Caledon Institute on EI

The Caledon Institute has an excellent op-ed in the Toronto Star today, explaining the deficiencies of our current Employment Insurance system and calling for major reforms.

Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Michael Mendelson point out that EI has gotten us through many recessions, but it is in significantly different shape now than it was in the last recession. In 1990, twice as many of Canada’s unemployed qualified for EI benefits that were worth $123 more per week.

Today, due to regional rate variations that do not necessarily reflect real life circumstances, the number of unemployed who qualify for benefits varies significantly across the country. In Ontario and the Western provinces, only 1 in 3 unemployed workers qualify for benefits. In Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, 4 out of every 5 unemployed workers qualify. Meanwhile, workers in some regions get benefits for up to 50 weeks, while others – who may have worked more hours to qualify – receive only 19 weeks.

The hardest hit demographic has been non-standard employees, who already face marginalization and poverty. Non-standard work includes temporary, contract, part-time and self-employment, and is characterized by low wages and limited benefits.

Battle, Torjman and Mendelson argue that while EI can and should be reformed – especially to deal with the rising unemployment caused by this recession – it is time to revisit Canada’s entire system of support for working age adults, including EI, welfare and disability benefits.

They have taken this argument to Parliament Hill recently, presenting to both the Human Resources, Skills and Social Development committee (HUMA) and the Status of Women committee.

At the HUMA committee, Battle argued, “The shrinkage in coverage of employment insurance is the most extraordinarily negative event in the modern history of Canadian social policy. I mean, if you think of it in terms of a social insurance contract between working Canadians and their federal government, everybody pays for this program, everybody who's an employed person—it doesn't cover the self-employed, of course—and a small percentage of them, when they need the program, get the program. It's not only income benefits; it's also the related training and employment development services that are connected with eligibility for EI.”

Battle’s brief to the Status of Women committee should be read by anyone who wishes to understand the fundamental unfairness of Canada’s current EI system, and in particular its effect on women. Among the highlights, Battle points out:

• women have suffered more from the reduction in coverage in the 1990s than have men. In 2008, only 39.1% of unemployed women qualified for EI, while 45.5% of men did.
• 40% of women work in non-standard or precarious jobs, compared to only 29% of men.
• 1 in 4 Canadian workers are considered low-paid (defined as earning less than two-thirds of the median wage, or less than $11 an hour). However, 1 in 3 women are low-paid, while only 1 in 5 men are.
• average annual benefits for women are nearly $3000 less than average annual benefits for men. Women also get fewer weeks on average than men, and therefore they are more likely than men to exhaust their benefits before finding new employment.
• in half of Canada’s major cities, the proportion of unemployed who qualify for benefits is less than 30%.

If these facts don’t convince anyone that there is a crisis in EI, I don’t know what will.