Ignatieff on EI and Taxes

[Keepitsimple]

An article in today's Star had me a little confused to say the least. It seems that Mr. Ignatieff is creating a policy on the fly that moves EI to a "National Standard" where everyone is treated equally with regards to access to EI funds and the length of time one can collect benefits. He says or implies that it's just as difficult to find a job anywhere in Canada. Followed to it's logical conclusion, this National Standard would either have to raise the bar to meet Atlantic Canada's criteria and cost a fortune, lower the bar to Ontario and Alberta's criteria and commit political suicide, or find some middle ground that would certainly alienate the Atlantic Provinces. Of course, the political way is to "study" all the options for election purposes, spin a good story, and then acknowledge after the fact that indeed, there are reasons why EI is administered differently across regions. Mr. Ignatieff also said that EI reform is a matter of "fairness" but he's not sure if it should be temporary fairness or permanent fairness.

He goes on to say that he wouldn't raise taxes to pay for the billion or so that Don Drummond says it will cost. It'll be done through "re-allocation" and "expenditure review". I believe that means "cuts" in layman's terms. But then he says he would raise taxes if there was a structural deficit. Why say that at all? Sounds like political cover to raise taxes - government deficits are a shell game - who's to really know what portion of any deficit is "structural".

Will he penalize Atlantic Canada and other remote areas through a one-size-fits-all National Standard?

Will it be temporary or permanent "fairness"?

Is he laying the groundwork for raising taxes?

LONDON, Ont. – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff plans to propose a radical overhaul of the employment insurance system that would provide equal access to jobless benefits for all regions of the country.

Ignatieff, on a tour of southwestern Ontario, told a business audience there should be "a national standard of eligibility" that sets a uniform number of hours that a worker anywhere in Canada would need to be eligible to draw employment benefits.

Such a measure could make it easier for people in hard-hit Ontario who find themselves out of work to qualify for employment insurance.

"We think now, with the nature of the national character of this recession, that a national standard is fairer. This is an issue of fairness," Ignatieff told reporters.

The federal Liberal leader pointed to six different standards in southwestern Ontario for the number of hours workers need to punch in before they qualify to draw unemployment benefits. He said there are 54 different thresholds of eligibility across the country.

Generally, the number of work hours required by the EI scheme depends on the local or regional labour market. In areas with traditionally more job opportunities, the thresholds are higher than in areas where, for example, employment is seasonal – like fishing and logging – and work hours are harder to come by.

TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond suggested the cost of standardizing access to benefits could be as high as $1 billion, if, for example, the national standard was set at 420 hours in the previous 52 weeks. Drummond supports such a change.

But Ignatieff did not put a cost on his plan, saying the party is investigating a range of options and is trying to come up with a "good, reliable estimate of what that could cost."

In London, Ignatieff said the federal Liberals are looking at whether EI changes should be "permanent or temporary," and are investigating the long-term implications for the government's finances "precisely because of deficit."

But Ignatieff flatly rejected the idea of raising taxes to pay for EI reform.

"There would be a hit, and we would seek to deal with the hit with effective expenditure review and reallocation. I'm not going to raise taxes to fund EI. That would whack business right between the eyes and probably make the unemployment situation worse."

But Ignatieff said he did not rule out raising taxes and cutting government spending in the future, after the economy and government revenues begin to recover, if the government were faced with a "hypothetical, structural deficit we can't dig ourselves out of in three, four, five years."

Answering questions from the audience after a luncheon speech, Ignatieff said EI reform is crucial to any anti-poverty plan.

"You can go from a job to poverty very fast in this country," Ignatieff said.

A Liberal anti-poverty and economic renewal strategy would include EI reform; a new national early learning and child-care program that would retain the Conservatives taxable $100 monthly benefit for pre-schoolers; improved access to post-secondary education; more federal money for basic science and research; and basic literacy, numeracy and language training.

Drummond said in an email interview that "standardizing access to EI (and for the most part also standardizing the length of benefits) at the same qualification standard is a fairly common recommendation made by many, including ourselves."

"Just because you live in a place that has a below-average unemployment rate doesn't mean it is easier to find a job," he said.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/618569

[madmax]

An article in today's Star had me a little confused to say the least.

That happens when someone speaks out of both sides of their mouth or says everything at the same time in order to cover all the bases. As long as it sounds good, it doesn't have to make sense.

On the road to majority.......???

[Keepitsimple]

I just watched Power Play with Tom Clark and saw Mr. Ignatieff trying to defend his comments on taxes. I was flabbergasted to hear him talk of an $80 billion dollar deficit. In fact, $80 billion dollars is the amount that will be added to Canada's debt over the next 4 years - the deficit for this coming year is actually "only" $34 billion and is less in subsequent years. He was not mis-speaking - he mentioned it twice. The man who would run our country - a man who would lead us through a recession - was confused or didn't know the difference between the deficit and debt.

[jdobbin]

I just watched Power Play with Tom Clark and saw Mr. Ignatieff trying to defend his comments on taxes. I was flabbergasted to hear him talk of an $80 billion dollar deficit. In fact, $80 billion dollars is the amount that will be added to Canada's debt over the next 4 years - the deficit for this coming year is actually "only" $34 billion and is less in subsequent years.

It sounds like he was describing it as Flaherty and the Finance department have been describing it. They said $34 billion this year, $30 billion next year and something in the next year that might be anywhere from $10 to $25 billion in deficit.

The Finance department had called it $60 to $85 billion in deficits over that time.

Unless you are trying to say that Ignatieff was saying that it was that much this year alone, I'm not sure what your concern was.

[Topaz]

Wasn't the Tories in deficit anyway, just before or just after this global recession hit, the Tories like to use as blame for their deficit??

[waldo]

I just watched Power Play with Tom Clark and saw Mr. Ignatieff trying to defend his comments on taxes. I was flabbergasted to hear him talk of an $80 billion dollar deficit. In fact, $80 billion dollars is the amount that will be added to Canada's debt over the next 4 years - the deficit for this coming year is actually "only" $34 billion and is less in subsequent years. He was not mis-speaking - he mentioned it twice. The man who would run our country - a man who would lead us through a recession - was confused or didn't know the difference between the deficit and debt.

my gawd! you were flabbergasted!!! Aside from making up something that didn't occur - there was no, as you say, "defending his comments"... as there was/is no need to do so. Taxes... they're an option! Wow, I'm flabbergasted!

yup - the $80 billion deficit number was mentioned... twice. Much like everyday comments from economists/analysts who speak of a deficit total over a multi-year period. What's that... you didn't hear a time period reference... oh my gawd! I'm flabbergasted... that you could take a blind leap of deficit-debt conjecture!

hey now - what's this... a quote from PBO Kevin Page where he speaks of a $105 billion deficit..... totaled over multi-years. Duh!

Future deficits could erase progress made on debt: budget officer

If the economic downturn is worse, Page said a low growth scenario, which would include a contraction of the economy by 1.5 per cent in 2009 to 2010, could result in deficits of $105 billion over the next five years.

interesting you don't mention the best part of today's Power Play... where Martha Hall Findlay roasted Den Del Mastro over Ian Brodie's frank revelations concerning the Harper Conservative's rationale towards GST cuts:

Ian Brodie offers a candid case study in politics and policy

“

Despite economic evidence to the contrary

, in my view the GST cut worked,” Brodie said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “It worked in the sense that by the end of the ’05-’06 campaign, voters identified the Conservative party as the party of lower taxes. It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”

yes... I'm flabbergasted! As was known and as has been proved - and pronounced - by reputable economists... the GST cuts do not work to favour the majority of Canadians. But, I guess, it's fair game for the Harper Conservatives to falsely announce themselves as the "party of lower taxes", oblivious to the real deficit situation... as Ian Brodie states, "it helped us to win".

80 per cent of Canadians would have been better off if the federal government had not cut the GST

Tax cuts don't give you money for free. They introduce a trade off between a private benefit in the form of lower taxes and a reduced public benefit.

For most Canadians . . . that trade-off is not very favourable.

[noahbody]

It'll be done through "re-allocation" and "expenditure review". I believe that means "cuts" in layman's terms.

You forget he has Dion on his team. He's capable of finding an extra $12 Billion.

[punked]

The liberals screwed EI now they are going to be ones to fix? F that.

[Smallc]

The liberals screwed EI now they are going to be ones to fix? F that.

'Liberals' aren't some kind of monolithic force.

[punked]

'Liberals' aren't some kind of monolithic force.

They were in the 90's when they could do whatever they wanted and they dipped into the EI fund to drain it to pay off the debt. We paid into EI as a safety net for when we became unemployed and the Liberals made it so we could never get it even when we lost our jobs. 30% of women and 40% who work and lose their jobs qualify for EI and only 80% of those who quilfy get it. Know whose rules they were? The Liberals. You get to run on your record and your EI record is horrific.

[Smallc]

They were in the 90's when they could do whatever they wanted and they dipped into the EI fund to drain it to pay off the debt.

Yes, and using the money to pay off the debt was completely legal. That still doesn't make Liberals some monolith who all think alike. That is true of any political party. Micheal Ignatieff doesn't have to be Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.

[jdobbin]

The liberals screwed EI now they are going to be ones to fix? F that.

Lot of people felt the same way about the deficit.

[punked]

Yes, and using the money to pay off the debt was completely legal. That still doesn't make Liberals some monolith who all think alike. That is true of any political party. Micheal Ignatieff doesn't have to be Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.

I never said it was illegal I said it was wrong. To say "I am going to take this money from you and give it back if you ever lose your job" then make such high standards that one can collect it is wrong. Using that money then for something else is wrong. It was wrong then, it is wrong now and this is why I will never vote for them. They screwed the pooch and aren't the ones who will fix it. At least when the conservatives get in I know they think EI is bad thing and they should make it so no can get it. The Liberals voted a few weeks ago against a bill Yvon Godin put forward to fix, in fact they kill his bills all the time on the subject. NO THANK YOU. You aren't the ones who will fix this problem.

[Smallc]

You aren't the ones who will fix this problem.

I was never planning to fix the problem, so no, it won't be me. It may be Michale Ignatieff though...it certainly won't be the NDP.

[Alta4ever]

Lot of people felt the same way about the deficit.

Ya the liberals created under Trudeau now they think they can fix it?

Its much the same as any problems faced by Canada today created under the Trudeau liberals, but those same liberals feel they hold the answer today.

[punked]

I was never planning to fix the problem, so no, it won't be me. It may be Michale Ignatieff though...it certainly won't be the NDP.

No it wont be the NDP becuase the of some 10+ bills they introduced one of which was to wave the 2 week waiting period the Liberals killed them all. It wont be Ignatieff either becuase his party has not only caused problem but also perpetuated the problem.

What is Ignatieff going to do wave the 2 week waiting period? He already voted against that (NDP) bill. Is he going to take the best 12 weeks? He voted against that (NDP) bill. What about dropping from 420 hours worked too 350? No wait Liberals voted against that (NDP) bill. Not only that but they are the ones who made up all these rules in the first place. This is not the issue you should run on becuase you broke the system.

Ignatieff is talking out of both sides of his mouth and he is lieing out of at least one of them. How is he going to fix it? I know where the NDP stand they have been trying to fix the system since the Liberals ruined it in 1995. I know where the Conservatives stand they don't think the system is broke. The Liberals stand anywhere they want too depending on the time of day and the position of the sun.

[jdobbin]

Ya the liberals created under Trudeau now they think they can fix it?

Did it once, I'm sure they can do it again.

Its much the same as any problems faced by Canada today created under the Trudeau liberals, but those same liberals feel they hold the answer today.

Well, the deficit didn't end under the Tories. Doesn't look like they will do it now.

[punked]

Ya the liberals created under Trudeau now they think they can fix it?

Its much the same as any problems faced by Canada today created under the Trudeau liberals, but those same liberals feel they hold the answer today.

To be fair it was the Chretien Liberals who ruined EI.

[jdobbin]

To be fair it was the Chretien Liberals who ruined EI.

Was he talking about deficits or EI?

[Alta4ever]

To be fair it was the Chretien Liberals who ruined EI.

We were talking about the deficit.

[punked]

We were talking about the deficit.

We were talking about both.

[85RZ500]

Hey Keep', he's a Lieberal, remember. And after paying into our EI fund all of his working life he should be an expert at it right?

As to taxes, one side of his yap sz yes the other sz no.

Again, he's a Lieberal, dats how dey talk.

Ah, the Convenient Canadian

[Alta4ever]

Did it once, I'm sure they can do it again.

You know the game played by Chretien and martin to advance their socialist agenda, and further the liberals policy of talking more control from the provinces.

Step 1 Cut federal transfers and program funding.

Step 2 as the provinces wither and are unable to support the programs, step back in and offer limited one off funds.

Step 3 add strings to the funds that remove the provincial autonomy from the program

Step 4 set up a federal arm to manage provincial jurisdiction from a central location in Ontario or Quebec

Again they didn't solve problems they just created new ones and more regional divides while concentrating power.

[jdobbin]

Ah, the Convenient Canadian

The political namecalling adds nothing to the discussion.

We know that Harper said he would not have a deficit and well, we now have a deficit.

Unless major cuts are coming, we are likely going to see some sort of tax increase. Ignatieff should just say that he can't rule one out. If Harper takes a hard line and then raises taxes himself, it will be he who takes the heat.

[Alta4ever]

We were talking about both.

Dobbin was talking about th deficit.