Conclusions and recommendations

We acknowledge that the changing nature of the labour market in Canada necessitates some reform of the UI system. For example, measures to make UI more accessible to the growing legions of part-time and contract workers are desperately needed. But there is absolutely no justification for the massive overhaul that is being proposed. It is our belief that these changes are short-sighted and punitive. And they are certainly not in the best interests of most Canadians.

As we have already stated, we believe the proposed changes to the UI program will make it more difficult for unemployed workers to qualify for insurance. They will force more people to accept low-paying, dead-end jobs. And they will push thousands of people off UI — financed by employer and employee contributions — and onto welfare — paid for by the provincial and federal governments. This will put more pressure on governments that are already concerned about debts and deficits.

We also oppose the proposed reforms because we don't think the UI system should be used as a stick to threaten unemployed workers. It should not be used as a coercive tool to force workers to take undesirable jobs. In the long run, this kind of punitive approach will be bad news for all Canadians. It will lead to depressed wages, and in turn, to reduced consumer spending. It will also breed ever-growing frustration and despair.

With these reforms, we are worried that the government is doing exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. Given that the trend in our economy is toward more and more part-time and temporary jobs, the government should be expanding UI support for people between jobs, not placing further restrictions on it.

We are firmly convinced that it is in everyone's best interest to have a UI system that is comprehensive, accessible and generous. An ideal system would recognize that more people, not fewer, will be needing assistance as the job market evolves towards more part-time temporary positions. It would also recognize that Canadians need adequate benefits to ensure they have the time and economic freedom to find a job that fits their skills, aspirations and needs. Policy makers should remember that a person who finds a "good match" with a new job is less likely to be unemployed again.

As in most areas of social policy, there is no magic formula for improving UI. But we think there are several things governments should keep in mind when making the effort:

1) The prime goal of reform should be to reduce poverty in Canada and improve the economic security of unemployed people. You can't legitimately call any change "reform" unless it improves conditions for unemployed workers. Under this definition, the proposed changes cannot be described as reform.

2) The primary reason for the large number of people on UI in recent years is high unemployment. The best way to reduce UI rolls is to create new jobs — not punish UI recipients.

3) The overwhelming majority of people who fall back on UI have legitimate claims for assistance. Reports of fraud and abuse have been grossly exaggerated.

In concrete terms, we have several suggestions for alternative approaches to UI reform:

1) We support the concept of moving to system for determining eligibility based on hours worked, as opposed to weeks. But the threshold must be low enough to allow part-timers and contract workers reasonable access to benefits.

2) Instead of going after the unemployed (i.e. blaming the victim) the government should turn its attention to employers by giving them incentives to hire full-time workers and imposing penalties on profitable employers who lay off workers. Perhaps employers who try to use the UI system for relief from their normal pay-roll obligations could be required to pay both the employer and employee portion of UI premiums.

3) UI dollars could also be saved by providing the option of early retirement for UI beneficiaries 60 years and older who have little realistic hope of finding decent jobs before they reach the normal age of retirement at 65.

These are only a few examples of creative alternatives to the government's current approach to UI reform. We are convinced that many other constructive changes could be devised to improve the system — changes that wouldn't confuse the purpose of UI or plunge unemployed Canadians into poverty. We urge the government to seek out these alternatives, to find a better way. If they don't, they may end up doing irreparable damage to a program that has served our country very well. And they may end up leaving hundreds of thousands of Canadians out in the cold.