I will begin.
Good morning everyone. My name is Danie Harvey and I am with the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses. On behalf of the organization, I thank you for having invited us.
Our organization comprises several groups of unemployed, some of which have 30 years' experience in the defence of the rights of the unemployed. For several years now, we have been on the front lines of several public awareness campaigns aimed at not only denouncing the misappropriation of the employment insurance fund but also, and especially, at demanding a better employment insurance system. We therefore wish, through the lens of our demands, to share with you changes that could be brought to the employment insurance system in order that women might, in our view, benefit from an effective system.
The labour market is undergoing major economic changes that are having a negative impact on the reality of women. Non traditional jobs are more numerous and various economic sectors are being affected. Some 40.2 percent of working women occupy part-time, temporary, on-call or occasional jobs or else are self-employed or work at home. In cases of job loss, 59 percent of women do not have access to employment insurance because they have not accumulated a sufficient number of hours to be eligible. They therefore must hold down several jobs simultaneously in order to make ends meet, manage difficult schedules and, in some cases — in that of seasonal occupations, for example —, over a very short timeframe, of approximately 14 work weeks, these women will have to work seven days a week.
I come from the Charlevoix region, which is characterized by a seasonal economy. I often see women holding down three or four jobs, working seven days a week for 14 weeks minimum, and sometimes even maximum. If the eligibility criteria were reduced, this would facilitate employment insurance eligibility because, I repeat, 59 percent of women are unable to access these benefits. The number of hours must be reduced and there should be a standard uniform requirement of 350 hours no matter where one lives, given the striking contradictions that, in our view, exist at present. Two employees in one and the same workplace, for example, could find themselves with different access rights to unemployment insurance depending on their place of residence. This is something that we often see in our work. We wonder at the existence of such absolutely arbitrary differences between regions. Is the loss of one's job not of the same import for everyone, no matter what your civic address is?
We all know that women account for more than 60 percent of low-income workers. We also know that they account for 46 percent of all salaried workers. Given this reality, should we not be questioning the relevance of maintaining the waiting period? What is its purpose, if only to deepen poverty even further? Some women must combine several jobs and when they manage to put a little bit of money aside, the waiting period eats up all of the hard-won savings put away during the period of employment, given that they must continue to pay rent and buy groceries. The elimination of the waiting period has become a self-evident need as it is a useless and absurd administrative delay that deprives of an income people who are already seriously impoverished by the loss of their job.
Further, the employment insurance benefit rate of 55 percent it too has disastrous economic consequences. When a person has worked at minimum wage, his or her employment insurance benefits amount to $4.68 an hour, which is not even enough to buy a pound of butter. We all know full well that such is the lot of many women, who on top of everything else may also be single parents.
According to Statistics Canada, a single woman must work close to 51 hours a week in order to reach the low income cut-off. For a single parent woman with two children, this means 78 hours of work a week in order to escape from poverty. How can one make ends meet when, before receiving the first benefit cheque, more than a whole month may go by?
In the case of seasonal summer work, it must be stated that the loss of one's job often coincides with the beginning of the school year. Ladies, we sincerely believe that the employment insurance system must be changed and improved so as to better respond to the needs of workers. Access must be eased, unlocked, as an editorial writer from La Presse stated, with the establishment of a single eligibility criterion. The benefit rate must be increased by basing it on the 12 best weeks. The waiting period must, further, be abolished. Such measures would be responsible and would assist those workers, male and female, who lose their job.
Before concluding, I would also like to share with you another situation that must be brought to light, that of informal care givers. These are women who, often, must leave their job in order to care for a child, an aged parent or a relative who is ill. The act provides that these women may receive employment insurance benefits, but they are refused access because they are not available for work. I work with several community groups of women suffering from cancer or other serious illnesses, and there is a situation that is often reported to me. To give you an example that is typical in my region of Charlevoix, I would tell you that people must do 600 hours of work in order to be eligible for employment insurance benefits. It is the same everywhere, but in our area, seasonal work can provide 450 to 525 hours tops.
How can one be eligible for employment insurance sickness benefits without the 600 required hours? If you are suffering from cancer, you are fighting for your life, and you require more than 15 weeks to recover. I mention cancer, but it could be a case of serious depression, which takes just as much time to recover from. There are things to be done in the area of sickness benefits in order to help women more.
There is in society broad consensus for demanding such improvements from the government, especially in times of crisis and economic difficulties like those we are living today.
Thank you.