Thank you very much, Madame Folco, for the question.
We know this recession has been dubbed, in both the United States and Canada, as a “he-cession”. We know that 71% of the people who have lost their jobs in this country thus far have been men, and women are part of the “she-covery”, particularly women over 55, because they're the ones who are picking up whatever jobs are out there to support and sustain family incomes. We know already that those who are able to access employment insurance are primarily men, generally speaking, even in good times—and in this recession, it's been even more so. It has been a male-dominated process to make use of the employment insurance system. And as well it might, because it's been the goods-producing industries that have been hardest hit in the recession.
That does leave us with two issues: there are always people in the service industries who are going to get hit, and hit very badly; and Canada has a very poor track record of low-wage employment for women, as well as insecure and precarious hours.
I did have a recommendation, which I didn't make in my opening pitch, that I would like to raise now. I will also be doing so in front of the finance committee in pre-budget consultations next week. One other consideration that this committee could undertake, should you wish to make things a little more secure for people who are really struggling—and it is outside the purview of Bill C-50—is related to the fact that a lot of women cannot survive on 55% of their insured earnings from whatever they were working at. It just isn't enough to pay the bills. There was one clause introduced in the EI Act in 1996 that permitted some relief for low-income families in receipt of the Canada child tax benefit. For families with net incomes—including the CCTB—of not more than $25,921, there was a clause in the EI Act that would permit up to 80% of income replacement, meaning that women who were laid off could at least come close to paying the rent and feeding their kids. They are the people who primarily use this provision.
In 1999, about 11.5% of EI recipients made use of this clause. By last year, only 7% did. By raising that threshold in a different amendment to the legislation—which I would highly urge this committee to look at doing—you could actually relieve an awful lot of vulnerability.
I do want to make one other comment, if you will, Madame Folco. I wonder if this committee realizes that in the recession of the 1980s, if you convert the weeks required then to the hours required now, it took only 165 hours to trigger EI eligibility in an area of 8% to 9% unemployment. In the recession of the 1990s, it took 255 hours. Today it takes 595 hours. For people who are worried that if you reduce the hours of work eligibility, there will be malingerers in the system, I would remind you that the economy exploded in 1989, and after the recession of the 1990s, we had ten of the most sustained years of economic expansion. It wasn't because of the eligibility requirements for EI. We have an enormous economic storm unfolding, and we can do better.