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.