I do not know the exact point my colleague reached, but you have access to our speaking notes, which come in two parts.
My colleague was talking about the 50-week limit on benefits, which directly discriminates against women.
I will talk about the issue of the eligibility requirement based on hours of work. I heard a number of earlier witnesses bring that up also.
It is the position of the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, or CIAFT, that this requirement directly discriminates against women.
Why does it discriminate? As you probably know, most part-time work is done by women. In 2019, 64% of those doing part-time work were women. You probably also know that they are not working part-time by choice but often because they have to. Far more women are looking after domestic duties, such as caring for children, balancing family, work and school, as well as informal caregiving, which must not be overlooked in the context of the pandemic. That is why the requirement based on hours of work is discriminatory.
We recommend that a hybrid eligibility requirement be created, with two possibilities for assessing eligibility: hours worked or weeks worked. You will understand that, with the requirement based on the number of weeks worked, women who work part-time will be discriminated against. For the same effort at work, the same premium rate and the same experience of unemployment, women are less often eligible for benefits than men. This disproportionate effect is discriminatory. That is why we sincerely believe that a hybrid eligibility requirement would clearly address our concern.
Our position is detailed in our speaking notes. You will also find a table there with an example showing the difference between a woman working part-time and a man not working part-time. You will see that the woman is clearly discriminated against.
Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?