Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Implementing these looser EI rules across Canada would have the same damaging
result. It isn't a question of a unique east-coast culture that favours idleness. We
should not forget that in the mid-1990s, an astounding one in nine people in
Ontario were on welfare as a result of generous payments.
EI is a byzantine system with different rules for workers. In parts of the country
with relatively low unemployment, 6% or less, it can take about 18 weeks (700
hours) of work to qualify for assistance. In places where joblessness is over 13%
benefits can flow after working as little as 10.5 weeks (420 hours). All said,
Canada has 58 different EI zones.
Consider New Brunswick and the U. S. state of Maine. These two neighbouring
jurisdictions have much in common. Both are located in the eastern periphery of
the continental market, they each rely on a large resource sector and they have
below-average incomes. Where they differ is with jobless benefits and long-term
unemployment.
The report, entitled "The Long-Term Effects of Generous Income Support Program:
Unemployment Insurance in New Brunswick and Maine, 1940-1991," found only
5.7% of male workers and 3.3% of female workers in Maine collected benefits in
1990. Cross the northern border into Canada and 29.5% of male workers and
29.7% of female workers were on the dole. The authors estimated more liberal
benefits in N. B. accounted for two thirds of this difference. They also found that
since 1982, the joblessness rate in N. B. has consistently been above 12%
whereas the out-of-work rate in Maine has routinely been below 8%.
The Atlantic provinces can afford such a rich system because workers in the rest
of Canada pay for it. EI payroll taxes paid by central and Western Canadians make
it possible. These workers transfer more than $500-million in benefits annually to
the East Coast. But that's not the worst part. The Atlantic EI scheme retards job
creation by making it more costly for business to hire workers.
Companies that have, in the past, been ready to hire could not find enough
workers willing to trade leisure for regular work. This choice is influenced by
generous EI payments and explains the paradox of both high unemployment and
a labour shortage in the region. As a result, companies invest less in Atlantic
Canada or leave in search of more willing workers in New England or central and
Western Canada. The result is more unemployment and an exodus of young
people to the United States or other parts of the country. It is a vicious circle with
less economic growth, more dependency and declining opportunity.
People assume that higher unemployment rates necessitate more EI. But it is
worth considering to what degree generous EI has caused chronic unemployment.
Indeed, if EI rules were similar across provinces, it would be an incentive for
workers in areas with high unemployment to move to locations with more jobs.
That EI should be reformed is not disputed. But lowering the eligibility rate to 360
or even 420 hours would blow a permanent hole in Ottawa's balance sheet,
damage Canada's labour market and be costly to future job creation.
The Conservatives' program of massive deficit spending is bad news for taxpayers
because it will mean paying more interest to service the national debt. But
Ottawa's reckless fiscal expansion should not hurt employment growth prospects
in the middle and long term, provided government expenditures are curtailed and
taxes are not increased. The same cannot be said about a more generous EI
system. It would be detrimental to labour market growth. Mr. Ignatieff proposal is
ill-conceived and the government should ignore him.