Thanks very much for the opportunity to be here. We won't be taking 10 minutes, because we want to get into the discussion as well.
The key reforms to the EI program that have been advocated by labour and anti-poverty groups are a reduction in the number of qualifying hours to 360 in all regions; a longer duration of up to 50 weeks of regular benefits; and an increase to at least 60% in the percentage of insured earnings replaced by EI benefits, based on the best 12 weeks of earnings.
We support Bill C-265, which would reduce the number of qualifying hours to 360 and base benefits on the best 12 weeks.
We are now sitting just two days before International Women's Day, so I want to speak today in particular about the importance of the EI program to working women and the need to make fundamental changes of the kind proposed in this bill.
The Canadian Labour Congress is going to be organizing, commencing Saturday, teach-ins all across this country on the question of women's economic equality, and these teach-ins will continue throughout the course of the year. The need for EI reform is very much on our agenda. I would refer you, beginning tomorrow, to our website, www.onceandforall.ca or www.unefoispourtoutes.ca, because you will see interesting fact sheets on the question of women's economic equality, and in particular on EI.
EI income support during periods of unemployment, maternity or parental leave, and periods of sickness is obviously important in terms of stabilizing and supporting family incomes. EI also supports the economic independence of women, since benefits are not based on family income, with the exception of a small supplement for low-income families. Rather, the benefits are based on insured individual earnings. However, key EI program rules exclude or unfairly penalize women workers, because they fail to take into proper account the different working patterns of women compared to men. While the great majority of adult women now engage in paid work, the hours they work exclude many from EI benefits, as do periods of time spent away from work caring for children or others.
We shouldn't just say that this is a particular kind of worker, because recently, at a meeting with some officials from Service Canada, it was pointed out by the representative of the Canadian Teachers Federation that there are a lot of young teachers who don't have full-time positions who are doing a lot of fill-in work, and a lot them don't quality for their EI. So we can't compartmentalize this and say it's one group of workers. In fact, it cuts across all groups, and in particular, again, it hits women in those groups particularly hard.
I'd like to suggest to the committee, if you haven't already reviewed it, that you look at a report done by Monica Townson and Kevin Hayes for Status of Women Canada. It's a recent report. They document that only 32% of unemployed women qualify for regular EI benefits compared to 40% of men who are unemployed. Over 70% of women and 80% of men qualified for benefits before there were major cuts imposed more than a decade ago. The key reason for the gender gap is that in order to qualify, a person must have worked in the previous year and must have put in between 420 and 700 hours of work, depending on the local unemployment rate. Workers in most large urban areas now have to put in 700 hours, roughly the equivalent of 20 weeks of full-time work.
Fewer unemployed women qualify than do men because many women take extended leaves from work to care for children and for others in their families. After a two-year absence from paid work, the entrance requirement jumps to 910 hours, or more than six months of full-time work. And when they work, women are much more likely than men to be employed in part-time and/or temporary jobs as opposed to full-time, permanent jobs providing steady hours. Because they lack enough qualifying hours, only about half of part-time workers who lose their jobs actually qualify for unemployment benefits.
Even when they finally do qualify, the lower pay of women, combined with more unstable work patterns, means that they usually qualify for lower benefits, an average of $291 per week compared to $351 for men in 2005-06. Only about one-third of the total dollar amount of regular EI unemployment benefits is paid to women, even though women now participate in the paid workforce at almost the same rate as men.
The EI program now provides for up to 15 weeks of maternity benefits and 35 weeks of parental benefits, 90% of which are taken by women. Expansion of maternity parental leave stands as a major gain for working women in recent years, especially the 2001 increase in parental benefits from 10 to 35 weeks.
To qualify, a woman must have worked 600 hours in the previous year. About three-quarters of all women giving birth to a child do qualify, and about 60% claim a benefit, but a full year leave of absence is much more likely to be taken by women who qualify for a reasonable benefit or whose employer supplements the EI benefit. Bill C-265 would increase the proportion of women eligible to take maternity or parental leaves and the proportion who could afford to do so.
In conclusion, the reduction of qualifying hours to 360 for regular and special benefits would result in a major gain for working women, who are unfairly treated by the current EI rules.
I would like to add here that when the change was proposed to move from a weeks calculation to an hours calculation and that everybody would be included, we actually embraced that in the labour movement. We thought that was good, that there would be people who could pay in and who could benefit from it. What we didn't know was that there was this vicious undertow that said, yes, you can pay in, but you're not going to qualify because the number of hours is too high.
I'll look forward to answering questions later on, and we've also provided to the committee an updated version of our policy paper, “Towards a Better Employment Insurance System for Workers in Today's Job Market”.
Thank you.