Harper spins EI fiction
The Toronto Star
Section: Editorial
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Page: A18
Stephen Harper is welcome to tell the 350,000 workers who have lost their jobs since October that Canada has a "very generous employment insurance system." He is free to claim, "the system we have in place meets the needs of the market."
But when the Prime Minister resorts to fabrication to deflect demands for EI reform, he crosses the line.
Last week in the House of Commons, Harper did that repeatedly.
He accused the Liberals, who have proposed a temporary relaxation of the eligibility rules for jobless benefits, of peddling a plan "to raise payroll taxes to the roof in perpetuity for all workers and small businesses."
That is simply false. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has made it clear that his proposal is a short-term recession-relief measure. It would not require an increase in payroll taxes. They would remain frozen under the Liberal plan.
The Conservatives used this tactic themselves in January. They included an extra five weeks of EI benefits in their budget. They didn't raise payroll taxes. They included the cost in their economic stimulus package. That is what the Liberals intend to do.
Harper told Parliament the Liberal plan "would do nothing for the economy or the recession."
Actually, it would do quite a lot. It would make roughly 150,000 jobless Canadians eligible for EI benefits. They would use the money on food, rent, transportation and household necessities, providing direct stimulus to the economy.
This would work much faster than the government's $12 billion infrastructure program, which is mired in red tape. Four months after the budget, only a handful of projects have been approved. Most of the cash is still sitting in Ottawa.
Harper said more than 80 per cent of Canadians who pay into the EI fund are receiving benefits.
Not according to Statistics Canada. The federal agency's EI coverage survey, released in January, showed that 58.6 per cent of EI contributors collect benefits. What is more, millions of Canadians can't pay into the government- administered fund because they're self-employed or work on contract.
Ignatieff intends to introduce a formal motion next month calling on the government to set a uniform national standard of 360 hours of paid work to qualify for employment insurance. (The current threshold varies from 420 hours to 910 hours, depending on a worker's location and employment history.) It would stay in place for the duration of the recession.
He says he is willing to fight an election on the issue.
If Harper chooses to defend the status quo while thousands of Canadians lose their jobs, that is his business. If he chooses to mislead the public, he can expect strenuous, factual resistance.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Strong language from the Star
Granted the Star is not seen as pro-Conservative, but it hasn't been very Liberal friendly for the last little while either. Perhaps it's evenhanded???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
James, what party, when it was government, changed the EI rules to make it harder to qualify for, reduced the number of weeks of eligibility and stole $54 billion dollars from the EI Fund to help falsely balance budgets and to create false surpluses?
Interesting Fact:
At the time the Liberals made the changes to E.I. in 1996 , the national unemployment rate was higher (9.6%) than it is today.
It was also higher in 1997 ( 9.0%) and 1998 (8.5%). Rates as of July each year. Unemployment hit a peak of 10.6% in January 1997, and remained higher than today's average for three years.
At no time did the Liberal's think the E.I. qualifying rules were unfair.
Forget the motion route; the NDP motion a while back on EI was passed by the three opposition parties and ignored by the Tory government.
If Ignatieff really wants changes to the EI program, the way to do that is through legislation, supported by all three opposition parties; if Harper resists, there will be an election (if the legislation is a matter of confidence).
Motions are meaningless bragging; confidence matters are the meat of politics.
So, Michael: put the Liberals money where our mouths are. Table legislation and let's get this government out of power and elect one which will take positive and timely steps to help jobless Canadians.
But the opposition cannot pass and enforce any motions which require additional expenditures.
This change to EI eligibility (work 48 days and collect EI for 50 weeks no matter where you live) is projected to cost an additional 1.3 billion per year.
There would have to be a corresponding increase in EI premiums paid by workers and employers as well.
Very very muddy this whole thing. Aside from making good headlines not a very practical policy at all.
Don't you think the Liberals had some GOOD reasons for changing EI to 56 different regional qualifications a decade ago when unemployment was even higher than it is now?
At what time to Conservatives step up to the plate and take responsibility for Harper's actions? Harking back to Sir John A. MacDonald or the times of Julius Ceaser doesn't cut it.
"It's the Liberal's fault", doesn't cut it.
Our economy is in a shambles and the best that HARPER can come up with is to LIE about it. His LEADER...SHIP seems to be a leaky vessel at best.
James, you have got to be kidding - right, with this suggestion:
Granted the Star is not seen as pro-Conservative, but it hasn't been very Liberal friendly for the last little while either. Perhaps it's evenhanded???The liberal star, most often called by many folk, is the the mouth organ for the liberals - both federally and provincially and to say otherwise, ends up reducing the point of your blog.
Yes, the liberals made changes to EI when the unemployment rate was higher and thus made Canada a part of the structural adjustment to neoliberalism and capitalistic globalism. And this wasn't done in the dark ages, as another commenter suggested.
Iggy - who evoked the I again, as to I am keeping this govt in power (egotism knows no bounds and I thought we had a British parliamentary system where no one pres)but I digress, Iggy and the liberals had a chance back in January to bargain with the Cons to support their budget, and Iggy blew it.
Now johnny come lately is pretending to care about workers, where a few short months ago, Iggy didn't give a fig leaf. So, I see this as just posturing - again.
The lady protests too much!
Post a Comment