Unequal Access: Making Sense of EI Eligibility Rules and How to Improve Them

Abstract

Institute publications undergo rigorous external review by academics and independent experts drawn from the public and private sectors. The Institute's peer review ensures the quality, integrity and objectivity of its policy research. The Institute will not publish any study that, in its view, fails to meet these standards. The Institute requires that its authors publicly disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest of which they are aware. In its mission to educate and foster debate on essential public policy issues, the C.D. Howe Institute provides nonpartisan policy advice to interested parties on a non-exclusive basis. The Institute will not endorse any political party, elected official, candidate for elected office, or interest group. As a registered Canadian charity, the C.D. Howe Institute as a matter of course accepts donations from individuals, private and public organizations, charitable foundations and others, by way of general and project support. The Institute will not accept any donation that stipulates a predetermined result or policy stance or otherwise inhibits its independence, or that of its staff and authors, in pursuing scholarly activities or disseminating research results.

Precarious Positions: Policy Options to Mitigate Risks in Non-Standard Employment

“…Much of the decline was due to reforms to program parameters, such as no longer allowing workers who quit or are fired with cause to qualify for benefits, but the other major reason for the decline was on-going structural changes in the labour market. Notable changes included long unemployment spells and a rise in non-standard work (Gray and Busby 2016). 6 A close analysis of EI eligibility yields a few important observations.…”