Good afternoon to everyone. First, I would like to thank committee members for inviting us and hearing our views on Bill C-308, which was sponsored by the member of Parliament Yves Lessard.
I would like to point out that the CSN represents 300,000 workers in every economic sector in Quebec. I say “every economic sector in Quebec” for the following reason. The CSN welcomes Bill C-308 because we believe that this bill contains elements, important tools to help fight poverty and inequity between unemployed workers in every part of Canada.
The CSN supports this bill because, in our view, it is based on an understanding of the real problems which unemployed workers in Quebec and in every economic sector are experiencing. All of the workers from the various economic sectors represented by the CSN have been harshly affected. This mainly applies to the manufacturing sector which is going through a major crisis. But there's also a major crisis in the pulp and paper industry, there is a major crisis in the shipbuilding industry, and there is a major crisis in the steelworking industry.
Today, workers who have lost their jobs in these sectors are experiencing situations which have led to family crises. The CSN agrees with all of the proposals contained in Bill C-308, but we support in particular the proposal that sets the eligibility threshold at 360 hours.
We wish to express our position as follows. Why do we need an eligibility threshold? For us, it is a matter of treating all unemployed workers, regardless of where they are in Canada, fairly. In our opinion, an unemployed worker is an unemployed worker, and this person needs a temporary income in order to look for work. Premiums are not based on the regional unemployment rate. Premiums are the same, whether one is a part-time worker, a seasonal worker, whether one works on call or full time, whether one is young, a man or a woman. Workers are not responsible for being laid off. A worker can be laid off in a region with a very low unemployment rate, either because that person was working for a company which went bankrupt, which decided to decrease its activities or terminate its operations, or a company that is operating in a shrinking economic sector.
Why do employment benefits depend on the unemployment rate of the region we live in? Do we receive less health care in a region where there are fewer sick people? No. Does it make sense for people who are laid off by a company, but who live in different administrative regions for the purposes of employment insurance, not to be eligible for the same benefits?
In our view, workers who lose their jobs in a low unemployment area suffer just as much as those who lose their jobs in a region with a high one. Losing a job is a personal tragedy which leads to a loss of income and an increase in stress. Everyone needs a temporary income to find a new job, regardless of what the regional unemployment rate is.
Canada seems to be the only industrialized country, with the exception of certain U.S. states, to apply variable eligibility standards. Why should we have a threshold of 360 hours? We think it will make the system fairer. Despite what some unemployment statistics might indicate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent government official, estimated that if the threshold was brought down to 360 hours, 165,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for regular benefits, excluding new recipients.
In the same document, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that the department estimated that over 330,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for benefits if the 360-hour threshold applied to everyone, that is, to all categories of beneficiaries, including those eligible for regular and special benefits.
A little earlier, questions were raised about how this would affect women who work part-time. When the eligibility criteria were changed from weeks worked to hours worked, the purpose was to help more workers qualify for benefits, at least in theory, including people working fewer than 15 hours per week. So, theoretically, these changes were supposed to benefit women, because 40% of women work in irregular employment, such as part-time or casual work. In this regard, the statistics are interesting. The eligibility criteria were established in such a way that the original objectives were not met and, in fact, they greatly penalized workers, especially women, who engage in irregular types of work.
From 1971 to 1978, a woman working 15 hours a week on a part-time basis could qualify for benefits with 120 hours, or 8 weeks. However, over time, this same worker would need between 150 and 210 hours from 1978 to 1989, 210 hours in 1990, from 150 to 300 hours from 1991 to 1994, from 180 to 300 hours from 1994 to 1997, and from 420 to 700 hours since 1997. That's more than double.
In our opinion, the 360-hour threshold is essential, because, pending a major overhaul of the system, it is the only way to restore a minimum degree of fairness for workers, whose employment regimes vary. We believe the current system discriminates against women, and that the new rules had a huge impact on women. Indeed, in total, the average number of hours worked by women was set at 33.8 hours per week, but women work, on average, 29.8 hours per week. Therefore, women need to work more hours to qualify for benefits, and they are entitled to fewer weeks of benefits. Eighteen per cent of jobs are part-time, which explains why, in 2007, barely one-third of workers, and especially women working part-time, were eligible for employment insurance benefits.
In our opinion, this bill is a step in the right direction as far as the fight against poverty is concerned, and it also creates more fairness in the way all workers are treated.
