Evidence of meeting #11 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Regular benefits, uniform 360 across the country; the best 12 weeks; and restoring the benefits back to the 67% of the early 1990s--which is your highest priority?
Canada Research Chair in Feminist Political Economy, York University, As an Individual
I'm afraid I see them as absolutely integrated. I came along with about 12 or 14 others that I saw as priority. I was informed that even though I'm a researcher with a lot of data, I had 10 minutes. So I could also provide you with more; I'm afraid I'd have to say that. In particular, I think your region is an example of one in which the three are so intimately related.
The divisor rule is quite complicated. I have a chart I could show you based on the regional rate of unemployment.
On that particular issue, just to say a few words about the divisor rule, the EI formula for calculating weekly benefits averages total insurable earnings over actual weeks worked in the past 26 weeks, as you know, unless the number of weeks is less than the minimum divisor, which ranges--
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
If I could interrupt for a second, one of the reasons it was such a detriment in my area is because it discouraged people from taking what we call “short weeks”, so less hours in a particular week, because that in the end reduced their benefits.
Canada Research Chair in Feminist Political Economy, York University, As an Individual
This is where I'm going.
Liberal
Canada Research Chair in Feminist Political Economy, York University, As an Individual
It ranges from 14 to 22 weeks, depending on the regional rate of unemployment, which I assume is higher in your region. I have the data to show you.
In such cases, the earnings are divided by the larger number rather than the actual weeks worked, lowering benefits. The divisor rule can disadvantage temporary workers or people in an intermittent situation, so it's not surprising that many people are arguing for this best 12 weeks formula.
I have suggested that the best 12 weeks--I abbreviated my comments on that--should be over a longer period of time. Because often right before a layoff, or to avert a layoff, many employers will shorten hours. I would support a best 12 weeks scenario, where one can count the weeks in a longer period.
While I think the 14-week pilot was very instructive to us, as researchers, and political representatives, I would say that the best 12 weeks over a longer period would deal with the problem. That would mean that people would accept work for shorter hours if that was all that was on offer, knowing that it wouldn't disadvantage--
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Over the full year instead of 26 weeks.
Canada Research Chair in Feminist Political Economy, York University, As an Individual
Exactly.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Thank you very much.
We'll now move to Ms. O'Neill-Gordon--
Liberal
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I wonder if Ms. Vosko could mail her 12 recommendations to the committee.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Oh, yes, we're going to ask her for all her information. Thanks, that was a good point.
Ms. O'Neill-Gordon, for four minutes, please.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the guests for being with us this afternoon.
I also want to touch on what Ms. Hoeppner said about the two-week period. When we spoke with her, we were comparing as well. As we all know, if you're a full-time worker or you're on salary, you don't get a cheque every day or every week; you get a cheque every two weeks. She kind of compared that situation to this, that the two weeks would be much like getting your cheque. If you applied for your unemployment right away, then you would wait two weeks, as if you had been getting your cheque. That's what she compared it to.
For that reason, she felt the five weeks at the end was better. And it does make sense. Even if you were working, you would only get your cheque every two weeks.
That's where she was coming from.
Conservative
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
She said that if you knew you were going to be unemployed and you applied for your unemployment right away, that was your two-week period, the same as if you were waiting for your cheque.
Moving on, in your report you suggest that the EI benefits should be extended to self-employed workers. We see this, and we realize what you're saying. But one of the main problems, not only in Canada but in other countries as well, is that if someone was self-employed, we found that the business owners...because it's impossible to know if someone has actually laid themselves off. How do you propose--as I said, this is a problem facing lots of countries, not just Canada--that we overcome this problem, and what suggestion can you offer for this?
President, Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs
May I clarify? What I've been talking about today is access to EI special benefits for self-employed and business-owning women. That's what I've been talking about, not regular benefits for self-employed people across the board. As an organization, we haven't even got to talking about that, because we think a lot of things are more urgent, one of which is special benefits for access to maternity and parental benefits.
In answer to your question about how we would know if somebody laid himself or herself off, I don't know. We haven't even got to looking at that. What we're talking about, and what I've been talking about today, are the special benefits under the EI legislation for maternity and parental benefits.
When I answered your colleague's questions earlier, I said with reference to the two-week waiting period that even if you're able to access maternity and parental benefits, you still have a two-week waiting period during which you have no income. That's the point I was making: there's no income. It doesn't matter if it's added on at the end. You have two weeks when your bills don't stop, but your income does.
When I asked what the point of that two-week waiting period was, I was talking about special benefits, but it applies equally to regular benefits, because people who are now in the situation of being laid off are still waiting two weeks, so I raise the question about why that two-week waiting period exists.
The second point I wanted to make was that we don't disagree with adding five weeks onto the end at all. I mean, we don't want to take anything away from anybody, but in the case of the 60% of people who apply to EI and do not qualify, adding five weeks does not help, because they can't access it. They're not getting EI benefits.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Thank you.
I'm sorry; your time is up.
We'll now move to Madame Deschamps. You have four minutes, please.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
We have heard a lot of things today, but for a while now, we have the impression that the same tape is playing over and over. At least, that's the impression I have.
Today, we've talked about the proposal to expand EI benefit entitlement by five weeks. That is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't change the fact that the system currently discriminates against women. Few women manage to qualify for benefits because the system is outdated. It fails to take into account the fact that more and more women are employed in precarious, seasonal jobs. I can give you some idea of what it's like in the regions, since I toured the province of Quebec twice to meet with workers when we tabled the first version of Bill C-269 which called for improvements to the existing EI system.
You referred, Madam, to the human dimension of this issue. As it happens, I met with some women who worked in a shrimp processing plant in the Gaspé. They were working full out because the owner wanted the shrimp packaged as quickly as possible. These women do not manage to qualify for EI. Yet, they are old enough to be grandmothers and they are struggling. When I met with them, they were in tears. How can a person not feel for them? Many times, we've argued that the system needed to be improved because it did not correspond to women's day-to-day lives. Extending EI entitlement by five weeks is all well and good, but this initiative does not mean that more women will qualify and collect benefits.
Another reality is that of self-employed women. You describe their situation in your submission. The three recommendations put forward are also contained in the bill that was tabled in the House by, I repeat, my colleague. We have not invented anything new, merely relied on your studies and expertise, and on the experience of people, associations and support groups. We have the figures to back this up. I'm astonished to see people nit-picking. What are we waiting for to get this program up and running so that it benefits people? According to the experts, this initiative could help to stimulate the economy. When the statistics no longer report on women who cannot qualify, it means that the problem has been offloaded to the provinces. These women survive on social assistance. Can someone claim that she is helping to keep the economy afloat because she receives social welfare benefits? I hardly think so.
I don't really have a question for the witness.
Conservative
President, Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs
I would just like to say that we agree with you completely. We have asked ourselves the same question: what will it take for things to change? That is why I wanted to touch on the human dimension of the problem today. We are talking about real people, about real women and I understand what you're saying. Even if they could qualify, women who work in the lobster processing plants would only stand to collect about one hundred dollars a week.