Status of Women Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

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

Has the loss of that surplus limited us in a restrictive way in terms of how we can respond? Have we painted ourselves into a corner?

[Richard Shillington]

The surplus was accumulated over years when people paid far more into the fund than they received in benefits. This is the chart that illustrates how the surplus was built up. There's a terrible temptation to say we have a better use for that fund, which is to either pay off the deficit or make it possible to have cuts in income taxes, which most of these people who were left out would never benefit from.

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

In yielding to this deduction, have we created a horrific problem?

[Richard Shillington]

There was never a bank account for the surplus that had $57 billion in it, a positive balance. It was always a paper transaction, so it's disappearing.

We do have a fund that, for all those years, was collecting far more money than it needed. It was being used to keep the deficit down. It wasn't being used to pay for benefits.

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

I'm wondering what measures can be taken or should be taken to ensure that employment insurance is accessible to aboriginal, disabled, and rural women? Do we need to do something for these women who are very often cut off, isolated, and need the resources?

[Richard Shillington]

The data exists—and I know where to get it, that's what I do for a living—on whether or not those people you mentioned are more likely to be working part time than other Canadians. I suspect the answer is yes. People working in the rural area are more likely to have a part-time job.

Because they're working part time for all the reasons I've indicated, they're less likely to be eligible for EI benefits if they lose their job, because of the 1996 changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have some time, Ms. Mathyssen. You use your time extremely well.

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

Thank you.

When you began, you talked about the egregious assaults that have taken place over the years against employment insurance. Of all those you listed, which do you think had the most detrimental effect? What would you say is the big bad number one—

[Richard Shillington]

Voluntary quits. Not only for what it did for the people who would otherwise be eligible for EI, but because of what it did to the dynamic in the employer-employee relationship. First of all, setting up a reward for, effectively, fraud: “I'm leaving. would you please lay me off?” We all know this is happening a lot. Or an employer who decides, “No, you're fired; you're not getting EI.” The employer decides you're not getting EI.

I'm not suggesting going to a period where there's no penalty for voluntary quits. I'm suggesting a penalty that is more proportionate than the current one.

Back to the same analogy, I would say the current system is akin to having car insurance where if you're at fault, you're not insured. We would never tolerate that.

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

So it can be a lever, not only for fraud, but be punitive as well.

[Richard Shillington]

Of course.

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

And we're not taking into consideration the fact that the individual has to leave, because they're a caregiver, if they have an ill parent, or they're experiencing unbearable harassment or time management problems.

[Richard Shillington]

There are appeal processes and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Time is up. We've gone 15 seconds over.

We need to start exactly on time to do our private members business.

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

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I thought I really had lots of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's fine.

Now, Ms. Hoeppner.

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

I'll go after Mrs. McLeod.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay.

Mrs. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Shillington. I think it's been very fascinating information for me, at times.

I guess I'd like to make a few quick comments and then ask a question. It sounds like, from what you've said today, that it's a very positive thing that EI has now been removed from the opportunity.... It's now truly kept at arm's length and is an employment insurance program, as opposed to the prior ability to use it for general revenue. So that sounds like a very positive move.

I think I'm very, very much struck by some of the data that I thought would be very simple, but it's something that you think requires more money and time. From this chart, I thought I could see things like how many of the women are self-employed versus a whole number of measures. It seems that to really understand this issue we have to fill some really big data gaps, or at least some easily attainable data gaps.

More to the point, though, I hear what you're saying about the maternity program and the two-week waiting period. There's a certain amount of sense that we have to balance how much we can afford for these programs. If it's 17 weeks, it's 17 weeks. Whether there's a delay or not, that's a different issue. So I think that's a different area for discussion than the two-week waiting period for the general public.

We did some pretty extensive consultation, and the input we received was that if there were limited funding, people would prefer five weeks at the end, as opposed to having two and three weeks. That was really the feedback we got through our consultation. Then there's a whole host of reasons for why it was seen to help the more vulnerable, etc.

So I'd really be curious for you to comment on this. As I say, I see the two-week waiting period for maternity benefits as a very different thing from EI.

[Richard Shillington]

Data gaps, yes, there are. As you proceed and gather data, you could certainly delve into them, but tread very carefully. It's very difficult to know exactly what you're getting when you're looking at data, so you have to ask lots of questions about exactly how it was formulated.

On the five weeks, I don't know what your consultations led to. It's not my area of expertise at all. However, there's no doubt in my mind, and I have data to back it up, that the more vulnerable you are, the more likely you are to not be eligible for EI. The addition of five more weeks of EI added benefits for those who are already getting EI, so I don't think you can construe that as helping the people who are most vulnerable, because they're the ones who are excluded.

And you're right, you have to worry about how much money is being spent and you have to make sure it's spent appropriately. I think the $57 billion, if that's the right figure, or the $54 billion, illustrates how there has always been money to spend; we just chose not to spend it on these populations. Your job as members of Parliament is to decide how the money is to be spent.

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

Certainly, I would suspect that anyone who is unemployed for the full term of the allowable time available is vulnerable. To think that those five weeks are supportive for them is.... Regarding the more vulnerable populations, again, I would find more data to be very valuable on this, and I don't think we have it.

[Richard Shillington]

I take your point. You're right that I should not say that everybody who's eligible is not vulnerable and that they're all very well off and living well. I should never have suggested that. It's a matter of gradations. If you ask what proportion of the population are eligible for EI, and you do that by age, you will find that the younger you are, the less likely you're going to be eligible. I have a chart in my notes about who gets EI by family income: the lower your family income, the less likely you are to get EI; those who work part-time are less likely to get EI; and if you have a lone parent with children, they are less likely to get EI. It's the same in all of those dimensions.

But you're right that I should never have suggested that somebody who's collected EI and exhausted their benefits, and who would benefit from the extra five weeks and be quite happy to get it, is therefore not vulnerable. No, but they're less likely to be vulnerable, I think, than the people who are excluded. I hope that's a fair comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shillington.

You mentioned some papers you did for the department. If you could give us the titles of those papers, we will seek to get those papers, because they contain information. I think the Informetrica data on the project of women and the recession is data we will also try to bring in. And who gets EI by family income is another study you just spoke about. If you can tell us the title of it, perhaps we can get it.

[Richard Shillington]

It's in my speaking notes and it's also on my website.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good. Thank you very much. As usual, extremely....

Yes?