Premiers split on how to change EI qualification time
Canada’s premiers are split over how best to change the qualification period for employment benefits, with the nation’s largest province arguing for a one-size-fits-all scheme that eliminates all regional disparities, at least during the recession.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty lent support yesterday to federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s proposal to replace a myriad of regional qualification periods with one nationwide standard.
The issue is at the heart of the work of a bipartisan Liberal-Conservative panel that is looking at ways to improve EI, an issue that could become a tripwire for a national election. Ottawa operates the EI program, but provinces have been lobbying for changes, in part because they pay people’s welfare costs when their EI runs out.
“I prefer that we have one national standard. It doesn’t have to last forever,” Mr. McGuinty said yesterday as he entered three days of meetings with his fellow provincial and territorial leaders. “Pending the recession itself, with so many Ontarians and Canadians finding it very difficult to return to work once they’ve lost their job, I think it’s important to come with one.”
Currently, workers in high-unemployment areas do not have to have worked as many hours as those in regions where jobs are more plentiful to qualify to collect. The standards vary from 420 hours in some regions to a maximum of 700 in others.
[More]
Popularity: 16% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
jt Says:
I have a solution: get rid of EI, it’s just a “tax” on labour nad business and a disincentive to hiring from the corporation’s POV. If you go to work to just collect EI, why go to work in the first place? Stay on welfare. It sure isn’t “insurance”, because if it was, the government wouldn’t try to skimp on the funds and the time to collect them.
Oh yeah, didn’t the Liberal government under Martin use the “surplus” (tax) paid into EI to balance the books, illegally? Isn’t there a court case ongoing about that? Ditch it. Employees can start to save their money for when they get laid off, just like their business owners do. It would boost the national savings rate. Might give them an incentive to work harder and smarter and boost productivity, when all’s said and done.
Think of all those high-paid government jobs that would suddenly not be needed administering this “program” of wealth redistribution. Because that is what it truly is. We taxpayers might save some money on taxes, since the “EI Industry” is paid out of “general revenues”, where all your taxes go and not separately from the EI fund.
We could begin alieviating the cost of doing business here and boost our competiveness worldwide. Businesses here may just be able to compete and make a profit producing stuff we used to pay people here to do, rather than in China or India.
Posted on August 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
MaryT Says:
Average the lowest and the highest, 420 + 700 = 1120/2= 560 hours across Canada. Listen to the Atlantic provinces cry and western provinces cheer.
Posted on August 6th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
annie Says:
I guess I’m really not understanding. We must be talking about those people who regularly collect EI, not those who are ‘suffering’ job loss from the ‘recession’. Haven’t most people who have suddenly lost their job because of the manufacturing turn or the oil fields or whatever been workers for years and are suddenly laid off due to the changing economy? Surely then, there is no issue with lowering hours… you’ve worked for years, you get EI.
It seems we are spending all this time talking about people who may or may not have anywhere from 360 to 700 hours in their job. that’s just under 18 weeks or 4.5 months. Why are people who have only worked months in any job entitled at all?? The people I worry about is not the chronically unemployed, its those who have worked for years and then lose their job.
If someone works in an industry where they are getting less than 5 months employment at any one time, they either need to save their money and suppport themselves during their chronic downtime or they need to work in an industry that will employ them on a full time basis.
Posted on August 7th, 2009 at 7:42 pm