Status of Women Committee on March 26th, 2009

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

You would opt for an extended and better structured maternity leave program.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you. That's the end of your time.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Madam Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you. It's good to have you as guests here. It's been very interesting to hear your presentations.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, you mentioned some research that was done and you cited some examples of women who were having challenges because they couldn't access maternity benefits. When was that research done?

[Sue Calhoun]

It was done in 2002 and 2003 in Atlantic Canada. It's still available on the website. I can give the committee that information.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I would appreciate that.

You also mentioned some concerns about whether this government was going to follow through on providing self-employed people with maternity and parental benefits. Unfortunately, if that research was done in 2002, it looks like there was no action taken on it. I can assure you, ladies, that we will take action. We listened to the expert panel, which you referred to, with the Prime Minister. We are committed to families. We are committed to supporting women. I want to assure you that we've made this part of our election platform.

Unfortunately, the research that you're talking about sounds as though it was done just for the sake of research, maybe; I'm not sure what it was for. But if we do research and we don't act on it, it's futile. So I want to assure you of that.

With that, I want to ask you if you would be able to provide the panel with some suggestions on how this program could best work for families, for women and men who are self-employed. Would you suggest that there would be voluntary premiums paid? Could you give this committee some tangible suggestions? I know the panel will be looking for those kinds of things.

[Sue Calhoun]

Thank you.

I'm glad to hear the government is prepared to move ahead on this. I congratulate you. We think this is an urgent situation. The overall economic crisis is an urgent situation, but for self-employed women in particular who would like to have children, it's an urgent situation. I'm happy to hear the government is going to move ahead on this.

I think there's a good example, a good model, in the province of Quebec. A lot of information has been made available to the committee on this in terms of how that program is functioning. As I said earlier, BPW Canada doesn't have a big research department, so we're not able to do that, but we are on the record as saying we think it should be a voluntary program for the self-employed. I'm talking about maternity/parental benefits, the special benefits. I'm not talking about overall, not the regular benefits, but it should be voluntary for women who are self-employed. For example, as a business owner, I am required to pay into Canada Pension, and I pay both the employer's contribution and the employee's contribution. It costs me probably something like $4,000 a year, which is a cost to my business.

If we set up something that's mandatory for all self-employed people to pay into for maternity/parental benefits, we're not sure that this is the best way to go, but it definitely needs to be an option. It needs to be set up so that women have a choice as to whether or not they want to pay into it so they can then access it, like some of the things that have been implemented in the province of Quebec, for example. Currently, to access EI maternity/parental benefits, you have a two-week waiting period. I'm not sure what that's all about, and I know a lot of people have said the same thing to you: what is that two-week waiting period all about anyway, especially in a situation when you're getting maternity/parental benefits, but even for regular benefits because you go two weeks without any income, your bills don't take a holiday, and in the situation we're in, what purpose does this serve? That's one thing that I think the expert panel could and should look at: what's the reason for that?

Even women who are able to access those benefits are still only getting 55% of their revenue, so if they're running their household based on the income that's coming into the household and all of a sudden they're getting 55% of that, it becomes very difficult. In the province of Quebec, it's more flexible. You can choose between getting a higher percentage for a shorter period of time, or getting a lower percentage, but I believe it's still more than 55%. Our colleagues from Quebec could tell us that.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

So in terms of the program as it currently in Canada, are you saying change it just for the self-employed, or overall? I'm asking specifically in terms of the self-employed programs that the panel will be looking at.

[Sue Calhoun]

For the self-employed, I'm saying the two-week waiting period, but that applies equally to the regular benefits.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

A previous witness testified on behalf of disabled women and she was very clear. She said they would prefer to have the five weeks at the end, that would be a greater benefit. Looking at the big picture and what we can do to help Canadians, we have to look at the best choice, and I think five weeks at the end, which is what we've done, is definitely something that's going to benefit all Canadians and women.

[Sue Calhoun]

I think the key thing is that the five weeks at the end apply to people who are able to qualify to get it. As we've seen--we've looked at statistics--60% of the people who apply for EI do not get it. So that five weeks at the end will not help that 60% who are not eligible.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Are you aware that women are currently the net benefactors of the EI program? Women receive more benefits than they pay in. Are you aware of that?

I think it's great, because it's needed, but primarily it's because women access or account for 68% of special benefit claims. In fact, 97% of women working full time qualify for special benefits. So women are the benefactors of the special benefit portion of EI. They're huge benefactors. Thankfully that will continue if we extend it to self-employed.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thanks very much, Ms. Hoeppner.

We'll now move to Ms. Mathyssen, for seven minutes.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say thank you to Ms. Macklin, Ms. Calhoun, and Professor Vosko for being here and sharing your expertise. You have always been great supporters of women.

I am going to share my time with my colleague, so I'll address my questions to Professor Vosko so that Niki can talk to her colleagues.

I almost feel as if I should apologize to you, because I recognize that the research you did in 2002-03 wasn't just for the sake of doing research; it was intended to provide information that governments need in order to have sound policy. I regret very much that Status of Women Canada has cut funding to that kind of research, because it's clear we still need that. We need to know what's happening to women—now.

At any rate, Professor Vosko, you had some very interesting information in regard to the number of beneficiaries, that 45.5% of men and only 39.8% of women are able to collect EI.

As late as yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources stood in the House of Commons and said 80% of Canadians who are unemployed are able to collect EI. We keep having this difference of opinion or this discussion about the discrepancy in these figures.

I'm wondering, could you please provide some clarity in that?

[Dr. Leah Vosko]

Yes, certainly.

There are differences in the way in which the unemployed versus beneficiaries are measured. You'll know that in a study produced under the monitoring and assessment report, maybe three or four years ago, there was a discussion of different ways of measuring.

One route of measuring is to look at the unemployed versus those who contribute, so the self-employed people who are unemployed, whom Sue Calhoun and Joan Macklin talked about, are not included in that measure.

Another way is to look at the number of unemployed versus those who are receiving benefits. I would argue that in this period, and particularly when one is looking at those who are precariously employed—solo self-employed, part-time, temporary, etc.—who are in situations in which they are unemployed, it is absolutely essential to look at the reality of the labour market, that is, who's unemployed versus who's receiving benefits.

I would also echo your comments about the importance of research that is directed to informing our public policy. I also have regret; I think that study was very important for understanding the situation of women in Canada around EI.

I would also like to emphasize that I think it's important to look at regular employment insurance expenditures by sex. I think it is very true that women are the primary beneficiaries of the special benefits. However, in 2006-07, the monitoring and assessment report reported that men received $5.3 billion worth of benefits and women received $2.8 billion of benefits, when one looks at regular EI expenditures. I can certainly provide you with the reference to that. I think it's something that's very important to emphasize, particularly in this recession.

So the comment that women are the primary beneficiaries of EI needs to be looked at by separating out regular and special benefits.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

We need some GBA, gender-based analysis, in regard to this.

[Dr. Leah Vosko]

Indeed, and I think sound research. I would urge the members of this committee to call for this research. I'm privileged enough to be a professor, to be able to access certain kinds of data from Statistics Canada. I think this kind of reliable data should inform our policy decisions.

Indeed, I would also echo the comments of Sue Calhoun, that we have the option of looking at the Quebec system. It's not impossible to finance a system along the lines of CPP or other systems of that sort for self-employed women. The EI system itself is fixable.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have two minutes, Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you.

I'd also like to thank you for your presentations today. As a young woman representing one of the largest rural ridings in Canada, I am aware that the issues you have brought up are a very direct reflection of the challenges that young women face particularly. I realize that one of those major challenges, which obviously ties into accessing EI benefits but certainly is in terms of broader well-being, involves issues around child care, whether you're a worker in child care or a mother needing to access child care.

I want to ask BPW Canada--I must note that I'm a proud member of the Thompson chapter of BPW Canada--given that child care is a priority, what kind of work are you doing in this area, and what are you hoping to achieve? Also, what do you feel is the expected impact of such actions in child care? How are they related to women being able to access EI, whether it's a woman working in that area or, again, certainly a mother seeking employment in a time such as this right now?

[Sue Calhoun]

A Statistics Canada study came out this week looking at the difference between the wage gap that women with children face compared to women without children. The women with children had a bigger wage gap than those without.

I did a couple of interviews with the media about that, and I said that the reason the wage gap would be bigger for the women with children than the women without children is that as soon as a woman starts to have children where there is not a good-quality child care system, that impacts her ability to be in the workforce, to stay in the workforce, and that's when women start working part time because they don't have that kind of support. Women in this country are still having way more than their share of responsibility for child care, and now for elder care.

Those are the things that impact women's ability to work, which in turn impacts their ability to access EI. When they're working part-time contractor work, they can't get the hours they need to qualify for EI.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the second round. I would ask that we keep it to four minutes rather than five. Then we could get a round in from each party.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for having me.

My researcher behind me tells me a very interesting point that Ms. Hoeppner brought up earlier, that someone in the disabled community had suggested one over the other. In actual fact, her first choice was that she wanted both. That was her choice. So in this particular situation....

But if Ms. Hoeppner feels that she would like to make it a choice between people, maybe she could suggest to the Prime Minister to make that an option for all people: you have a choice, two or five. I'd suggest that she may have gotten a different answer.

The reason I bring that up is because I want to ask the members here about the situation with EI.

Ms. Vosko, you brought up the divisor rule. This is something I've been...because in my riding, people are heavily into seasonal work.The divisor rule was a situation that really was detrimental to seasonal workers, but also to casual workers as well.

In this particular situation, we did create a pilot project that provided the best 14 weeks to get around this divisor rule. Of course, the biggest industry in my riding is the fishery, including plant workers beyond the fishers.

I'd ask you to comment on that divisor rule. Perhaps you could give us some information on how that works and how it's a detriment. But also, of the three things you suggested, the 360 hours, best 12 weeks, restore to 67%, which particular measure is the one that you think would be of bigger benefit to the people who you're talking about? Or which particular measure here is of the biggest detriment to women in general?

[Dr. Leah Vosko]

Could you just clarify if you're referring to which one of the three recommendations I mentioned or...?