Topic: Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[GAP]

The CAW just lost a lot of credibility on this one, plus there are now 400 employees out of work.......Great Job there CAW....you did your members proud....

Caterpillar to close London, Ont. locomotive plant
Reuters  Feb 3, 2012
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/03/caterpillar-to-close-london-ont-locomotive-plant/

Caterpillar Inc plans to close its Electro-Motive locomotive plant in London, Ontario, following several months of unsuccessful contract negotiations with the Canadian Auto Workers union.

Oh, the Dippers and the Star are all aflutter with this one......nationalize!!, intellectual property rights!! etc......Coyne puts it perspective..............

Andrew Coyne: Caterpillar’s EMD facility never really was ‘our’ plant
Feb 6, 2012
 Article Link
 
By now, the nationalist version of last week’s closing of the Electro-Motive Diesel locomotive plant in London, Ont., has been firmly established in the public mind, told and retold in a thousand accounts, roughly two-thirds of them in the Toronto Star. As described by the squadron of columnists the paper apparently keeps on hand for such events, the “London massacre,” or in more polite terms, “industrial rape,” was not merely a business decision by the plant’s owners, Caterpillar Inc., or even an egregious assault on workers’ rights.

Rather, Caterpillar was absconding with a vast storehouse of intellectual property developed at “London’s 90-year-old EMD” — patents, technology, equipment, trade secrets, manufacturing processes, the works. Worse, it was doing so with the benefit of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. Why, “only last year,” the paper’s business columnist, David Olive, fumed, EMD received “a $5-million federal subsidy hand-delivered by Stephen Harper during a factory visit.”

It was nothing less than “highway robbery,” political columnist Martin Regg Cohn raged. Caterpillar had bought the plant purely in order to “harvest the technological know-how subsidized with government incentives and writeoffs.” But never mind the industrial rape: there are bigger issues in play. “Why underwrite our companies,” Cohn wrote, “if we willingly sell off our embedded brainpower to foreign bidders who leave Canada cash-rich, patent poor and jobless?”
More on link

[Thucydides]

Good catch on the Cpyne article, I imagine it must be making some leftie's heads explode.

Perhaps more pressing is the issue of transfer payments, which is the subject of this National Post comment. The process is unsustainabl and the ability of provinces to game the system only makes it worse:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/07/john-ivison-canadas-coming-equalization-war/

John Ivison: Canada’s coming equalization war
John Ivison  Feb 7, 2012 – 8:26 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 7, 2012 8:49 PM ET
   
Caterpillar’s closure of the Electro-Motive Diesel plant in London, Ont., is troubling, not just because of the loss of 465 well-paid jobs, but also for what it says about Ontario’s ability to compete for manufacturing jobs.

Ontario’s relative decline is likely to put further strain on the fabric of the Canadian federation, threatening already fragile national unity, as “have” and “have-not” provinces battle over transfer arrangements.

One of the ties that bind us as a country is the understanding that Canadians will have comparable levels of health and education services, at comparable levels of taxation, wherever they happen to live — indeed, it’s a principle set out in the constitution. The mechanism that makes this possible is the federal equalization program, which measures each province’s ability to raise tax revenues and then redistributes billions of dollars ($15.4-billion in 2012/13) to the provinces deemed to be below the average “fiscal capacity” of the 10-province standard.

Caterpillar’s announcement is symptomatic of Canada’s diverging economies — one predominantly eastern and struggling; the other, mainly western and soaring on the back of high commodity prices.

Caterpillar seems to have been a particularly unscrupulous employer, intent on closing down the plant, even while it dragged its employees through the charade of wage negotiations that were never going to bear fruit.

But higher wages, soaring energy costs and lower productivity relative to the U.S., not to mention the Canadian dollar trading at par, have made Ontario increasingly uncompetitive for global manufacturers. Throw in the protectionist “buy America” legislation and new union-busting legislation in Indiana, where Caterpillar has another locomotive plant, and the aging Electro-Motive factory was always likely to be a target.

The slide in manufacturing in Ontario has already turned it into a have-not province. In the coming fiscal year, the province will receive $3.2-billion in equalization. This compares to $7.4-billion for Quebec; $1.6-billion for Manitoba, $1.5-billion for New Brunswick, $1.2-billion for Nova Scotia, and $337-million for P.E.I. Alberta, B.C., Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan are above the average and are, therefore, net contributors.

The problem is that even this level of redistribution is unlikely to prove rich enough in the years to come, as Canada’s manufacturing heartland continues to decline, at the same time as its resource rich provinces benefit from high commodity prices.

Former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, speaking to an audience in Calgary Tuesday, predicted the changing nature of international terms of trade will “jeopardize the sustainability of the current system,” noting that 70% of the population now lives in “have-not” provinces.

Mr. Dodge said Ontario will inevitably require a larger slice of intergovernmental transfers over the next eight years – from 15% to 25% in 2020 – receipts he calculates will amount to $5.5-billion. Because Ontario pays in more than it receives (Ontarians currently pay for around 38% of the program through their income, consumption and corporate taxes) the net cost to each citizen is estimated to fall to $173 from $246.

Canada’s diverging economy will yield strains between Western “have” and Eastern “have-not” provinces – Mr. Dodge calculates that the average Albertan will contribute $920 by 2020, up from $687 currently. But perhaps more concerning for national unity is the anticipated rise in tension between Ontario and Quebec, as they compete for scarce equalization dollars.

Dwight Duncan, the Ontario finance minister, foreshadowed the coming fiscal hostilities in an interview Tuesday, where he pointed out that Ontarians are subsidizing services like $7-a-day daycare in Quebec that are not available in their own province. “This year, we’ll put in $6-billion and get $2.2-billion back. The system is deeply biased against Ontario,” he said.

He pointed out that Quebec and Manitoba don’t charge their citizens the market rate for hydro, which reduces profits at provincially owned utilities. In turn, this lowers their fiscal capacity and rewards them with higher equalization payments. If these revenues were included, Ontario and the Maritime provinces would receive more.

“The formula has been gerrymandered and what is left is unrecognizable from the original intent. For example, Newfoundland doesn’t have to take into account its oil and gas reserves … This is a threat to the fabric and cohesion of the country,” he said.

Mr. Duncan admits he doesn’t have an answer that would resolve the situation, other than to “start all over again” when the existing formula to calculate equalization runs out in 2014.

Mr. Dodge suggested a number of ways to tinker with the formula to temporarily reverse the divergence – for example, by modifying or removing the cap on equalization payments that limits growth of the program to increases in the size of nominal GDP in the wider economy; including market rate hydro revenues; or, excluding natural resource revenues when measuring fiscal capacity.

Another study released this week by Peter Gusen, the former director of federal-provincial relations at the federal Department of Finance, advocated the program take into account the cost of delivering services when it allocates equalization funding. If “need” was factored in, Ontario would have received an additional $822-million in 2008-09. Provinces where cost-of-living expenses are skyrocketing, like Alberta, B.C., Saskatchwan and Newfoundland and Labrador, would also have received millions more, mainly at the expense of Quebec, which would have lost $3-billion.

However, Mr, Dodge concluded that no matter how the equalization formula is modified, it is unlikely to be able to satisfy the constitutional demand of comparable services at comparable tax levels.

“In all likelihood, the best that these transfers will be able to support is a minimum acceptable level of provincial services at a not unreasonably higher level of provincial taxation,” he said.

In other words, the laws of economics are going to dictate that if you want better funded health and education systems, go West.

The closure announcement of the Caterpillar plant has coincided with an oil price nudging $100 a barrel, thanks to rising tension in the Middle East. These developments are, of course, not unrelated. Strong commodity prices have strengthened the Canadian dollar and made manufactured good exports more expensive.

The harsh reality is Canada has a two-track economy that will increasingly pit region against region. In the coming years, Ottawa may be less a head waiter to the provinces, and more a referee attempting to adjudicate their fiscal disputes.

National Post
• Email: jivison@nationalpost.com |

[E.R. Campbell]

A good and a fair question posed in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/why-isnt-ei-reform-on-harper-governments-radar/article2322100/

EI or UI has come (or gone) a long way from the days when it was an "insurance" programme aimed to tide one over between jobs. I, personally, remember when many (most?) workers ( but not "professionals" like e.g. teachers or civil servants) had a UI book - they got stamps for every two weeks worked, to prove their employment status - in much the same way as other "insurance" products had books and stamps and in the same way that bonds had coupons. Not, as Ibbitson points out, it is a form of institutionalized welfare which has everything to so with where you live not whether or not you need some temporary support between jobs.

The pogey has become part of the Canadian socio-economic landscape; we, citizens in e.g. Alberta and Ontario pay people to stay home in some regions while they work at seasonal jobs rather than allowing (forcing?) them to move to other regions to get good, steady work.

Politicians are afraid to touch EI, fearing a too big backlash.

Prim Minister Harper deserves credit for moving, albeit slowly, on pension reform - assuming he is going to do that; he could get more "bang for the buck" by looking more closely at EI.

The "good and fair question" is Why isn't EI on the Government's Radar?

Here is another article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, that indicates that our current EI scheme is helping some individuals but hurting the "commonwealth:"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/08/john-ivison-outdated-federal-policies-killing-jobs-in-western-canada/

John Ivison: Outdated federal policies killing jobs in western Canada

John Ivison

Feb 8, 2012

Canada Census 2011

The most telling statistic to emerge from the new census was the revelation that for the first time in Canadian history the proportion of the population living west of Ontario is greater than that living to the east.

The balance of power has shifted and that trend will continue as long as the commodity-driven economy in western Canada draws new immigrants and people from other regions of Canada.

Yet, despite the arresting development in the west (Alberta has grown 10.8% since 2006), there are still not enough people to fill all the jobs there, particularly in the skilled trades. To take just a few examples: the mining industry will need 100,000 workers in the next eight years; 150,000 construction workers will retire in the next three years; welders are needed in British Columbia; and even retailers and hoteliers are worried they can’t fill positions.

At the same time, there are parts of the country where the economy has stagnated and the unemployment rate is over 15%.

This is a country of jobs without people to fill them and, at the same time, people without jobs. Government policy is making the situation worse.

Brad Wall, the Premier of Saskatchewan, has been vocal in pointing out the role antiquated federal policies have played in perpetuating some of these problems. “Western Canada now suffers from serious labour shortages that threaten future growth. Yet we are paying for a program — Employment Insurance — that discourages Canadians from moving here,” he said recently. “In some regions, a person can work just over 10 weeks and receive almost a year’s worth of EI benefits. A worker in Regina will work roughly twice as long for significantly less. Yet, employees and employers pay identical premiums into this $22-billion-a-year program.”

He was also critical of the federal equalization program, which discourages labour mobility by subsidizing provinces with lower tax bases.

The calls to reform some of these programs to reflect demographic and economic shifts are growing louder. Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, came out the morning the census was released with a 10-point plan [download PDF] that touches on many of the problems Mr. Wall highlighted.

Mr. Beatty, a former Mulroney-era Conservative Cabinet minister, said the federal government should stop believing its own “propaganda” about the economy, and embark on a series of initiatives that address the issues of labour mobility and skills.

He called for the government to revamp the EI program that provides disincentives for people to move.

A quick glance at the 58 EI economic regions, and their widely disparate qualification requirements, makes his point. After all, why would anyone move from rural Newfoundland, eastern Nova Scotia, or northern New Brunswick when they can work a mere 420 hours and take the rest of the year off? Mr. Beatty said the Chamber proposes an end to the current system that makes it easier to qualify for EI in areas of high unemployment, in favour of one that treats jobless workers equally.

The Conservative government has made some positive moves to improve labour mobility and skills. On the immigration file, the plan is to attract more skilled immigrants who can speak English or French, and permit fewer family-class members to come to Canada.

Another area of promise is the attempt to improve education outcomes for aboriginal Canadians at elementary and secondary level. A national panel on aboriginal education delivered its final report Wednesday and recommended the creation of a First Nations education system, supported by “adequate” funding and appropriate legislation. This is long overdue — 400,000 aboriginal youth will reach working age in the next decade and improved educational outcomes would add billions to tax revenues and reduce government spending on welfare and prisons.

But policies that help match people to jobs are rare indeed. Take Ontario, which has lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade.

In this circumstance, you might imagine the Ontario government is pulling out all the stops to increase the size of its skilled labour pool. If so, you’d be wrong. The provincial government in Ontario is so obliged to the unions for their support and relative quiescence, it has failed to introduce reforms that would increase the number of apprentices, even though the province will eventually experience its own skilled labour shortages.

Dalton McGuinty’s government has established the College of Trades to set apprentice ratios in the province. Vested interest has sought to keep the ratio of journeymen to apprentices at a much higher rate in Ontario than in other provinces, in order to drive up wages. In Ontario, there are five journeymen bricklayers for every apprentice, compared with one to one in Nova Scotia and one to two in Alberta.

The cumulative effect of these policy missteps is to threaten Canada’s new engine of economic growth in the West.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told an audience in Davos recently that too many industrialized countries are more concerned about redistributing wealth than creating it. Yet, unless Ottawa and the provinces reform their own programs, he is in danger of looking like the typical bloviating politician — promising much and under-delivering.

National Post

 
Given the "culture of entitlement" that defines so many (most?) Canadians it is not surprising that Prime Minister Harper, a practical politician, doesn't want to touch it, but the government should serve all Canadians, not just the whiners.

[captloadie]

Coming from a family that had on occasion to rely on EI to get by, I find it personally offensive that they expect people who are actually working in resource areas (fishing, lumber, farming) to pick up and move. Most of the workers that are "seasonal" work long hard hours, eking by a living, just like their forefathers did. But hey, we could just tie up all the small fishing boats, put away the chainsaws, and let large conglomerates take over.

Maybe someone should write an article about making welfare cases move to find jobs, and maybe having to actually work for their money.

As for the Saskatchewan Premier, how about ending farm subsidies, and when the farmers all sell off, he'll have an ample labour force.

  

[GAP]

That's tripe and you know it. Since when is entitlement to EI a right? Nobody is slagging hard working people out of work RIGHT ACROSS THE COUNTRY.  You go where the jobs are, or you take what's available.

The easy EI was introduced by both the Liberals and Cons to get votes. Since then it has become a mantra, and it has to stop.

[captloadie]

I'm not saying that it is a right, or an entitlement. No more than giving farmers subsidies to make it profitable enough to stay on the farm. You can look at it as a disincentive to move, or you can look at it as an incentive to keep at a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills. By the way, I believe that the EI should be enough to get seasonal workers by, not let them live in McMansions, drive new 4x4's every 2 years, and own 1 each of every man toy. If that is what they want, move to where the real money is.

[Larry Strong]

I'm not saying that it is a right, or an entitlement. No more than giving farmers subsidies to make it profitable enough to stay on the farm. You can look at it as a disincentive to move, or you can look at it as an incentive to keep at a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills. By the way, I believe that the EI should be enough to get seasonal workers by, not let them live in McMansions, drive new 4x4's every 2 years, and own 1 each of every man toy. If that is what they want, move to where the real money is.

In my eyes you have called it an "entitlement". Why should I pay for someone to sit at home for a half year or better.....Here's a real life situation. My current job working in a fab shop building drilling rigs pays just enough to keep my nose above water, but I am home everynight. And I have a house, 2 vehicles, both are 10 years or older, and no man toys except for a 5th wheel RV. All paid for except the house. After working the patch for 30 years I am going back to make better money, and in all likelyhood working away from home again.

If the job does not pay the bills then get a second job or move and find another. No one should have to pay for other people who feel they are entitled to sit around till the next season comes around. People don't like that thought....tuff, suck it up muffin and get a job

[E.R. Campbell]

Coming from a family that had on occasion to rely on EI to get by, I find it personally offensive that they expect people who are actually working in resource areas (fishing, lumber, farming) to pick up and move. Most of the workers that are "seasonal" work long hard hours, eking by a living, just like their forefathers did. But hey, we could just tie up all the small fishing boats, put away the chainsaws, and let large conglomerates take over.

Maybe someone should write an article about making welfare cases move to find jobs, and maybe having to actually work for their money.

As for the Saskatchewan Premier, how about ending farm subsidies, and when the farmers all sell off, he'll have an ample labour force.

 

I agree with Larry Strong.

I, personally, don't like agricultural subsidies any more than I like any other government intrusions into the market, but I accept them, as I accept EI, because we live and trade in a very imperfect world. Agricultural subsidies and EI share one feature: they take money out of our pockets, your and mine - through either taxes or (too high) prices - and give it to someone else for reasons that do not provide any net benefit to the "commonwealth." While I accept both I believe that both can be 'shaved' down to better suit Canada in the 21st century - will some people like Québec dairy farmers, Newfoundland fishermen, Ontario egg producers and New Brunswick forestry workers have to earn less, or work two or three jobs per year, or move to Saskatchewan or Alberta? Yes. Will some of them actually suffer? Yes. Will some riot on the streets and commit acts of vandalism on Parliament Hill in Ottawa? Yes? Does any of that make the current agricultural subsidies and EI worthwhile? No.

[Infanteer]

or you can look at it as an incentive to keep at a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills.

Why would we want to subsidize a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills?

[WeatherdoG]

If people have a serious issue with the way that seasonal workers receive EI during the off season, they should be prepared to do without the products and services offered by those same seasonally employed people. A perfect example is fish, expect to pay far more for fresh seafood and to have far less available on the market. For some it's a minor inconvenience, but for those people who make their living selling the fish it's a big deal. I'm sure people from other areas have examples they can give as well.

It's all well and good to have a nation of oil refiners and high tech manufactures, but even they need to eat. Cutting out the safety net that allows primary food producers like farmers and fishermen to operate and provide somewhat stable and secure food production is a bad idea.

[SeaKingTacco]

If people have a serious issue with the way that seasonal workers receive EI during the off season, they should be prepared to do without the products and services offered by those same seasonally employed people. A perfect example is fish, expect to pay far more for fresh seafood and to have far less available on the market. For some it's a minor inconvenience, but for those people who make their living selling the fish it's a big deal. I'm sure people from other areas have examples they can give as well.

It's all well and good to have a nation of oil refiners and high tech manufactures, but even they need to eat. Cutting out the safety net that allows primary food producers like farmers and fishermen to operate and provide somewhat stable and secure food production is a bad idea.

Perhaps the model we have been using for the fishing industry no longer works?  Many farmers in western Canada have off farm income (some of them in the oilsands, at significant distant from the farm).  Why can Atlantic Canadian fisherman also not be expected to get jobs ashore for the 41 weeks a year that they are not fishing?  What is so magic about that industry?  I'm not trying to be a jerk- I am asking an honest question.

[WeatherdoG]

The answer to your question is that many of them do work for much of the rest of the year. Not all of them of course, but many do.

Lots go west and work in the oil patch, some do construction, and some draw EI. Not necessarily because they don't like work or don't want to work, but packing up the family and moving to Alberta to work in an industry that is very boom and bust doesn't make much sense to many. Particularly when ever extra cent they would make doing that would be spent trying to afford housing and food. Not to mention that the gear and licenses required to fish cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most of them are not prepared to walk away from that at a loss to work labour.

[SeaKingTacco]

The answer to your question is that many of them do work for much of the rest of the year. Not all of them of course, but many do.

Lots go west and work in the oil patch, some do construction, and some draw EI. Not necessarily because they don't like work or don't want to work, but packing up the family and moving to Alberta to work in an industry that is very boom and bust doesn't make much sense to many. Particularly when ever extra cent they would make doing that would be spent trying to afford housing and food. Not to mention that the gear and licenses required to fish cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most of them are not prepared to walk away from that at a loss to work labour.

I had to laugh about the boom/bust part!

Again, without being a jerk, I have to wonder why the EI system should be used to keep someone in Eastern Passage NS not working for 40 weeks per year, when the oilfield worker from Red Deer AB is not allowed to do the same thing?

I tend towards saying- make the EI rules the same for the whole country and let the chips fall where they may in terms of labour force mobility after that.

[WeatherdoG]

I understand where you are coming from and I can't say I disagree, I'm simply stating the reasons why people use the system the way they do.

As far as boom/bust goes, I know several guys from my own home village who went to the oil patch and were sent home as soon as things slowed down. Not a big deal when you have a job back home and a place to live. If you sold your home and moved to Red Deer based on your awesome new job and got laid off a few weeks later because there is a global recession it's a slightly bigger deal. Yes it's a bit of an exception, but when it's you that loses your home and good credit that doesn't matter much.

As I said earlier, make the system the same for everybody. When you do though, be prepared to deal with the unintended consequences.

[E.R. Campbell]

I understand where you are coming from and I can't say I disagree, I'm simply stating the reasons why people use the system the way they do.

As far as boom/bust goes, I know several guys from my own home village who went to the oil patch and were sent home as soon as things slowed down. Not a big deal when you have a job back home and a place to live. If you sold your home and moved to Red Deer based on your awesome new job and got laid off a few weeks later because there is a global recession it's a slightly bigger deal. Yes it's a bit of an exception, but when it's you that loses your home and good credit that doesn't matter much.

As I said earlier, make the system the same for everybody. When you do though, be prepared to deal with the unintended consequences.

You're right, WeatherdoG, there would be (notice, please, I avoided saying "will be" because I doubt the political will to overhaul EI exists) unintended and unforeseen political, economic and social consequences, some of them unfortunate.

By the way, your point about some food prices is taken but I suspect the industry can and would adapt quickly. One of the advantages of removing agricultural subsidies is that it makes the entire industry more competitive - and yes it is an industry, not a "rural way of life." With special reference to the fisheries: maybe a price hike will actually help to manage fish stocks more effectively.
 

[Brad Sallows]

My grandfather, the salmon troller, and a handful of my other relatives who spent their lives in fisheries all managed to make a year's pay during the seasons in which they worked.  So that's one lame excuse blown away.

My various great-uncles who worked in mining and forestry managed to make a living at it.  So that's a couple more shown the door.

If one seasonal job doesn't pay the bills for a year, then it is necessary to find other seasonal work to complement the first one during the other seasons.  Otherwise, EI is just a wage subsidy.  I can think of no valid reason why some employers should be subsidized and some should not.  If planting trees during the summer can't carry you through the rest of the year, you need to find more work in the fall, winter, and spring.

If EI were truly insurance, the rules would go something like this:
- people at higher risk of unemployment would pay higher premiums
- benefits would be uniform - a function of time employed and income earned - instead of especially peachy in certain regions
- the qualifying condition of unemployment would revolve chiefly around an abrupt and unexpected termination of employment, not a predetermined end date or end of contract

The minimum qualifying time for EI should be two years.  Termination after any shorter length of continuous employment should result simply in refund of all premiums paid during that period.

EI has become a convenient fund for all sorts of benefits not related to sudden loss of employment.  That needs to end; those programs should either be dropped or funded out of general revenue.  EI premiums should drop to a level commensurate with the true insurance program which would remain after all the other pandering is refactored out.

[Redeye]

You're right, WeatherdoG, there would be (notice, please, I avoided saying "will be" because I doubt the political will to overhaul EI exists) unintended and unforeseen political, economic and social consequences, some of them unfortunate.

By the way, your point about some food prices is taken but I suspect the industry can and would adapt quickly. One of the advantages of removing agricultural subsidies is that it makes the entire industry more competitive - and yes it is an industry, not a "rural way of life." With special reference to the fisheries: maybe a price hike will actually help to manage fish stocks more effectively.
 

I suspect the industry will adapt as agriculture has. Seasonal work will wind up being done by foreign workers who will work for comparatively small wages, who will come up for the season, work, and return home. I'm not sure that we'd save much money essentially depopulating parts of the country where seasonal industries are the norm. But I don't see why, on the other hand, we'd want to subsidize people living in remote fishing towns forever either.

Not something with easy answers, really.

[WeatherdoG]

My grandfather, the salmon troller, and a handful of my other relatives who spent their lives in fisheries all managed to make a year's pay during the seasons in which they worked.  So that's one lame excuse blown away.

My various great-uncles who worked in mining and forestry managed to make a living at it.  So that's a couple more shown the door.

My family has been fishing in North America since at least the mid 1800's and likely before that. My Grandfather was a fisherman, and lived on his fishing all year too. Of course he didn't have a TV or a bathroom in his house either... Fishing in the modern world is not fishing in the the 60's, much like farming has changed in that time too.

Fishing requires that the person who is the captain of the vessel have intimate knowledge of the grounds he is fishing.  Unlike farming though, one fisherman cannot have multiple vessels, and must be present in the boat when it is being used to fish. So unless the laws regulating it change drastically(which they won`t) it must be done by owner operators on a small scale.

It is a problem with no easy answers, and that likely won`t even be addressed for many years. In reality it will likely fix itself as fewer people enter the fishery due to the ow pay and uncertain outcomes.

[Kat Stevens]

Seriously, where do you people live that you can just "get an off season job" ?  My work is seasonal, it pays well, and I pay a correspondingly high amount of taxes, so you can frig right off with the "no economic benefit to Canada" dookie as well.  I paid into EI since I was 16, so 34 years worth, and I claimed for the first time when I was sent home from my prior job for a year. I felt bad for that, embarrassed in fact.  Guess what?  I'm over it.  Good for you folks with steady year round jobs, enjoy them while they last, you could find yourself in shitty circumstances very quickly, and I hope you all remember what you said here when you do.

[Brad Sallows]

I do know of fishermen who own multiple vessels; they just don't skipper them all.  If our experience is west coast and east coast fisheries, respectively, there may be some significant differences of which we are unaware.  But while I am fully aware that fishermen in the west can and do claim EI, it is a fact that many make a year's living from their seasonal work or find other work off-season.

I agree that if you are sent home, laid off, fired, whatever, you should collect on the insurance.  That is what it should be insurance against.  It should not be a subsidy for wages or a pot for other benefits.  Whether or not those other benefits should exist is a separate question from how they should be funded.  They should be funded out of general revenues.  If we are going to prop up seasonal industries, pay for mat leave, pay for care of relatives, etc, those should be programs funded by taxpayers collectively, not the smaller fraction of people who happen to be employed.

[Redeye]

I do know of fishermen who own multiple vessels; they just don't skipper them all.  If our experience is west coast and east coast fisheries, respectively, there may be some significant differences of which we are unaware.  But while I am fully aware that fishermen in the west can and do claim EI, it is a fact that many make a year's living from their seasonal work or find other work off-season.

I agree that if you are sent home, laid off, fired, whatever, you should collect on the insurance.  That is what it should be insurance against.  It should not be a subsidy for wages or a pot for other benefits.  Whether or not those other benefits should exist is a separate question from how they should be funded.  They should be funded out of general revenues.  If we are going to prop up seasonal industries, pay for mat leave, pay for care of relatives, etc, those should be programs funded by taxpayers collectively, not the smaller fraction of people who happen to be employed.

Most people who pay taxes are employed, given that they have to have income to to pay tax on. Of course, pensioners do pay tax without being employed, but I'm okay with them not paying EI premiums.

[Thucydides]

The current edition of the National Post (11 Feb 2012) is devoted to the issue of immigration and the various changes that are coming to our society and country because of it. Multiple articles and opinion pieces. Well worth the read.

[SeaKingTacco]

Seriously, where do you people live that you can just "get an off season job" ?  My work is seasonal, it pays well, and I pay a correspondingly high amount of taxes, so you can frig right off with the "no economic benefit to Canada" dookie as well.  I paid into EI since I was 16, so 34 years worth, and I claimed for the first time when I was sent home from my prior job for a year. I felt bad for that, embarrassed in fact.  Guess what?  I'm over it.  Good for you folks with steady year round jobs, enjoy them while they last, you could find yourself in shitty circumstances very quickly, and I hope you all remember what you said here when you do.

Kat, as a young 2Lt, I was posted to NB.  I made about $23k (late 1980s).  Yet, I could not help notice the lobster fishermen who worked 10 week season, made $40-60k in that 10 week period, had nice trucks, satellite TV- all the toys, but collected UI For the rest of the year (maybe another $10k, in those days ).  There was no way they were paying in to the system anything like what they were pulling out of he system.  I felt like a bit of tool paying UI premiums that I knew I could never collect on while guys making 2-3 times what I was making spent most of the year , every year, collecting.

My point is, if we treated this like a true insurance system, your premiums should drop the longer you worked (demonstrating that you were a good risk).  If you collected often, your premiums should go up, to reflect that you were a poor risk.

The Fact that you work in a seasonal industry is great.  Just don't try and pretend full time workers in other industries aren't subsidizing your lifestyle.

[Kat Stevens]

I actually subsidized my own lifestyle by paying in to it for over 30 years, but thanks all the same for the condescension, I've missed that since I left the army.  I work from March to whenever the ground freezes, usually December, so you can take your 10 weeks and shove those too.  I could get a McJob for 3 months, but it wouldn't pay for the fuel I'd burn every day getting back and forth to do it.  Oh, right, I should just move to where I can work all year, until the next round of "go home" starts.  You people have been in for too long, civil servants and retirees included.  Come on out here into the world and try it for a while, all easier said than done.

[SeaKingTacco]

Hey man, good on you for collecting EI.  You are only following the rules, as written.

Just don't try and pretend you "earned" it.