Yes, this set of figures is a direct reflection of the fact that women have less full-time, full-year employment, and therefore have less eligibility for employment insurance. It also reflects the simultaneous fact of existing discrepancies in income and pay levels. Therefore, women who do qualify for employment insurance benefits will always get smaller benefits, and often these will be so small that the women cannot even support themselves with them. it. It would be better for them to go to even less well-paid work in order to simply get by, which is what happened during the depths of the recession.
The alternatives would be to eliminate the distinctions between full-time and part-time work, to insist that all work be paid at a living wage, and that it be calibrated at the real cost of human survival and not on the basis of some arbitrary measurement. It would also make sense to come up with more universalized support systems, so that people who do find that they are ineligible for employment insurance may, nonetheless, be able to access social assistance supports of various kinds that would secure their ability to keep functioning as healthy human beings.