Thank you very much.
Many of the issues I will bring forward have been raised already; however, the context of disability always adds an additional layer of difficulty to it. I will say that I echo Lucille Harper's comments around women in rural areas. I come from Newfoundland, so the issues are paramount for me as well. However, I will put on my disability hat and speak to that.
I'm compelled to note at the outset that for people with disabilities--women in particular--labour market policy is not really their main priority, and if you look at the statistics on unemployment and lack of attachment to the labour force for people with disabilities, it becomes clear why. Many of the people in my community, that of people with disabilities, live in poverty. We know that according to the International Labour Organization the annual loss of global GDP due to exclusion of people with disabilities from the labour market is between, in American dollars, $1.94 trillion and $1.73 trillion. So we are an underutilized resource.
One of the reasons we are, particularly in Canada, is that from my perspective, social policy is homeless in this government. We know that no one disputes the fact that Canadians with disabilities are, by virtue of their size, massively unemployed. They disproportionately live in poverty. We face discrimination on a daily basis. For women with disabilities, it adds an additional layer to all of the adversity that we face, but we still have no clear plan to address the substantive inequities that we face. If social policy is not seen to be the key function of a federal government, then what we have are the issues I just articulated, and I'm hoping the work of this committee is a signal that perhaps some of it will get the needed attention.
Approximately two million women, or 13% of all women in Canada, have disabilities. That's a large group of people, many of whom are unemployed. We know that women have a lower economic status than men. Well, women with disabilities have even a lower economic status. So again, there's the first barrier that you encounter.
We know that women's caregiving is largely unpaid. That has been addressed; however, often it's forgotten that women with disabilities can also be caregivers. I'm a single mother of two children. I assure you I'm their primary caregiver. We know that women have unequal access to capital, to land and borrowing opportunities, and we know that job segregation continues. For women with disabilities, again, we know that in the labour force they have a preponderance in the area of sales, service, and administration. Management is a ceiling for us.
We know that women with disabilities tend to have less education, which creates the barriers to the workforce. The most recent statistic we have is that the unemployment rate for women with disabilities is almost 75%, and I would suggest to you that's a national disgrace.
Many Canadian women pay no income tax, either because their work is unpaid or their income from paid work is too low, and many women have incomes that fall into the lowest tax bracket. So from my perspective, if we look at a government whose vehicle of choice for progress is often tax and the tax system, then once again we are excluded. So from that perspective, we believe that EI is a very important instrument in a public policy regime. In this time of recession it really doesn't matter what your stripe is or where you live or from where you come; EI is important to you. Since the beginning of this economic downturn we as a community of people with disabilities continue to say that it is the most vulnerable who require even more protection in this kind of environment. We know that EI is not accessible and inclusive for women with disabilities.
The Kelly Lesiuk case has already been referenced, but I think it's worth repeating it. I'm sure you've heard already what the EI umpire expressed in the case. It was said:
...the eligibility requirements demean the essential human dignity of women who predominate in the part-time labour force because they must work for longer periods than full-time workers in order to demonstrate their labour force attachment.... Since women continue to spend approximately twice as much time doing unpaid work as men, women are predominantly affected. Thus, the underlying message is that, to enjoy equal benefits of law, women must become more like men by increasing their hours of paid work, notwithstanding their unpaid responsibilities.
And I don't think there's a woman in this room who would say that they don't have a significant amount of unpaid responsibility.
Our recommendations are very similar to those you've heard already, perhaps with a new twist. We would suggest that the Government of Canada bring more women, particularly women with disabilities, into standardized employment with social benefits. We would like to improve access for women who have non-standard employment practices.
Now I would like to speak briefly to the sickness benefits issue. For women in my community, it's not just chronic illness but episodic disabilities. If I am a woman who has MS, I may need to be off for six months. Fifteen weeks doesn't cut it. Like those who are at the end of life--and we are looking at compassionate care--I'm sorry, but I can't put myself on a schedule. Nor can any other woman who has a chronic illness or an episodic disability in regard to when it may or may not hit, so therefore it is of great importance to us.
Also, we believe the government should expand the acceptable reasons for voluntarily leaving jobs and remove the penalties on subsequent claims. I was the deputy mayor of the city of St. John's, my children were five and six, and I left to take care of my children—unlike being turfed out, I actually left—because they were both going to be in school, in kindergarten and grade 1. Of course, there's a whole other issue around EI when you're in those positions. Regardless of that fact, I left voluntarily to do something that was important to me. If I had been in paid work of a different ilk, I would have been penalized for it.
When we look at Canadians with disabilities, one of the most important things is that we already have significant overarching legislation to protect us. With the onset of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we are hopeful that government will look even more broadly at the issues that impact people with disabilities, and the EI system is one.
I'll conclude by saying that CCD and the broader disability community have endorsed a national action plan on disability. I have copies here. It sets out four key areas for needed action. They are interrelated. You cannot have one without the other.
There is the eradication of poverty, which requires access to disability-related supports. It requires unencumbered—and I'll say it again, unencumbered—access to employment and the full range of more responsive EI benefits, which do not exist at this time. We seek a social fabric that includes and respects all, and EI is a thread in this fabric.
We know that Canada is a country where we should all live in dignity. We know that Canada is a country where having a disability does not mean and should never mean that you will live your whole life in poverty. What we seek is parity and inclusion, not charity and exclusion.
Thank you.