April Poll


A gesture to look good.  A drop in the bucket. Setting up the program will cost more than the benefit.  I’ve personally experienced retraining for a skill that was no longer needed within six months of finishing.  The studies available to government of trends and future demands are many but sit on shelves, so that 30 years after the advice was provided they wake up to the fact that we have shortages and no skilled people to fulfill the demand.  OSAP which facilitates a ‘do it yourself’ program for students seems to work.  The financial ‘help’ should be greater and applied here towards educational programs that have an impact.

By JoAnne on August 12, 2019

Everyone who pays into EI will pay more. Will a $250 refundable tax credit really make enough difference to get someone from a labour intensive job into jobs related to the ‘tectonic digital shifts’ that workers are suppose to gain skills for.  Similarly, four weeks leave within a four-year period doesn’t seem like enough time to learn a new skill significant enough to allow a change in careers.  And so, how many people will take advantage of this.  If a person only needs this small amount of training to get ready for digital careers, they probably earn enough that they don’t need help. Workers who need to change careers will need more education than what the proposed benefits will fund. Well, it sounds good before an election.

By Martin on April 04, 2019

It’s only “proposed” - my trust level is low

By Patricia Russell on April 04, 2019

There is only so much you can load onto small businesses. With businesses having to pick up significant health costs in order to reduce the Medical Services Premiums and increased CPP contributions small businesses will be forced to reduce staff not hire new staff.

By Nancy on April 03, 2019

No comment.

By Randolph Edmead on April 03, 2019

If EI was losing money (they’re not) and if they were not adding any other burden to the business owners, then maybe.  I am so looking forward to a different government whose approach is NOT to throw money at the voters, then increase taxes to cover it.

By Doris Woodman-McMillan on April 03, 2019

I think this will mean more employees will be classified as “contractors”.  See too many already.  As long as there is a contract for employment it seems to satisfy CRA and the tax court

By Pat Morton on April 03, 2019

The reason I said NO to the government scooping more money for EI is because they have a huge amount in the chauffers’ already!! 
CRA has been collecting “Trust” funds (deposits for employees) that they call “taxes” to evade the fact that they are putting it all in “General Revenue”. 
If we, as business owners, collected funds to be held in “Trust”, such as deposits, and then put it in “general revenue” to be used as we wished…....we could be hauled up on the carpet…....and even taken to court…....

By Jacquie Johnston on April 03, 2019

Small businesses are under increasing pressure, what with all the government-mandated inceases in premiums and added taxes.  However, above and beyond the EI premium increase is the issue of having to grant up to four weeks’ leave (unpaid) to any employee who wants to take a training.  It can be tough enough to ensure all get their vacations when they want.  To have to further juggle staff so someone can go off for a month for a training that in no way reflects the needs of the current job and may even lead to that employee quitting and moving on is adding insult to injury.

By Jo Ruelle on April 03, 2019

I feel that the government keeps looking at small businesses to fund more costs.  No one in this country works harder or longer or takes more risks than small business owners and we have very few perks or deductions

By Cindy Kindret on April 03, 2019

The cliche of giving with one hand and taking with the other is very apropos for the introduction of the rebates for small business that the present government is implementing.  This can be said for the carbon tax as well.

By Brian Shumak on April 03, 2019