C. Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment Insurance (U.I.) is the third major division of the CEIC. It is responsible for implementing the scheme which insures employment income against the occurrence of a contingency such as unemployment or illness. As such, it is thought of, not as a welfare benefit or transfer payment, but as a scheme financed through the statutory participation of both the private sector and the government, thereby allowing all contributors to pool their risk. This concept of social insurance is currently undergoing change and U.I. benefits will eventually become part of the federal-provincial Social Security scheme which delivers financial assistance to families and unattached individuals in need.

Considering the new policy which integrates Manpower allowances with U.I. benefits, this general policy area is of some concern to CCLOW. The most important concern is the manner in which women are treated, a manner which may reflect the entire Commission.

In 1977 the Commission produced a review entitled, "Comprehensive review of the Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada"¹ , which called for a tightening of the program to reduce "rip-offs" and which proposed several changes to facilitate this process. The prevalent view of the Commission is "that claimants are ripping-off the U.I. scheme by working the minimum number of weeks required and then drawing U.I. benefits, or by taking long periods of time in between jobs, relying on U.I. benefits for support".²

It is clear from the statistics provided in the Review that the abusers are those in the upper age groups, females, and claimants reporting no dependents. Some of the opinions expressed are supported by statistical evidence but many are supported by nothing or by statistics which could be interpreted in different ways. For example:

• the average duration of benefits is consistently higher for females. In 1973 females drew U.I. benefits for 20.7 weeks as opposed to 16.5 weeks for males. However, by 1977, the duration of unemployment was shorter for females than males (refer to Table 18).

^1. We were unable to obtain a copy of this Review and relied instead on a report written by Elsie Rosen, entitled "A Report on the "Comprehensive Review of the Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada"', on behalf of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Ottawa, 1977.

^2. E. Rosen, op cit, p. 5

^3. All facts and statistics reported here are taken from E. Rosen op cit.