40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 102
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Employment Insurance

Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for taking the time to respond to questions on the very important matter of employment insurance and, in particular, its impact on women.

On June 9, 2006, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development why her government had refused to remove the barriers that prevent women from accessing EI. In response, the minister declared that our EI system treats everyone equally.

I am afraid the minister was incorrect. Statistics from the Caledon Institute make it clear that more men than women receive regular EI benefits. In 2008, 292,308 men received regular EI benefits as opposed to 191,502 women. In other words, about one-third more men receive regular EI benefits than women.

The Caledon Institute further explains that employment insurance covers only employees with significant attachment to the labour force and excludes many workers who cannot accumulate enough EI insurable hours due to their type of employment, own job preferences, family responsibilities or activity limitations due to disabilities.

The groups that tend to be excluded are: the long term unemployed, the underemployed, persons with disabilities, new workers, part-time workers and employees; mainly women who leave the work force to care for their children or aging family members.

The parliamentary secretary should be well aware that the status of women committee completed a detailed study on employment insurance in June of this year. In case the parliamentary secretary has missed that report, I would like to highlight a few things.

The committee found that, overall, the EI program does benefit women who are in full-time employment. The committee heard, however, that women's labour market realities are not accounted for under the current EI program. One of the main reasons women are unable to access benefits is that they predominate in part-time employment.

Among other initiatives, the committee recommended that the maximum benefit entitlement for regular benefits be extended to 50 weeks on a permanent basis and that additional weeks of entitlement should be considered by HRSD; that HRSD increase the benefit rate from 55% to 60% or more of average weekly insurable earnings for both regular and special benefits and that would help women; and that the government, based on the preliminary results of the best 14 weeks pilot project, adopt a new rate of calculation period equal to the qualifying period.

I would like to highlight one final recommendation. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommended that the government modify the employment insurance program for women who are laid off during or following maternity-parental leave so that benefits are calculated based on the number of hours worked prior to that maternity-parental leave.

How will the government use the recommendations from the status of women committee to make employment insurance more fair and accessible to women?

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our employment insurance system treats everyone equally. It treats men the same as women. There are no gender differences. Everyone pays into the system at the same premium rate. Everyone receives the benefits for which they qualify on the same basis, regardless of whether they are men or women.

We have made a number of changes to the EI system in the past year, changes that are providing additional benefits to more Canadians, more quickly and for a longer period of time. Those extra benefits we offered to both men and women to help them through these difficult and challenging times were in the budget and the New Democratic Party voted against that, and its members were proud of voting against it.

They were proud to vote against providing five extra weeks of benefits across the country to everyone, both men and women. They were proud to vote against freezing EI premium rates for this year and next. They voted against literally billions of dollars of extra help for Canadians to get more training, skills upgrading or to help them in their transition to new careers. They voted against all of those provisions that apply to men and women. How do they justify the statements now being made today?

They were proud to vote against all of the other stimulus measures and help that our Conservative government is providing through Canada's economic action plan. Why is that? They said that it was not good enough. They were mistaken.

The kinds of things our Conservative government has done on EI are good and many Canadians also think we did the right thing. However, the New Democrats rejected that because, in their view, it was not perfect. Not always will a program be perfect but it does address the issues at hand.

In the case of Canada's economic action plan and our measures to help the unemployed, the NDP voted against what most Canadians thought were good steps. Unfortunately for the NDP, the idea of perfect is very far from what most Canadians want or are prepared to accept.

I am encouraged, however, by the fact that our New Democratic colleagues have seen the error of their ways and are supporting the government's recent actions to help Canadians through Bill C-50, which would provide between five and twenty weeks of additional EI benefits to Canadian workers who have worked for years and have paid into the system during that time.

We hope they will support legislation that we have signalled we will introduce, legislation to give self-employed Canadians access to EI's special benefits. An increasing number of Canadians are self-employed or have self-employment income, and many of them are women. This will be another positive step for Canadians, especially during the beginning of our economic recovery.

I do want to touch on something my colleague said in her original question back in June. She said:
Coverage rates for unemployed women have declined from 82% in 1989 to 39% in 2008....

In fact, women's access to EI regular benefits is high. In 2007, 81% of unemployed women who had been paying premiums and who were laid off or quit with cause were eligible for regular benefits. In 2007, more than 56% of permanent part-time workers were eligible for EI regular benefits.

Women's access to EI special benefits, such as maternity and parental benefits, is very high. Ninety-seven per cent of women working full-time have enough hours to qualify for special benefits. This is the same level of access as men. It is important to note that among women working part-time, 62% have enough hours to qualify for special benefits compared to 59% for men.

Our government is doing a lot for unemployed Canadians, for men and women alike. I am glad the NDP has understood that our government's actions are good for Canadians and will be supporting Bill C-50. I hope it will continue with that type of support.

Ms. Irene Mathyssen:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the parliamentary secretary understood my question. Unfortunately, I came here looking for answers and I did not get them.

I would like to point out that women do not have the same standard full-time work as men. Their situations are different and, instead of talking about equality, we should be talking about equity.

It is not just women who are affected by the current EI rules. Sadly, women from groups that tend to include aboriginal Canadians, visible minorities, youth, persons with disabilities and recent immigrants are struggling and they are hit by the poverty that the lack of proper employment insurance creates in our society.

I am wondering when the government will stand up for vulnerable Canadians. I see no signs of it, or very little sign of it.

In terms of the suggestions in regard to supporting legislation, we will support anything where people are protected. I am waiting to see.

Mr. Ed Komarnicki:

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting how the hon. member voted against the budget, which had protection for unemployed Canadians and provisions for them, without actually reading the budget. Members would need to do at least that much before deciding whether they support it or not.

Getting back to the specific issue, as I said, women's access to EI is high. We are working hard to extend benefits to long tenured workers and to self-employed Canadians. This will be good for self-employed Canadian women.

We are getting Canadians back to work through historic investments in infrastructure and through the steps we have taken on the economic action plan to help unemployed Canadians, be they men or women.

We are focused on what matters to Canadians and are working hard to ensure Canadians are well-served by their government. We extended to five weeks of extra benefits that applies to everyone equally. We put the skills training program together and that applies to everyone. The work-sharing agreement preserves those jobs, both for men and women.

TOP