Those just give you an idea of the kinds of areas I've looked at.
I thought about some recommendations, some of which we can return to in the discussion. But I'll just mention a few, based on my research.
For all benefits, both regular and special benefits, I would recommend dropping the minimum divisor in calculating average earnings and therefore benefits. It's an extra penalty, again rewarding longer hours. It's particularly difficult for any precarious workers, what they actually get—my students keep saying, well, you get 55% of your earnings. But you don't, at the end of the day, and the minimum divisor contributes to that.
Also in terms of benefit amounts, I agree with using the best weeks of earnings as the basis of calculating that, and that's what's in the pilot project now, with the 14 best weeks. So I think that should be extended. The formula, basically, for calculating average earnings should be neutral with regard to the timing of work. It shouldn't be rewarding one work pattern and penalizing another.
For regular benefits, obviously the key thing is adjusting the formulas for eligibility, which Ernie mentioned. So the way the hours formula plays out for any part-time workers is an issue. Also, the hours formula on the duration side of things is problematic. So part-time workers are having trouble qualifying, and they're penalized on the duration side as well. They already get benefits proportional to their earnings, so they're already getting that difference. But the double penalty on the duration side that came with EI is problematic.
The hours needed for re-entrance are very problematic for anybody who's been out of the labour market with caregiving responsibilities or for seasonal workers, unless you're just coming off a parental leave, and then you're exempted. But there are other reasons that people take time out of the labour market beyond that first year. So those should be reduced—