Okay. To specify why I'm bringing this up, it is because the parents of critically ill children will need to qualify for EI, so they will fall under these same weaknesses. These are weaknesses in the EI system that will affect parents of critically ill children when they need to qualify for EI.
The EI program provides 35 weeks of parental benefits, nearly 90% of which are taken by women. Women currently make up 74% of beneficiaries for the six weeks of compassionate care. There are key EI program rules that exclude or unfairly penalize women, because they fail to take proper account of the different working patterns of women compared with men. The great majority of women do engage in paid work, but the hours they work cause them to be excluded from EI benefits, as do periods of time spent away from work caring for children, elders, or others.
One reason for the gender gap comes from the fact that to qualify for special benefits, a person must have worked in the previous year for at least 600 hours, and while women do have sufficient hours to qualify, their benefit levels are still on average $60 per week lower than men's. This is due partly to a persistent wage gap and the higher unpaid work burden that many women carry, thus reducing the number of hours they are available for paid work. On average, women work about 30 hours a week compared with men, who work over 35 hours.
Because they lack enough qualifying hours, only about half of part-time workers who lose their jobs actually qualify for unemployment benefits. Of women who are employed, 27% work part time, compared with only 12% of men.
We are also concerned that workers who access special benefits, such as parental care and leave to care for a critically ill child, are vulnerable to lay-off when they return to work. This bill stacks sickness benefits along with parental benefits, but they will still have to requalify for regular benefits if they have taken this special benefit and have returned to work and been laid off. They won't have access to EI. Allowing special benefits to be stackable with regular benefits would ensure that families who have required special benefits are not subject to financial insecurity through subsequent job loss.
The Canadian Labour Congress recommends a lower entrance requirement of 360 hours of work across the country so that more workers will qualify if they are laid off or require access to special benefits; longer benefits of up to 50 weeks; and higher weekly benefits across the country based on the best 12 weeks of earnings. In addition, a replacement rate of 60% of insured earnings would help women and their families. Reducing the entrance requirement would be particularly important in terms of helping to close the EI gender gap and ensuring that this legislation helps more Canadian families during their time of need.
Thank you.