Canada's Employment Insurance (EI) System

[Pandion]

If we work in a seasonal piece rate industry which the commission deems should not qualify for EI, I sure hope we will no longer be paying into it.

[Evergreen]

I agree with Scooter that regulation changes to EI such as the ones noted above will serve to drive experienced people from the workforce. The rates people are paid certainly aren't enough to sustain a family through a full year. EI has always been a subsidy from the Feds to the BC government that facilitates the seasonal planting of trees. Without this subsidy, the economics just don't work.

It looks like another bureaucratic cost cutting measure that discounts the needs of a minority.

[Pandion]

The rates people are paid certainly aren't enough to sustain a family through a full year

Maybe the rates at average companies, like your own, need to go up then. Otherwise it's going to be more and more difficult to find competent workers to plant those cheap trees.

[Scooter]

It would be good if more workers knew about viable alternative employment that might be available during periods of the year when planting isn't possible.

Some examples:
- Pine beetle surveys, fall & burn work.

Outside the box:
- Snow plow drivers.
- Ski hill employees.

I'm not saying that this is a perfect replacement, but I know that I've been lucky enough to always keep myself busy year-round, for many years. But of course, not everyone is as lucky as I am.

The root problem here is that we live in Canada. I'd guess that about 90% of the "seasonal" fields of employment have winters off.

[retrovertigo]

I wonder though ... this all sounds pretty threatening in theory, but in the end we still have to be hired for the jobs. Unless it's the government themselves handing us these jobs, we still have to be hired. And not many employers want to give a well-paying job to someone who openly says they will be quitting in less than 6 months.

Most jobs that pay that well either require a proper education and experience, or ... what? Managerial positions at McDonalds or Tim Hortons etc. where there will always be other applicants who don't plan to leave come spring .... what else? Ski hills don't pay enough. All I can think of is construction work (shudder).

I think I'm mostly curious to see how this is implemented.

[Shanti]

Hi,
That sure does look like a worrisome piece of legislation. Quite suprising how many things go on, and how little we know about them until we trip over them or are clobbered with them. I actually took a look at the original link there, and noticed a button on the bottom of the screen allowing access to previous versions of the legislation. I scrolled back as far as 2003 and in every instance the clauses that you highlighted were exactly the same. So, while not necessarily good, at least maybe not as alarming as it originally seemed.

[Brandini]

In early August, the Conservatives announced changes to the "working while on claim pilot program" for EI recipients who find part-time work while still collecting benefits. We will have the option to revert to the old system, retroactively, in the New Year. If you have a part time fall/winter job and earn less than something like $380 per week (assuming full EI benefits), your better off under the old system. You will get a rebate, if you ask. Someone check my math...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2 ... anges.html

For example, a person receiving benefits of $330 a week and earning an extra $150 at a part-time job would bring in $405 under the pilot system, compared to $462 before the change.

Friday's reversal allows those EI recipients who qualify to keep the first $75 they earn in benefits while working part-time, as they could under the old system. Above the 40 per cent threshold, benefits would be reduced dollar for dollar.

Claimants who qualify must now decide whether they would be better off under the new system or the old – but they have to make a request with Service Canada to revert to the previous system, otherwise the new rules apply.

Claimants can't switch back and forth between the two systems week to week, but must choose one or the other.

The changes come into effect Jan. 6, 2013, but will be applied retroactively to Aug. 5, 2012, the day the pilot program took hold.

Starting in January, claimants must request to revert to the old pilot program's regulations within 30 days of their last EI benefit payment. For claims that have already ended, claimants will have 30 days from the introduction of this option.

The working while on claim pilot program is set to run until Aug. 1, 2015.

[Scooter]

Just posted on CBC.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ffect.html

Canadians who are looking for work while claiming Employment Insurance will see several changes go into effect today stemming from the federal government's EI reform announced in last year's March budget.

Claimants will be able to sign up for "new, much simpler to use" job alerts system that will see job postings from a variety of sources emailed to subscribers twice a day, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said in a news release.

Other measures, including changes to the definitions of "suitable employment" and "a reasonable job search" will also come into effect today. They were first announced by Finley in May.

Under the new regulations, several factors such as type of work, wages, commuting time, working conditions, hours of work, and personal circumstances, will be considered when defining "suitable employment."

In determining these criteria, EI claimants will be placed in one of three categories:

Long-tenured workers: "those who have paid at least 30 per cent of the annual maximum EI premiums for 7 of the past 10 years and who, over the last 5 years, have collected EI regular or fishing benefits for 35 weeks or less."
Frequent claimants: "those who have had three or more claims for EI regular or fishing benefits and have collected benefits for a total of more than 60 weeks in the past 5 years."
Occasional claimants: "all other claimants."
The federal government recently introduced Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, to give parents who receive EI parental benefits access to sickness benefits and create a new EI benefit for parents of critically ill children.

N.S. mom praises extended EI for families of sick kids
Other efforts to make EI a "more efficient program" include:

Improving the way EI benefits are calculated (this goes into effect on Jan. 7).
Limiting the EI premium rate increases to 5 cents each year until the EI operating account is balanced.
Extending the $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses for one year.
Introducing a "Working While on Claim" pilot project.

The comments section is quite enlightening.

[fluffer]

Scanning over the EI page there's this nugget about job searching:

Yes. While receiving EI regular benefits, you must be actively seeking work and documenting the details of your job search efforts. Under the provisions of the EI Act, you may be required to prove that you are making reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment at any time during your EI benefit period.

Keep a copy of this information in a safe place as we could ask you to provide it at any time within six years of your claim.

I do not think that the changes are unreasonable for the most part. However overall it seems to stink of the naive bureaucrats/ideologues who refuse to consult anyone except themselves http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... le-ei.html.

That 6 year idea just opens up a whole lot of room for abuse from the government, should it get desperate (although it will probably end up costing more for enforcement than any money they can garnish). I was on the receiving end of a recent pay garnishment through a government job I have. It was an issue I thought was sorted out (the issue was brought up through 2 different payroll people as it involved technicalities beyond my understanding). Well, years later I get told I am owing thousands of dollars. There's no wiggle room to squirm away from such decisions. It's unsettling to think that anyone that uses EI can't be fully sure that they own that income for 6 years (imagine having to redo 6 years of taxes if someone decides to change something).

But here's the big question I have after reading the comments section of the article. I was previously unaware that the Harper govt inherited a 57 billion dollar surplus in the EI fund. With the recent pledge to continue to up EI deductions, where did that 57 billion go? There was a small deficit over the past 4 years I am aware. Also, I was unaware that welfare is done through provincial budgets rather than federal, which is quite an incentive to push people out of EI.

Let's hope the aim for EI/welfare is not modeled like this. That would be as bad, even worse, than the outrageous minimum sentencing/prison reforms:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... lfare.html

[Scooter]

I just ended up doing a phone interview with CBC about the EI changes. Scary, since I'm not sure if I was fully qualified to speak on the topic. Anyway, I'm flying to Santiago later this afternoon, and the interview is supposed to air sometime tomorrow. I don't know when, but I won't be able to record it. If anyone hears it and finds a recording on the internet, can you let me know? I'd like to hear it. It was with CBC Kamloops, but I'm not sure if it will be fed out to the whole province or just to their local listening base.

[Mike]

The universal loathing in that comments section is indeed hilarious.

[ohsnap]

I can't seem to get this out of my head... and I'm not stating this as fact, I am simply curious if things could unroll this way.
Pouncers beware, I am not your enemy...

now I know they have stated this in the most vague of terms, but I take this:

(j) prohibiting the payment of benefits, in whole or in part, and restricting the amount of benefits payable, in relation to persons or to groups or classes of persons who work or have worked for any part of a year in an industry or occupation in which, in the opinion of the Commission, there is a period that occurs annually, at regular or irregular intervals, during which no work is performed by a significant number of persons engaged in that industry or occupation, for any or all weeks in that period;

to mean that us, as people who work in a seasonal industry, are possibly ineligible for EI. ??

Now, does this mean that (if it goes that way) planting companies will be changing their payrolls so that we are not paying into a system that no longer applies to us?
If we are prohibited from collecting funds, we should not be paying into those funds. no?

[Mike]

Definitely could go that way. Companies/planters would likely be taxed in the same way --- government is unlikely to provide exemption; many pay for services they do not at the time use --- that is taxes, for better or worse.

[fluffer]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... Index.html

Looking at at section 54 (j) ... or whatever its proper legal term is.... it has not changed in a very long time. I guess it is a section that has rarely been touched. But it could be, of course, a useful tool to achieve a political objective or for when a government becomes desperate.

[Scooter]

I just found my own interview:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/player.html?cli ... bc.news.ca

There are certainly a few statements that I would like to reword for various reasons, but that's the risk of doing a live recording. They did edit a bit out of the original interview.

I think the biggest criticism I would have of my own comments would be the suggestion that Interior planters are really not affected, or that Interior work isn't challenging. There is certainly some work in the Southern Interior that is more technically difficult than work in the Northern Interior, but I was thinking about my work from Kamloops northward when I was talking (which has been essentially mindless). Also, if you go with the math that 40% of 600 coastal planters are affected (a guess) then 240 people are affected. I said that Interior planters really aren't affected that much. But if 5% of 5400 Interior planters are affected, that's still another 260 or so, which in percentage terms is a pittance but in absolute terms is potentially equivalent to the coastal numbers. Mind you, the overlap between the two areas (for planters who work both areas) clouds the issue.

[chrisdunn]

I thought that it was handled well, good job.

It's nice to hear a voice for us once in a while, especially for us who have to (choose to) work in the silviculture industry year around.

[Mike]

Scooter: I think you slightly overestimate the number of people working 10 months, and slightly underestimate the number of people who use EI.

I think you could have slammed the policy on the "Can have work search reviewed up to 5 years after the fact" point.

Sorting out how 70% of 1500$/week, depends so much on the way that number is calculated:

If: 5 days week = 300 day, = 210/day = could mean you have to take any job at 21$/hour (assuming 10 hour days), that means all planters are now mandatory construction workers more or less (also, glut of construction workers in general now, forcing intense competition.) At which point, there is a cascading downward problem:
Planter plants to October 1st on the Coast. Gets on EI. Say Nov 1st, starts a construction job at 21$/hour. Works it until Dec 1st, at which point, worker glut/overhiring/snow effects cause another work shortage. Tries to go back on EI. Has to accept any job at 0.7*21=14.7$/hour, which is just above "any random crap." Planter is now either off EI, or by January 1st, picks up a job at 14.7$/hour, 35 hours a week, and is possibly extremely displeased about it.

[Scooter]

The number I used for the career planters is actually the number for estimated coastal vets, the closest possible number I could pull out of a hat with some justification - that's based on the WSCA estimates. Of course, you're correct in assuming that some of those coastal vets don't work the full early spring through late fall season. The fault there is probably that I intimated that working that many months is a standard, rather than the actual number used.

The work search record-keeping clause is six years, not five. I think that if I was criticizing that, it would appear to be somehow self-serving, either as personal griping or as expecting less restrictive treatment for a special-interest group (seasonal workers). The income tax department (Canada Revenue Agency) requires everyone to keep all taxation-related records for six years, so there is already a national precedent here affecting all tax-paying Canadians. I don't think arguing that one would be something that I'm morally comfortable with. I was pretty annoyed with it at first, but once I thought about it, I think it's consistent with government policy elsewhere.

I don't believe that there would be pressure to take jobs based on hourly rates if those ended up meaning that an individual was treated differently than at weekly rates. For the twenty-five years that I've been familiar with the system (note that I've only opened claims a couple times in all those years), the CRA has always asked about expected weekly income based on prior earnings, not broken it out into hourly. I could be wrong, but I'm optimistic on this one.

In the example that you gave, you don't have to cascade two claims. In fact, you can't. Your construction layout wouldn't give you enough hours to open a new claim. However, you're allowed to reopen your old claim even though you told them to shut it off because you found a job, as long as the initial time frames for that claim haven't been exceeded. In fact, even if you had enough hours at that new construction job to start a new claim, you are not allowed to open a new claim - you have to reopen your old claim and exhaust that one first.

Example: let's say I work from May 1st to November 1st of 2010 and open a claim immediately after getting laid off. Let's say it's good for one year or 52 weeks exactly, so it will be good until November 1st of the following year (2011). Let's assume then that I remain unemployed until February 1st, and start working again, closing out that EI claim. Between February 1st and September 1st, I work effectively continuously, albeit for seven different companies, but rack up far more valid work hours than necessary to enable me to open a fresh claim. On September 1st, I try to open a fresh claim with my new hours. That claim will be denied. They will instead tell me that I have had my previous claim re-opened, with no two-week waiting period, good starting effective September 1st and valid until November 1st. At that point, if I am still unemployed, I may open a claim based on my new 2011 hours. I will have to have a two-week waiting period on the new claim from the start of November to the middle of November. The normal rule about "you should really start your claim within 3 weeks of being laid off" is not a problem, because they realized that you re-opened an old claim. And interestingly, your weeks of eligibility for the new claim are not "shortened" because you started it a few months after finishing work. You are still entitled to your full allotment of weeks, which starts effective November 1st.

The more I read about these new rules, the more I think that it isn't really that big a problem for planters. If you're a good planter, and have good earnings, you'll be fine. Worst case, they'll ask you to take a 70% job and that's probably still the kind of wages a lot of Canadians would jump at.

[Mike]

The income tax department (Canada Revenue Agency) requires everyone to keep all taxation-related records for six years, so there is already a national precedent here affecting all tax-paying Canadians.

I think that's an excessive policy as well, so I guess that's where we differ.

As for cascading downwards, I didn't know precisely how EI worked, having not taken it, so I'm glad of your description of how those things work.

[Scooter]

I got burned on an audit once, on my moving expenses. I do my own taxes, and do them properly. Anyway, one year they wrote and asked me to document my moving expense claim by sending in all my receipts. This was not for the previous tax year, it was for I believe three years prior.

Anyway, I couldn't find the receipts. I knew that I had kept them and done them properly, so I wasn't too worried, but eventually as the deadline approached for the audit, I gave up and told them that I must have lost them. I had to obviously pay for some back taxes.

Eventually, just over a year later, I was cleaning up and suddenly found all the receipts. I contacted the CRA to let them know. They told me it was too late, and that I had needed to appeal within 12 months. Kind of annoying. My own fault for having misplaced them, but kind of annoying.

Anyway, I keep everything, to be safe. I've got all my tax-related records and receipts going back to the early 1990's. And slightly more organized than they were at the time of that audit.

[Mike]

Even as someone that generally is friendly to government taxation and thinks the things it buys are generally worthwhile, I find that a little excessive. I imagine some of the more cynical amongst us might find your story, and the new EI policy which you point out is in line with that tax policy, more than a little excessive.

[Scooter]

Oh, I just realized who the new rules are really going to hurt: teachers.
And some of their salaries are low enough that they'd be expected to take low-wage jobs in July/August.

[salbrecher]

Oh, I just realized who the new rules are really going to hurt: teachers.
And some of their salaries are low enough that they'd be expected to take low-wage jobs in July/August.

I may be wrong but my understanding is that full time teachers are not laid off during the summer and can not claim EI.

[Scooter]

Oh, that would make sense. Otherwise, I'm sure there would have been more uproar about the EI changes in the news. I haven't seen teachers mentioned yet.

I do have some friends who are teachers who draw EI in the summers, but I'm guessing that since they're young, they might only have temporary contracts, so they're probably in the minority.

[SwampDonkey]

Teachers aren't laid off, they get paid vacation on the provincial government dime. They also can take every 4 years off, but I think on reduced salary. Government employees have silver lines pensions paid by the tax payer. The rest of us have to work to 67 and most only get Canada Pension and Old Age Pension if they make it that far. You'd be surprised at the number of people that kick the bucket before they are 67. I lost 3 uncles all under aged 67 and no "freedom 55" for them.

[fluffer]

Interesting note about these changes:

I have an EI claim open and I calculated that, given my probable work situation during the periods I have an open claim, it would be better for me to work under the 'old' benefit calculation system.

So I went into the service canada to ask them to switch me to the 'old' system (as I am eligible). Turns out if you go to the old system they will only accept forms which they mail to you, and which you mail back. No emails, no phone, no internet submissions. I asked for a copy of the report to fill out from the office rather than wait for snail mail and they refused to give me one and stating the review could take up to 28 days to process. I can only presume this is all to increase the hassle to obtain benefits under the old system. The online forms were quite efficient but anyone who opts to the old system will find it takes 2+ weeks for their deposits to happen because of processing + snail mail times. Considering the likely volume associated with this program it seems like a huge burden to insist on doing everything manually. I pointed out to the elderly woman I talked to that it seemed like a blatant attempt to keep people away from using the 'old' benefit calculation scheme system, as well as a huge burden on workers. She only smiled coyly and said nothing. All of the people at the office I talked to about this switch had no answers and basically claimed ignorance about anything to do with the option to revert to the 'old' system. I find it hard to believe that the employees would be so aloof and unacquainted with their work to know nothing about how to work with/facilitate the change.

Maybe I'm reading a little much into my experience but here are the questions/thoughts that lingered after the visit:
1) Will they have people who file under the old system fill out manually the same reports as the people under the new system?
2) Will people who use the old system be scrutinized more thoroughly as a form of punishment for opting against the new system?
3) Are service canada employees generally ignorant of what's going on in their line of work, possessing no answers about a switch to the old system, or is it a concerted effort to avoid facilitating this option?

I doubt these questions would be surfacing in my mind if I were not aware of the penchant of the current government for dubious trickery and targeting groups or people that don't fit into their plans. I'll be interested to see if any of those intuitions are correct, that people who opt for the old system may be setting themselves up to be hassled.

Ok. Now time to take off this conspiracy hat. But seriously, if anyone else is experimenting with this let me know what changes you see. It might be a while before I have to fill out any reports or deal with EI but I'll post any updates. For science.

[SwampDonkey]

In the Prince Rupert office, in a town I worked straight through for years before going for an application, I was out right lied to. And I caught them in one in particular at the time. It was concerning mobility funding to move to another job. They told me there was no such thing. I call them liars and had proof there was, as I used to to moved there a few yeas before. Then they came around realizing I wasn't stupid. They also denied my claim because I was not BC born and raised. I never got a dime. I returned to my home province and discussed it with senior officials here and I got months of unpaid EI I was entitled to in one fat cheque. If I was you I would be going up the ladder. I don't see why you couldn't do everything online, the questions asked are all the same on the old system. Sounds about like those bums in the Prince Rupert office.

[fluffer]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-ed ... s-584.html

So recently this 'integrity work' has been revealed. This work is to diminish EI claims by certain quotas for different portions of the country. So essentially they are hunting for 1) People who abuse EI and if they cannot find sufficient of those then logically 2) People who can be denied/revoked claims by using obscure technicalities/reasoning/judgment. From the cbc article:

Regional targets for 'EI integrity' work
Atlantic: $58M
Quebec: $120M
Ontario: $110M
West: $115M
National Programs: $35M

Today we have this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... calls.html

The federal government has begun visiting employment insurance recipients at home as part of an "examination" being conducted while the program undergoes an overhaul.

I posted a link prior to an article on Georgia's welfare system. It details how it was the goal of the system to systematically deny, hassle, and disqualify every recipient. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... lfare.html)

Those 2 CBC articles I just pointed show that our government is moving in the same direction. Perhaps without as much vigor and extremism as the Georgia example. However, the movement in such a direction is not just a low-key unsubstantiated rumbling anymore. It's verifiable, it's intentional, and it's ideologically driven.

[SwampDonkey]

We don't have to worry about the $58M here in the Atlantic region. The Harper government just announced changes to the federal fisheries program and have found their $58M.

[SwampDonkey]

Today, Service Canada said only one EI claim has been denied in Atlantic Canada, it was appealed, and the claim was allowed.

Forget all the hype and tripe.

Client visitations have all ended in New Brunswick, many concerned for their safety in the work place. Why do you think the offices have bullet proof wickets? All those terrorist EI claimants. :D

[Scooter]

Article on CBC this morning:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... anual.html

EI audit manual outlines tips to root out fraud
Document suggests checking addresses, bank accounts, even physical appearance
By Leslie MacKinnon, CBC News Posted: Mar 1, 2013 4:17 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 1, 2013 10:44 PM ET

CBC News has obtained documents that reveal Service Canada investigators were instructed to carry out exhaustive examinations of 1,200 randomly selected EI claimants, who were collecting regular benefits, or benefits relating to maternity or parental leave, compassionate care, sickness and work sharing.

Investigators with the Integrity Services Branch were provided with a 23-page manual, dated October 2012, outlining investigative techniques intended to be used in a pilot project starting in November and winding up at the end of March.

The document makes it clear the Service Canada employees are to leave no stone unturned in their inquiries, even in the absence of evidence that selected EI recipients had done anything wrong. The document suggests investigators check addresses, bank accounts, medical documents and even the physical appearance of claimants.

The pilot project involves controversial home visits in which agents knock on the door of an EI claimant's home and ask for an interview on the spot, or deliver a letter to schedule a mandatory face-to-face meeting.

The documents, obtained exclusively by CBC News, reveal Service Canada agents do much more than visit private residences.

Investigators are told to seek out the claimants' former employer, and to select a sample of five prospective employers the EI recipient says he or she sought out for work opportunities. A check is to be made that the claimant really did make a job request, and employers are to be asked whether the claimant said the job was not suitable and if so, what reasons were given.

One section says the address a former employer lists for the EI recipient is to be verified, and if there is "indication of (a) manipulated residential address, the integrity investigator may ... obtain from the financial institution a record of all deposits, locations and withdrawals."

On Friday, Kellie Leitch, parliamentary secretary for human resources, told host Hannah Thibedeau of CBC News Network's Power & Politics that EI investigators do not have the power to access bank records, but EI claimants can be asked to sign confidential waivers to allow their banks to release their financial records.

Leitch said that the kinds of questions to be asked by investigators have been used before, particularly in a project in 2010 that looked into possible Old Age Security and CPP fraud in British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

"We have a lot of excellent Canadians who are taxpayers who are playing by the rules and they deserve the opportunity to know that this system is intact," Leitch said.

Photos verified, names checked on utility bills
Another section suggests a claimant's photo should be verified, or their name checked on utility bills or lease agreements that presumably must be handed over. An employer can be asked to describe the "physical characteristics" of the person who worked for them to see whether the description matches the EI claimant.

In some cases, the investigative techniques seem to delve into the far corners EI claimants' lives.

For claimants who are collecting maternity benefits that are part of the EI system, investigators are told to verify:

The child's identity and parentage.
In some cases, "the maternal relationship to the claimant."
Proof of the child's birth, a date that can be compared to the "maternity window."
One instruction to do with the interview of the maternity benefits claimant seems designed just to provide helpful information. "Share information, gently, on ability to claim maternity benefits in cases where child is lost after 19 weeks."

This section seems to refer to the fact that a woman who has been working and paying into EI is entitled to some maternity leave if she gives birth to a baby who dies after 19 weeks or more of pregnancy.

"The Conservatives are sending inspectors into peoples' homes, asking women whether they are in fact pregnant; asking to see peoples' bank accounts; quizzing them, pushing them, asking them questions," Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair said Friday, speaking at an event in Sherbrooke, Que.

Mulcair said that in a lot of regions in Canada, people rely on EI between seasons and between jobs, and the investigators are embarrassing them.

"They're breaching fundamental rules of decency and democracy by going into peoples' homes, asking highly personal questions," Mulcair said. "It's a scandal. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves."

Rodger Cuzner, the Liberal Party's human resources critic, said, "Obviously validation and being accountable is imperative but I think this goes far beyond that. I think it goes from, as I said before, it goes from investigation to intimidation."

'I can imagine these people hiking up their sweaters and showing the scars.'
— Rodger Cuzner, Liberal MP
Asked about the questions suggested for those collecting maternity benefits, Cuzner said, "It's playing out like a bad episode of Jerry Springer. I can imagine these people hiking up their sweaters and showing the scars."

NDP Opposition House Leader Nathan Cullen said Friday, "It seems somewhat hypocritical that they treat people who've lost their jobs as criminals, yet people in the Senate who may be committing fraud, they take a pinkie-swear and say that's good enough. That they're going door to door in a witch hunt manner after people on employment insurance, who sign a declaration every week and have to report every week what they're doing — meanwhile, senators are milking Canadians for tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars."

NDP leader questions legality
Service Canada says the Employment Insurance Stewardship Pilot project is designed to find out more about "error, abuse and possible fraud."

As an introduction to the project, one document begins, "Service Canada is responsible to pay over 6M people $80B in social benefits each year. Integrity Services Branch has a responsibility to ensure the right people are receiving the right amount at the right time and for the right purpose."

Nowhere in the document is there any mention of a dollar amount that the investigators are expected to realize in the discovery of overpayments. Minister of Human Resources Diane Finley, who is responsible for Service Canada, has repeatedly denied that employees have to meet quotas in uncovering fraud or errors in EI claims.

However, in a statement, Finley said, "Service Canada was able to stop almost a half billion dollars in ineligible payments last year, but the employment insurance program still lost hundreds of millions due to fraud."

A spokesperson for Finley confirmed that the department sought advice about the legality of some of the investigative techniques or "tools" to be used by EI investigators.

[Scooter]

I was involved in a discussion elsewhere and we were looking at some numbers for EI. When defending the fact that one is a recipient of EI, a person may claim, "I deserve it, because I paid far more into it in the past than I am taking out in benefits." Well, two things:

1. This post is not a criticism of people who collect EI. I feel that if you qualify for it according to the regulatory guidelines, then you deserve it, and shouldn't have to defend it.
2. The above point notwithstanding, it looks like the argument (of paying more into the system than you receive) is not going to withstand a good fact-checking.

How it works:
- An employee has 1.88% of their total gross earnings deducted from their regular paycheques, which goes to the EI fund (separately, the employee also has CPP and possibly tax withholding deductions).
- That figure of 1.88% changes from time to time, but it's last year's number and this year's number, so I'll use it.
- On top of the 1.88% employee contribution, the employer (your planting company) is required to contribute an additional 1.4x that amount (separately, the employer also has to make additional CPP and WCB contributions on the employees' behalf).

The maximum amount that you can pay into the system with employee contributions:
- If you make enough money, a cap comes into play on your annual contributions. That cap is set at $49,500 for 2015 numbers.
- When you apply the 1.88% rate to your gross income and factor in the cap, the MOST that a Canadian can contribute to the system is $930.60 in a year.
- Note that your contributions throughout the year can exceed that figure of $930.60 because employers are not able to track employees' totals (an employee can work for more than one employer) but this is not relevant since anything over your annual contribution amount gets refunded to you at tax time. So as an example last year, my own total contributions throughout the year were a bit over the maximum personal annual contribution, but when I filed my taxes in April, that excessive contribution came back to me.
- Bottom line, no matter how much you make, your maximum annual contribution will not net out to more than $930.60 in any given year.

The maximum amount that you can receive as a claimant in an annual period:
- Let's assume that you can open a one-year claim. I don't know if that's possible anymore, and I think the number of weeks depends on how long you were employed before your claim started, but at one point, that was the maximum cap, 52 weeks. EDIT: No, the maximum is 47 weeks total.
- Everyone has a one week waiting period, so the maximum length of time that you can receive benefits is 45 weeks.
- Benefits are currently paid out at a rate of 55% of insured earnings. This oversimplifies the definition, but insured earnings roughly translates to "what you made on average."
- This number is also capped. The cap is based on the same annual income amount talked about previously, ie. $49,500 per year (in 2015).
- This number then gets divided out by a calendar year, to come up with a weekly maximum benefit rate. $49,500 per year / 52 weeks * 55% of earnings.
- Bottom line, the maximum that you can receive from the system is $524.00 per week.

Knowing that the maximum number of weeks of benefits in a year is 45 week, and knowing that the maximum you can receive in benefits is $524.00 per week, you can see that the maximum amount an individual can receive in benefits on a single EI claim is $23,580.00. Some people receive this maximum amount, some do not.

Knowing that the most you can pay into the system is $930.60 per year, and that it is possible to receive a maximum of $23,580 from a single claim, you can see that someone who manages to draw EI for a full claim at the full rate would take 25.34 years (about 25 years, four months) in order to contribute the same overall dollar amount that you received in benefits on your "top-rate" claim.

This also doesn't take into account the time value of money, ie. net present value of an annuity stream. This is a complex topic which I won't get into in proper detail, but the short version is, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Money now is worth more than money later (because the value of money declines over time due to inflation). So when you look at 25 years of payments of $930.60, each of those payments is worth less and less (better for you, not so good for the government receiving them). If you go to a "present value of an annuity calculator" web page (such as http://financialmentor.com/calculator/p ... calculator) then you can figure it out. For example, $960.30 per year over 25 years at a constant interest rate of 5% yields a NPV of only $13,531.41. You'd have to contribute $960.30 per year for 50 years to even get a NPV of $17,531.17. Getting a NPV of $23,580, to "pay back the government" is not possible at annual payments of $960.30, or at an interest rate of 5%. The only way to get to a NPV of $23,580 would be to have an annual interest rate of 3.25% annually. That seems achievable right now, but it isn't likely based upon a long-term historical analysis.

TL;DR
The average Canadian, working for the maximum number of years possible in a life-time career until a forced retirement at age 65, can probably only contribute enough over their lifetime to cover the cost to the government of about 30-35 weeks of maximum benefits in their lifetime. If you, as an EI recipient, collect more than that amount in a claim (or cumulatively from several claims) then you're a net drain on the equilibrium of the system.

This is why seasonal claimants are such a "problem" for the stability of the system. So yes, a group of seasonal claimants puts a burden on the system that must be covered by the government effectively raising the contribution rate on all Canadians.

But as I said, if you qualify for benefits under the rules of the system, then you shouldn't feel bad about opening a claim. I don't qualify for EI myself because of certain personal restrictions, but I don't begrudge anyone else from getting it if they're eligible.

[SwampDonkey]

Jobs are more stable in government and those corporations that feed off the public purse. For those whose jobs are dependent on weather conditions it's not so easy for most to step into another job. Who does the job when the weather is right again? In the majority of cases the next job isn't there to step into. And it's not so easy to uproot and keep moving around the country for the next pay cheque. For starts, it has to be there, your told it's there before you go to work there. It costs money, and if the job isn't there it's worst than nothing, your in the hole. The money was pissed away.

[Scooter]

Changes coming down the pipeline:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mth ... rtr.tp1D=1

The Government of Canada is keeping its commitment to helping the middle class and those seeking to join it by improving the Employment Insurance (EI) program. New measures are now in effect this month that will make more Canadians eligible for support, simplify job-search rules, and provide more help for people impacted by the commodities sector downturn. It will mean that EI is there for more Canadians that need it, when they need it.

The changes include the elimination of EI eligibility requirements for new entrants and re-entrants. Instead of having to accumulate 910 hours of insurable employment, claimants newly entering the workforce or returning after an absence of two or more years must now meet the same eligibility requirements as other claimants in the economic region where they live. This measure will provide access to EI support for many new workers, including young Canadians, women and new Canadians.

Job search responsibilities for EI claimants have been simplified. Rules enacted in 2012 forcing unemployed workers to commute farther or take lower-paying jobs have been reversed.

Canadians living in the 15 identified EI economic regions hardest hit by the commodities downturn and that have experienced a sharp and sustained increase in local job losses have started to receive extended EI regular benefits. This measure will ensure that eligible Canadians in these regions have the financial support they need while they search for work.

These three measures, which were outlined in Budget 2016, came into effect on July 3, 2016, and are part of the Government’s plan to help Canada’s middle class and those working hard to join it.

Quotes

“We are delivering on our commitment to improve the Employment Insurance program so that it better serves workers and employers. These changes to the EI program give Canadians access to more help when they need it”.

–The Honourable MaryAnn Mihychuk, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour

Quick Facts

Budget 2016 will provide $2.7 billion over the next two years for improvements to EI to help Canadians across the country.
The elimination of the new entrant and re-entrant rules is expected to benefit approximately 50,000 Canadians who claim EI annually across Canada.
Eligible claimants in 15 economic regions where EI benefits were extended are eligible for an additional 5 weeks of EI regular benefits, up to a maximum of 50 weeks. Up to an additional 20 weeks of EI regular benefits is also available to long-tenured workers, up to a maximum of 70 weeks. This measure will help provide approximately 235,000 workers with financial stability until they find new employment, with up to $13,000 per worker.
The extension of Work-Sharing agreements, in effect as of April 1, 2016, is expected to benefit up to 33,000 additional workers across Canada, and help companies keep their workforce stable as commodity prices rebound.