Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Unpacking the details of Manitoba Hydro September 9, 2019
    What would a long view of Manitoba Hydro all entail.  Read report here.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA submission to Treasury Board consultation on regulatory modernization September 6, 2019
    On June 29, 2019, the federal government launched a public consultation on initiatives intended to "modernize" the Canadian regulatory system. Interested Canadians were invited to provide input on four current initiatives: Targeted Regulatory Reviews (Round 2) Review of the Red Tape Reduction Act Exploring options to legislate changes to regulator mandates Suggestions for the next […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Join us in November for the 2019 CCPA-BC Gala, featuring Nancy MacLean September 3, 2019
    Tickets are available for our 2019 Annual Gala Fundraiser, which will take place in Vancouver on November 21. This year’s featured speaker will be Nancy MacLean, an award-winning historian and author whose talk, The rise of the radical right: How libertarian intellectuals, billionaires and white supremacists shaped today’s politics, is very timely both in the US and here in […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Report looks at captured nature of BC’s Oil and Gas Commission August 6, 2019
    From an early stage, BC’s Oil and Gas Commission bore the hallmarks of a captured regulator. The very industry that the Commission was formed to regulate had a significant hand in its creation and, too often, the interests of the industry it regulates take precedence over the public interest. This report looks at the evolution […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Correcting the Record July 26, 2019
    Earlier this week Kris Sims and Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Sun and Toronto Sun. The opinion piece makes several false claims and connections regarding the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP), which we would like to correct. The […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

EI Premium Freeze Leaves Unemployed Canadians in the Cold

Today, finance minister Jim Flaherty announced a three-year freeze on Employment Insurance (EI) premiums, ostensibly because a stronger job market has alleviated the need for additional premium revenue.

Under the current policy, employee premiums were rising each year by 5 cents per $100 earned. Flaherty had announced this policy on September 30, 2010, when 1.5 million Canadians were officially unemployed. Since then, that figure has edged down to 1.4 million, hardly a breathtaking reduction in unemployment.

The number of Canadians receiving regular EI benefits has declined more sharply, from 709,990 to 512,280 between September 2010 and June 2013 (the most recent EI figures available). But the falling number of EI recipients reflects not only the slight reduction in unemployment but also government policy changes that make benefits less accessible. Freezing premiums effectively locks in those benefit cuts.

The losers from this freeze are unemployed Canadians who are more likely to be left out in the cold without benefits given limited funding for EI. The winners are employers, who will pocket significantly more than their employees.

A worker making up to the year’s maximum insurable earnings will save only a nickel for every $100 earned next year. Meanwhile, employers will pocket almost $400 million of the $660 million in estimated savings for “job creators and Canadian workers in 2014.” (As Finance Canada highlights in its own release, employers pay 60% of total EI premiums.)

UPDATE (Sept. 10): Quoted in The Globe and Mail (A3), National Post (FP4), Toronto Star (B1) and other newspapers via Canadian Press and Postmedia.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Bill Prouten
Time: September 10, 2013, 12:43 pm

Not only does it lock in a “new normal” for the EI budget, making future increases to help people less likely, but the “savings” are practically non-existent to the average worker.
My understanding is that the max EI dues payable to the fund is based on a $48,000 salary. The normally scheduled increase of 5 cents per $100 earned therefore only works out to $24 a year for someone making $48,000 or more. Peanuts. 6 lattes. A year.
If you’re one of the increasing number of people working minimum wage service industry jobs, say at a generous $12/hour, that regularly scheduled increase amounts to $12.48, assuming you work full time, 5 days/week, with no vacations.
And so, Flaherty has said “I’ll buy you 2 lattes this year, and in exchange you will forego the ability to claim a reasonable amount to live on should you find yourself out of work.”

Nice. Why isn’t anyone publicizing this?

It’s the same stupid ploy the Conservatives used on the daycare issue; they cancelled plans to expand daycare at reasonable rates to working people, and instead gave people something that amounts to about $1200 (?) year…..which amounts to $100 month to spend on childcare…..awesome.

Write a comment





Related articles