Set national standards for EI

Posted on November 8, 2011 in Policy Context

Source: — Authors: , – opinion/editorialopinion
Published November 8, 2011.   Colin Busby and David Gray

Ontario lost 75,000 full-time jobs last month — by far the biggest loss among the provinces. As many of these laid-off workers now turn to the employment insurance (EI) program for help, can they count on a program adequate for Ontario’s tough times? The evidence says no.

Under the current system, EI benefits are more easily available, and for longer, in regions with high unemployment rates, such as rural New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, than in regions with low ones, such as Ontario’s urban centres. For example, a manufacturing worker who loses his or her job in Oshawa would need to have worked for 630 hours to qualify for between 18 and 42 weeks of benefits, whereas a similar worker in Sydney, N.S., would need to have worked for only 420 hours to qualify for between 32 and 45 weeks of benefits.

Ontario is currently divided into 17 EI regions. Traditionally, Ontario’s urban regions, such as auto-manufacturing centres Windsor and Oshawa, have been treated as low-entitlement regions.

Across Canada the regional unemployment rate and the number of hours worked determines the generosity of EI benefits. Among Canada’s 58 EI regions, for instance, fewer than 60 per cent of job losers in Ottawa would qualify for benefits whereas more than 90 per cent would qualify in Restigouche-Albert, N.B., would qualify. Regions in the Atlantic provinces tend to have a bigger share of workers that qualify, particularly in rural regions, because the regional unemployment rate is considered an indicator that unemployed job-seekers would have a harder time finding work.

But losing a job can cause laid-off workers similar hardship regardless of where they live. And neither workers in high-unemployment, high-entitlement nor low-unemployment, low-entitlement regions benefit in the long run from the system’s current design. In high-unemployment regions, the program encourages long-term EI dependence that results in concentrated pockets of persistent unemployment, trapping workers in patterns of seasonal, part-year labour.

Full-time, full-year workers and their employers located in regions with lower unemployment rates are the primary funding source for the pattern of part-year work in high-unemployment regions. So the bulk of the Canadian labour market, through its EI contributions, redistributes income toward seasonal workers and industries. Variable entrance requirements are the opaque screen through which this redistribution takes place. As a consequence, the EI program leads to under-coverage for some workers in certain areas of the country, weakening EI’s effectiveness as a social safety net.

In light of the massive job losses in 2008 and 2009, the eligibility and entitlement parameters of the system proved to be inadequate for workers in many of Ontario’s regions. This led the government of Canada to offer patchwork solutions: a five-week extension for long-tenured workers’ EI benefits and an expansion of labour adjustment programs. The government’s decision to extend five weeks of EI benefits to long-tenured workers was relief primarily targeted for Ontario’s workers. But this was also an admission that the current EI system is not well-designed to meet the needs of all workers in all regions.

A straightforward EI system would ensure that those who suffer unexpected unemployment, no matter where they live, face limited immediate financial hardship. Regionally based criteria for determining eligibility and the length of the benefit period should be replaced by uniform, countrywide, EI entrance requirements and benefits. This would probably entail shorter qualification periods in some low-unemployment regions, but the uniform entry requirement should not be set at a low level because that would encourage part-year, frequent use of EI benefits in low-unemployment areas.

It’s high time that Ontario’s workers get a fairer shake from the EI program.

Colin Busby is a senior policy analyst with the C.D. Howe Institute and David Gray is a professor with the University of Ottawa. Their paper, Mending Canada’s Employment Insurance Quilt: The Case for Restoring Equity, can be found at

<–set-national-standards-for-ei >

Tags: , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2011 at 8:26 pm and is filed under Policy Context. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

One Response to “Set national standards for EI”

  1. Danielle Skelton says:

    I agree with this post completely. Employment Insurance (EI) is supposed to be a social safety net – something that all people can rely on if and when they need to. Where one lives should not determine their amount of eligibiliy for EI. The fact that EI eligibility varies from region to region, implies that EI has already predetermined which groups of unemployed individuals are more and less deserving than others facing unemployment.

    Unemployment is a diffecult issue that most people will face at some point in their lifetime. It doesn’t necessarily matter where you live or high the unemployment rate is in your region, as unemployment can still be a stressful and foreboding obstacle to overcome for anyone. EI is a financial assistance program that should be easily accessable, and provide reassurance to those going through job loss, as this can happen unexpectedly. People should feel assured that they or even their family, will not be facing immediate financial hardship. Ones region should not determine the amount of social assitance and financial security one recieves, as these boundries defeat the purpose of the idea of EI – financial assistance that is supposed to be readily availiable to all Canadians.

    I fully agree with the idea of making EI benfits and eligibility standardized. I believe the fact that EI benefits and elegibility arn’t standardized implicates that some citizens and regions are of higher priority than others. Lack of standardization also makes room for inequity between unemployed individuals, dividing the working class into more and lesss deserving people. Standardizing EI would eliminate this idea, as well as hopefully lower the boundries facing those trying to gain their EI benefits.


Leave a Reply