...Finley says it would be "irresponsible" to ease employment insurance rules to help tens of thousands of laid-off workers who cannot qualify for EI payments.
"It would be exceptionally expensive, and it would be irresponsible because we had – going into this recession, unlike previous recessions – a shortage of skills and labour. Our focus is on helping people get back to work," she said.
Liberal human resources critic Mike Savage (Dartmouth-Cole Harbour) says the underlying Conservative message is that the government believes more lenient EI eligibility would encourage Canadians to collect handouts rather than hunt for employment.
Asked about that, Finley said, easing EI qualifications "would not help people get back to work."
So, the Conservatives want to -- supposedly -- only help those with a very long work history in positions identified as being in decline who are recently out of work? Of course, Finley doesn't seem to realize that a lot of those people have been out of work now for some time, can't get a meaningful job and no longer have any EI. They will never qualify for whatever program Finley will propose.
Of course, retraining is what part of the EI fund is used for already. Every Federal government we've had recently has argued this as part of its rationalization for keeping a surplus in the EI fund.
Did you know -- true story -- that there's some neoclassical economists who actually believe that entire recessions are caused by workers deciding that they don't want to work quite so hard? I kid you not. This is stuff right out of the so-called Chicago School of economics.
Hey, aren't Harper and his gang adherents to that school?
Next up, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer (one of my favourite people) will be releasing stats tomorrow showing that the Conservatives have completely overestimated the costs of the Liberal's EI proposal. I believe he will argue it's $1.2 billion versus the Conservatives inflated $4 billion estimate. What is 'curious' about this is that the Conservatives claimed their estimate was unbiased and produced by civil servants. It now appears that the civil service may well be getting politicized.
It's a shame the Budget Officer is releasing the numbers on a Friday. New news released on Fridays almost always dies then and there as journalists rush home, and there's little continuity over the weekend.
The EI fight continues. I'd advise peopel to watch how this plays out in the next week or two. If the opposition parties can't get traction on this, it'll be an indication of how the election will go.
5 comments:
There's obviously something wrong with people who need help. God makes you successful, and so if you AREN'T successful, you must be bad. Bad people must not be helped.
Same for people who need social assistance. Also, it's bad for women to work outside the home.
Oh, that's right. There's that attitude as well.
Harper policy in a nutshell: all those women!! They took our jobs!!! And they expect daycare too?! Give 'em $100 a month and tell 'em to stay home and look after the kids and get a good supper ready for hard-working hubby when he gets back.
I would also like to quote Mike Savage. This is what he said in response to the Liberals changing the EI rules in the first place.
"Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this in the House a number of times. The economic circumstances in 1990 were dire, but back then we were coming out of a $40 billion plus annual deficit. There were changes that had to be made."
So now that we have a 50 billion dollar deficit is ok to change the rules back? HE IS IS A LIAR. Liberal Tory same old story.
That doesn't make him a liar. Besides, it's only a reasonable proposal to change the rules for a period of time.
And the 1990s deficit fight was over a very stubborn structural deficit which Mulroney should have taken care of as he had the decent economy to do it in. The current deficit may or may not have a structural component, but much of it clearly is not structural.
And today's deficit is proportionately smaller than the one from the 80s. And we have less overall debt accumulated.
Not the same thing.
Finally, EI rolls back in as local spending. It is a local economic stimulus.
Post a Comment