s malicious scheme proposed the motion: “Quebec is a nation’.
To save Canadian unity, as Ignatieff knew he would, Harper switched it from the geographic nation of Quebec, to the population of Quebec (Quebecois) within a united Canada.
So – Ignatieff got what he wanted. The Quebec vote. And, as he knew Harper would stop it, he also knew that Harper would lose votes in Quebec.
That’s the nature of Ignatieff. A scheming, unprincipled man of no integrity, no honour, no ethics.
And this EI scheme is the same. Ignatieff is after votes. That’s all. He’s not interested in the well-being of Canada or Canadians. He wants the vote of anyone who is out of work or has lost a benefit. He’s after the autoworkers, he’s after anyone who has lost a job. His proposal, that this amorphous Money Bank, The Government, should pay people NOT TO WORK, ignores that someone who WORKS, has to pay someone else NOT TO WORK.
And, of course, Ignatieff hopes that Harper will, as with the Quebec scheme, save the day and save Canadians. But, Ignatieff will come out of this, looking like The Saviour of The Poor.
So, He’s King of Quebec.
He’s King of the poor.
What next? He’ll go after the ethnic groups and immigrants.
He’ll do it the same way. Watch his strategy.
He’ll propose a motion that will harm Canada and Canadians overall but will benefit one identity group.
He’ll rely on Harper to stop it…because it really is a bad idea for the whole of Canada.
So, Harper will lose votes in that group.
And Ignatieff will be seen as The King of This New Group.
Watch him do it. It’s a malicious, deliberate strategy the take the vote away from Harper by deliberately proposing unreasonable Motions that the Govt MUST stop, to protect Canada and Canadians. But, the mere proposal, which is geared to ONE identity group each time, sets Ignatieff up as a Saviour and Harper as interfering with such sanctified results.
Amoral. Unethical. That’s the Liberal Way.
T – there is no such thing as an EI surplus. Any “extra” EI premiums were vacuumed up by the Liberals as general revenues.
It might be fair to include past and present Big Three autoworkers as a special case considering that their punitive contributions during the PM Chretien-FM Martin boom years were a major factor in “Deficit-Reduction”. The fact that any Ontario auto workers applying for EI in those times had their work cut out for them didn’t make it fun either.
The social degradation resulting from easy east coast welfare disguised as EI going on at the same time was a scandal. When the rules were tightened up to prevent abuses like high school students dropping out to access EI, some ridings went NDP at the next election and Chretien soon reversed course. Churches and educators pleaded that this not be done, but patronage is patronage, and buying votes is cheap.
So I take it there are no Christine Elliott supporters here, then?
Here’s a thought for changing the EI rules – sure, allow EI to be collected after 9 weeks, but set the benefit length to equal 1/2 the number of weeks worked and max it at 52 weeks. Don’t like it? Find a steady permanent job.
I recall how Boob Rae got to be Premier of Ontario……the NDP mobilized the “welfare vote.”
First off, it seems everyone here is falling into the mental trap set by Trudeau the socialist. It should not be called Insurance. The very name of the program is classic leftist disinformation. It was never an insurance program, it was a wealth-redistribution scheme, taxing the salaries of those with full-time employment (primarily in the ‘have’ provinces) in order to buy the votes of the seasonal workers (fishermen and fish plant workers in the maritimes, tree-planters in BC, etc) in the ‘have-not’ provinces. Not one dime of the money collected has ever been set aside or invested as a real insurance company would do. Ask yourself – in a real insurance scheme would everyone pay the same rate?
EI should be either abolished or there should be real rates, ie a seasonal worker would not be eligible as they are guaranteed to be unemployed at the end of the season and someone in a career where collection is unlikely ie a nurse or cop would pay minimal rates that reflect the possibility of their unemployment.
When you subsidise something, you get more of it. Watch the unemployment rate shoot up if they pass this.
If they want to make a national standard, why not raise it instead of lowering it? Never mind.
Here’s a thought for changing the EI rules – sure, allow EI to be collected after 9 weeks, but set the benefit length to equal 1/2 the number of weeks worked and max it at 52 weeks. Don’t like it? Find a steady permanent job.
Posted by: Andrew at May 6, 2009 11:23 AM
That’s the best idea I’ve heard all year. The only change I would make would be to cap it at 12 weeks.
It’s a shame we can’t opt out of paying into EI. In 20 plus years of working I’ve used it once for one month while my son was in the hospital and I didn’t work for two months. The first month was on me, Then I needed the EI to kick in. Too bad I was back to work with a paycheck befor I received my first EI check……
Ah, one of the many side benefits of federalism.
/sarc
Why, we wouldn’t want autonomous provinces now, would we? That would make us sooooo American (yuck, right?)
/sarc
I played the 10-52 lottery once when I was 20 back in 1983. It’s really not good. It’s a self esteem killer and makes you feel like you just about belong to the government. It would kill me to do that again.
Of course, that statement assumes that everyone on EI has self respect …
visiting along the south coast of NS in the 80s, we were clam digging , we were approached by a fellow that invoiced us for digging on his beach, he wanted 20$ . I refused as it was federal property, but he did get me to sign the invoice to prove that he was working so he could add up the requisite weeks.
I absolutely agree, the system should be equalized. 52 weeks full time work and then we’ll talk about the possibility of EI. Including seasonal work.
When I lived in B.C U.I was the golden ticket to slack off and people weren’t ashamed to say they were on it…. they were considered “lucky” to get paid to be a fresh air inspector. Increasing it and making it easier will only encourage that attitude. Typical vote buying with taxpayer money..a tried and true fiberal strategy.
AlinOttawa hits the nail on the head. UI/EI has never been “Insurance” – it’s socialism/pork-barrel-politics through-and-through. I’d happily forsake my “right” to ever collect it if I could stop paying into the damn thing. I have a good job and can look after myself, thank you very much.
“EI should be either abolished or there should be real rates, ie a seasonal worker would not be eligible as they are guaranteed to be unemployed at the end of the season and someone in a career where collection is unlikely ie a nurse or cop would pay minimal rates that reflect the possibility of their unemployment.”
DISCRIMINATION! Don’t you understand that this is a LIFESTYLE choice? We may soon find out these people are actually born that way, and then you’ll sure feel silly!
Even if the unemployment rate across Canada reached 10%, that means 90% of canadians are working. 90% are working and paying so a portion of that 10% can work 45 days and get 52 weeks of pogey. Will those 90% of working canadians and their families vote liberal to continue this ripoff.
Most people who have lost their jobs in Ontario and other populated areas have plenty of hours under their belts to qualify for EI. This only makes sense if we somehow expect that future jobs will be short term — over the long term. I don’t think that is what is predicted at this point — in fact, did not someone recently predict that the recession should be receding over the next twelve months? Those long-time workers in Ontario (many of whom have 10+years service) will have no trouble collecting benefits over the next year. But, if I am washing dishes or similar unrewarding work, it would be very tempting to work the minimum and then collect EI for the remainder of the year.
I really think they should look at the financial implications of changing the qualifying requirements. I personally do not have problems with seasonal works in some regions getting shorter terms to qualify. I don’t think this is a one-size-fits-all situation.
The real test will be to see how Harper responds to this. Does anyone know what the Tories are saying about it?
For years too many people paid into the system and could not collect a dime.
Well spoken by another leftie Kindergarten alumnus.
Is it ANY WONDER why Canuckistan has such a LARGE debt?!?
Dennis:
Just watch Question Period, daily at 2:15 EST on CBC, CTV and CPAC.
Then, not only can you hear for yourself what the Tories are saying about this, but you even have the right to form your opinion on how they are responding.
Bear in mind, it is a minority parliament.
I wonder how long until we get sick enough of all this BS and decide to John Galt the whole damn thing. Can you imagine the monkey wrench we could throw into the machine if every full time honest Canadian decided to go on Pogie for the full term. And ride the system like so many others do. Time to crash this train.
Haven’t these people ever heard of moving to find employment.
“Can you imagine the monkey wrench we could throw into the machine if every full time honest Canadian decided to go on Pogie for the full term.”
Sorry johnboy; I’ve got work to do and an example to set for my daughters.
MORE LIBERAL HYPOCRICY
No sooner had the CBC, Radio Canada and the CTV finished patting Michael Ignatieff on the back at the recent Liberal convention in Vancouver, he was proposing changes to EI. If the CPC doesn`t do what Iggy says, he is threatening to take the gov down. And suddenly, an Ontario, maple leaf crimson red hue appeared above Iggy`s halo!
Iggy knows that with the recent Chrysler financial fiasco, and GM about to follow suit, there will be huge numbers of voters, oops, workers layed off in Ontario.
Did we need EI refrom when thousands of prairie ag workers were laid off because of Chretien`s cuthroat policies towards the west? Actually, what Chretien did was to change the name of the Unemployment Insurance act. (UIC) to Employment Insurance. (EI.) Then, the “sidetalker” lowered EI benifits. (1996.)
Did we need EI reform when softwood lumber disputes on the west coast sent BC forestry workers on pogey?
Did we need EI reform when Chretien and Martin neglected our Cdn. costal patrols and Euro, Jap, Chinese and Russian fishing trawlers cleaned our stocks out, and our fishers and fisheries (west coast–east coast) workers were laid off?
Now we need a need a new government, and EI reform, all for Ontario?? The more things change, the more they stay the same!!
(Thanks to my friend JH for writing this. He`s shy-he doenn`t like the net!) )
Sure, lets have a national standard. Bring rural Newfoundland and rural Quebec up to Ottawa standards.
Will the Liberals support that?
Sometimes bad things happen to good people but this is way to far.
Now if they were going to give us all 4 weeks mandatory holidays I am in.
a little something for the working people would be nice too.
People will a way find ways to, and go out of their way to game the system. I used to work construction in Toronto. At that time there was no shortage of work. We had several Newfoundlanders and Capers on Our job site, who came here and worked just enough time to get their hours then went back home until their UI ran out. They could live quite well back home on 400$ a week.
Andrew: “Here’s a thought for changing the EI rules”
Here’s another one – scrap the thing entirely.
If you think you might be unemployed down the road, start saving now. Upgrading your skills or moving to an area that isn’t in an economic coma might help, too.
The bank teller who has worked at the same job for 20 years pays exactly the same premium as someone who collects EI every year. The bank teller’s employer is also penalized for providing long term employment. My auto insurance costs less if I don’t have a claim – why not structure EI the same way?
Also, if unemployment is higher than 15%, the minimum wage should be eliminated for all new hires. Any work at any wage is better than sitting around on the dole. If I want to hire the kid next door to rake leaves for $5 an hour, I should be allowed to do so – legally.
Well, that’s not an offensive title post. You’d be incensed if the liberals derided westerners as all being redneck cowhands and ignorant farmers, so why do you refer to Newfoundlanders as all being welfare bums?
I agree with Alinottawa. The Conservative’s response should be to propose a plan to put EI on a true actuarial basis, wherein the premium you pay is based upon your risk of losing employment. And make participation in the plan voluntary. People with fairly secure jobs could get the insurance cheaply, and it would be worthwhile for them to purchase it. People in seasonal jobs or insecure jobs with risk-prone employers would have to pay a high premium. They might be well-advised to simply opt out, and put a little of their own money aside to tide themselves over when the inevitable happens.
I think the comments here about EI being moved from an illegal payroll tax, which it now is, that you can pay into for 30 plus years, i.e., all your working life and never receive a penny of it – to a real insurance system.
Others in this thread have outlined how it would work and it seems reasonable.
But remember, the reason Ignatieff brought it up is not to reform it from a payroll tax to an insurance system. He’s brought it up to get VOTES from those who would make most use of it. That’s the only reason – and he’ll fight to keep it as that ‘honey pot’ for those people, in return for their votes.
I’ve got to agree with Mark: I see the point you’re trying to make, Kate, but that is pretty insulting. I’m a medical student, I’ve never collected EI in my life (although I’ve paid into it for many years). Am I some sort of welfare bum because I’m from Newfoundland?
I agree that the system is over-used here, but for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere and relies upon seasonal work as their sole source of income, EI is how they get their family through the year (and let’s not forget, it’s not exactly simple for a 50-odd year old man to learn a new trade, or even find work in a tiny community even if he did).
It’s also pretty rich for the rest of Canada to deride some people from Newfoundland and Labrador (currently one of the only two “have” provinces in the country) for using EI. The amount paid out by the federal government via EI in Newfoundland is nothing but a drop in the bucket when one considers all the farmer bailouts in western canada or the auto industry/aerospace industry/insert industry of choice here/ subsidies (and possible bailouts) that ontario and quebec have been getting for years. And let’s not even begin to talk about the federal money thrown at Quebec and Ontario to entice their voters over the course of Canada’s existence – the amounts are simply incomparable. And if you’re looking for the biggest benefactor of equalization in Canada, look no further than Quebec – they’ve collected countless billions through the program.
Exactly Dante, seasonal work is a lifestyle that needs to be supported by those that choose the work-all-year lifestyle. It’s a Right! After all it’s not like seasonal workers are telling me that I shouldn’t work-all-year; so what’s the beef? I’ll go as far as saying it’s social injustice that there isn’t wage parity between work-all-year people and seasonal-work people. It’s degrading having to apply for money that someone is rightfully entitled to; a human right violation!
BTW, in the nineties many NFLDer’s I worked with often joked that: Newfies that weren’t bums moved to Alberta; so, I find your objection interesting. EI must be the Newfie version of the “N” word. Ironically BCer’s take pride in their laid back lifestyle and their progressive stance on pot; yet, when an Albertan or someone else labels BCers as “slacker potheads” they also call the talk shows and bi#$h about how they’ve been discriminated against. Just another “N” word.
Suck it up princess!
Ugh. Newfoundlanders are so touchy.
The fact is, you can qualify for EI on less hours there than anywhere else in country.
Nobody forces Newfoundlanders to stay in Newfoundland, yet the EI system rewards them for doing so.
If you take a seasonal job, you know that it is seasonal. It is not acceptable to sit on your butt all winter when that job is gone. If there are no jobs in your community, go to one where there is.
Where do I sign up?
This working for a living is getting pretty old.
There is one and only one reason for this Liberal proposal. Votes.
It is not about the well-being of Canadians whose taxes will go to pay people for not working.
It is not about the robustness of the economy which will transform into a nation of part-time workers funded by the taxpayer – and this taxpayer will be reduced to the civil service funded by the taxpayer funded by….
It’s about votes. That’s all.
And, ET, what do you think funding part-time plough jockeys and full time moochers is all about?
And in that jurisdiction there are no premiums
nor any requirement of any duration of employment.
And if you’re looking for the biggest benefactor of equalization in Canada, look no further than Quebec – they’ve collected countless billions through the program.
No, Dante, look no further than agriculture.
All I want is a system that doesn’t subsidize sloth, and can’t be used to play politics with.
Like using it to denigrate farmers.
Two things about UI have always made me wonder:
1. If it’s insurance and you collect it every year, why don’t you pay a higher premium? I don’t get to write the car off every year.
2. How come no-one can ever find a job until their UI runs out?
“why do you refer to Newfoundlanders as all being welfare bums?”
Can you refresh my memory with a direct quote?