Status of Women Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With the passion we all bring to the subject, we often deviate from the focus of the conversation, and I do feel I need to have a quick deviation just to respond to a few things that have been said, but of course we'll ultimately focus in on what the goals are.

I think everyone here has the same goal in this country, and that is that people can be engaged in the type of work they want, regardless of gender, and that they can make choices around part-time versus full-time. I'm very proud to have a son in nursing and a daughter in business, and here we are with many women politicians. That is an important value. I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with that sort of vision and value for our country.

Where we end up with some struggles is around the best way we can get to that and perhaps what role EI plays within that. I truly do think that is a bit of an issue.

I do quickly need to suggest that we have often, within this conversation, headed into the conversation around child care, absolutely related to maternity benefits. But please, I represent a rural riding, and when we talk about universal child care as being the answer, let's not forget—I mean, I have so many people. First of all, it's a provincial responsibility. The provinces have additional money to make decisions. And I can't tell you how many people.... It might not sound like a lot of money, but the appreciation of my rural and remote people, who have family farms and young people on family farms.... So we can't forget that we can't take an urban-centric model to our goals around early childhood development and child care.

We have this current system, and Professor Lightman, I did sort of take a little bit of objection to your comments about our government's insensitivity. This system was actually designed before our government, so to suggest that the Conservative government is responsible for a very unfair system is not quite accurate. I just want to put that on the record.

We have made a number of good changes, but we have balance, and is a government better to spend tax money creating the jobs we want people to have and stimulating the economy? The employment insurance system is supposed to be revenue-neutral. The changes we made in terms of looking at self-employed maternity benefits, in terms of five weeks, are going to cost money, and it's going to cost the people who are already working and the employers. Let's say we took all your suggestions and said yes, we want to do this for people. I don't think anyone has really looked at that bigger impact. If we are all of a sudden charging employers and employees more for something that is supposed to be neutral, I think that is going to have a huge impact. Are we going to be putting businesses out of jobs and actually losing more opportunity?

I'll just throw that open.

Thank you.

[Dr. Martha MacDonald]

I have just one point on revenue neutrality. EI is supposed to an automatic stabilizer. It's supposed to be taking in more money when times are good and then paying out more money when times aren't. Over the good years since the EI reform was put in place, it built up a tremendous surplus. It's been less generous than the previous program was, and partly it was good economic times, but it has built up a huge surplus. So there is no evidence that we can't do better with the money we're already taking in. In a recession period, if the demands are higher, since we had that 13 years of surplus, that's when that kicks in.

We're not at the point where we have to be nickel-and-diming on the basic EI premiums that are being taken in. The program has room to be improved.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Of course, unfortunately, as you are aware, prior to us, that money isn't sitting in the EI program, but we have moved it into a very independent structure.

[Ernie Lightman]

Could I comment on your child care comment? Going back to your previous comment about choice, I would just say that $100 a month does not give a poor mother much choice around the quality of child care she can buy.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Then again, we have to remember the transfers to the provinces that have increased each year for child care.

Mr. Baker, your specialty is maternity and paternal benefits. As you are aware, we are looking at how there could be an opportunity for the self-employed to opt in. I would appreciate understanding how you think that might work. I presume you'd be supportive of it, because it opens up benefits. But I'd like to hear some thoughts on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Professor Baker, perhaps I can give you about 30 seconds to answer that. Ms. McLeod is over time, but I've allowed it to occur.

[Dr. Michael Baker]

The only quick thing to say is that you have to be very careful about how you structure premiums for this. It won't work as an insurance program, if you simply allow people who are self-employed to voluntarily make premium payments and to then collect benefits. What you want is everyone who is self-employed contributing the part of the premium that would cover that benefit. I know there was some discussion of this in the beginning.

There are good reasons why the self-employed initially weren't in the unemployment insurance system. Because they are in control of their own employment, there are problems of moral hazard. But in terms of maternity leave—the funny graft onto the EI program of maternity leave, which has very different goals, as has been pointed out around the table, not necessarily the ones of the regular EI system—in principle there's no reason, if the goal of this part of the program is to promote child development or these other goals, why the self-employed shouldn't share in those goals with the employed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Professor Baker.

Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Good morning to everyone. I want to tell you a secret: I am 50 today, I have lived 50 years as a woman. It is very difficult to be objective, because I get very emotional when I take stock of my life as a woman and of all that the women who have gone before me have done. I am really worried about the situation that confronts us.

In Canada, the programs, policies and measures are still very archaic and, in my opinion, very discriminatory to women. We say that we live in an evolved country. I am wondering to what extent the governments care about the welfare of women, listen to the work that we do here, to the reports that we have tabled and to all the witnesses that we meet. Studies by experts show that women are still victims of discrimination because of the government's tax system.

From the sociological perspective, we need to take a second look at the way we do things in order to rectify this injustice against women. Oh, how proud I am of being from Quebec! Quebec made choices and implemented new social programs that enabled young families to use early childhood education centres and take advantage of better parental leave than the rest of Canada. I look forward to the time when we have enough data to show that these choices have had positive results.

I come from a region that is completely losing its vitality and its young people. Will these programs bring the young people back to the region and will they encourage families to settle there? Has the parental leave program, for example, increased the birth rate? The birth rate is climbing in Quebec. Have these societal choices improved the quality of life of our families?

I apologize; we are talking about the employment insurance system at the moment. If we look at the system as it is presently, we can see that it has been distorted. We have not given any consideration to the big picture, the labour profile, which has really changed. We no longer live in a time of job security. I am sorry to have to say this, but many people are dependent on unstable work, seasonal work. Many of these people live in the regions, but some are in the large urban centres as well. I come from a region dependent on forestry, agrifood and tourism. Most of the people there are women who depend on seasonal work. In one-industry towns—those with only one industry—the situation is even more catastrophic. In the forestry sector, most work was done by men. The only job that a woman could have—and not by choice—was in the service sector or on a part-time basis. There is a great deal of poverty and, what is even more appalling, these are skilled people and they must now rely on welfare. They are disappearing from the employment insurance statistics and the provinces are now being told that they are responsible for them and must look after them. The last and only resort is welfare. There are always employment insurance or welfare cases where people will exaggerate, but being on welfare is a hard blow to one's dignity. How can you get out if you do not have the means to do so?

We are discussing the employment insurance system. This is an insurance plan paid for by employees and employers. The government does not invest one—I feel like swearing, but I will not—cent, not one red cent, in this program.

But why stubbornly refuse to update it, to make it better and to consider the changes that have occurred in employment profiles? We need to update the program and tailor it to the reality that people are experiencing today in their choices and their job opportunities.

I apologize if I took up so much time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It is my birthday, so I like me today. I am asserting myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to begin with the fact that was raised by previous witnesses in this committee, and that is that for every dollar in employment insurance, there's a generation of $1.60 into the economy. It keeps families secure, it helps small businesses survive, and it keeps communities healthy. I think that's important.

I want to pick up on something that Professor Lightman said, that economists should know, understand, and see what social workers see; Professor Vincent, your reference to the system that is in place in Quebec; Professor Baker, your reference to breastfeeding, its benefits, and security to the mom who can stay home longer; Professor MacDonald, your reference to the stress of part-time and insecure multiple jobs.

I'm wondering about the health implications for women, their children, and their families when they're not able to access employment insurance. What price do we pay as a society when that happens?

[Ernie Lightman]

We've actually just finished doing two major studies that looked directly at that issue. We were using the Canadian community health survey, which is the largest national health survey, and we were looking at using the raw data in a secret data centre at U of T that Michael Baker is in charge of.

We were looking at the impact on a variety of health outcomes based on income level. Some of it we were able to break down by gender—some of it we weren't—and in a wide variety of health outcomes, like depression, attempted suicides, these things are far more pronounced among lower-income groups than they are among higher-income groups, and within the lower-income groups they are more pronounced among women than among men.

I didn't bring numbers because I didn't think we were going to go that route, but your hypothesis is very clearly supported by the single largest Canadian survey in the area.

[Carole Vincent]

Would you like me to speak more about the Quebec program?

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

Yes, and its impact on positive health outcomes.

[Carole Vincent]

Well, again it's too early to know because it was just implemented in 2006. Data takes time to collect, and then it's going to take time before we know what the impact is.

But I just want to point out that this idea of paternity leave, which is accessible to the father only, we can see this as a positive thing for a man but not necessarily for a woman. I think it does promote gender equality. It's an important aspect of the program, and we see that it is being used, of course, because the financial incentive is there. The replacement rates and the maximum insurable earnings are higher. Men take advantage of it because it pays better than it would under EI, for instance.

We will see in the long run what impact it has on children's health and development and women's health. I think it's a good idea that fathers do get engaged earlier, during paternity leave, during the first year of the child's life.

There is a little evidence, as Professor Baker was saying, of the impact of this, for instance. There is some evidence suggesting that early involvement of fathers in the first year tends to increase their involvement during the rest of the child's life. This is good for parents and for women.

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

How am I doing on time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute.

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

Okay. I'll try to be very quick.

In the last Parliament the committee studied the economic security of women, and we discovered that senior, single, disabled, immigrant, and first nations women are particularly vulnerable to poverty. In your academic research on employment insurance, do you look at these groups and the reasons for their poverty? Does that figure into your evaluation?

[Dr. Tammy Schirle]

I can speak to senior women, not specifically to EI, but I have been looking at the incomes of seniors and how that's changed over the past decade.

They've improved for women quite a bit over the last decade, given that the most recent cohort of women entering retirement are much more likely than their predecessors to have access to the Canada Pension Plan benefits, because they have so much more experience in the labour force than earlier generations of women.

They're also much more likely—I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head—to have a pension plan with an employer. This gives them an income that is completely independent of their spouse. So the biggest problem for women is becoming a widow. When a woman becomes a widow, she loses a lot of the family income immediately. This now becomes a situation where these women do have at least some income that is not dependent on their spouse.

I think there is some reason to actually be a bit more optimistic for senior women on that front.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Davidson, please.

I'm letting everybody go over 20 minutes here in this second round, because I don't think we're going to have time for another round. So I'm cutting people some slack here.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, thanks very much to the presenters for being here this morning.

We've certainly heard a lot of different comments and then a lot of the same comments as well. I just want to talk a bit about the fact that several of you have talked on different levels of the EI program.

For example, Professor Lightman, you spoke a great deal about the welfare system and the integration. Several of you have spoken a great deal about whether or not the special program should be part of the overall EI program. I'm just wondering if I could hear from each of you again as we have time.

Maybe we could start with Professor Baker. How do you feel about integrating the special programs in with the regular program, in particular, with the self-employed?

[Dr. Michael Baker]

Some of the criticism of how the current maternity and parental system works is that it does tie itself to employment. As some people pointed out, it is employment of a certain type. I believe the original motivation for integrating into the EI system is that childbirth does create an earnings' interruption, and the EI system in Canada has always been based on that idea of an earnings' interruption. When you look at the broader goals of maternity and parental leave, they have a lot more to do with health and welfare and child development than they do about the more traditional goals of the EI system.

If the idea is to support parents after birth, one could imagine a system that was completely separated from the fact that someone worked or not. One could argue about why all children don't deserve some sort of support when they're born, and for that matter, why not just give a lump sum? For example, in Australia when you give birth you receive a cheque from the government. You can argue about the amount, but it's a cheque from the government and it goes to everybody.

You can view that as a maternity leave benefit that comes in one payment rather than spread out over several weeks, and it isn't conditional on whether you work. It seems a lot of the argument here is about how much you actually have to work to get this. You can work this much or that much less. Particularly if you think of this as a policy directed at child development--given that there is good research that suggests that this will have a positive effect on child development, and my personal opinion is that it's not all there yet, but suppose that it was there and that's what you wanted to do--you could see the argument for just getting this part of the program out of EI and have a separate program for the support of families that are giving birth. It's always been, I think, an uneasy graph, given the sorts of criticisms that are often made at the program. As I said, I think it had its origins in the fact that obviously giving birth creates an earnings interruption, and this program is about earnings interruptions.