Reform Employment Insurance

[August1991]

The surplus generated by the employment insurance program doesn't actually exist as a separate entity. The difference between what is collected in EI premiums and what is paid out is counted as general revenue, and the bulk of it is used to fund other programs or to pay down the national debt.

"This is a tax. It's not an insurance premium anymore because they are collecting a billion dollars a year more than they need and it is going to general revenues," said Garth Whyte, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB).

The Canadian Institute of Actuaries is to present a report today in Ottawa stating the current system is not working and recommending that an independent body be set up to manage the EI fund, similar to the one that manages the Canada Pension Plan.

Both employees and employers pay into the fund – 40 and 60 per cent respectively. Premiums have gone down slightly each year for the past several years but, even so, the surplus keeps growing.

The basic benefit rate is 55 per cent of average insured earnings up to a yearly maximum insurable amount of $40,000. The maximum weekly payment is $423 – an increase of only $10 in 11 years, while the cost of living has gone up by more than 20 per cent in that time.

The major complaint is that the number of hours required for eligibility puts the program out of reach for many unemployed people, especially part-time or seasonal workers.

According to the Ontario government, 70 per cent of the province's unemployed workers do not qualify for employment insurance benefits and are therefore excluded from EI-funded training programs.

Toronto Star

If Harper gets a majority, he should undertake a long overdue reform of Canada's unemployment insurance scheme. (Mulroney tried but failed.)

He should not create another bureaucrat administered fund as the actuariews are proposing. I don't know what form the scheme should take but it must change radically. At the moment, it is a horrible payroll tax that distorts the labour market, doesn't help the working poor and amounts to a bizarre inter-provincial transfer scam.

It needs to be brought into the 21st century.

[M.Dancer]

The changes I would like to see are capped premiums, make collecting harder and to increase benefits. I knew an engineer who got laid off when the comapny he worked for went under. His delimma is a lot like many...he went from making nearly 100K a yeat to something like 18K....he had savings but, after paying premiums for over 30 years, shouldn't he expect something a little closer to his reality?

[Fain]

Employers shouldn't be made to make any payments whatsoever.

Start with that

[no queenslave]

The changes I would like to see are capped premiums, make collecting harder and to increase benefits. I knew an engineer who got laid off when the comapny he worked for went under. His delimma is a lot like many...he went from making nearly 100K a yeat to something like 18K....he had savings but, after paying premiums for over 30 years, shouldn't he expect something a little closer to his reality?

NO No wonder the company went under ; if he has demonstrated in the real world he is only worth 18k a year.

Edited December 3, 2007 by no queenslave

[M.Dancer]

NO No wonder the company went under ; if he has demonstrated in the real world he is only worth 18k a year.

No wonder you don't understand our democracy, you can't read!

He was making 100K....unemployment pays 18K

[Topaz]

I doubt Harper will change EI going into the general revenues because I remember the former minister of Defense saying the war was being paid out of the general revenues but the military equipment would come out of Defense. I would like to know EXACTLY were the general revenues are being used for?

[Moxie]

The changes I would like to see are capped premiums, make collecting harder and to increase benefits. I knew an engineer who got laid off when the comapny he worked for went under. His delimma is a lot like many...he went from making nearly 100K a yeat to something like 18K....he had savings but, after paying premiums for over 30 years, shouldn't he expect something a little closer to his reality?

I like you ideas M.Dancer. I would also like to see changes made to seasonal workers, I heard a fisherman bragging that he got his quota in one trip ergo he qualified for benifits. That's scary.

[no queenslave]

No wonder you don't understand our democracy, you can't read!

He was making 100K....unemployment pays 18K

And he can not find another job; that is his choice; so he wants others to support him for the rest of his life?? If he had a job for 30 years at 100.00 what did he do with the money; buy you beer?

What is the U.N. sustainable living allowance?

Got his education subsidized by the tax payers and still wants to be subsidized.

Why didn't he take out private insurance if he wanted more coverage?

A lot of people work for less than 18,000 a year . A lot of people pay into unemployment and never collect.

Caped premiums -so less money to pay out

make collecting harder- so he wont qualify for collecting.

IF he worked for 30 years and did not plan for the future he was not to smart; to have to have you complain for him..

And they are short of skilled workers- he must not be that skilled, if now he is relying on ui.

[M.Dancer]

I had a falafel today. It was soggy

[Topaz]

I like you ideas M.Dancer. I would also like to see changes made to seasonal workers, I heard a fisherman bragging that he got his quota in one trip ergo he qualified for benifits. That's scary.

Today, the gov't said it is LOOKING in and STUDYING the seasonal workers and their need for EI. How long this will take who knows.

[sideshow]

I would like to see EI segrated from other revenues. An arms length body to oversea would be nice.

And the top end doubled from 40 k a year to 80 k a year.

As well, there should be incentives for longer working careers without collecting. For instance if someone works 30 years without collecting and has paid all those years, perhaps they could collect 75% rather then 55%.

And more attention to job rehabilitation, job training, etc. to get people back into the workforce. Maybe subsidize employers that take on apprentices (like a 50/50 cost sharing between the employer and the fund). Or eliminate the EI premiums for an employer that takes on the employee.

And raise the capped rate for those collecting.

And if there is still a surplus, cut the premiums 50/50, or perhaps employer first (since they pay 60 vs. the employee 40).

Lots of options, but just paying and paying, by both the employer and employee, and neither seems to get anything back is a bit disheartening to be sure. Something has to be done.

[no queenslave]

No wonder you don't understand our democracy, you can't read!

He was making 100K....unemployment pays 18K

So he is not even worth 18k in the real world as he went for the u.i. deal. If he was worth mor he would of got another job. Maybe he was wanting more than others thought he was worth; and the reality is true.