rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Re-defining Employment Insurance

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Photo: Thandiwe Mccarthy/Flickr

Change the conversation, support rabble.ca today.

Several key changes to Employment Insurance came into effect on Sunday. The EI program is about to get grinch-ier, especially for those who happen to have needed it more than once.

What changed

Some of the changes made are reasonable, some are technical and some are misguided. Together, these changes go some way toward redefining what employment insurance is all about, and changing how Canadians think about employment insurance.

Here is a rundown of changes that came into effect on Sunday:

1. The creation of three categories of EI users -- frequent, occasional, and long-tenured. The definition of suitable employment that applies to an individual claimant will vary depending on their category and the length that they have been on claim. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Minister Finley assert that this confusing and clunky categorization will in no way increase errors or appeals (I, myself, am skeptical).

2. The definition of reasonable job search. Mostly clarification, and mostly reasonable.

3. The definition of suitable employment. Focused on a quick return to work, and emphasizing that no one will be financially worse off working than they were while they were on claim. Forces claimants to accept wages between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of their previous earnings. Good news: Higher travel or child-care costs will be taken into account when determining if someone is better off in a given job situation. Bad news: This is an incredibly short-sighted view of 'better off'. The purpose of EI is to allow for better job market matches, not faster job market matches.

4. Job alerts system. Sends targeted emails to claimants based on postal code. A good idea, but it falls into "it's the least you could do" category. Only works for those with access to the Internet.

EI myths and facts

Discussion of these changes invariably bumps into one or more common EI myths. In fact, getting support for these changes requires voters to buy into the following myths.

1. Myth: Employment Insurance is taxpayer-funded.

It is paid for entirely by employers and employees. The government stole $56 billion, but they don't pay back into it. So there are no savings to government coffers from changes to EI. To qualify for EI, you have to have paid into it.

2. Myth: Employment Insurance prevents people from leaving Atlantic Canada.

Anyone who thinks this has never been on a flight from St. John's or Halifax heading west. Since 2008, over 7,000 (net) Canadians left the Maritimes for other Canadian provinces. During the same time period, over 55,000 (net) Canadians moved to Saskatchewan and Alberta from another province (CANSIM 051-0018). This doesn't include those who commute incredibly long distances to get work in the oil patch.

3. Myth: Seasonal workers are lazy fishermen.

Many seasonal workers are highly skilled, and some of these skills even transfer between seasons (think heavy machinery drivers that plow snow in the winter, and dig basements in the summer). But the fact that their employment is seasonal makes it more precarious, and more likely that on any given change of season there simply won't be enough work to go around.

4. Myth: Claimants will always be better off working under these changes.

This is more the official line than a myth, but it's wrong nonetheless. As I already noted, the purpose of EI is to allow for better job market matches, not faster job market matches. A parent who is eight weeks into their claim, and is presented with an evening job at 80 per cent of their previous wage would be better off continuing to look for a job that paid higher wages and allowed them time with their child in the evenings.

There are some other EI facts, that help make sense of why these changes are misguided.

1. Fact: EI is not terribly generous in the first place. Claimants receive up to 55 per cent of their average weekly income, up to a maximum of $485/week. The average payment is around $370/week.

2. Fact: There are over 5 unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy in Canada. News reports of labour shortages are grossly exaggerated. Where they do exist, the solution is often more spots for training and apprentices, and maybe (gasp) higher wages.

3. Fact: Most jobs created since the recession have been temporary. A rise in precarious employment will mean a rise in the number of unemployed without access to Employment Insurance, even without these changes. These changes will increase the tendency toward precarious employment, as people are encouraged to take 'bad jobs'.

What the changes mean

The previous definition of 'suitable employment' in the Employment Insurance Act had the clear intent of ensuring that unemployed workers did not unduly impact wages and working conditions for the broader labour market. The system was set up to ensure that claimants had time to assess their labour market situation, determine if they needed to switch fields, get training or move.

The new hurry-up approach to EI will act to lower wages, lower productivity and threaten seasonal businesses.

Combined with other changes announced in the last budget, such as the consolidation of EI, CPP and OAS appeals into one Social Security Tribunal, these new regulations are a depressing start to the New Year for unemployed workers. At least the grinch eventually had a change of heart.

Photo: Thandiwe Mccarthy/Flickr

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.