# Access to EI benefits for military families



## Ammo (4 Mar 2010)

Extract from the Governor General Throne Speech on March 3rd.

Today, however, a new generation of men and women in uniform continues to stand up for the values and principles Canadians hold dear. In Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces prepare for the end of the military mission in 2011 with the knowledge that – through great sacrifice and with great distinction – their efforts saved Kandahar province from falling back under Taliban control. After 2011, our effort in Afghanistan will focus on development and humanitarian aid.

In Haiti, the Canadian Forces have taken the lessons learned in Afghanistan and put them to use in very different circumstances. Their speed and effectiveness in deployment were and are unsurpassed in the world.

To serve Canada in the profession of arms is an extraordinary and honourable acceptance of risks, many of which cannot be foreseen, and all of which may have profound personal consequences for those who assume them. Our Government has supported our men and women in uniform not only in words, but by making the investments necessary to rebuild Canada’s military. Our Government will continue to stand up for our military and our veterans.

Our Government will change the unfair rules restricting access to benefits under Employment Insurance for military families who have paid into the system for years.

To further commemorate the sacrifices of our armed forces, our Government will bring individuals, groups and businesses together to build community war memorials.

Our Government has established the New Veterans Charter and an ombudsman, expanded the Veterans Independence Program and, in recognition of the gallant service of Allied veterans who fought alongside Canadian troops during the Second World War and the Korean War, reinstated benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Our Government will continue to modernize support systems for Canadian veterans.

Honouring those who built this country includes recognizing the contribution of those who make their living on the land and the realities of rural life in Canada. Our Government will continue to support legislation to repeal the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry that targets law-abiding farmers and hunters, not criminals.

Complete speech at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/federalbudget/article/774523


----------



## Occam (4 Mar 2010)

Ammo said:
			
		

> Extract from the Governor General Throne Speech on March 3rd.
> 
> Our Government will change the unfair rules restricting access to benefits under Employment Insurance for military families who have paid into the system for years.



I have to admit, this one puzzles me a little.  Could they be referring to spouses who give up jobs to follow their CF spouse to a new posting, yet are not eligible for EI benefits?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2010)

This will be explained (probably) in the budget speech today.


So, wait 6 3/4 hours, and you'll have an answer.


----------



## LineJumper (4 Mar 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This will be explained (probably) in the budget speech today.
> 
> 
> So, wait 6 3/4 hours, and you'll have an answer.



Good call, this could be a doozy.


----------



## Occam (4 Mar 2010)

LineJumper said:
			
		

> Good call, this could be a doozy.



...or not.

From the Budget:

*Access to Employment Insurance Parental and
Sickness Benefits for Military Families*

The Employment Insurance (EI) program provides parental benefits to
individuals who are adopting a child or caring for a newborn. For Canadian
Forces members whose parental leave is deferred or interrupted because of
military requirements, the Government will extend the period in which they
are eligible by another 52 weeks.

The EI program also provides sickness benefits to eligible individuals who
are unable to work because of sickness, injury or quarantine. In order to
support the families of Canadian Forces members, the Government will
provide facilitated access to EI sickness benefits for eligible workers who
have lost a loved one as a result of a service-related injury.


----------



## GAP (4 Mar 2010)

> For Canadian
> Forces members whose parental leave is deferred or interrupted because of
> military requirements, the Government will extend the period in which they
> are eligible by another 52 weeks.



I wonder how often this does occur? It's nice, but I doubt it's a huge factor.....


----------



## armychick2009 (4 Mar 2010)

Oh hey! Finally something on this site I actually know something about! (Though, after I wrote this, I realised that it may or may not pertain to what was discussed today in the throne speech... my apologies if it doesn't.... but, it is sort of relevant as information to spouses of military members so I will leave it here...)

I encountered difficulty about 3.5 years ago when my husband (at the time) and I were posted to Petawawa from North Bay with obtaining EI. I was a student at the time but also worked full time at the university. However, I worked at the university for about 18 weeks before our posting took effect. I got down to Petawawa and discovered I would receive about $50 a week in EI benefits. HOWEVER, if I was up in North Bay and applied for benefits, I would have received $400 a week. There's a slight difference, eh?

What happened is... North Bay (apparently) is a high-unemployment area and are in a program called the "Best of 14 weeks" in which, they base your EI on the best 14 weeks over the past year that you worked. This is good for areas where seasonal work is evident and you have "small" weeks or "large" weeks with earnings. 

Petawawa IS NOT part of this "Best of 14 weeks" pilot program DESPITE having equal amounts of (or even higher!) unemployment levels. So, because I applied with my new address and did not use my old North Bay address, it made a difference of $350/week in benefits (over $1300 difference a month)....

Fair or unfair?

I fought it. I went to the MP in North Bay (Anthony Rota who is very much pro-military) and stated my dilemma. I am the wife of a military member who has no choice (really) to leave her job to follow her spouse for work reasons. I said that I should follow under the rules of the area where I OBTAINED my EI weeks because you can not compare the two local economies... that my hours were obtained in a place where a pilot program was implemented and that I should fall under that pilot program.

Eventually, all agreed. Anthony Rota really pushed in two days what I could not accomplish on my own in two months. The HRDC said that no one ever "complained" about this loop-hole before and my case actually became a "precedent". 

So, the long and short is....

IF you are the military spouse of someone who is posted, CHECK BEFORE YOU GO if you are in an area that runs the "best of 14 weeks" program or not.

IF you are moving from an area that does, to an area that DOES NOT -- you need to apply for EI BEFORE your move BUT AFTER you leave work. So, if you were like me and had less than 24 hours between the last day of your job and the day you needed to be in Petawawa? Then you better find time in that 24 hours to do it before you leave! Otherwise, you will face hassle.

However, the opposite can actually happen where you are in an area of high employment moving to an area of high unemployment, you should WAIT until you move (if you do not have enough hours) to apply in the location where the pilot program is implemented.

This is NOT scamming the system. This is what I was told directly by the HRDC to do in future instances where our future moves would take place. It is a result of the case that I brought forward with the assistance of Anthony Rota in 2006. 

I wonder how many women (and men!) followed their spouses only to discover they either had a reduced benefit or... none at all! I am glad they took what I brought to them (and claimed as unfair/prejudiced/beyond our control) as a military spouse. 

Anyways, I hope this post was as clear as mud! Please let me know if you require any clarification!


----------



## CountDC (5 Mar 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> I wonder how often this does occur? It's nice, but I doubt it's a huge factor.....



Doubt it's a huge factor too. Does happen sometimes in the navy when the guy is posted to a ship that is sailing.  I imagine it must have happened to someone gone to Afghanistan.  Not enough though to make this a big deal.  May even turn into a negative as before the military would not deny the PATA as it had to be used in the first year.  Now they may be more inclined to delay it knowing you have 2 years.

I was hoping they might actually change it so that we could draw EI when retiring.  After all that has been the biggest complaint about EI the military has always had - pay into for 20/25 years or more and not be able to get anything out of it.   Mind you with the PATA rules I have been able to get something out of it - $400+ every 2 weeks for 18 months.


----------



## Adam (6 Mar 2010)

I was posted from Nova Scotia to Ontario 4 months ago.  My wife is a long tenured worker, and fully qualified for EI benefits.  She was hoping EI would help her to upgrade her N.S qualifications to the Ontario standard.   Unfortunately for us, all EI funded education in Ontario is managed provincially.  And the province will only provide funding for workers  who lost the jobs in the province of Ontario.

So we were SOL.


----------



## CountDC (8 Mar 2010)

Something I learned when I moved from NS to Ontario - programs are all aimed at either Long term Ontario Residents or Immigrants.  As most people from Ontario seem to view anyone from outside Ontario/Quebec as foriegners maybe she could get in one of the immigrant programs   ;D


----------

