I'll try to be attentive to the clock. I'll just tell you a bit about the Unemployed Help Centre.
We are a small local organization based in Winnipeg, so many of you will perhaps not be familiar with the work we do. We were created in 1980 and we are a non-profit, community-based organization that assists unemployed workers by providing information, advice, and representation on appeals. So we have a very narrow focus, but we've acquired considerable expertise because organizations such as the Community Unemployed Help Centre are few and far between in Canada, and we are the only one in Manitoba.
Let me go back to when the Employment Insurance Act came into law in 1996. We have a large national network of people we consult with on a regular basis, both representatives of non-profit organizations that do EI representation and also a number of lawyers we work with who are involved in charter issues. We held a national consultation in 1996 to assess the potential impact of the EI Act and to develop a possible legal challenge under section 15.
We felt the legislation would be detrimental to most workers, but that it would have a disproportionate impact on women and therefore offend section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So we developed this nice case theory. We said we felt it would be bad for most workers, and I am sure most members of the committee will be aware that the eligibility requirements increased dramatically under the Employment Insurance Act. Previously, under the weeks-based system, one could qualify for maternity benefits or sickness benefits, for example, by working 15 hours a week for 20 weeks, the equivalent of 300 hours, but the EI Act and the weeks-based system at the time of its passage required that worker to work for 700 hours. So we see this at every single benefit period where there's a dramatic spike in the number of hours required to qualify.
So we developed a case theory. We thought this could be supported by data, but we didn't have a client. One does not advertise for a client to change legislation. Fortuitously, we were contacted by Kelly Lesiuk, and I think you're probably all familiar with the Lesiuk case. It was the lead case nationally for which we take a great measure of pride. Kelly Lesiuk had relocated to Winnipeg from Brandon, Manitoba. She had over 10 years of nursing experience. She was four months pregnant at the time she relocated. She had a three-year-old child and another on the way. She came to Winnipeg and, while seeking employment, applied for EI benefits and was told she didn't qualify because she had 667 hours of employment in the last 52 weeks and required 700 under the new EI Act.
We do a lot of work with the Public Interest Law Centre of Legal Aid Manitoba, and PILC agreed to take the Lesiuk case. We took the case all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal. We won before the umpire, but that decision was later overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal, unfortunately. Courts make decisions that we don't always think are the right decisions, and certainly we found that the decision in the lower court was more in line with our thinking than the one at the Federal Court of Appeal.
Nevertheless, although we didn't get a remedy through the courts, it's generally conceded that the Lesiuk case influenced a change in legislation and reduced the number of hours required to qualify for special benefits from 700 hours to 600 hours. So we were certainly pleased that it was a step in the right direction.
I am not going to recite data at great length, because I know you have heard from Kevin Hayes and Monica Towson, and we're all using a lot of the same reports. I have to tell you that as a member of the CLC's UI committee, along with Kevin Hayes, I was one of the principal architects of some of the recommendations you have heard previously and will hear again today.
So let me just state at the outset that although the recommendations we put forward in the brief are fairly general, we specifically recommend an increase in the benefit rate to 60%. We certainly would recommend an increase in compassionate care benefits to at least 12 weeks.
On that front once again, I must tell you that shortly after the compassionate care legislation was passed into law, my brother was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I was the test case, and my brother was the test case. We followed the tried-and-true pattern of Lesiuk, and my case was generally conceded to be responsible for a broadening of the definition of family for eligibility purposes. We're certainly pleased with that and wish to commend the previous government for bringing in the EI compassionate care benefits.
However, that said, six weeks is certainly problematic for two reasons. Of particular interest to this committee, the uptake of compassionate care is largely by women. Six weeks is problematic, and it forces people, as Denise mentioned, to kind of be on a death watch and determine when within that six-week window the family member is likely to die, because you don't want to take the benefits too early, and you don't want to take the benefits too late. We would call for a recommendation to increase the duration to at least 15 weeks.
You have copies of my brief, so I'm just going to refer you to that. Suffice it to say that there has certainly been a lot of data that talk about the differential impact of EI legislation on women. This is largely influenced and consequential to the fact that women represent such a large part of the workforce. One thing we learned from Lesiuk is that when you look at a 52-week window to determine whether or not one qualifies, this creates problems.
I just want to give you one illustration. Kelly Lesiuk, with her 10 years of nursing experience, failed to qualify for benefits because she didn't accumulate sufficient hours in the 52 weeks prior to her application. Someone could be new to the workforce, a 16-year-old--with all due respect to youth--who has never worked before. They go and find a job, work somewhere for 900 hours, and qualify for benefits. This, to me, is evidence of the fact that this program is fundamentally flawed in that regard. It also sends this message to women, as it did with Kelly Lesiuk: I'm sorry, but the legislation, in the way it's currently constructed, does not value your labour force participation. That's a strong message that I wouldn't want to leave with the committee.
The recommendations, as I mentioned, are contained.... I think my eight minutes is about up, but this is important. When drafting legislation, and if there are going to be amendments to the act, I would really ask that you put them to the test to assess the gender impact and to develop legislation recommendations that are certainly sensitive to and responsive to women's participation in the labour force. In 1940 when the act was first passed into law, only 42% of workers were covered. There was a very different labour market in 1942. Women were not working in 1942 to the same extent as they are now. Work patterns have changed. The 1940 act was very much an actuarial exercise, and it measured how much money was coming in and how much money was going out. There have been some changes reflecting more of an actuarial sort of guideline to the program, I would argue, than the changing and merging of social realities, including the increased participation of women in the labour force.
Thank you.