Human Resources Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

You've exhausted that now. You're at the point of exhausting it, so you can't get this extension.

[Paul Thompson]

I'm saying that after six years you'd be entitled to the existing five weeks. The people with seven years or more get five weeks and then an additional three weeks for each year on top of that.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

But in choosing who benefits and who doesn't, we're saying that if you've worked six years, you don't qualify for this program, but if you worked seven years, you do.

[Paul Thompson]

And if you work eight years, you qualify for three more; nine years, three more. It extends. There are distinctions—

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I understand how the grid works. What I'm trying to say is that we're picking and choosing people. Some are going to pay their bills, others are not; some will end up on welfare, others will not. That's not your decision—you didn't make that decision and that choice. With respect to young people, it's the same situation.

I need a clarification on the women with respect to parental leave. If I'm not mistaken, you responded earlier to a question put by the Bloc that a year taken off for parental leave is not counted as part of the seven years. What about the 30% of maximum premium? Are you considering excluding the 30% calculation for the weeks when claimants receive parental leave? It says here the criteria are that you need to have worked seven years out of 10, and that you need to have reached a threshold of 30% of the maximum premium for the years in which maternity benefits were received. So your 30% threshold does not apply either?

[Paul Thompson]

The requirement is to have paid a minimum of 30% of the EI premiums for seven of the last 10 years, which allows for up to three years of absence without paying the premiums.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

But if one of those years is parental, then the 30% threshold might not be met.

[Paul Thompson]

The difference between the three years, the difference between the seven and the 10, is intended to accommodate absences from the labour market, including time spent on parental leave, where premiums would not be paid. The period of employment would still be seven years out of the last 10.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The 30% doesn't apply in that case.

When you were looking at the sectors and groups in society that benefited and those that did not, did you by any chance do an analysis of the impact, or lack of impact, on women, youth, and various age groups? Was that analysis done at all?

[Paul Thompson]

In coming up with the definition of seven out of 10 years, one of the primary motivations behind that was to allow for absences from the labour market. So that would have been motivated by some gender analysis of how women versus men might access this measure. That's one example, in addition to the exclusion of the use of special benefits.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

But was there a gender-based analysis impact done on this particular piece of legislation?

[Paul Thompson]

There was analysis done--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I understand we're supposed to have this at HRSDC now. It's supposed to be common practice. Was there one done?

[Paul Thompson]

There was analysis done of the measure in coming up with the analysis that fed into--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

A gender analysis?

[Paul Thompson]

There was gender analysis around this--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Could we receive that analysis at this committee?

[Paul Thompson]

There is some information we can provide in that regard.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

No, but could we receive the actual analysis done? Could this committee receive that?

[Paul Thompson]

We'll provide analysis on--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The gender-based analysis done.

[Paul Thompson]

We can provide analysis based on gender, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

That's all the time we have. We're a little over time.

I'm going to move it back to Mr. Godin. We're going to give you another round, and then if we want to pick up on anything....

Mike, you wanted to ask a couple of questions.

Mr. Godin, you have five minutes, sir.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You mentioned January 4. Normally, after January 4, you would know who is eligible, would you not? What problem would be solved if the bill were adopted on October 20? The government's heart is apparently in the right place regarding long-tenured beneficiaries. After having passed through Parliament, through the committee and through Senate before being adopted on October 20, would there be a problem with this bill if everything was scheduled for January 4?

[Paul Thompson]

As my colleague explained, some people have exhausted their benefits even after nine months. If this period was extended, the implementation of the measures would become more and more complicated because there would be more and more beneficiaries who have already exhausted their—