Why does the EI system treat Canadians differently based on where they live?

The EI system makes benefits easier to access for longer periods in areas with higher levels of unemployment, responding (in principle) to differing levels of need, as defined by the regional unemployment rate.

This is a worthwhile principle, but in practice most experts argue that it doesn’t make sense.

There is actually little evidence that the local unemployment rate is the best predictor of how difficult it is for any individual to find a job. (Some research, for instance, finds that when the unemployment rate is going up it is harder to find a job, regardless of the actual unemployment rate.) There may be a case for treating workers differently in different regions, but the evidence would need to be compelling to deviate from the principle of equal treatment for all for a basic social entitlement.

Who should qualify for benefits?

Few experts would suggest that the rules for qualification reflect the needs of the modern workforce. New entrants to the labour market must work significantly longer in order to qualify for benefits. Workers who collect benefits on a yearly basis suffer no penalty, while workers who have not collected after decades of contribution receive no additional benefit when they find that they need the program. Temporary Foreign Workers pay into the system but rules basically prevent them from ever collecting. Part-time workers and contract workers — even those working long hours–often cannot qualify if they lose a job

Who should have access to job training?

A portion of the contributions that workers and businesses make to EI fund training for some unemployed workers. The federal government has downloaded responsibility for delivering EI-funded training programs to the provinces, but still continues to define eligibility for these programs through EI.

These restrictions on eligibility may no longer make sense. Many unemployed people now fall outside the EI umbrella. Today’s economy may demand that access to training not be defined by EI eligibility rules, which were crafted for an entirely different purpose: income support, not job training.

If training is a broad economic and social priority, it may make sense to fund training out of general government revenues rather than through EI premiums. This could be part of a national human-capital strategy — or a responsibility transferred to provinces enabling them to design and manage their own training programs to meet their local labour market needs..

How can we improve the co-ordination between EI and other income support programs, like Social Assistance, social housing and tax benefits?

Canada’s broken federal-provincial relations victimize the unemployed. A lack of co-ordination between those making decisions about the federal EI program and provincial social assistance programs creates gaps that are unjustifiable from a labour-market-efficiency and social-justice perspective. A coherent system would be run by one order of government. Other countries have one system. Canada has two parallel systems that are barely on speaking terms.

EI is a foundational piece of our social safety net. For it to retain its legitimacy, it has to be principled, transparent and fair. Business, labour and Canadians generally must see their interests reflected in EI reform.

Canadians have to believe that the government is treating them equitably. Right now, none of these things hold. That isn’t just a problem for our social safety net and our productivity — it’s a problem for our democracy as well.

This piece originally appeared in an edition of the National Post.