Status of Women Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Jane Stinson, President, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women]

I'm currently the president of CRIAW, and I want to acknowledge our coordinator, Fathiya Wais, who's here with me.

Some of you are familiar with CRIAW. We're a research institute that's been around for over 30 years and is dedicated to doing research to help organizations take action to address social justice and equality for all women. We really have been focusing on that “all women” perspective, to see women not as one universal, homogeneous group, but to recognize the diversity of women's experiences.

We want to emphasize how the EI system has failed women. We've investigated data in other research studies. As Bonnie has mentioned, the cuts to our research funding have meant we can't do primary research on this at this time, but we know you've received a lot of evidence that shows that many women do not qualify for EI benefits, especially if you take out the compassionate care and the parental leave.

As you've heard, it's a system that works best for men. It was modelled on a traditional male breadwinner system, and women's participation in the labour force, as Ms. Russell has just talked about, is vastly different. It's a system not geared to meeting the needs of women in the labour force.

Things have changed. Women are working for pay in record numbers, and the EI system needs to address the reality for women. Right now, we believe EI punishes women, especially those who try to combine family responsibilities and work outside the home. It's not flexible. Women are in and out of the labour force more often because of family responsibilities. EI does not adequately take that into consideration. We believe it needs to be revamped to address that different reality.

As I'm sure you're aware, unless women have adequate income, of which EI is an important part, they're often forced to stay in very difficult, if not abusive and violent, relationships. Not only for economic equality, but for other forms of freedom, it's important that women have an EI system that meets their needs.

We also wanted to say it's not just a gender-based analysis that's important. It's absolutely important to have that, but it's not sufficient. We would argue that we need to go beyond gender and look more at what we call an intersectional feminist analysis that recognizes women as a diverse group. We need to take that diversity into account in our analysis. We need to understand especially what's happening with the most marginalized women. What's happening to aboriginal women, who I would argue probably rarely qualify for employment insurance because they're not often employed? What's happening to other disadvantaged women, whether they are disabled or not? What's happening to immigrant and refugee women? How are they being affected by this program? To what extent are they benefiting or not from this program?

We urge you not only to continue to call for gender analysis, as you are, but also to try to ensure that it's an even more diverse analysis, more of an intersectional analysis that gets at the reality for many different groups of women.

As well as understanding EI, we urge that more research be done on social assistance because we know that more women will have to rely on that. There have been tremendous changes and tremendous hardships for people who are relying on those benefits.

During this period of recession and economic restructuring, we ask that you also push for good gender and intersectional analysis to understand better what's happening to women and to different groups of women as this economy is being restructured and as this recession bites deeper.

Nancy is going to talk about specific recommendations.

[Nancy Baroni, Coordinator, Gender Budget, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action]

EI was supposed to put money in the pockets of the unemployed so that they could continue buying to counter the effects of the downturn in the economy, as we all know. FAFIA submits that increasing women's access to EI benefits and increasing EI benefit rates will promote women's equality and their ability to contribute to their communities and local economies through increased purchasing power.

In 2008, the 52nd UN Commission on the Status of Women concluded that “investing in women and girls has a multiplier effect on productivity, efficiency, and sustained economic growth”.

FAFIA is also concerned about women's access to Service Canada. This is a pretty practical concern. In order to submit an EI claim when filing for the first time, claimants must either file in person at a Service Canada office or apply online. While we recognize that Minister Finley has recently announced a commitment of $60 million to increase administrative capacity of the EI program, we would also ask that consideration be taken to serve those who do not have Internet access or do not live near a Service Canada centre. Since most rural and remote communities do not have public transit, it can be very difficult to get to the nearest Service Canada centre. Those people who do not have access to a vehicle--in most cases women, because of their traditionally lower incomes--have to rely on others for transportation; as well, if they don't have Internet access, then of course they can't make their initial claim online.

I take as an example a woman I know well from my home community in rural Nova Scotia. She had no Internet access at home. Also--and I don't want to be ageist--she is an older woman and did not know how to file her claim online. In order to file her EI claim, she had to drive 40 kilometres to the nearest Service Canada centre. Luckily she had her own car. If she hadn't, she would have had to rely on the goodwill of others, because there is no public transit in her community, and normally taxis can be very costly in rural communities, if they're available.

Once she arrived at the Service Canada centre, she was directed to their computers. The agents there offered her no assistance because everything has to be done online. Luckily a fellow claimant offered assistance. This was a stranger.

This is not a system that should be based on goodwill; rather, it should be based on service, as the name of the program would imply. The services must be made more accessible to claimants. The woman in Nova Scotia, as well as many others in her community and in communities across Canada, can be better served by taking a more proactive approach in reaching them. This is as basic as having part-time people working in communities to help people file their claims. It is taking a more practical approach to ensure more people are reached.

As well, I want to underline the fact that access to affordable, accessible child care is a real benefit to women's economic security, as well as to their ability to participate fully in the paid workforce and to be eligible for EI benefits should they lose their jobs.

The five recommendations that we'd like to put forward are joint recommendations from FAFIA and CRIAW.

We would like to see an elimination of the two-week waiting period before people receive their benefits.

We would like to lower the eligibility requirement to 360 hours, regardless of region, and I understand that other witnesses before the committee have made the same recommendation, as our sister organizations have.

As a starting step, we would like to see the benefit level increased. We recommend 60% of wages over the best 12 weeks of employment; however, some of our sister organizations are recommending higher replacement rates, and we would certainly agree with that.

We would like to see the number of weeks for recipients to receive EI increased to 50 weeks. This increase would reduce the number of the exhaustees who may have to turn to social assistance for support should they not find replacement employment, which is very likely in this economic downturn.

As well, as per CEDAW recommendations delivered in November 2008 to Canada, we would like to see social assistance rates increased across the country to adequately meet the needs of low-income Canadians, namely women, to meet the real costs of their food, housing, and clothing.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Baroni.

Now we have the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

Which one of you will present, or would you like to split it? It's only five minutes, cinq minutes.

[Michèle Asselin, President, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Two organizations have been grouped together, CIAFT and the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

I will now address the crux of the matter.

[Ruth Rose-Lizée, Economist, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

We prepared a written submission, but since it has not yet been translated into English, we cannot distribute it.

We will need 10 minutes to talk about the two organizations.

[Michèle Asselin]

That said, the paper we presented has six themes. We will begin by looking at the eligibility criteria, the average weekly income and the NERE rule, which, we think, contains measures that discriminate against women. We will then present some recommendations. We would also like to make some suggestions concerning maternity and parental benefits, as well as compassionate benefits. Lastly, we will conclude by addressing income supplements for low income families.

I will now ask my colleague, Ruth Rose-Lizée, to speak.

[Ruth Rose-Lizée]

Hello.

In our report, we presented a brief history of all the measures within the employee insurance system since 1940 that have discriminated against women, either directly or indirectly.

I will spare you the details, but we would like to focus on the last measure, namely, from the 1996 reform, a measure that determined eligibility for benefits based on the number of hours of work, rather than the number of weeks worked. In our view, this measure discriminates against women directly and represents a continuation of all the other measures that have discriminated against women, including the first, whereby, until 1957, in order to access benefits, married women had to prove they had a permanent attachment to the labour force. The new rule does exactly the same thing.

The 1957 reform established admissibility based on hours. I have put together some numbers to serve as examples, which you can look at later when you have a written document. The last example available in the document was from Montreal, where the employment rate was 7.5% in March 2007. To qualify, 630 hours of work are needed.

Let us compare a woman who works part time, 15 hours a week, and a man who works 40 hours a week. In order to qualify, the woman needs to have worked for 42 weeks; the man, 16 weeks. If they earn the same hourly wage, they will each be entitled to 17 weeks of wages. However, for the same number of work hours over a much longer period, which therefore means a greater effort and more consistent presence in the labour force, the woman will receive $124 in benefits while the man will receive $264. They accumulated the same number of hours to qualify, but the man's benefits are more than double what the woman receives. If we compare the benefits received during the 17 weeks, we see that the woman will have received $3.34 in benefits for each hour of contribution, while the man will have received $7.12.

No matter what example we look at, and no matter what region, people who work part time—and 68% of part-time workers are still women—will be eligible for benefits to a lesser degree than people who work long hours for a shorter period. For that reason, we recommend returning to an eligibility system based on the number of weeks.

When the government introduced that measure, it claimed it would be beneficial for people who work part time. The reality is quite the opposite. In fact, people who work less than 15 hours a week, and who were excluded under the old rule, may never qualify.

Another problem is how the average weekly earnings are calculated. The divisor system is used. The income earned in the last 26 weeks is divided by the number of weeks worked, or else a denominator is determined and that denominator is usually two weeks more than the number of weeks of 35 hours that must be worked. In our example, with an unemployment rate between 7% and 8%, 18 weeks would be the denominator. This particularly affects women who work in precarious jobs, especially in industries like food service, hospitality and retail, which are seasonal, but not necessarily in regions of seasonal employment, where the unemployment rate is generally high.

Women work a lot more in casual jobs. The 26 weeks that are taken into account could include many breaks, which could also lower the average weekly earnings.

The third aspect of the reform, which dates back to 1979 and also discriminates against women—and deliberately, from its inception—is the rule known as the NERE rule, concerning new entrants or re-entrants to the labour force. Let us suppose that in 2007, an individual worked less than 490 hours, but met the requirements in relation to the unemployment rate in her region in 2008, and she finds herself unemployed in 2009. If she has not accumulated 910 hours, she will still not be eligible.

That rule was introduced in 1979 specifically to prevent people who are entering the labour force from being eligible for employment insurance, specifically young people who are working their first job and older women who are returning to the labour force after raising their children. It was partially modified in 2001, for people who received maternity or parental benefits. However, this still affects women who have three children, for example, and whose absence is longer or who, upon the arrival of their second child, were not eligible for benefits.

We therefore recommend that the NERE rule be eliminated altogether. We also recommend that we return to a system based on the number of weeks worked, taking into account all weeks of seven hours or more.

We have other recommendations, but perhaps during the question and answer period we could—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We're going to have to move very quickly, because we need to have a question period, and if you continue, we won't be able to ask questions.

[Michèle Asselin]

Okay. I would simply like to point out that maternity or parental benefits are certainly a step forward for Canadians. As you know, we have had a parental insurance plan in Quebec since 2006. We recommend that the current system be improved and modelled after what Quebec is doing, because we believe that all Canadians should benefit from the same advantages and the same support when they have a child. I have a long list of those advantages, but I will spare you the details. Perhaps during the question and answer period I could tell you a little more about these advantages.

I would, however, like to take a few moments to talk about compassionate benefits, which are paid over six weeks when an individual must be away from work to care for a sick family member with a significant risk of death. We know that in 2006-07, out of the 5,676 people who took this leave, 4,262 were women. That is certainly a laudable initiative, but it is not enough.

Consider the example of Quebec’s Act Respecting Labour Standards. It provides for 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of a family member who is ill, but without the restriction that that individual faces a risk of death. When that individual is a child, the worker can take leave for up to 104 weeks. We must think carefully about how that measure can be improved. We believe that 12 weeks of compassionate benefits should be offered with no waiting period, with a 70% income replacement rate in order to allow those workers, who incidentally, are mostly women...

As for the family supplement, I would simply like to say that it has not been indexed since 1997.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Merci, Madam.

I'm very sorry to have to rush you, but we have until one o'clock, and we have other business to do and can go only one round.

What I'm going to ask members to do is take a five-minute round, because we cannot go with seven. If we are to deal with Madam Boucher's question from earlier on, we need to go with five minutes.

I'll begin right away, cut to the chase, with Madame Zarac.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming. We have before us a number of specialists who are very knowledgeable about women's needs. We very much appreciate your comments.

In 1997, the Liberals created research programs, but it is disappointing to hear about the cuts that have been made to research, even though it is very important. It is easy to give numbers and statistics, but we must look even closer, dissect them and explain them, because they can be misleading.

Someone asked earlier if women were not the net benefactors, if they did not receive more benefits even though they pay less into the EI system. In response to that question, I would say that it depends on the nature of the benefits. It is very important to call witnesses who can dissect all this for us.

The government is telling us that consultations were held before the changes were made. You are experts in the area of the needs of women. Were your organizations consulted?

[Bonnie Diamond]

We weren't. FAFIA wasn't.

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

Thank you.

My next question is specifically for Madam Stinson. How will these cuts to research affect your organizations and the needs of women?

[Jane Stinson]

Thank you.

The impact has been great on our organization. We've had to reduce our staff level. As well, it's been very, very hard to get access to funds to do research.

It's not only the quantitative analysis. As you're saying, it's really important to analyze the numbers closely, but it's the voices that Bonnie spoke of earlier. It's also that qualitative research to really get the community voices, the voices of women, about what the impact has been on their lives.

So that's what is at risk.

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

And that's the information we need to know here and the committee appreciates having.

My second question will still be to you. Could you give us some data on intersectional barriers?

[Jane Stinson]

It's not about data so much, I suppose, as just being aware that there are barriers based on different identities for women. I can't say specifically what the impact has been, say, for disabled women, or the impact on refugee or immigrant women. So it's about the importance of looking at different identities in addition to their being women; looking at the effects of systemic discrimination based on those identities, and having a more comprehensive analysis of the reality for women.

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

So I guess without funding you can't go into depth on that.

[Jane Stinson]

That's correct.

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

Previous witnesses have told us that the further down you go in the data for aboriginal women and minority women, the more discrepancies you'll find.

[Jane Stinson]

Definitely. And you'll often find much more hardship, right? There's much more hardship.

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

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have two minutes.

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

Over five minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Actually, it's a little under two minutes.

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

I would like to end this here.

To either person, what are the best recommendations you can give us for a program that would really represent and be équitable, finalement, autant pour les femmes que les hommes?