Status of Women Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We'll move on now to Madame Boucher, please, for seven minutes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our round table. I always find it interesting to hear from you. We learn many things and, sometimes, some of them strike home.

One thing I heard was that women have been harder hit than men by the economic crisis and that this has always been the case. In early March, I read an article published in La Presse. This article appeared on March 2 and it was written by Mathieu Perreault. Let me quote from the article:

[Translation] Recessions hit men more than women. Since October, twice as many men as women have lost their jobs in Canada, even though there are about as many of them in the workforce. [...] The difference is even more striking in Quebec, where 30,000 of the 31,000 jobs lost during this period were held by men.

Today, a number of witnesses have told the committee the opposite. This is a bit problematic. I would like things explained to me. Mr. Lightman, a little earlier, you talked about infrastructure. You said that men would benefit more from infrastructure. I am a woman, I drive, I use the roads. If the roads are repaired, I benefit as well. So I have my doubts.

We have been listening to witnesses for a good while now. Given what has been said, do you believe that it would better to provide two systems, one for men and one for women? My question is for anyone who wants to answer.

[Carole Vincent]

For me, the answer is no. I would like to emphasize that the employment insurance program is more advantageous for workers who have a certain type of job. I am not trying to imply that some individuals choose their jobs in order to receive employment insurance benefits. However, employment insurance rules make some types of jobs more easily supported. A strong association with the workforce each year is given priority. People are compensated when they lose their job, even if they lose the job year after year, which is contrary to the concept of an insurance program. The program's rules compensate certain types of workforce behaviour. We see that behaviour more often in men. There are also many men who have the kinds of jobs that are not easily recognized by employment insurance. So it is really about recognizing the various ways of being part of the workforce. Personal circumstances or job opportunities in certain regions are not the only factors that make someone choose a certain type of job. Many people, both men and women but women in particular, are part of the workforce in a way that it is not recognized by employment insurance.

I certainly do not believe in a separate program for men and women, but I do believe in a program that would recognize the wider diversity of ways in which people participate in the workforce, due to family responsibilities or personal choices. It is difficult to talk about personal choice for part-time work. It depends on the circumstances. If this choice was made because there were no employment opportunities in the region, we could perhaps describe the situation as a little more involuntary. However, the concept of voluntary choice for part-time work is quite vague. When there are family constraints and a lack of adequate and affordable daycare, to what extent are these choices voluntary? That is debatable.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Go ahead, Professor MacDonald.

[Dr. Martha MacDonald]

I just have an answer to the comment that more men have lost their jobs in the current last few months in the recession. Most of the time period that the EI reform has been in place and that research has looked at has been a period of fairly stable or falling unemployment rates. But what I would say about more men losing their jobs is this. What we're concerned about is if a typical man—an auto worker, for example—who has been working full-time steadily for the last five years loses his job, he will qualify for employment insurance. That's in contrast to the more common work pattern for women, where they might have been working part-time, they might have had interrupted employment, they might have had casual work, fluctuating earnings. If they lose their job, they will be less covered, regardless of what the unemployment rate is.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I have a question about the men and women who hold down a full-time job and have access to employment insurance. When they apply for employment insurance, does it matter whether they are a woman or a man? Is there any difference in employment insurance for women and men?

[Dr. Martha MacDonald]

This goes back to the point about comparable workers.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Right.

[Dr. Martha MacDonald]

A male and a female auto worker getting laid off with the same amount of work are going to be treated similarly. But the general point that several of us were making is that, for various reasons, the work patterns are different between men and women, and the structure of the program is more in tune with a typical male work pattern than a more typical female work pattern.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much, Madame Boucher.

We'll move now to Ms. Mathyssen, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank this panel of experts. The pieces and bits are beginning to make sense in terms of your bringing information that helps to create a narrative, I think, of what we're looking at.

I wanted to start with Madame Schirle, but I hope that other members of the panel will jump in and answer this question too.

Quite frankly, I found what you said today and in your working paper rather contradictory, that women are primarily responsible for unpaid labour and that they choose to take casual part-time work. I'm wondering about that.

I want to pick up on what Madame Zarac and what Madame Demers were talking about in terms of this word “choice”, because it keeps being bandied about here, that women have choice. You said you looked at raw data, but does raw data really tell the whole story?

I'm thinking about the reality that I face in my constituency. Right now, I'm looking at people who have lost their jobs and are depending on employment insurance, and it's not there. They're devastated by this. I'm also looking at the situation of a woman, a single mom who has no access to child care. She can't go out and look for that job, because of no child care. And you made mention of the fact that we need a national child care system. We don't have one, and in point of fact the number of child care spaces has actually diminished just in the last few weeks, and we didn't have enough to begin with. What about this woman who has child care responsibilities, who is looking after a disabled or an aged family member? I think she has very, very limited choices, and the word “choices” really bothers me.

Regarding this contradiction in terms of saying we have pay equity, for example, we don't have pay equity. Manitoba has pay equity, Ontario has pay equity, Quebec has pay equity, but we do not have universal pay equity. We don't even have a federal pay equity law. The sham of a law that was perpetrated on the women of Canada three or four weeks ago is not a law.

So could somebody jump in and try to help me sort out these contradictions? I find them very, very troubling, and even worse, I see a government that relies on these contradictions to spin a tale that I can't swallow.

[Dr. Tammy Schirle]

Perhaps I could respond.

I think you bring up a major point: it's not clear what the objectives of the EI program are. A lot of women, yes, are working part-time because they can't find day care. Is having a national child care program supposed to be part of EI, or is that better left as a separate policy tool under a different program?

A lot of the income support programs that I think we all agree need to be there, do they actually belong under EI or should they be a part of another program?

I'm thinking of women who do choose to be working part-time. They don't expect continued employment. So thinking of employment insurance as insurance, I think it's doing a reasonable job there.

Now, if we're looking to support those women so that they have more secure income, given that they're working part-time, I'm not sure that belongs under the employment insurance program. Perhaps that's better left as a separate policy. So things like affirmative action—I grew up in a pay equity province, so I'm sorry, I tend to assume that one's there—I think are important programs for the bigger picture that we're looking at here. I'm just not sure it's part of EI.

[Ernie Lightman]

I have to budge in.

First of all, the only thing about employment insurance that is insurance is the title. It has never been an insurance program. It has never been based on insurance principles. It has always been part of the social welfare system. We judge its acceptability by how well it helps the most vulnerable in the population, and the answer is it doesn't help them very much. That's number one.

Number two, the word “choice” is a very problematic word. It's a word economists use a lot. And choice is meaningful for those who have the resources to act on their choice. Choice is a meaningful concept for middle-class families that have money and can exercise choice. You and I are both free to choose to drive a Rolls Royce, but we might have a little trouble.

There's a song, Me and Bobby McGee, that Janis Joplin made famous, and in that song there's a line, “Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose”, and that's what choice means to a lot of people in this country, especially to poor, single-parent women.

[Dr. Martha MacDonald]

I'd like to jump in, if I may.

On the issue of choice, of course I agree with the constrained choices that people face, especially on the caregiving responsibilities. There's another aspect of the choice, which is the demand side of the labour market. Everything we've heard about choice so far is the supply side of the labour market. When I look at how the work incentives in EI get responded to, in my region it's the employers who are trying to work with the system in order to be able to find workers. It's not just a supply-side response of the individual worker.

On the issue of whether part-time should be equally protected to full-time, even if somebody chose part-time because they wanted to be home with their children, if that job then disappears in the recession, like a full-time job might disappear or a part-time job might disappear, is there any reason why that part-time person should have less likelihood of qualifying for income replacement? Granted it would be at a lower rate that reflects that they work less time, but they still can be in a position of losing a job the same as a full-time person, and the parameters of the program should not favour the person who was working in a full-time context.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Okay, thank you very much.

We're now going to move on to Madame Zarac, for five minutes, please.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you.

I think it's very important to remember the objective of unemployment insurance. It was said before that it should temporarily support the person who just lost a job. Mr. Lightman said an important thing before. He said that if a company closes in a small town, is it pertinent to assume that the person will find a job quickly? In that objective, do you think that the EI program we have now suits the requirements of what we are facing today with the economic situation?

I'm going to give Mrs. MacDonald a chance to talk about her recommendations that she wanted to give us previously.

[Dr. Martha MacDonald]

There were two parts to the question. One related to--

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

One was an example....

[Dr. Martha MacDonald]

--the closing of a company in a small town. We're in a particular situation with the recession, and EI is designed ideally to be able to deal with different causes of unemployment. With the recession, which is temporary, where everybody is losing jobs and it's expected to be short-run, then we need equal protection for whoever is losing their job. Also, it has to be able to respond to more structural unemployment issues. In my region the fishery is collapsing, and it's not coming back, so you can't hang out waiting for the fishery to come back; you need to pursue other options. That's more of an adjustment issue. In terms of the different types of unemployment, there are different aspects of EI that perhaps need changing.

On the adjustment issue, if you need to get trained to get out of one line of work and into another, or if you need to move to get into that kind of policy, having all those programs, all those active employment measures, tied to EI eligibility can be problematic. If you aren't still in a position to be EI-eligible, you are not going to be able to access the kinds of training and adjustment programs that might enable you to change your location or your occupation, or whatever. That's one set of issues.

The other set of issues is more in a general response to more demand if there's unemployment like we have now. Then the eligibility rules will mean that some people will qualify and some people won't. That will play through the way the hours formula plays through. It will affect how long you can collect your benefits. My comments about the benefit formula itself will affect how much of your income is replaced during that period that you're on unemployment.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

This question goes for everybody.

We know that only 48% of the population can qualify for employment insurance at present. Is that enough to support the individuals who are in need, who are looking for a job? The question is open.

[Carole Vincent]

There are various reasons why 52% of the population is not covered. As I said, some people are not insured under the employment insurance program because they did not pay into it. So It is understandable that they would not receive benefits.

Where the program is less adequate is in the case of workers, both women and men, whose association with the workforce is relatively strong except that their participation each year takes the form of a part-time job, for example. The employment insurance program recognizes the degree of association to the workforce. But, as an example, there are seasonal workers who will work two or three years and then apply for employment insurance because they have worked the requisite number of hours. They are eligible, whereas others, who have spent 20 years working on a part-time basis, and have contributed to the program for 20 years, paid the premiums every year, are not entitled to employment insurance benefits should they ever lose their job. So we have to strike a balance between recognizing the degree of association to the workforce, or certain types of degrees of association, and—

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

The changes made could be fairer. Is that what you mean?

[Carole Vincent]

Yes. We could change the eligibility rules or perhaps—I think that Tammy said this—we should ensure that some people do not have to pay the premiums. If their workforce participation will never qualify them for benefits should they lose their jobs, perhaps they should not have to pay the premiums. Or we could do the opposite and recognize a wider variety of workforce involvement and participation.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you.

Do I still have time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, you have one minute. Actually no, you have gone over. Sorry.

Madam McLeod.