Read Online The Truth About Canada by Mel Hurtig - Free Book Online
Authors: Mel Hurtig
Tags: General, Political Science
Ads: Link
years they ranged from 9.3 percent of the federal government’s revenues all the way up to 15.6 percent, a huge difference. For 16 of these last 20 years they exceeded 10 percent. From 1994 to the end of 2006, Ottawa had a massive employment insurance surplus of $51-billion.
Changes to the rules by Paul Martin when he was finance minister were destructive to the intent of the program. By 2006, only 53 percentof the unemployed even potentially qualified for benefits. But while payouts were being chopped, there were no equivalent cuts to premiums. While only 40 percent received benefits, 68 percent of the unemployed had been EI contributors. The result was that a social program intended to help the needy ended up being a very regressive tax used to pay down Ottawa’s debt. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were widely praised for using the EI surpluses to cut the federal deficit.
Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom puts it all in the proper perspective:
Unemployment insurance should be available to the unemployed. A minimum wage should bear some relationship to the cost of staying alive. Programs designed to reduce poverty should help the poor.
These days, more people are working part-time at multiple jobs. Yet Canada’s unemployment insurance system (which the federal government calls “employment insurance” to make it sound more positive) is available only to those who work in good, steady, full-time jobs — that is, to people who are almost never out of work. 1
By May 2006, a task force designed to bring in recommendations to improve Canada’s income security policies was direct and to the point: Ottawa had to reform unemployment insurance quickly to make it easier for out-of-work people to claim benefits. For David Pecaut, task force co-chair, “employment insurance is a myth.”
In an editorial on February 25, 2007, the Toronto Star said this:
Despite their sharp attacks on the fund while they were in opposition, the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing to reform the system.
The benefit program must return to being a true insurance policy for those who lose their jobs, not a cash grab by the government at the expense of the most vulnerable in our midst.
How does Canada compare with other countries in terms of unemployment benefits? In a list of 28 OECD countries, we’re way down in 22nd place when benefits are measured in terms of the replacement rates of previous earnings. Canada’s rate is less than half that of Denmark, Finland, Israel, Germany, New Zealand, Austria, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Japan, and Australia. 2
7
WELFARE IN CANADA
“An utter disaster”
“In reality, we do not care.”
J ohn Murphy is the former chair of the National Council of Welfare. He describes the present situation in Canada as “shameful and morally unsustainable.” An editorial on welfare in the Toronto Star is to the point:
Canadians pride themselves on being a caring and compassionate society. But, when it comes to the least fortunate in our midst — children included — we are anything but. We fail to provide them with the tools they need to help themselves, in the form of skills, training and access to childcare. Then we expect them to get along on incomes that don’t reach half the poverty line.
This country is rich enough to create a coherent national program that provides a decent level of income support to every family in true need. It is past time we recognized that, and acted on it. 1
In their publication Welfare Incomes 2004 , the National Council of Welfare wrote,
Canadian welfare policy over the past 15 years has been an utter disaster.
Welfare incomes were further below the poverty line in most provinces in 2004 than they were in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Losses of 25 percent or more were reported in seven provinces.
And the council’s Welfare Incomes 2005 said that
welfare incomes continued to decline in 2005, making life more difficult for the 1.7 million people — five
Changes to the rules by Paul Martin when he was finance minister were destructive to the intent of the program. By 2006, only 53 percentof the unemployed even potentially qualified for benefits. But while payouts were being chopped, there were no equivalent cuts to premiums. While only 40 percent received benefits, 68 percent of the unemployed had been EI contributors. The result was that a social program intended to help the needy ended up being a very regressive tax used to pay down Ottawa’s debt. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were widely praised for using the EI surpluses to cut the federal deficit.
Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom puts it all in the proper perspective:
Unemployment insurance should be available to the unemployed. A minimum wage should bear some relationship to the cost of staying alive. Programs designed to reduce poverty should help the poor.
These days, more people are working part-time at multiple jobs. Yet Canada’s unemployment insurance system (which the federal government calls “employment insurance” to make it sound more positive) is available only to those who work in good, steady, full-time jobs — that is, to people who are almost never out of work. 1
By May 2006, a task force designed to bring in recommendations to improve Canada’s income security policies was direct and to the point: Ottawa had to reform unemployment insurance quickly to make it easier for out-of-work people to claim benefits. For David Pecaut, task force co-chair, “employment insurance is a myth.”
In an editorial on February 25, 2007, the Toronto Star said this:
Despite their sharp attacks on the fund while they were in opposition, the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing to reform the system.
The benefit program must return to being a true insurance policy for those who lose their jobs, not a cash grab by the government at the expense of the most vulnerable in our midst.
How does Canada compare with other countries in terms of unemployment benefits? In a list of 28 OECD countries, we’re way down in 22nd place when benefits are measured in terms of the replacement rates of previous earnings. Canada’s rate is less than half that of Denmark, Finland, Israel, Germany, New Zealand, Austria, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Japan, and Australia. 2
7
WELFARE IN CANADA
“An utter disaster”
“In reality, we do not care.”
J ohn Murphy is the former chair of the National Council of Welfare. He describes the present situation in Canada as “shameful and morally unsustainable.” An editorial on welfare in the Toronto Star is to the point:
Canadians pride themselves on being a caring and compassionate society. But, when it comes to the least fortunate in our midst — children included — we are anything but. We fail to provide them with the tools they need to help themselves, in the form of skills, training and access to childcare. Then we expect them to get along on incomes that don’t reach half the poverty line.
This country is rich enough to create a coherent national program that provides a decent level of income support to every family in true need. It is past time we recognized that, and acted on it. 1
In their publication Welfare Incomes 2004 , the National Council of Welfare wrote,
Canadian welfare policy over the past 15 years has been an utter disaster.
Welfare incomes were further below the poverty line in most provinces in 2004 than they were in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Losses of 25 percent or more were reported in seven provinces.
And the council’s Welfare Incomes 2005 said that
welfare incomes continued to decline in 2005, making life more difficult for the 1.7 million people — five
Similar Books
