EI Reform

Follow:

  • RSS
  • Cite

    Cite

    APA

    Open Government, Government of Canada. (2018, March 23). EI Reform. Retrieved from http://open.canada.ca/en/idea/ei-reform
    MLA

    “EI Reform.” Open Government, Government of Canada, 23 March 2018, http://open.canada.ca/en/idea/ei-reform
    (Report an issue with citation)
Submitted By
Ed Stinson
Votes: 30

The EI system is broke. It is no longer an insurance program - it's an income augmentation program. It encourages people to seek seasonal employment and refuse fulltime work. As a result, there are labour shortages in areas of high unemployment.

Add new comment

About text formats
Rules of Engagement

We look forward to hearing from you. Your ideas and feedback are central to the development of both the Open Government portal and the Government of Canada’s approach to Open Government.

While comments are moderated, the portal will not censor any comments except in a few specific cases, listed below. Accounts acting contrary to these rules may be temporarily or permanently disabled.

Comments and Interaction

Our team will read comments and participate in discussions when appropriate. Your comments and contributions must be relevant and respectful.

Our team will not engage in partisan or political issues or respond to questions that violate these Terms and Conditions.

Our team reserves the right to remove comments and contributions, and to block users based on the following criteria:

The comments or contributions:

  • include personal, protected or classified information of the Government of Canada or infringes upon intellectual property or proprietary rights
  • are contrary to the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982
  • are racist, hateful, sexist, homophobic or defamatory, or contain or refer to any obscenity or pornography
  • are threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing
  • are contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
  • constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
  • encourage or incite any criminal activity
  • are written in a language other than English or French
  • otherwise violate this notice

Our team cannot commit to replying to every message or comment, but we look forward to continuing the conversation whenever possible. Please note that responses will be provided in the same language that was used in the original comment.

Our team will reply to comments in the official language in which they are posted. If we determine the response is a question of general public interest, we will respond in both official languages.

Comments

Submitted by Should be abolished on February 23, 2023 - 7:30 PM

I pay into EI and I am not even eligible for it , nor would I ever be eligible for it. Yet I still have to pay it. It should be optional add on , not required to pay

Submitted by Curtis Olof on November 16, 2020 - 1:16 PM

Working while in receipt of E.I. should NOT result in your earnings being deducted from your E.I. cheques at a rate of 1 to 1. you should be able to earn at least $250 CAN without being penalized, this way families stand a fighting chance of staying on top of expenses (which greatly outweigh maximum credits received from any E.I. claim). I think the current system breads laziness AND poverty at the same time. Also people who work OVERTIME hours should NOT be taxed at a higher rate for those hours. These are the people who are literally making the world turn, they should be rewarded, not penalized for their hard efforts.

Submitted by Bill Paley on March 30, 2018 - 7:51 PM

Following up on Michelle Teskey's point: it is arbitrary to set the minimum income at zero, as it currently is. For example, if every Canadian gets $12000 in taxable income added as a tax return, the various income tax brackets could be shifted down resulting in a cost neutral change, proportionally benefiting those who need it the most without barriers to additional work.

Submitted by MIchelle Teskey on March 28, 2018 - 7:59 PM

I think we should move to a guaranteed minimum income. This would eliminate many different costly social programs and allow for those who need help to receive it in a manner that supports their sense of worth, which then leads to increased productivity. The studies show this is a more cost-effective program and leads to better socioeconomic outcomes.

Submitted by Steve on May 17, 2021 - 5:20 AM

Why would one want to be a subordinate of the government to this level? and this would not support increased productivity in my opinion - UBI could be a dangerous thing for society.