Status of Women Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Charette, I am having a hard time reconciling your numbers with other numbers we have heard, as well as with the reality facing people in my riding. You said that less than 9.3% of women were ineligible for EI benefits because they did not have enough hours of insurable employment. All 9.3% must be in my riding, because I receive many calls from women who are ineligible for EI benefits, even though they worked the number of hours required. I have to wonder about this.

You said you use gender-based analysis as a matter of course. Based on that analysis, how were you able to determine that extending benefits by five weeks was the best solution? According to Statistics Canada, only 10% of people make it to the end of their benefits period. We also know that accessing benefits is much more difficult, and once an individual receives benefits, he or she usually finds a job before the end of the benefits period.

What motivated the decision to add five weeks, rather than eliminate the two week waiting period that comes at the beginning? I also wonder about that.

In the case of women who have a maternity leave, the 910 required hours are not taken into account when they file a second claim for benefits. However, people who have cancer, who are ill and have received 15 weeks of benefits because of their illness, if they go back to work and are then laid off, they must absolutely prove that they worked enough hours to access benefits again, despite the fact that they are very vulnerable.

I would like you to address those questions.

[Janice Charette]

I will do my best. I will ask Mr. Thompson to answer the second question, because he is more familiar with the details of the program.

Maybe if I could, though....

I apologize, but I would like to continue in English, because the details are a little technical and—

I don't want to add anything to the confusion around this.

You talked about the reconciliation of the figures. One of Mr. Thompson's requests when he was here previously was around this issue of the percentage of men and women who do not qualify for employment insurance because they don't have enough hours. We're just finalizing that analysis in the department, and it will be on its way to the committee shortly. I think you asked for a historical comparison.

Let me go back to a couple of things. One is about how you qualify for employment insurance benefits. The first thing is that you have to be paying into the employment insurance program, so automatically those folks who don't contribute to EI aren't eligible. That's actually a significant percentage. It includes folks who haven't been in the workforce and people who are in self-employment. It's actually a very significant percentage. Almost 35% of women who don't qualify for EI are in that situation because they are not contributors.

Next, let's say you're in the program and you're a contributor to EI. Then you lose your job. Well, to be eligible for the regular benefits under employment insurance, it would basically have to be an involuntary separation from work. If people voluntarily quit their jobs--if they quit to go back to school, for instance, or because they want to find another job--they are not eligible for employment insurance according to the current legislation. They make up about 16.4%.

Then there are the people who don't have enough hours to qualify. That's the 9.3% of women. In the case of the people who may be coming into your office to ask you why they can't get EI, we have to go back and look at the reason they're not getting EI. Are they contributing to the program? What were their reasons for separation from the workforce? Do they have enough hours?

Because economic conditions have been changing so dramatically, it's important to go over the importance of the variable entrance requirement for having enough hours. For the variable entrance requirement, as I think I said in my remarks, we look at EI economic regions, the number of hours necessary to qualify for EI benefits, and the number of weeks for which you'd be eligible. It depends on the employment situation in the EI economic region you live in.

Over the course of the last...since October, so not very many months, five months of labour force data, 26 of the 58 EI regions in the country have seen the variable entrance requirements adjusted on the basis of changing economic conditions. For the most part, we've seen unemployment going up, although there have been some exceptions there, so 26 of--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Excuse me, Madam Charette, you are taking a long time to reply.

[Janice Charette]

I apologize.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Charette, we have already heard the facts you are giving us at this time.

I would like to hear Mr. Thompson talk about the five weeks, because that is important.

[Janice Charette]

Okay. I will ask Mr. Thompson to answer your questions.

[Paul Thompson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

With regard to the five additional weeks versus the two week period, the situation was analyzed based on the unemployment data Madam Charette mentioned earlier. The analysis revealed that the duration of benefits was posing a problem, so it was decided that it would be extended by five weeks to address that.

It's important to note that on....

Je vais parler en anglais, à cause des termes techniques.

The two-week waiting period is not necessarily related to the duration of benefits. For someone who uses his or her entire entitlement, it simply moves the entitlement two weeks earlier, and it would end two weeks earlier.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

But the length of the period must be taken into account.

[Paul Thompson]

Yes. The objective with the five weeks was actually to extend the entitlement by five weeks for everyone, regardless of where they are in terms of the entitlement schedule. If it was a limited entitlement of two weeks, for example, they would add five weeks. If it was the full entitlement, which is up to 45 weeks in some regions--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Was a gender-based analysis conducted?

[Paul Thompson]

Well, one of the--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

On that particular measure?

[Paul Thompson]

It was only done to the extent that, as Madame Charette noted, the analysis of the unemployment situation was indeed focused on the sectors that were hardest hit by the economic downturn, construction and manufacturing. However, I would also--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

And therefore not women.

[Paul Thompson]

But I would also add that the five weeks were extended to the entire breadth of the entitlement schedule. So people with less attachment to the labour force, at lower ends of entitlement, were granted five weeks as well, which is fairly significant for someone receiving, at the minimum, 14 weeks. They would now receive 19 weeks of--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Thompson, you said that the gender-based analysis was not taken into account to come up with that measure. The employment sectors hardest hit were checked. It is the auto sector has been hit the hardest, and we know that it is primarily men who work in that sector.

[Paul Thompson]

Generally speaking, labour market analysis was used to come up with that measure.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madam Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your being here and I appreciate the work you do. I imagine many times it's not easy, so I appreciate the advice you give to our minister and that you're here and providing us with information.

I think from what you're telling us today, the trends definitely are telling us that women are doing much better than they have in the past. You said 60% of recent Canadian university grads are women. The highest rate of post-secondary education attained among all OECD countries is attained by Canadian women, if that's correct.

You also said, and we've heard this previously, that women are the net benefactors of the EI program. First, could you explain that? Are you saying that women receive more than they pay in? So men pay more and receive less in benefits. Is that correct?

[Janice Charette]

Yes, basically. In terms of the comparison of the total premiums paid by women compared to the benefits that are drawn, women are net beneficiaries and men are net contributors.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Men are net contributors. So they are paying more than they're receiving.

[Janice Charette]

That's right. It's because of the nature of the benefits. Women tend to benefit disproportionately to men from some of the special benefits we see across...obviously, maternity. That's a women's benefit, but even in terms of parental, we're still seeing a very large take-up on the part of women. I think I mentioned the compassionate care benefit, which is disproportionately taken up by women as well. So on the special benefits side, that's where we tend to see a little bit of.... That is the largest contributor, frankly.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

So that's a disproportion--

[Janice Charette]

That's right.