Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Idea alert

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 11:47am - 0 Comments

Michael Ignatieff proposes new home care benefits.

At present, home-care providers in Canada can only obtain six weeks of EI benefits—and only then if they can prove that the person in their care is expected to die within 26 weeks. Liberals say that if they’re elected, those benefits will be expanded to six months and the terminally-ill condition will be removed … Liberals estimate that about 30,000 people in Canada will take advantage of their proposed improvements to EI benefits, compared to approximately 5,000 who are now using the six-week provision to stay at home with ailing relatives … The cost of expanding these EI benefits would be about $250-million a year, Liberals say.

At a cost to the federal treasury of about $750-million a year, Liberals are proposing to send monthly cheques, totaling up to a maximum of $1,350 a year, for people who are caring for sick or elderly relatives at home. As many as 600,000 people could be eligible for these cheques, Liberals estimate.

Tags: employment insurance, health care, Michael Ignatieff, tax, taxation, taxes

More by Aaron Wherry

Orson Bean

But won't people just spend that money on beer and popcorn?

MostlyCivil

You were aiming for a Feschuk thread, right?

Besides, it's either a billion dollars that spreads across Canada as spendable income, or about %70 of another G20. Pick one.
Orson Bean

Damn, and I was hoping to get big thumbs-up ratings for my Scott Reid impersonation.

Mike T.

or 200 or so gun registries.

gottabesaid

or a couple of new prisons… or a hockey rink for Quebec City…

Kat

I think that's an awesome idea.

They should also look at reducing the qualifying conditions for our pensioners so those who are working part time can qualify in the first place. Just before the recession we were facing a labour shortage and predictions are that once the recession is over, we will be facing it again. If we ask our pensioners to remain in the workforce then they should be supported. And let's not forget that some need to remain in the workforce to supplement their pension.

I also think that sickness benefits should be increased from 15 weeks to 6 months or a year…you simply can't recover from cancer treatments within 15 weeks. Our prisoners get better health coverage than our pensioners.
Stewart_Smith

Hmm, the PMO seems to be a little slow getting the talking points out to the righteous brethren on the right. Let me help:

"This latest outrage from the fiscally irresponsible Liberals will bankrupt the Canadian economy. Taking partisan advantage of the suffering of home-bound patients is a desperate act, showing once again that the Liberals will do anything to get back in power, even help Canadians in need! In addition, to the crippling direct costs which amount to a sizeable fractions of our recent G20 summit, imagine the impact on the entrepreneurs operating facilities for the aged. These people were just entering a true sellers market, where demand for their facilities would outstrip supply by a two to one margin. Now, with this Liberal monstrosity, more people will die in dignity at home, virtually robbing these operators of their deserved margins.

Finally, imagine if your still & always New Government of Canada was to accept such a proposal. Government helping people in dire times. Why chet would be upset! Can you live with that! He would talk of unicorns! Further, no government could provide such assistance without communicating with the public. This government has established that the only way to achieve that is with big flippin signs on every site. Is this what you want in your neighborhood? People helping people with the government helping and a honkin big sign out front advertising it for the entire world to know. "

danby

Yah, but we'll definitely need more prisons to incarcerate the multitudes of criminals who will siphon untold millions through this open invitation to defraud both the government and the honest, hard working Canadians who pay their taxes. Right?
Blacktop

Nice irony and generally very good, Stewart, even if the cheek does not have enough room for the tongue. . I would make the point that the Liberals just don't know what they are talking about. I don't think their approach is realistic. I say that having been deeply involved for four years in senior care from a financial and administrative viewpoint. See also my p[revious post.

peter

I'm sure i don't need to go back to your pieces on the children at home $100/month benefit to guess your feelings on that proposal. Somehow Iggy's recycling of a Conservative idea is a major policy/idea breakthrough? It is not. I must admit though that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…nice to see the libs comin' around to some common sense thinking…and sweet to see you miss the irony.

Emily

Except that looking after children, and looking after the elderly are two quite different things.

peter

Emily, I do and have done both…I'm sure it will come as a shock to you but it is actually very similar. Both are done for love. Both require a tremendous investment of time and money and both are as natural to humans as eating. You don't need a post grad degree to love someone.

And I don't mean to be too over the top here, but exactly how long did you have attend school to become so relentlessly dense? Between you and Holly you are making a very strong case for John Taylor Gatto for king.

Emily

Yes, you have to do everything for the elderly that you do for a baby….only now it's a 150 lb adult your dealing with.

Loving is nice, but it requires practical measures as well.

Kindly keep your attacks to yourself.

Blacktop

The other problem is the federal government 's reluctance (any federal government) to cut cheques for less-than-arm's length payments. Payments that appply to all are an exception. e. Baby Bonuses.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Question: Is big new social spending, paid for with higher taxes, what anyone anywhere on this continent wants right now?

In Toronto, the answer appears to be NO. In Ontario, the answer appears to be NO. In America, they're saying NO. So, now, the Iggy Liberals are betting that Canadians will say YES?

Recently, Liberals have been saying that they will be well-positioned to address this anti-establishment sentiment that's sweeping North America, and Ontario in particular. Will old-style we-know-best social spending do the trick? We'll see.

Emily

Fighterplanes.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Which Liberals won't scrap or, if they do, will end up costing us even more money. Unless, of course, you want the Americans to patrol our air space for us.

Emily

It's a guns and butter argument Dennis…and butter wins every time.

No one wants to buy fighterplanes.

Our air space doesn't need patrolling.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Are you saying the Liberals won't buy fighter jets?
Emily

I have no idea, but I certainly hope not. It's a stupid idea, and an enormous waste of money.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You just said it was a choice between the two. Now you're admitting it isn't? You just love wasting everyone's time on here, don't you.
Emily

I didn't say it was a choice between the two. There is no choice….one is the biggest purchase in all of Canadian history….the other is a small amount to help caregivers.

I simply said 'fighterplanes'.

YOU went on to make a guns and butter argument. I just told you who would win THAT one.

I can always tell when you realize you've lost. You start misquoting and attacking me instead of sticking to the topic.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

YOU went on to make a guns and butter argument.

I did? Where?

Again, stop wasting my time. You were obviously threatened by my original post about new social spending. Thanks.
Emily

LOL says Dennis, madly waving the white flag as he flounces off.

Orson Bean

I agree, but politically it doesn't matter. This is basically the EH-101 helicopter debate redux. The Liberals' promise to scrap that program was pure political gold for the Liberals, even though it was one of the stupidest decisions in the history of Canadian military procurement. I'll bet you if you asked Chretien privately today, and if he were candid, he'd say he'd do the same thing all over again. Because it helped him win an election. And that's all that matters.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

The Liberals haven't even promised to scrap the jets. AND they now have a record on such promises even if they do. It'll be more expensive, and we know it. They're just flapping their gums on the matter, and being irresponsible while they're at it.
Orson Bean

In other words, they're doing pretty much exactly what they did in 1993 — and in 1993, they kicked Tory butt.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Let me try it again. They have not promised to do the same thing — yet. If they do, we now know what it means. And it's not 1993.
Orson Bean

It's true that when you look at exactly what Iggy and the Liberals have said about the jets, they haven't promised outright to scrap the purchase. They have said they "might" scrap the purchase, and that they want to "freeze" the program and "review" it. But the fact is, in the uber-dumbed-down world of an election campaign, those little nuances will be lost. In the mind of your average voter, the Liberals will be against, the Tories for (and for what it's worth, the NDP really really against, but who cares).
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

And I don't think voters are as simple or as easily fooled — especially again — as you seem to suggest.
Orson Bean

Well, I've learned something here — i.e., that you have a much higher regard for the intelligence of the average voter than I do.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I won't argue with that. I happen to have faith in democracy. I happen to respect the people it serves.
Orson Bean

It's quite possible to have faith in democracy but still think that the average voter is not all that bright or well-informed. That was essentially Churchill's view — the average voter is a moron, but democracy is still the best (or least worst) of all the available alternatives. I think he was right.

To cite just one example of voter ignorance: consumption taxes. It's virtually unanimous among economists and tax experts that consumption taxes are the best taxes to have, of all the alternatives. Yet voters hate them, so we end up with sub-optimal taxes instead (payroll, income, etc.). Voters have no idea about the rationale for consumption taxes. Because they are stupid and ill-informed. Period.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I think your contempt for voters is disgusting.
Orson Bean

Disgusting, perhaps, but justified by the evidence.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

and I gotta love how the usual suspects click thumbs up on your post, too. That you believe voters are stupid says a lot, I'm afraid. But thanks for having the courage to expose yourself. Others aren't nearly as open with their contempt as you are.
Emily

You're in good company.

'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.'

-Winston Churchill
Style

And gave us a conservative government that slashed social spending, pushed ahead with both NAFTA and the GST and a new agenda of deregulation, privatization and corporate tax cuts. Yes, let's all fall for that one again.
madeyoulook

You evil temptress.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

During boom times, people want to hear about these kinds of programs. These aren't boom times. With people's jobs on the line, do they want more social spending?

Orson Bean

I recall that in the 1993 federal election campaign, which was definitely not fought in "boom times", the Liberals cleaned up by offering up all sort of goodies. It was all about offering "hope" in hard times. Mind you, that was before Canadians caught the "fiscal responsibility" bug.

I can see the Liberals offering a package that's a pretty attractive sell to the electorate next time out: we the Liberals are willing to spend money on stuff you care about: e.g., home care. Meanwhile those evil, stupid Conservatives are spending money on prisons, fighter jets, fake lakes AND want to give evil corporations a tax cut.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I remember the 1993 Liberals running on a platform of fiscal responsibility and scrapping the GST. What campaign were you watching?

I'm just telling you about the mood of today's electorate. Look at the States, Toronto, Ontario, etc. People are fed up with out-of-control spending and taxes.

Obama has been completely tone-deaf on the matter. Liberals seem to be going in his direction.
LynnTO

I remember reading somewhere that though the Liberals campaigned on "hope" in 1993, fairly soon afterward they took on a massive campaign to ingrain fiscal responsibility – i.e. paying down the debt – into the national consciousness.

So if they managed to repeat that feat in the next election (let's say it's spring 2011), I would suspect that a similar thing would occur again, given the economic outlook – "yes, we'll sell hope, but we'll package doubt."

Orson Bean

Dennis, I was heavily involved in the 1993 campaign, and the Liberals definitely did not campaign on fiscal responsibility per se, i.e., balancing the budget or cutting spending. They only caught that bug later, after the campaign was over. Yes, they promised to scrap the GST. Because it was massively unpopular. And they didn't say a damn thing (at least when any voter was listening) about how they would replace all the lost revenue.

I agree that the Liberals have to be careful about rolling out too many goodies, but as you can see they have seized on nuking that corporate tax cut — that's going to be front & centre on their attempt to appear fiscally responsible as compared to the Tories. They're also going to hammer away at jet fighters, prisons and, yes, the G8/20 thing, even though it's a one-off and history. This is politics, after all, not a course in logic.

I'll tell you this — I'd give that approach a better chance of success than Dion and the Green Shift.

LynnTO

Thing is, this kind of care-giver support mitigates the need for more expensive (and less satisfactory) options, e.g., professionally-administered recuperative support or palliative care in institutional settings.

There is a huge medical difference between requiring assistance while still living at home and requiring constant medical attention. For a complex care patient, there is no substitute for qualified care, even if it is provided by a loving family member: their medical needs are just too great for an untrained person to provide. So yes, for those patients whose care can be provided for by a family member, rather than in a home, there are individual-level savings. For others? This may not be the case.

(Which is why, incidentally, I'd like to see a better structured program around home care nursing / in-home family care.)

Of course, there is a third option, which is to let the ill and the elderly die alone and unsupported in the own feces.

Oddly enough, published in the Star recently there was a lovely report damning some of the nursing facilities in the area for pretty much doing just that…

Emily

Yes, for some people, institutional care is the only option.

We don't have enough trained people, or the equipment needed, to provide 24/7/365 care past a certain point.
brooster

I agree totally. At present, however, too many people who could recuperate (or die) at home are staying in hospital for lack of (less-expensive) in-home supports. Home care should be available as an option. Patients need to be differentially assessed by professionals in collaboration with family to determine who could/should be discharged to home care.

That said, I still think the addition of home care to the entire service spectrum does bring cost-efficiencies that should be factored into the total cost.

Richard_S_Argent

You hit the nail on the head here brooster – this proposal should only be seen as one point on the entire service spectrum.

Nobody is suggesting that this will replace hospitals, or that doing this precludes making other refinements to the eldercare strategy (that would be insane, seeing how rapidly our population is aging. I highly doubt any government should say "well there's ye hundred bucks a month – our job is done!")

It's an excellent proposal and one that should be looked at further – I suspect, like you, that when you account for all factors, it's likely less expensive than $1b.

peter

Did I miss the elephant in the living room? The loving lefts' new pachyderm is named Euthanasia. Can you folks not see the this argument as the thin edge of the wedge? Maybe all the talk down south about death panels is more than delusional ramblings.

Emily

LOL talk about delusional…
brooster

Do know how you got there from here. That must be some confusing labyrinth up there in your cranium.
Jenn_

What? Because you want to have care-givers staying home, it means you intend to kill the one needing care?

Oh, please do connect a few dots on this one . . .

brooster

"Oddly enough, published in the Star recently there was a lovely report damning some of the nursing facilities in the area for pretty much doing just that…"

That was, in fact, a "retirement home" (not a nursing home) in which residents are supposed to be relatively healthy and independent.
http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/articl…

Those residents clearly need more support and medical care than typical privately-run retirement homes are equipped to provide. Most of those seniors in that home were, almost certainly, placed there by desperate families lacking more appropriate options.

Emily

Yeah, depends where you can get somebody in. Some nursing homes have a year long waiting list.

And when the name comes up, if the person is temporarily in hospital and can't move in immediately….the name goes to the bottom of the list again.

So I'm not surprised they're putting them in totally unsuitable places, like retirement homes instead.
LynnTO

Fair enough, thanks for providing the link.

Style

So, instead of a national childcare strategy and a national eldercare strategy, families will be getting $100 cheques and be allowed to use up their EI eligibility? What happened to society? When did Margaret Thatcher win the Liberal leadership?
madeyoulook

Splendid! Yet one more item that makes a mockery of the definition of insurance. And, for that matter, the other word, employment.

In the spirit of transparency, I offer yet another renaming of this increasingly popular program: Subsidized-Unemployment-For-Any-Reason-You-Can-Find-On-Our-Drop-Down-Menu.

SUFARYCFOODDM. I will let some of our recent Quebec-bashing-defending visitors offer the appropriate translation of that into our other official language.

Richard_S_Argent

I'm not sure what the problem is here – Ignatieff is proposing extending the existing provision from 6 weeks to 6 months. And I'm fairly certain that like regular EI claims that once you reach the limit of the claim you have to work required number of hours before making another claim (900 hours in Southern Ontario if I recall)

Ariadne

Iggy has so many wish lists that it scares the hell out me how he thinks. The way Iggy sees it, money flows like water in Canada. Boy, I have to start counting my saved pennies too, to see if it could pay for his many, many free flowing wishes.

Emily

Would you feel better paying for fighterplanes and prisons?

AT1

You keep using the same argument Emily. However, one time capital costs for things you consider undesirable do not add up to the added costs on EI forevermore.

While I think home care is a good idea (as was the extended leave for parents, and child benefits), at some point, the strain on EI premiums will begin to show. If EI is to work as a proper insurance program, and not one overwhelmingly for income redistribution, the financial burden cannot all be placed on salaried workers and employers.

The Liberals of late have been complaining, quite effectively, that the planned increase in EI premiums will kill jobs. They have will have to explain how this proposal will not do likewise, because premiums will inevitably have to go up.

Emily

It's not my argument, it's the differences in party policies.

I think billions…up front….for fighterplanes and prisons we don't need….speaks for itself.

We could do 50 years on homecare for that.

AT1

My point is merely that the Liberals are not actually proposing to divert funds to this program. It seems that EI premium will be used to fund homecare.
Emily

No, they are proposing to use money that would have been lost in corporate tax cuts, and the only mechanism we currently have to do this is EI.

Silly_Walks

Start saving your commas instead.

Orson Bean

I have a lot of time for MYL's argument though. A lot of good economists and policy wonks have been persuasively arguing for decades about the morphing of EI into something that no longer fully resembles, umm, an employment insurance program. E.g., in Atlantic Canada and certain other places, and in certain circles, it's really a glorified welfare program. In some areas, it functions like regional development. It's also carrying a maternal leave program, and now we're going to tack senior care onto it as well.

It would be interesting to see whether it really makes economic and administrative sense to use the EI system for this. It's possible that it's the most administratively efficient way to deliver this, but I have no idea.

Emily

At the moment we don't have another mechanism.

And it still functions as employment insurance…this is just another quibble about 'why should I pay for your_____'[fill in the blank]
brooster

EI has been perverted to respond to the increasing variety of work patterns throughout the lifespan and across various regional economies (like the fishery). What's needed, in this post-industrial era of part-time jobs, contract work, serial "careers", compassionate leave, parental leave, vocational disability, etc., is some form of guaranteed annual income. The very term, however, is sure to bring out highly agitated libertarians bearing pitchforks and flaming torches.

Emily

Mulroney talked about it years ago….GAI it was called.

But we didn't do it, and now we are facing major problems without tools to solve it.

Jenn_

Yeah, that part bothers me too. Mostly because it simply doesn't make any sense to have it be under EI–unless it is some kind of way to 'hold' your job (like maternity leave), but I haven't seen that mentioned. Of course, I've never been perfectly happy with maternity leave as part of EI, either.

Orson Bean

Way back when when the MacDonald Commission (remember that?) did all those papers on the Canadian economy and federalism, one of them was on UI (as it then was), and it was a devastating critique of the regional aspects of it, the enhanced benefits for fishermen/women and other seasonal workers. The consistent critique on that front has been that that aspect of EI encourages people to stay in regions where there is little or no work (e.g., Newfoundland outports), rather than migrating to places where work is plentiful. Looked at that way, EI surely is a "regional development" program rather than employment insurance — really it's more like a regional heritage preservation program — keeping remote fishing villages alive, etc.

madeyoulook

Yeah, I would go more with regional UNdevelopment program, subsidizing people to stay put in economically hopeless places.

AT1

So, we can expect costs to rise significantly in the near term?

Emily

No, they're reaching 65, not 85.

AT1

I missed where Ignatieff said it only applies to the over 85 population.

Emily

You have apparently missed the entire news report, not to mention this discussion.

AT1

Ever so charming Emily! So are you saying that this program applies only to 85 and over? Otherwise, I really don't understand your retort above.

Unless I'm mistaken, the sum of $750 M applies to the current pool of care-givers. Between now and next 20 yrs, when boomers reach 85 the number of applicants to this program will rise progressively and eventually decline as the bubble of boomers passes.

So yes, the cost of this program will increase significantly in the near term.
Emily

I simply said the first boomers reach 65 next year….many of them are care-givers now to 85 year olds.

So we already have a large amount of elderly to take care of, and aren't doing it well.

Any program already needed now for the elderly, will expand as the boomers start hitting 85 and will continue for another 20 years past that, and we are in no way prepared for it.

Blacktop

That is right. Between 65 and 80 15% of the population require some form of long-term care, breaking down into about 8% at home and 7% in facilities. These are the young-old. Over 80, the % is much higher and the share that need facilitiy care also a greater part of the whole. Boomers are just entering the 65 age group now. The real $ bomb will hit more in 20 years.

Mike T.

Old people are simply too valuable a voting demographic to ignore. Expect the CPC to come up with something similar within the week.

Emily

Well the elderly we're talking about no longer vote, but the caregivers certainly do.

Mike T.

They'll be wheeling their gurney's down to the polling booths to vote Lib if Iggy stays the only one to champion this plan.

Add a law giving them the right to name the first grandchild, and it's an iggy majority.