I would like to thank the chairperson and committee members for this opportunity to present the National Farmers Union policy and concerns on the topic of employment insurance and its impact on farm and rural women.
The National Farmers Union is a non-partisan, nationwide, democratic organization made up of thousands of farm families from across Canada who produce a wide variety of commodities, including grains, livestock, fruits, and vegetables. The NFU was founded in 1969 and chartered in 1970 under a special act of Parliament. Our mandate is to work for policies designed to raise net farm incomes from the marketplace; promote a food system that is built on a foundation of financially viable family farms that produce high-quality, healthy, safe food; encourage environmentally sensitive practices that will protect our precious soil, water, and other natural resources; and promote social and economic justice for food producers and all citizens.
The National Farmers Union is unique among farm organizations because of its constitutional structure, which ensures that women and youth are given equal decision-making power at all levels of policy development, from local meetings to our annual national convention. The NFU ensures that the voice of women is included on the national board of directors through the positions of women's president and women's vice-president. These two elected positions are determined annually at our national convention. Women are also well represented on our national board, and women have served in the offices of NFU president and NFU vice-president.
I felt very privileged to be elected to the position of National Farmers Union women's vice-president at the national convention held in Saskatoon in November 2008. I have a great deal of passion for farming and an appreciation for the good folks who make farming their business. I am also very involved in my community. I work with various Huron County agencies on food security and poverty issues.
I grew up a generation away from the farm, but with guidance and work placements with extended family, I began working and learning on the farm. I went to the University of Guelph for my diploma in agriculture and worked in the agricultural service sector. In 1989 I married, and my husband and I began a small farming operation in Middlesex County while we both worked full-time off the farm.
Following a barn fire, we purchased a larger farm in Huron County, and I became a full-time farmer. For 12 years I worked as a farm manager, while David worked off-farm. In 2006 we sold the farm and exited the hog industry. I rejoined the off-farm workforce. We continue to farm a small acreage and sell produce directly to consumers. We live in Huron County in the Grand Bend area. I might just note that Huron County is in Ontario.
Over the years, EI, or the lack of access to EI, has affected me and my family. Ultimately, every farmer wants to receive their living from the farm. However, as it states in our submitted brief, a large percentage of farm families are unable to do so. They must take on additional farm work.
In our case, David worked off the farm 45 hours a week for nine months of the year. In addition to that off-farm work, he would work many hours on the farm during planting and harvest. He also helped me year-round to maintain the buildings and equipment. We shipped hogs each week, and as a result, David was never eligible for EI. Those hog shipments were recorded as income against his claim.
In 1999 we were receiving $35 for a hog that cost us $135 to produce. Our annual income from both farm and off-farm sources was negative $35,000. Had the EI system acknowledged net income rather than gross income, we would have received at least the benefits that any other full-time worker was entitled to.
In many farm families, it's the woman who works off the farm to shore up farm income and provide for the family's needs. This same policy of reporting gross farm income rather than net income could easily stand in the way of their EI benefits and, quite possibly, maternity benefits.
Following the changes to employment insurance in 1997 that doubled the required hours from the previous system, many women, who are more likely to work part-time, have been ineligible for the benefits, job training, and educational opportunities.
In 2006, when I left full-time farming, I received a job training grant through the then Canadian Agricultural Skills Service. The ability to improve my skills both enabled me to get a job and gave me the confidence to begin to rebuild my future. Many current job training programs are tied directly to employment insurance. If people are not eligible for EI benefits, they will also not be eligible for job training support. This ineligibility could impact their ability to gain employment in the future and could lock them into inescapable poverty.
Focusing on the opportunities for education and improvement of job skills related to the EI program as necessary both for the health of the Canadian economy and for the resilience of the rural community makes me view the $50 billion in assets in the EI program fund as wasted opportunity and short-sighted savings.
Last week, I travelled with my children to visit family in Nova Scotia. I spent a number of years working on farms in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia. Valley agriculture is currently in crisis as meat-packing plants have been closed and the farmers who had supplied them are being forced out of the industry. My friends, in the industry for 40 years, have gone into receivership and have had to terminate their daughter's employment. There is a possibility that she will not be eligible for EI, as they are required to prove they are dealing with one another at arm's length. They are devastated. They've lost their business, their occupation, and possibly their home, and they have to face the knowledge that one of their employees will not be treated equally by virtue of her relationship with them. Because my friends are self-employed, they are not eligible for benefits or the related job training.
Employment insurance should be seen as a step to re-employment and a necessary support to keep Canada and its workforce productive. Almost all workers and employers contribute to the program, yet only 40% of unemployed workers are eligible for benefit. This inequity must be addressed.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the recommendations in the brief submitted to your committee.
The NFU recommends that the federal government follow the recommendations of the parliamentary committee and restore integrity to the Employment Insurance Act by requiring that the cumulative surplus in the EI account be returned to the EI program.
The NFU recommends that substantial changes be made to the EI program to ensure that women workers, particularly those in rural communities, are able to fully access benefits, including job training and other educational programs, and that those benefits be increased.
The NFU also recommends that changes to the EI program be implemented to enable self-employed persons, including farmers, to participate meaningfully in the program.
The NFU further recommends that net farm income rather than gross farm income be one of the criteria that are used in the calculation to determine the eligibility of a farmer's claim for EI.
I respectfully submit this. Thank you.
